Johannes Weslianus

Introspection & Assurance

2009-07-06T14:12:00.002-06:00

Introspection means considering the state of our heart. It means considering our own sins, virtues, and frame of mind. We can tell something about who we are from the external manifestation of our inward condition, but the external is a much less perfect form of knowing ourselves.

Introspection is necessary for assurance of salvation. In order to know that we are saved, we must know that we have the characteristics of those who are saved. The Bible does not give us a list of the names of those who are saved and who are not saved. However, it does describe those who are saved as having certain characteristics; consequently, we can know that we are saved by knowing that we have those characteristics.

This is the clear teaching of our Confession. The Westminster Larger Catechism states that true believers “…may…by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation” (emphasis mine, Q/A 80).

Likewise, the Canons of Dort teach in Head 1, Art. 12, “Assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst after righteousness, and so on” (emphasis mine).

There are many who are not assured of our view of assurance. They ask, won’t it lead to despair? Can we really know ourselves? How can any human being have infallible assurance about what is not taught explicitly in God’s Word? I would like to try and give an answer to these questions.

1. Should we examine our own hearts?

Yes. The Apostle Paul teaches the Corinthians, “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves” (2 Cor. 13:5). He also tells us that this is particularly necessary when partaking of the Lord’s Supper, “Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (11:28). We are also to be careful “lest there be in any of us an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). To know this requires examination. The Apostle John tells us that he wrote his letter in order that those who believe in the name of the Son of God “may know that they have eternal life” (1 Jn. 5:13). He sets forth many different tests whereby we can know whether we merely say that we know God or whether we do in fact know God.

2. Can we test positively?

Many fear that if we start laying down tests of our conversion, then we will infallibly produce despair. This happens for two reasons. The true believer has many imperfections, and the true believer is humble about his own virtues. However, we must be careful not to deny God’s work. Many are concerned that we cannot know our hearts at all, following Jer. 17:9. However, we contend that we can know our hearts and can know that we are believers and thereby have the assurance that comes from this knowledge.

a. First, the call to examine ourselves would seem to be fruitless unless one could actually examine himself successfully. The verses we sighted above indicate that the Apostles clearly taught that such successful self-examination is possible.

b. Second, as our Confession points out, the Holy Spirit helps us in this. “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16). We are sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30). We have received the Spirit of God so that we “might know the things that have been freely given to us by God” (1 Cor. 2:12). This is no mere human work, but we have the divine aid of the Spirit of God.

c. The examples of the saints demonstrate that they were assured that they were saved and would be saved forever. “I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever,” says David (Ps. 23:6). “Nothing shall separate me from the love of Christ,” says Paul (Rom. 8:38-39). He also affirms elsewhere, “The Lord will deliver me from every evil work and preserve me for His heavenly kingdom” (2 Tim. 4:18).

d. The effects of assurance are also evident in believers such as confidence (Eph. 3:12), full assurance (Heb. 10:22), boasting (Rom. 5:2), unspeakable joy (1 Pet. 1:8), and joy that cannot be taken away (Jn. 16:22).

The Scripture teaches that the joy and delight that come from an infallible assurance of our salvation is possible and attainable. It is not without difficulty. Many have a false assurance. But this should not make us despair of having assurance. In fact, we should expect that we will attain unto that assurance by the ordinary use of the means that God has established.

3. How can our assurance be infallible, if God does not explicitly state that we are saved in His Word?

The short answer is that God does state it. But He states it implicitly, not explicitly. Those things that are implicit in the Word of God are also the Word of God.

For example, the Bible does not explicitly say that Wes White is a sinner. It says that all human beings (apart from Christ) are sinners. I must draw out the implicit conclusion. The major premise is “All humans are sinners.” The minor premise is “Wes White is a part of the human race.” The logical deduction is, “Wes White is a sinner.” This is no mere conjecture; it is an infallible certainty (which I can also verify by experience!).

Consider another example. Paul taught the Ephesian elders to watch over the flock committed to their care (Acts 20:28). This is not a specific command (as if the Ephesian elders and no others were to watch over their flock) but a general command given to specific elders. Now, I can draw the infallible conclusion that since I am an elder, I, Wes White, must watch over the flock committed to my care.

Now, let me apply this. All those who believe are elect and justified and will be glorified. Now, I believe; therefore, I am elect and will certainly be glorified. All those who love the brethren are begotten of God. I love the brethren; therefore, I am begotten of God and will never be lost. Even if some are mistaken about their faith or love, we have already seen that this does not mean that all are mistaken about their faith or love. We can know that we are true believers and, knowing that, we can infallibly conclude that we are elect and justified and will certainly persevere.

Conclusion

If we look for an assurance beyond the marks of God’s children that answer to the promises, we will not find it. The only assurance that the Bible gives is to those who repent and believe. Until we know that we are repentant and believers, we cannot know that we are saved. Moreover, it is our duty as believers not to rest with a mere hope that we are saved but to seek the certainty that God does provide in His Word by the power of the Holy Spirit. We must be even more diligent to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10).

General Assembly 2009

2009-06-26T11:48:00.003-06:00

Much of the initial work of the Assembly is done through the committees of commissioners who are nominated by the Presbytery to do the work of the Assembly and to oversee the work of our standing committees and agencies. This year I had the privilege of serving on the committee of commissioners for Ridge Haven, our conference center and campgrounds, near Brevard, NC. In God's good providence, I had the privilege of visiting Ridge Haven the week before. My wife, my two youngest children, and I enjoyed sightseeing and the beautiful and refreshing surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Teaching Elders in the PCA may receive two nights free at Ridge Haven. I would recommend especially to pastors that if you are in the area, you take the opportunity to visit Ridge Haven. It is a beautiful place, and it is a great encouragement to the people who live and work there to have visitors from other parts of the country.

We held our committee meeting on Tuesday morning. We took the full three hours scheduled to complete the work of the committee. I spent that afternoon helping with the minutes of the committee and visiting with old friends and new.

A Tuesday night worship always service begins the Assembly, and the previous year's Moderator always gives the first sermon. This year the sermon was from Paul Kooistra, the director of MTW. He gave a good sermon on 1 Cor. 1:26, emphasizing that each one of us is nothing in ourselves and that our only ground of boasting is in Christ.

One comment I would make is in light of the fact that all three speakers spoke about unity in the PCA. They were concerned about the disunity among us and urged patience and understanding. I certainly agree with those concerns. However, what I did not hear is that the ground of our unity is principally in our common confession about what we believe the Bible teaches about faith and life. The Westminster Confession is our statement about what we believe is important and what we need to stand on together. I did not hear any statement about how we need to hold fast to this Confession and exercise discipline when this is violated so that we may preserve the unity that we profess to have. When we allow a loose subscription and do not discipline when it is violated, then we disrupt the unity of the Church by establishing a different basis for unity than what we have agreed to.

On Wednesday morning, we always hear from the fraternal delegates and observers. I was especially pleased with the delegate from the RCUS. I wish we could have heard from the Korean delegates, but they were merely introduced. One highlight for me was hearing the delegate from the National Presbyterian Church of Brazil address the Assembly in Portuguese (with translation). It is exciting that we are now working with this body to advance the cause of Christ in Central and South America.

On Wedneday afternoon, we heard informational reports from our permanent committees and agencies. I went out for Supper that evening with my Grandparents who live in Florida. I do not see them very often, so it was a good opporutnity for me.

We returned for worship that evening. I was rather disappointed with the worship service. We were "led" by excellent performers, but most of the people were not singing or participating. We can go to a performance almost anywhere, but when do most of us have the opportunity to hear over a thousand people sing the praises of God in unison? It seems that particularly on this night a great opportunity was missed.

I also was disappointed by the preaching. I think the temptation for some preaching at GA is try to solve the problems of the PCA in a sermon. I wish they would just preach Christ from the Scriptures because Christ is truly the answer to the problems of the PCA (and everyone else). I remember at my first GA, Sinclair Ferguson preached on excellent sermon on Rom. 8. He simply preached of the love of God in Christ and applied to our hearts. In my humble opinion, this would be more edifying to the whole congregation.

On Thursday, we dealt with the committee reports. They flew by. Many people have complained about this. I would make two comments on this point. First, this emphasizes the importance of being involved in the committees. Second, I think we should have more time to look over the reports and consider them before we vote. TE Daniel Jarfster did emphasize this last point from the floor, and I was greatful for that.

I thought all the decisions from the Overtures Committee were good, and all their recommendations were adopted except for one. The most controversial was the question of whether or not to study the question of deaconesses. A study committee for that purpose was defeated by a narrow margin of 19 votes.

Let me make a few comments on the study committee. I think that there are some who do not see the true nature of the committee that was proposed. One of the questions that the committee was to study was the roles that women can fill in the Church according to Scripture. The motion was for the Moderator to appoint a study committee representing the diversity of views within the PCA. This would include those who held that there should be deaconesses. Almost certainly, then, there would be a minority report or minority letter suggesting that the Constitution should be changed to allow for this practice.

Now, what would be the harm in that? I think the speaker for the study committee put it well. He said (if I'm not mistaken), "We may need to change the Constitution, but we have to begin somewhere." If we had a floor vote to ask for a change in the Constitution to allow deaconesses, I'm sure the vote would be overhwhelmingly in the negative. So, if you want to have deaconesses, then you do need to start somewhere. I agree that a study committee is a good place to start. I just don't want to start. That's why I voted "no" to a study committee. I would urge my Brothers who do not want deaconesses to consider the points I have raised here and to vote against any future study committee, if they do not want to proceed toward deaconesses.

All in all, I enjoyed GA. It is always a great time of fellowship. It is truly the external bond of our unity. I'm thankful that we are blessed by God to have the freedom and ease with which to assemble like this. We have many issues in the PCA to deal with. We have many disagreements. Please pray for the PCA that we will maintain a unity based on the love of God, one another, and the truth.

Herman Witsius on Self-Denial

2009-06-23T16:09:00.006-06:00

Herman Witsius (1636-1708) wrote a book in Dutch entitled The Practice of Christianity. It was originally written in Dutch and translated into French. This French translation is now available on Google Books. It is a simple and clear statement on how to live the Christian life. It also answers many of the common questions that people have about the Christian life. Here is a sample of Chapter 3, "On Self-Denial," pp. 40-49.

1. What is the first lesson that we must learn in the school of Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ Himself teaches us: “If anyone desires to follow Me, let Him deny himself.”

2. What does “self-denial” mean? Self-denial in general includes three things. First, we should not imagine ourselves to be worthy at all of the grace of God or salvation. Second, we should recognize our inability to do any spiritual good. Third, we should renounce our own wills and desires and submit them in all things to the will of God.

3. Must we consider ourselves as being completely unworthy of salvation? Yes. We should always recognize that God could have thrown us into hell from the very moment of our conception, since from that very moment we were by nature children of wrath on account of original sin. And since that time, we have committed many actual sins for which God could have cut the cord of our life and brought us into judgment. According to the law of God and the threats that are attached to it, whoever violates a single law even once merits the loss of eternal life. How much more have we merited it, since we have offended God a thousand times more?

4. Must we also consider ourselves completely unworthy of the grace of God? Just as we consider ourselves unworthy of salvation, we ought to think of ourselves as completely unworthy of the gifts and grace of God because we ruin and corrupt everything that goes through our hands. We are unworthy to hear the Gospel of peace because we defile the pure Word of God as soon as we receive it in our impure hearts. We are unworthy to live among Christians; on the contrary, we are worthy of being excluded from the society of Christians so that we would no longer scandalize any Christian by our evil actions and since we are not able to edify them by any good example. We should regard ourselves as unworthy of absolutely any physical blessing, even of a little piece of bread or a glass of cold water.

5. What should the condition of our hearts be in relationship to this unworthiness that we find in ourselves? It is not enough for us to have a simple knowledge of it and to speak of it with little interest as we would news from a far away country. Rather, it should powerfully penetrate our hearts, and we should feel a profound grief over it. When we look up into heaven, we should sigh that it is a place from which are banished by our own fault. We should consider hell to be a place that has opened its mouth wide in order to swallow us up. We should think of the devil as an enemy who desires us and powerfully pursues us from hell. All this should lead us to sigh, weep, cry, and lament without allowing any restoration of peace to our souls until we are assured by solid reasons that God has imputed to us the merit of Jesus Christ so that for the love of Christ and by His pure grace we can be esteemed worthy of eternal life.

6. But doesn’t this sort of talk lead man to despair? There is a despair that is good and praiseworthy. Good despair is a despair man has of himself and of his own ability to do anything leading in the direction of salvation. This is the despair that Jesus Christ produced by His Word and Spirit in the hearts of His disciples when they said: “Then, who can be saved?” Insofar as a man stops in himself, he finds nothing that is not worthy of condemnation and thus nothing that would not give place to a holy despair. But he must by this holy despair be pushed toward Jesus Christ so that, being found in Christ, he might never despair of the grace of God.

7. But can’t someone be overly distressed and worried about his own spiritual misery? We can distinguish people by their misery, distresses, and the greatness of their distress. Following these different categories, we can answer the question in different ways. Man can be considered either in his miserable natural estate and insofar as he is not yet actually reconciled with God through Jesus Christ, or he can be considered as already in grace and having received the redemption of Jesus Christ by faith.

One can also consider the misery of man either uniquely in itself, separated from the grace of God or in comparison with this grace.

One can also consider distress either as sorrow over sin or as a natural effect of reason or the understanding. It can also be considered as being found only in the rational soul of man or as a sadness that truly affects the soul and powerfully moves the emotions.

Finally, we can distinguish the greatness of the distress either in relation to violence or in relation to duration and continuation.

After having made these distinctions, I respond as follows.

A man who still remains in his misery and who is not yet reconciled with God through faith in Jesus Christ, when he sees his misery in itself and reflects on his own and all creature’s inability to deliver him, cannot be too distressed at his misery whether in the understanding or in the emotions. He should not stop the course of this distress, at least in the relationship to its direction, until he finds himself reconciled with God through Jesus Christ. The reason is that the misery of this man is as great as one could possibly conceive and (in its own manner) infinite. Thus, it is reasonable that his sadness might be proportional to the greatness of his misery.

But a man who is already in a state of grace can have too much of a feeling of his misery when he compares that misery with the grace of God and thinks that it could not or should not be taken away and says that his sins are too great to be pardoned (as Cain said). He can also be swallowed up by too much sadness and become demoralized in such away that the strength of the body and the soul collapse under the weight of it so that he becomes incapable by this of serving his God who wants not just to be served but to be served with joy. Finally, this distress can last too long when the believer looks too often and too long at his misery in order to be distressed by it and does not give enough attention to the goodness of God so that he might rejoice in it and be consoled by it.

8. Must we also recognize ourselves to be totally without strength for and incapable of any spiritual good? Yes, for when we consider ourselves in and of ourselves, we cannot do any good. We are not capable of ourselves of having any good thought. And whatever good works that we do when we are animated and strengthened by the Spirit of God, the glory for those works does not go to us but to God. And whenever the devil or our flesh want to use the occasion of these good works to hurl us into pride, we must always remember what the Apostle says, “Yet not I but the grace of God that is in me.”

9. But in doing that, don’t we humble ourselves too much in order to make all the more of the honor of God by a mere appearance of humility? We cannot humble ourselves too much in spiritual matters. And whatever humility there may be, we cannot fear that it will be too much for Jesus Christ. Can we put ourselves lower than nothing? However, that’s what the Apostle does to us. He says, “If anyone imagines himself to be something when he is nothing, such a man deludes himself.” We cannot take away from man an understanding and reason and a will accompanied with intelligence which loves or hates something in consequence of the judgment that the understanding pronounces on the subject. But there is nothing but the natural in that. We cannot deny that a man cannot by custom, education, or other considerations have in some way a morally good conduct and perform externally some of the duties of Religion without the special cooperation of the grace of God. But to do some spiritual good or perform external duties in a spiritual manner is what a man cannot do at all, and man cannot humble himself too much for this inability.

Eastern Vacation & GA 2009

2009-06-19T19:05:00.002-06:00

I'm nearing the end of four weeks of travel. My wife, my five children, and I left almost four weeks ago from Spearfish. We travelled to Michigan and stayed there for a week. Then, we all went down to North Carolina to visit my parents. Last Thursday, we travelled back up to Michigan, and then I flew down to Orlando for GA.

I plan to write more about my trip and GA next week. For now, I would recommend you read Kevin Carroll's blog "Reformed and Loving It" on the sidebar for a good summary of what went on.

I have the privilege of preaching in one of our Churches in Sioux Falls on Sunday, and then I'm heading back to Speafish on Monday.

Increasing in Love

2009-06-03T19:07:00.003-06:00

"But concerning brotherly love you have no need that I should write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another; and indeed you do so toward all the brethren who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brethren, that you increase more and more." 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10

I offer a few refelections on these beautiful verses.

1. While it is true that we do know by nature the duty to love, sin has so distorted the knowledge that we need to be re-taught what love is. We do not really know what God requires of us.

On the other hand, the issue is only partly one of knowledge. It is even more a matter of will. Our will is inclined to hate our neighbor. God teaches us how to love by illumnating our minds and powerfully inclining our wills as He teaches us through His Word.

2. What is love? Love is not a mere sentiment. It is not simply having nice thoughts about someone or lacking hateful thoughts. Love is an earnest desire for harmonious union and fellowship with others as well as a genuine interest in their welfare. We can see this in our Lord Jesus. He genuinely had compassion on us and amazingly desired harmonious union and fellowship with sinful beings. His love led Him to action by doing all that was necessary to bring that about.

3. When it is said that God taught the Thessalonians to love, we should not think that this means that they were the only Christians who were taught to love. This teaching was not unique to them. Rather, as the rest of the two letters to the Thessalonians indicate, Paul says this to them because it was particularly manifest that they were taught by God to love one another.

4. Notice the object of their love. They demonstrated their love to all those in Macedonia. They demonstrated that love to those who were near them. This is where our love should be manifested, in those who are near us, particularly in the Church of God that is near us. That is one good thing about having a Presbytery. It is an opportunity to demonstrate love to specific people. Of course, we should seek to show love to other Christians who are near us as well. However, our tendency will be to pick and choose those who are most like us and ignore those who are least like us.

5. Their love was not complete. Paul urged them to increase more and more. That is, he wanted them to stir up the desire within them and demonstrate it all the more by their actions.

6. This gives a glimpse of how we should view sanctification in general. God is the primary worker in sanctification. Our actions are effects of His working in us and the dispositions that He places within us. However, this should not lead to a passive attitude. We ought, on our part, to do what we can to stir up those holy virtues and exercise them, knowing that it is God who wills and works within us.

I think it is good for us to examine ourselves here. Do we truly have love for the brethren. Do we desire harmonious union and fellowship with them? Do we have a genuine interest in them? If you do not talk to them, pray for them, and visit with them; then how can you say that you have such love?

I know what someone will say here. I can't reach out to everybody. Then, reach out in love to those who are near you, "all the brethren in Macedonia."

What about the people in your city? Do you love them? Certainly we cannot have the type of harmonious fellowship with unbelievers that we have with believers. However, we should genuinely be concerned about their welfare, and we should desire their conversion so that the hindrance to our harmonious fellowship will be removed.

If you are a Christian, you are taught by God to love one another. Let us not rest in that. Let us pray, desire, and labor to increase all the more.

Classic Reformed Covenant Theology

2009-05-29T11:06:00.002-06:00

When one hears the words "covenant theology" in a Reformed context, one generally thinks of infant baptism. After that, we hear nothing more of covenant theology. However, in classic Reformed theology, covenant theology provides a structure for the whole of God's dealings with mankind, both before and after the fall. I would like to give here a brief summary of classic Reformed covenant theology. I will not provide many citations, but I would encourage the reader (if anyone does read actually read this!) to look at the Westminster Confession as well as Reformed theologians such as Witsius, Brakel, Turretin, Watson, Ussher, and others for confirmation. I offer the following theses:

1. The term covenant does not mean relationship. Its meaning is contractual. That is, covenant is about new or strengthened obligations. Thus, the Israelites made a covenant with the Gibeonites that created new obligations between them. The term covenant can also have the sense of a testament or bequeathal, both in Hebrew and in Greek.

2. The first covenant that God made with man is a covenant of works. Man by his very nature owed God all love and obedience. No covenant was needed to create that obligation. However, God owed man nothing in return but bound Himsef by covenant to give life on the condition of the obedience that Adam already owed to God. In this covenant, God also arranged that Adam would represent the human race. Adam's obigations were also strengthened by Adam's assent to the covenant and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

3. Adam broke the covenant by sinning against God. Because of this sin, Adam died spiritually and became liable to the bondage of sin and all misery. At this point, the story would have ended apart from God's grace and mercy.

4. In the Garden of Eden, God announced another covenant, the covenant of grace. This covenant is made with a new covenant head, Jesus Christ, as the last Adam.

5. Because this covenant is ratified in Christ, the covnant of grace is dependent on Christ's obedience for its fulfillment and not ours. Christ fulfilled this obedience by becoming man, suffering the penalty of the law, and fulfilling the obigation of the broken covenant of works.

6. This covenant is made with Christ and with His elect as His seed. The covenant of grace offers salvation freely on the condition of faith in Christ. However, since no man is able to believe by nature, God also promises in this covenant to give regeneration and perseverance to His elect. Thus, in the covenant of grace all the conditions are also promised and guaranteed to all those who are in this covenant.

7. Thus, the covenant of grace has both its contractual side ("Believe, and you will be saved") and its bequeathal side ("I will put my fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me"). The covenant of grace is both an offer and a gifting of salvation to all those who are in the covenant. This latter side is generally called "the testamentary aspect of the covenant of grace." Some Reformed theologians based this testamentary aspect on a covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son distinct from the covenant of grace.

8. Non-elect children of believers and non-elect members of the visible Church cannot be said in the most proper sense of the word to be in the covenant of grace. To say that they are is only a loose and improper sense of the word. "Improper" here does not mean "false," it only means that it is true in only some respects. For example, Jesus called Herod a fox. He was using this term in a loose sense because Herod had some characteristics like that of a fox. He did not mean that Herod was literally the animal "fox." This follows the usage of the Bible "out of us but not of us" and "not all Israel who are of Israel."

9. Even though the covenant of works can never bring life to sinners, the works principle continues to be articulated throughout Scripture. The purpose for the revelation of this principle is to drive men to their need for Christ and the covenant of grace. All Reformed theologians agree that in some sense the works principle is restated at Sinai. However, there is disagreement as to whether the covenant at Sinai is a republication of the covenant of works itself, another covenant of works promsing now life in Canaan (Saumur), a political covenant that reflects the covenant of works, or the covenant of grace with a simultaneous restatement of the works principle subservient to the covenant of grace.

10. The covenant of grace is set forth to man in different ways in different eras. It culminates in its ratification on the cross and publication of the Gospel to all nations by the Apostles with the simple administration of that covenant provided for in the New Testament. However, in all ages, the covenant of grace is substantively the same and the only way in which anyone is ever saved in history.

11. The primary goal of Reformed covenant theology is to explain that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone. It does this by a clear explanation of the works principle so that all ways of gaining salvation by man's own efforts or obedience are shut and, on the other hand, showing that the only way of life is found in the covenant of grace secured by the perfect work of Jesus Christ for all His people.

Reading Reformed Church History

2009-05-13T15:07:00.004-06:00

I have recently updated both my Google Reformed Theology Bibliography and my Reformed Church History Bibliography. As I was working on this, I thought how amazing it was that as far as I know (and I have looked), there is no good general history of the Reformed Churches in English. The best you can do is in the general histories of Protestantism and Church history.

What has happened is that each national group has written on the area of Protestantism most affecting them. For example, Émile Léonard in his General History of Protestantism, written originally in French, spends a huge portion of his book discussing the French Reformed. In our mind, this would be totally out of proportion to its importance in the total history of Protestantism. However, we do the same thing. When English people write, they emphasize Britain. When Americans write, they emphasize America. There are groups within each linguistic group that have studied extensively the history of the Reformed Churches who spoke their language. For example, there are tons of materials on Reformed Church history in the Netherlands, but they are mostly in Dutch! There is a four volume biography of the great theologian Voetius in Dutch but not one biography of him in English. There are two biographies in French on Francis Turretin but none in English.

However, if you want to get a good overview of Reformed Church history on the continent, there are books available for that purpose. Beginning with France, there are almost innumerable histories of the Huguenots. One of the best that I have scene is by Guillaume de Felice. The history of the "martyr's Church" is very moving.

Second, James Good is not great but he is good and better than nothing. I really enjoyed reading his Origin of the Reformed Churches of Germany. This book will help you understand the real differences between the Reformed Church and the Lutherans and show how Melanchthon was actually the friend of the Reformed Churches, in spite of his erroneous views on conversion. Good continues the story with his History of the Reformed Churches of Germany 1620-1890.

Third, you have the history of the Swiss Reformed Churches. Because of our connection with Geneva, it's easy to forget how important the German speaking Reformed Churches of Switzerland are and were to the Reformation on the continent. James Good has also written their story in his History of the Swiss Reformed Churches since the Reformation.

Moving then to the Netherlands, there is a good book by Maurice Hanson called The History of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. As far as I can tell, it is not yet available online. I ordered from a bookstore that did reprints called Good Books, but I cannot find their web site. If anyone reading this blog knows how you can order books from them, please let me know.

Is the Federal Vision Reformed?

2009-04-30T14:42:00.003-06:00

A little over a year ago, Joseph Minich published an article in The Christian Renewal in which he tried to explain why he thought that the Federal Vision was consistent with historic Reformed theology.

In response, Dr. Mark Beach and I wrote this response, which The Christian Renewal refused to publish. I believe that it is a good summary of some of the main problems of Federal Vision theology.

The Usefulness of the Covenant of Works

2009-04-20T09:27:00.003-06:00

If we are to speak of a "Dutch Reformed" view of the covenant, then it is that of classic Reformed federal theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Granted, there are a few modern lightweights who deny this theology, but a few exceptions do not make a rule. Johannes Coccejus (1603-1669) is often thought of wrongly as the founder of federal theology. His followers, the Coccejans, did have some distinctives in their formulation of this doctrine. However, their opponents, the Voetians (following Gisbertus Voetius [1589-1676]), also adamantly and vehemently defended, in common with the Coccejans, the classic federal theology and the covenant of works/covenant of grace distinction.

One of the Voetian defenders of orthodoxy was Melchior Leydekker. Leydekker was born in Middelburg in 1642. He completed his studies for the ministry at Utrecht (under Voetius) and entered into the ministry in 1662 in the towns of Renesse and Nordwille on the island of Schouwen. He later obtained his doctorate at Leiden University, but he pastored in the forementioned places for 15 years. During this time, he began to write defending Reformed orthodoxy. In 1678, he was called to serve as professor of theology at the University of Utrecht. During this time (and perhaps before) he was a friend to and correspondent of Francis Turretin. He served at Utrecht as professor for many years, and he died at a ripe old age in 1721.

Leydekker's writings are a good illustration of the varied interests and talents of most 17th century theologians. The majority of his writings dealt with the controversies of his day. However, he also demonstrated his ability in the Eastern languages by his writings on the Hebrew Republic. He also wrote a book (which I would love to read!) De mente Pauli in epistola ad Rom. et Gal.

Unlike Voetius and Hoornbeeck, Leydekker wrote several summaries of theology for instruction purposes. He wrote one on morals entitled, The Marrow of Practical Theology (in Latin) and several on systematic theology. In the year 1700, he loosely translated his own Synopsis Theologiae into the Dutch language with the title De Verborgentheid des Geloofs (The Myster of Faith). In this work, he sets forth for the laypeople a summary of his theological teaching.

In Book 3, Chapter 1, he discusses the covenant of works. In paragraph 7, Leydekker lists several reasons why the covenant of works is useful. There were those in Leydekker's day, as there are in our own, who condemned the doctrine of the covenant of works as useless and speculative. In Leydekker's day, most of them were Arminians and Socinians.

In response, Leydekker says that a proper understanding of the covenant of works can help the Christian understand many of the key points of Christian doctrine. Here is a summary:

1. It helps explain the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity.
2. It makes very clear the position of the sinner under God's wrath and curse.
3. It helps us understand the use of the law, particularly for those in the Old Testament. That is, it could only condemn them. They could not gain life by it.
4. It helps us properly understand the redemption of Christ. The covenant of works structure shows how and why Christ was born under the law to become a curse for us;
5. And how He fulfilled the righteousness of the law in order to gain for us a right to eternal life.
6. By understanding the covenant of works, we can better understand, by way of contrast, the covenant of grace. This is an aid in defending the grace of the Gospel against all those who bring in a works righteousness or works salvation.
7. Along those lines, it makes very clear the proper distinction and division of the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of the Gospel in the matter of justification.
8. It helps us to properly undersand the law langauge of "do this live" and "cursed is everyone who does not obey perfectly." When we understand that these words express the fundamental promise and threat of the covenant of works, then it will be easy to see that the covenant of works was re-published but not re-established with the people of Israel or anyone else after the fall.

These matters are all extremely important to the proper understanding of our salvation. The covenant of works is a Biblical and helpful way of explaining and understanding these crucial matters in a systematic and Biblical way. In teaching on the covenant of works, we can emphasize these important lessons. This will help people see the connection of the covenant of works with the proper understanding of their relationship with God.

Update on Reformed Churches in North Dakota

2009-04-15T11:50:00.005-06:00

Two General Assemblies ago, our Stated Clerk, Dr. Roy Taylor, reported that there was now a PCA Church in Alaska. According to Dr. Taylor, this meant that we now had a PCA in all 50 States. Sadly, he was incorrect. At that time, we did not have a Church in North Dakota.

I'm sure not many people think about North and South Dakota. I was one of those people about five years ago. Then, the Lord called me to South Dakota to pastor in Spearfish, a town about 10 miles from the Wyoming border. I have gotten to know the Church situation in South and North Dakota pretty well over the past few years, and I do have a heart to see the Biblical faith thriving not only in my local parish but all throughout our region.

The situation in South Dakota is quite different from North Dakota. South Dakota has quite a few Reformed Churches including Churches of the PCA, OPC, RCUS, and now one from the URC. There is hardly any town of significant size that does not have a confessional Reformed Church of some type.

As of two years, there was an OPC in the rural town of Carson, North Dakota. They have been attempting to plant a Church in the city of Bismarkc for a long time with minimal success. There was no Church in Grand Forks or Fargo. There was and is still a small RCUS in Minot, ND. There are also a few rural RCUS Churches in North Dakota. In short, the situation was rather bleak. The PCA had had a Church in North Dakota, but it closed about five years ago.

The situation is still somewhat bleak, but some light has begun to appear. First, the PCA is now planting a Church in Grand Forks. Members of Faith PCA in Warren, MN decided to move the Church to Grand Forks. They have had some success in reaching to the people there. We are examining a man to serve as their Pastor in our meeting next week. I should also mention that Pastor Lane Keister is serving an RCA & CRC out of binds on the Missouri River just north of the South Dakota border.

The OPC continues its work in Bismarck, but another small group has now gathered together in Fargo. They are attempting to plant an OPC Church in Fargo.

The RCUS is also attempting to plant a Church in Jamestown (about an hour west of Fargo). They have two rural Churches near the South Dakota border in Ashley and Hosmer. They also have another rural congregation in Anamoose. The Church in Minot is currently looking for a Pastor, but it seems to be doing well.

In sum, the Reformed Faith is in a rather precarious position in North Dakota. The situation is a little better than it was two years ago, but, in my opinion, none of the Church plants are yet firmly established in the major cities of Grand Forks, Fargo, and Bismarck.

I would ask you to pray for North Dakota. Pray that the Lord would establish faithful Reformed Churches there. Pray also for the small groups that are just getting started in some of North Dakota's major cities. Also, if you have relatives or friends who might be interested in a Reformed Church in these areas, please try to get them in contact with the groups there.

The challenges in South Dakota is similar to that of North Dakota. Many of our Churches are in rural areas that are declining. However, our Churches in the "city" areas have opportunities. Most of the peole in North and South Dakota consider themselves Christian, but the level of knowledge is very low. There is a lot of cultural Christianity. Please pray that we who minister in these places will have wisdom, tact, and courage as we speak of the wonders of our glorious Savior to the many around us who do not know Him.

More on God Punishing Sinners

2009-04-14T14:01:00.004-06:00

One of the most widely held beliefs in Western society is that God simply does not punish sin. True. This has always been an issue. Sinners don't like to believe that God will punish sin. However, it seems that most people in our society have no understanding of God's justice or holiness at all. The general view is that God simply does not punish human beings for their sins.

In my post on this issue on January 20, I outlined a brief defense of the idea that God is terribly displeased with sin and determined to punish it. I'm more and more convinced that the best way to get at this is to ask why people believe that God won't punish sin. If you look at the world around us, there is death, sickness, war, famine, and all sorts of suffering. This certainly does not make it look like God does not care about sin or punish it. That's the point that Martin Luther made in the post linked to above.

In my reading over the past couple of months, I've come across two others who made similar arguments. The first is the 20th century defender of orthodoxy, J. Gresham Machen. He wrote in Christianity & Liberalism:

The other objection to the modern encouraging idea of God is that it is not true. How do you know that God is all love and kindness? Surely not through nature, for it is full of horrors. Human suffering may be unpleasant, but is real, and God must have something to do with it (p. 133).

If they respond that they learn this from the Bible, then they must take all of what the Bible says and not simply what they like. Otherwise, they are using a standard above the Bible to determine what is and is not true in the Bible. What is that standard? They are still left with the question, where do you get the idea that God is all love and kindness?

The second quotation is from the 19th century Presbyterian Pastor and Theologian, Thomas Chalmers. You can read the entirety of his excellent sermon Gal. 6:8 here. I provide here only one portion of this sermon where he seeks to drive home to us the importance of coming to grips with God's judgment on sin:

The awfulness of the first of these events, even death, bears in it experimental proof to God's intolerance of sin. If He indeed felt our guilt, as little as we feel our danger—if His displeasure were a thing as slight and as gentle as our alarm—why so dreadful a visitation upon our species as death...If God be as much at peace with the world, as the world is at peaceful complacency with itself—why keep up so hard and so hostile a dispensation against it? Or if sin be of as trivial account in the estimation of Heaven, as it is in the estimation of human society—how should it have brought down such a vengeance upon earth, as to have smitten it with a plague of mortality throughout all its borders; and swept off to the hideousness of the grave, all the life and beauty and intelligence of its successive generations. That surely is no trifle, which has turned this bright and blooming world into a vast sepulchral abode for the men of all ages. Its moaning death-beds, and its weeping families, and its marred and broken companionships—these are all emphatic testunonies of God's hatred of moral evil; for that sin brought all this calamity upon the world, is a principle announced to us in scripture—and it is the only principle which resolves to us the mystery of death. And when the same scripture announces that after death cometh the judgment—O let us not give in to the treacherous imagination; that He who hath made such fell exhibition of severity in the one, will in the other but manifest and indulge his tenderness. But let us be very sure, that, as death is to every unrepentant sinner but the beginning of his sorrows, so judgment will be to him as a second death.

Raised for our Justification

2009-04-07T13:41:00.005-06:00

Rom. 4:25 tells us that Jesus was raised for our justification. Paul usually associates justification with Christ's death. However, our justification is closely connected with Jesus' resurrection. I like to point this out because many think of the resurrection primarily as related to our bodily or resurrection or our regeneration. While also true, we will lose out on a key aspect of the resurrection, if we do not realize that Jesus was raised for our justification.

Pierre Du Bosc (1623-1692) was a French Reformed minister at Caen in France. He ministered there until the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. From thence, he settled in Rotterdam and continued to preach and teach. Here is a selection from his sermon "Jesus Raised for our Justification." You can read the entire sermon here. May the Lord cause you to appreciate the greatness and completeness of our justification in Christ as we celebrate His resurrection.

The word “justification" is one of those words that Scripture uses to signify the grace of God, and this word has caused debate among Christians, some understanding it one way and others another. For there are some who refer it to the inherent righteousness which is infused in our souls in order to sanctify us and deliver us from the habits of vice. Others refer it to imputed righteousness, which is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that God grants to us in order to mercifully pardon our sins and deliver us from the punishment of our crimes.

You are too accustomed to the style of Scripture and particularly to the language of St. Paul to be unaware that the latter is the true sense and that justification properly means the remission of sins that God accords to us in His Son who has been made sin for us so that we might be the righteousness of God in Him. Thus, when the Apostle says here that Christ was raised for our justification, he wants to attribute to His blessed resurrection the forgiveness of our offences.

But you will say, does this not confuse things? Isn’t it to the death of Christ that this great benefit of the pardon of our sins is due, since it is that which is the punishment that we have merited, which has satisfied divine justice, that has paid our debt, that has turned away the curse from us, that has torn up and abolished the obligation that was contrary to us having been nailed to the cross, and that has caused a sweet-smelling odor of appeasement to ascend to the heavenly Father by the propitiatory sacrifice of the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world? Did St. Paul not just say that He was delivered for our offenses? So, it is properly from His death that pardon of our offenses and remission of our sins comes.

It is true, my Brothers, one cannot be mistaken about it. But we must admit, however, that His resurrection also has a part in it, not truly in its quality of meritorious cause, for that belongs only to the death of our Savior, and there is nothing to add to it in this regard. But it does have a part in its quality as the certifying cause of justification, which assures us of the validity of His death and that God has accepted it for our salvation.

This can be explained by a familiar comparison. The death of Jesus Christ is the payment of our debt. His resurrection is the receipt. Does a receipt add more to the payment? No. It presupposes it as made and accomplished. What does it do, then? It certifies the payment, attests to it, and convinces everyone of the payment. It shuts the mouth of those who would like to contest it.

It is the same with the resurrection of the Savior. It does not add any merit or any satisfactory virtue to His death. But it’s an authentic document that powerfully attests that God has received the payment of our Surety, that He has agreed to it, that He is content with it, that we should not fear the investigations of His justice or the condemnations of His tribunal. And if the devil or our consciences present our sins again to us, this admirable receipt shuts their mouths and forces them to be silent.

This is just like what we say with a receipt of payment. It releases a debtor, although it is not itself the payment of the debt. In the same way, Paul is right to say that Christ was raised for our justification, for the remission of our sins, although this is not what obtained the pardon.

That’s why we see the holy Apostle opposing the resurrection of the Lord to the condemnation that we are worthy of in ourselves. Who is it, he says, who will condemn? Christ, he adds, is the one who has died and who is also risen, as if He was saying, what would you fear, O Christian, and what can make you doubt your reconciliation with Heaven? Do you fear the number and enormity of our sins? But there is a Surety who has answered for you and who has satisfied the Judge, Christ is the one who has died. Do you fear that God has not accepted His payment and that He has not received your release? There is a receipt plain and most valuable that assures you of it, Christ is the one who was raised. Rejoice, then, with a perfect repose, provided that you are in Jesus Christ, and that by a sincere faith you have recourse to His merit.

The Law - Gentile Excluder or Wrath Maker?

2009-03-26T13:41:00.004-06:00

One problem with debates is that they often cause you to look in the wrong direction. I think the New Perspective on Paul is a good example of this. The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) believes that Paul's opposition to works of the law is that they exclude Gentiles. The primary issue in Paul, we are told, is one of Gentile exclusivisim, not about the issues brought up by the Pelagian controversy and the Reformation.

On the contrary, I would suggest that Gentile inclusion is an issue in the New Testament but it is not the issue or even the most important one. The most important issue is that Jesus has done what the law could not. He alone could liberate man from the guilt and curse of the law and the dominion of sin. Nothing man can do, is doing, or will do can effect this.

This work of Christ is the context of what Paul writes about the law and the central issue. The problem with "the works of the law" is not that they would exclude Gentiles but that they would exclude everybody. The boundary markers of the law of God exclude all sinners whatsoever, not merely the Gentiles. When the Jews seek righteousness by the law, the result is not that they exclude Gentiles from salvation but that they remain under God's wrath.

I want to demonstrate this point in two ways. First, I want to show that what Paul means by "law" is first and foremost the moral law, which has been delivered by God in the Ten Commandments. Second, I want to illustrate from the texts of Scripture that Gentile inclusion comes up in relation to faith after Paul has concluded that man is justified by faith and not by the works of the law.

The Meaning of Law

First, the law of Moses is preeminently the Ten Commandments or the moral law. When the Apostle Paul and others explain the law, they refer to the Ten Commandments. Paul does this in Rom. 13:8-10. Jesus does this in Mt. 19:18-19, cf. Mt. 5. James does this in Jas. 2:8-10. This is what is primarily view, and that is why Paul can either use the word law in a way that applies it to directly to those who are not bound by the ceremonial law or can extend it out to include the Pentateuch or the judicial and ceremonial laws.

Second, since the law means preeminently the moral law, Paul has no problem applying it to the whole world and the Christian Church. He says that the Gentiles have the law written on their heart (which does not refer to the ceremonial & judicial laws). He delineates the precepts of the law as those things which the Jews should teach the world (Rom. 2:21-24). He has no problem with saying that the Romans (brothers, v. 4), had their sinful passions aroused by the law and that that now they have been delivered from it (Rom. 7:5-6). He says that law speaks to everyone who is under it so that the whole world may become guilty before God (Rom. 3:19, cf. Gal. 3:22). Indeed, the law is applicable to Gentiles in such a way that a situation could be contemplated where the Gentile could keep the law without circumcision (Rom. 2:26).

Third, the moral law is so much the basic category of the law that it is actually retained by the Christian (which is clearly not the case in the judicial and ceremonial law). Justification by faith does not nullify but establishes the law (Rom. 3:31). The Christian delights in the law of God according to the inward man (Rom. 7:22). The Christian is to fulfill the royal law (Jas. 2:8, cf. Rom. 13:8). The summary of the law is loving God and our neighbor (Mt. 22:37-40). This is also the sum of the duty of the Christian life.

Fourth, when we see Paul speaking of the problem of the law, he does not speak of Gentile exclusion but of the wrath of God. The law makes everyone guilty and stops every mouth (Rom. 3:19). No flesh (no human being) will be justified by the works of the law (Rom. 3:20). Why? It merely denounces our sin. The law brings about wrath (Rom. 4:15). It is by faith (and not law) so that it might be of grace (Rom. 4:16). The law causes the offense to abound (Rom. 5:21), holds us under captivity to sin (Rom. 6:14, 7:4-6, 8:2), and brings death (7:9-11). It cannot justify (Gal. 2:16), is opposed to the grace of God (Gal. 2:21), causes us to be under a curse (Gal. 3:10), cannot work righteousness or life (Gal. 3:21), and shuts up everything (all men and all that they are) under sin.

We need to expand on this last point a bit. Some object to the idea that "under the law" applies to Jew and Gentile alike. For example, in Gal. 3:10, it says all who are "of the works of the law are under a curse." Interpreters seem to get confused over whether this refers merely to the Jews or also to the Gentiles. However, if we view the law as referring to the moral law primarily, then the issue is easily resolved. Deuteronomy 27:26 does not delineate a new principle when it says that everyone who does not continue in all the things written in the book of the law to do them is under a curse. This is a principle inherent in the law. James says whoever breaks one of the commandments is guilty of all. The Gentiles know that those who practice such things (sins) are worthy of death (Rom. 1:32). Thus, we should have no problem applying Gal. 3:10 and its curse to every sinner, for they are all under the law (the moral law). Christ has redeemed sinners as such from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for them and obtaining the blessing for them (Gal. 3:13). We should have no problem applying the liberation of the curse to the Gentile Christians than Paul did liberation from the dominion of sin that they experienced because of the law (Rom. 7:4-6).

At this point, we might well ask, why then did the Jews receive the law? If everyone had it, then why did God bother? We might just as readily ask, why does God say that everyone is a sinner, since they already are condemned as sinners by the law written on their heart (Rom. 2:14-15). The answer is the same in both cases. Though all men are bound by the law and under sin, yet they do not think of themselves as breakers of the law or as sinners. They change the definition of law and the definition of sin in order to fit their own sinful ways. The Scripture comes in with its declarations about the law in order to bring everybody and everything under sin (Gal. 3:21-22). Why does it do this? So that the promise might be given to all those who believe (Gal. 3:22, cf. Gal. 3:23-25).

Gentile Inclusion

Paul says that the works of the law are excluded because they bring wrath and cannot justify. All men are sinners, and so the law cannot justify (Rom. 3:20). The result is that justification must be by faith. There must be a justification of the ungodly and an imputation of righteousness without works (Rom. 4:3-6).

Once Paul considers that point proved, he moves on to another issue. Does this blessedness come only upon the Jews (the circumcised) or also on the Gentiles? As strange as it may seem, the issue of Gentile conclusion comes up with Paul when he is talking about faith not when he is talking about works. Consider Rom. 4. In Rom. 4:1-8, Paul argues that Abraham and David were justified by faith without works. Then, after establishing his point, he moves on to say, "Does this blessedness come upon the circumcised only"? (4:9). It seems that if the NPP were right, then that is the question he would have been settling in Rom. 4:1-8. Instead, he treats it as a separate issue. Some may object to this that in 4:13, he speaks of "those of the law being heirs." However, there is an important distinction here. When he is speaking about circumcision and uncircumcision, he says that God is the God of both. However, when he speaks of the law, he says that it makes void the promise and that it brings wrath. It is of faith so that it might be of grace.

It seems to me that when Paul is speaking of Gentile inclusion he is saying something like this, "Salvation is for everyone who believes. Now, does that really include Gentiles? Yes, indeed it does!" Consider the following passages. In Rom. 3:22, he says that the righteousness of God to all and on all who believe, for there is no difference. They all have a common condition under sin, and the way of faith is open to them both. In Rom. 10:11, he quotes the Scripture as saying, "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." He feels the necessity to "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek" (v. 12, cf. Rom. 9:24). That is what he said at the beginning, the Gospel is the power of God for everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16). In the same way, when Peter spoke at the council in Jerusalem, he says that God purified their hearts by faith. He then notes that God saves them in the same way as He justifies the Jews. Again, the issue comes up for them in the matter of faith.

This point can be further explained and an objection answered by a consideration of Rom. 3:28 which says, "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." The next verse states, "Or is God the God of the Jews only?" The proponents of the NPP think that the contrast "or" is with works of the law. Thus, they read it this way, "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the Mosaic legislation or boundary markers, or would we want to say that God is God of the Jews only, which would seem to follow if justification were by the works of the law." The problem with this is that Paul has just said that no flesh will be justified by the works of the law. It does nothing but shut their mouths and make them guilty before God. It excludes Jew and Gentile alike. So, what should we make of this problem? The contrast, it seems to me, is not with "works of the law" but with "man." Paul is saying a human, any human, man as such is justified by faith without the works of the law. So, what he is saying is something more like this, "Man as such is justified by faith without the works of the law. Or do we want to say that God is just the God of the Jews? No, He is the God of the Gentiles also. This follows from the fact that there is simply one God over all." This is confirmed by the parallel text in Rom. 10:11-13.

The other major question about the works of the law comes up in Gal. 2:11-21. There, the occasion for the discussion is Gentile observance of the ceremonial law. However, this is only one small part of the issue. The major issue is that if we are of the law we will be cursed. Circumcision in itself is nothing (Gal. 6:15). However, they wanted more than just circumcision, they thought it was necessary for salvation. It was about boasting in something other than Christ (Gal. 6:14). Paul says that following that path would lead to damnation. As Calvin wrote:

It would not have given so much uneasiness to Paul that ceremonies should be observed, as that the confident hope and the glory of salvation should be made to rest on works...Their object in pressing ceremonies was, that men might seek salvation by obedience to the law, which, they falsely maintained, was meritorious; and accordingly, Paul meets them, not with the moral law, but with the grace of Christ alone.

In sum, the primary issue in Galatians is that anyone who thinks that they can stand on the basis of the law is under a curse. Christ has redeemed us from the curse, and thus he is the sole reason for our boast (Gal. 6:14).

Conclusion

While there may be some debate on some of the senses in which Paul uses the word "law," it is of the utmost importance that we grasp that what Paul is speaking about in Romans and Galatians is God's law that is applicable to Jew and Gentile alike. From the law, we can have no hope whatsoever. The law can justify us. The law cannot change us. The law condemns us. The law decalres that we must be placed under the dominion of the sin. It is only by the righteousness of Christ that we can be justified. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit whom He has merited for us by His obedience and death that we can be liberated from the wrath of God and bondage to Satan, sin, and the world. We must actually die to the law, if we are to live to God. This is not saying that we must simply renounce the ceremonial laws of the Jews or the Mosaic law in order to be saved. We must renounce anything that we as sinful men and women would do (Rom. 8:3) and place all our trust and hope in the Christ who is alone able to save us and redeem those who are under the law that they might have adoption as sons and daughters of God.

The Works of the Law Cannot Effect Salvation

2009-03-11T15:34:00.004-06:00

Introduction

I want to write this post to expand on my previous post and to answer some of the objections to it. The question is, what are the works of the law that Paul excludes from our salvation, justification, and sanctification?

Here is a quotation from the Puritan Edward Leigh. He writes:

We are justified only by faith, for what else do all those negatives in Scripture mean: “not by works” (Rom. 9:11, Gal. 2:16, Tit. 3:5), “not of works” (Rom. 11:6, Eph. 2:9), “not according to works” (2 Tim. 1:9), “without works” (Rom. 4:6), “not through the law” (Rom. 4:13), “not by the works of the law” (Rom. 3:20), “without the law” (Rom. 3:27), “not but by faith” (Gal. 2:16) (System of Divinity, Bk. 7, Chap. 10).

I would also add that Tit. 3:5 specifically says, "not by works of righteousness that we have done." Now, in light of all these quotations, how in the world could we possibly say that the Apostle Paul only meant to exclude a limited type of works? I mean, if Paul wanted to exclude works altogether from effecting our salvation, how else could he possibly do it?

Yet in the past and today, there are any number of people that wants to say that these are only a particular type of works. Look again at the quotes above. What does it tell you?

Now in spite of the fact that I believe it should be obvious, I want to go about to prove this at a little more length from Galatians and Romans.

Argument

In Gal. 2:16, Paul says, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

The works of the law here include all obedience and all laws whatsoever, which are utterly and completely excluded from our justification before God. Consider the following data from Galatians. In Gal. 3:10, Paul says all who are of the works of the law are under a curse. Why? Because they did not continue in all of the things written in the book of the law to do them. Second, the law was given four hundred and thirty years after the covenant with Abraham. This law included not merely the ceremonial law but also the moral law, the Ten Commandments. Third, in Gal. 3:22, the law is that which confines us under sin. This refers not merely to the ceremonial law but chiefly to the moral law. Finally, the whole law is summed up in "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." This is obviously moral. It is the works or observing of the same law that commands us to love God and our neighbor that are excluded from our justification before God. Not one bit of our obedience contributes to our righteous standing before God in Christ.

Now let me flesh that out a little bit. Paul says that we are not justified by the works of the law. The law includes the command to love our neighbor as ourselves. Therefore, one work of the law would be loving our neighbor as ourselves. Therefore, we are not justified by loving our neighbor as ourselves. This is the teaching of the Apostle Paul.

Now, let's turn to Romans. Paul says here that we are not justified by the works of the law, not by working, without works, not of works, no longer of works, by grace and therefore not by works, and so on. What are the works that he has in mind? What are the works of the law?

Let's take a quick walk through Romans. The doers of the law will be justified (Rom. 2:13). This is not merely talking about the law as it was givne on Sinai but also that which was written on the heart of man (Rom. 2:14-15), by which they know that unrighteousness acts brings death (Rom. 1:32). This is the same law that the Jews teach the Gentiles and thus is equally applicable to them (Rom. 2:21-24). In short, it is the moral law or law of nature and only secondarily the ceremonial law. This is the law that stops every mouth and makes the whole world guilty to God. This is the law that gives us the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20).

Before we continue on, let us see what some Roman Catholic commentators say about the works of the law in Rom. 3:20. Thomas Aquinas says the following:

There is a twofold work of the law, the first is proper to the law of Moses, such as the keeping of the ceremonial laws, the other is a work of the law of nature because it pertains to the law of nature such as you shall not kill, you shall not steal. Some commentators understand this phrase to be about the first sort of laws, that is, that the ceremonial laws did not confer the grace through which men are justified. However, the other view seems to be the intention of the Apostle, which appears from that which he immediately adds, "Through the law is the knowledge of sin." But it is clear that sins are known through the prohibitions of the moral precepts, and thus the Apostle holds that a man is not justified by all the works of the law, even those which are commanded through the moral laws.

Consider also Guillielmus Estius, a 17th century Roman Catholic commentator describes its connection with Sinai:

For although Cain and many others before the written law ahd the knwoledge of their sins, by their consciences accusing them, that knowledge was more obscure and less perfect. For the light of natural reason was so obscured by sin that many things which are sins would not be imputed to be sins, many things thought to be light which are serious. However, through the law given by God and written on tablets, a much more perfectly brought the knowledge of sin.

It is clear from these notes quotes that the idea that the Apostle Paul was speaking about all moral works whatsoever is not something invented by Protestants, much less modern ones. Rather, this is the plain reading of the text.

This point appears much more clearly when we consider Rom. 7. Paul tells us precisely the type of law that gave him the knowledge of sin. It was one of the Ten Commandments (or two, if you're Roman Catholic or Lutheran), "You shall not covet" (Rom. 7). This law was holy, and the command was holy and just and good. This law was spiritual. It is this law that brings the knowledge of sin, and thus it is this law that is excluded from our justification. In other words, we are not justified by doing the holy, just, and good law. This is the same law that Paul delights in according to the inward man (Rom. 7:22). Thus, it refers to the same law that is binding on all peoples at all times. The same laws that are prescribed to Paul now and that he delights in are the same laws that are excluded from our justification. Again, this is the very law that the natural man is opposed to (Rom. 8:7).

From all these passages, one can discern that the laws that are excluded by the Apostle Paul are comprehensive. That's why he contrasts grace and works. "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work" (Rom. 11:6). The immediate issue in that passage is the preservation of a remnant of the Jews by grace. Did this mean that the Apostle Paul was insisting that the Jews who were preserved were not preserved by the boundary markers of the Jews, the ceremonial laws, or the Mosaic law? No. His point is that it was not their doing. It was God's grace alone that caused some of them to be saved. That is the big issue for the Apostle Paul. That is why he excludes works from salvation.

Objections

1. Obj. In some of the places where Paul is talking about works, he refers to circumcision and other ceremonial laws. For example, consider Gal. 2:14ff. In this passage, Paul rebuked Peter for his moral failure in withdrawing from the Gentiles and lending credence to the Judaizers. The issue here is merely one of forcing the Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law and not a works righteousness. Reply. However, impressing the ceremonial law on the Gentiles was a presenting issue and not the main issue, as the rest of the book of Galatians illustrates. According to the book of Acts, certain men were teaching, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). Thus, the issue was not merely one of keeping the ceremonials laws but also of works righteousness, righteousness by the law as such. They were seeking to establish their own righteousness (Rom. 10:3). They were interested in circumcision as a means of boasting and self-righteousness (Gal. 6:13). In contrast, Paul says that he would boast only in the cross of Christ. That was the only power that could justify Him and sanctify Him. He opposed everything else.

2. When Paul opposes works in Eph. 2, he is referring "to circumcision, which also implies formal obedience to the entire Mosaic law." Reply. Where does it say this? This is eisegesis not exegesis. Paul says "works," why should we limit it? The most immediate parallel is in v. 10, "good works." Why should we not include the common use of the word rather than limit to that which Paul does not even connect with works in this passage? Further, in verse 10, we are said to be God's new creation. Is this not totally by grace? Then, it is not by works, which is just what Paul is saying. As the great Roman Catholic commentator, Estius, noted:

This is to be referred to the whole of salvation or our salvation, including faith, which whole is not from any of our works, that is, not from merits but grace; that is, according to that sense by which the Church teaches according to the Scriptures, men are not predestined by merits but only according to the good pleasure of God.

Now, why did Estius say this? Because it is the obvious meaning of the text that Paul is talking about human works versus God's grace. That's why Aquinas adds a quotation of Ps. 115:1, "Not unto us, not unto us, but unto you be the glory, O Lord!" The point is Paul is interested in the mangnification of the grace of God and not merely the simply point of Gentiles having to obey the Mosaic law or become Jews.

3. Paul only excludes the righteousness that came from the Mosaic law. Reply. But, according to Jesus, the Mosaic law commanded all good works in that it commanded all men to love God with all that they have and their neighbors as themselves (Mt. 22:37-40). According to the Apostle Paul, this also sums up all the duties for the Christian (Rom. 13:8-10). Therefore, all moral works that we would do are excluded from effecting our salvation, justification, and sanctification.

4. But Jesus adds to the Mosaic law in Mk. 10:2-12. Reply. Jesus establishes what He says about divorce on Genesis 2 and the 7th commandment. Was adultery not forbidden in the Mosaic law? The sense of this passage is that, "The Pharissees also falsely wrested the words of Moses to an approval of divorce, since there was only a toleration and permission. This did not itself institute it, but only set bounds to it incidentally on account of the hardness of heart of the Jews" (Turretin, Institutes, XI.iii.19).

5. The Apostle Paul is talking about works done before conversion. Reply. There was no need for Paul to exclude the works of the unregenerate, since, in his mind, they were all sins (Rom. 8:7). Consequently, he did not need to exclude them. The examples of Abraham and David show that even the works after faith are excluded. Further, "If he had wished to exclude only the works of nature and not the works of grace, why does he so often and so carefully oppose works to faith absolutely? Why does he never oppose the works of nature to the works of grace" (Turretin, XVI.ii.12). As Turretin notes, this would have easily answered the objection, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"

Conclusion

After having said all that, let us remember the language of the Apostle Paul. In nearly every way imaginable, he excluded works from effecting our salvation. He was interested in magnifying the grace of God. He wanted to present a Gospel that was applicable to all sinners, Jew and Gentile, alike. Consequently, he excluded every righteous work that we would do and ascribed all to the grace of God.

The Meaning of the Word "To Justify" in the N.T.

2009-03-11T12:02:00.003-06:00

Introduction

In our debate with Rome over the doctrine of justification, the starting point must be the understanding of the meaning of the Greek word dikaiow and to a lesser degree the Hebrew word tsdq. As one Roman Catholic apologist put it:

My main goal for this whole article is, ath the very leat, for both Protestants and Catholics to walk away realizing the HEART of this controversy si about what terms like 'justification' mean....most apologetics articles out there over look this important factor, and thus each side ends up talking past the other.

In spite of this statement, I did not find a clear definition as to what "to justify" meant.

At any rate, this is agreed upon by the Protestants. Consequently, all the major Protestant systems begin with a careful definition of this word. Our position is this.

"Although we do not deny that this word has more than one signification and is taken in different ways in the Scriptures...still we maintain that it is never taken for an infusion of righteousness, but as often as the Scriptures speak professedly about justification, it always must be explained as a forensic term" (Turretin, Institutes, XVI.i.5).

To make this clear, I would like to consider the general use of the word, then the use in salvific contexts, and then I will answer some of the objections.

The General Use of the Word

At the outset, let me say that the basic way to understand this word is "to declare or demonstrate to be righteous." Consider the following passages.

In Luke 7:29, it is stated that the tax collectors justified God. Does this mean that they turned God into a righteous being or infused righteousness into Him? Obviously, the thought is blasphemous. It means that they declared God to be righteous. They admitted that he was right in telling them to repent.

In Luke 7:35, wisdom is justified by all her children. Does this mean that her children infuse righteousness into her? Obviously not, by their actions they show or declare that she is righteous.

The teacher of the law in Lk. 10:29 wanted to justify himself. This clearly means that he wanted to be seen as right in what he was asking. He did not want to infuse righteousness into himself.

Now, that these words do mean "to declare or demonstrate to be righteous" will probably be admitted by Roman Catholics. However, I would simply challenge them to demonstrate that this word is used in any other way in a non-salvific context.

The Hebrew word tsdq is similar. In Prov. 17:15 it says, He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemsn the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. Obviously, the meaning here is not the one who infuses righteousness into the wicked is an abomination to the LORD. Perish the thought! On the other side, note that the opposite of "to justify" is "to condemn." "To condemn" means to declare wicked or guilty. Both are legal terms.

Another passage in Greek and Hebrew is Ps. 51:6 quoted in Rom. 3:4. It is says to God, "that you may be justified when you speak." Obviously, this does not mean "to infuse righteousness" or "to make righteous." The meaning of the word is far removed from that idea.

Thus, we see that the general use of the word is legal, forensic, and declarative, not transformative.

There are other texts that relate to the obedience of the law.

In Rom. 2:13, Paul says that "the doers of the law will be justified." Once again, this obviously does not mean that they will be infused with righteousness. Why would they need to? If someone does the law, then they are righteous and thus justified on that basis.

Similarly, to be justified by the law in the sight of God is described as "the man who does these things shall live by them." Here, it is perfectly obvious that the one who does the works of the law is justified in God's sight on the basis of the law.

Even Jas. 2:24-25, which are often cited against the Protestants, demonstrate that Rahab and Abraham were demonstrated or declared to be righteous on the basis of what they did. They were not infused with righteousness.

To Justify in Salvific Contexts

In a courtroom, we would expect that someone would be declared righteous (justified), if they did what the law required. So it is, that in God's normal dealings with man, we would expect that He would justify the godly and condemn the wicked.

However, when we come to salvific justification we find different sorts of things being said. In fact, Paul emphatically denies that we are justified in the sight of God by doing the things of the law (Gal. 3:11-12).

Instead of being justified by what we do, we find that when God justifies sinners in His sight, Paul (and others) use the language of being justified by grace (Rom. 3:24), apart from the law (Rom. 3:21), to those who believe (Rom. 3:22), freely (Rom. 3:24), one who can have no confidence in his works (Rom. 3:27-28), without working (Rom. 4:4), and without deeds of righteousness (Tit. 3:5).

Now, does this mean that we have to turn to an entirely different meaning of the word "to justify"? Does that mean we should now switch the way the word has been used everywhere else and make it mean, "a transformation (mutatio) by which an ungodly person becomes righteous just as a cure is a transformation by which someone who is sick becomes well” (Martin Becanus, Manuale Controversarium, XVI.1). Why would we do that? Shouldn't we find some hint that this is what the word means elsewhere?

In addition to the negative evidence, there is plenty of evidence that the word "to justify" is used in the same way here. Consider the following passages. Just prior to Rom. 3:21-31, a key passage, Paul says that the law declares us guilty (Rom. 3:19) and that we can't be justified by it, since it gives us the knowledge of sin. The reason why the law can't justify is because it declares us to be sinners and guilty. The normal meaning of the word justify is used here. Why would Paul switch without warning in the next few verses?

Consider also Rom. 8:33. There Paul sets side by side, "to justify" and "to condemn." This is precisely what we would expect, if the normal usage were in play. Why would we say that these things set side by side mean something totally different than what they mean in Prov. 17:15, for example?

In Gal. 3:11, Paul says that we are not justified in God's sight by the law. This does not mean an infusion of righteousness. In Gal. 3:8 he says that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. Why would we demand a change here?

In Rom. 5:18, the term "justification" is used in one of the two times it used in the N.T. Here "justification" is contrasted with "condemnation." Again, the meaning of the word "justification" is not infusion of righteousnes any more than "condemnation" means infusion of sin.

In all of this, we see that there is no reason to interpret "to justify" any other way than declaratively and judicially as it is used in its normal usage elsewhere.

Answering Objections

Most of the objections that salvific justification is judicial revolve around sanctification or transformation being mentioned in the context. However, this does not mean that because transformation is mentioned in the context of justification that therefore they are the same. This would have to be demonstrated. Moreover, we should expect that they would be mentioned together, since they are the two major benefits that we receive from Christ.

It is a misunderstanding of the Protestant position to say, "sanctification begins after justification (by imputation), but as we see there is no warrant for separating them into two 'phases' with no direct bearing on each other." They are directly related to Christ. We do not say that you receive one and then later get the other. We say that when you receive Christ, you are justified and sanctified simultaneously. The only thing that we wish to say is that they are two distinct benefits.

Now, on to the objections. 1 Cor. 6:11 says, "But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." Again, the reasoning is that "to have justification by imputed grace when the Christian had just been 'washed' and 'sanctified' is superfluous and illogical." Instead, we would say that to say that sanctified, washed, and justified all mean the same thing would be superfluous. Instead, we are washed from the guilt of sin and corruption of sin. The former happens in justification and the latter in sanctification. There is no need to interpret justification as infusion here.

Similarly, Tit. 3:5, 7 says "we are saved through the washing of regneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit...that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." That "to justify" here means "to infuse with righteousnes" is more probable in the English than in the Greek. The "that" in v. 7 is actually connected with "to become heirs." If "to justify" meant simply "to renew", then why add it here? The reason is that we become heirs through our justification when we believe in Christ. The Holy Spirit is the source of the faith by which we are justified and also applies the sentence of justification to our hearts (Rom. 8:15-17). Thus, there is good reason to think that "to justify" is used in its normal way here. There is no reason to think that it would have to mean "infusion of righteousness."

Another verse often cited is Rom. 6:7 which says, "He who has died has been justified from sins." This is hard for us to translate because we don't usually use the word "from" with "to justify." However, this is done in the Greek. We don't have to wonder what this means. Paul explains it in Rom. 7:1-6. It means simply that we have been freed from the bondage of the law, which held us captive under sin. This is similar to a woman being set free from her husband who dies. This certainly does not refer to an infusion of righteousness but to a change of status, which is well expressed by the term justification.

The Roman Catholics also think they have us when they say that Abraham was justified by faith long after he became believer. Since justification is a one time and act and he was justified back in Gen. 12:1-3 (or earlier); therefore, this can't be talking about the legal declaration. Once again, this is not our view. We believe that a person is initially justified, but we also believe that he remains in that state. As the Belgic Confession says, "And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits, which, when they become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins" (Article 22).

Further Argument

There is no reason at all to think that "to justify" means anything other than what it generally does, "to declare or demonstrate to be righteous." To say that it means "to infuse righteousness" brings in radical confusion. As Turretin says, "from a false and preposterous explanation of the word, the truth of the thing itself has been wonderfully obscured" (XVI.i.3). He is referring, of course, to the Roman Catholic view. This is the source of its confusion on the doctrine of justification.

Update on Google Reformed Theology Bibliography

2009-03-09T16:25:00.003-06:00

I have done some major revisions on my Google Reformed Theology Bibliography. You can see them here, or you can visit the link on the sidebar.

I have added a lot of the Puritan works that are available on Google. I have also moved the biographical works on these theologians to this page. You will find them listed after their works.

I would just like to highlight a few of the new items available:

*Amyraut's Brief Treatise on Predestination (French)
*Various works on Presbyterian Polity
*Bernhard De Moor's Commentarius Perpetuus on J. Marck's Compendium (vols. 4-7, Latin).
*5 volumes of sermons by Pierre Du Bosc (French)
*Patrick Fairbairn's Revelation of Law in Scripture
*Vol. 3 of Lampe's commentary on John (Latin)
*7 of the 8 volumes of Pictet's massive work on Christian ethics (French)
*The Synopsis Purioris, edited by Bavinck (Latin)
*Rijssen's abridgment of Turretin's Institutes (Latin)
*Heinrich Schmid's summary of scholastic Lutheran theology (English)

The Wonder of Justification by Faith

2009-03-07T12:00:00.004-07:00

In my last post, I considered the fact that we are not justified by works. The fact that we are not justified by works should be something that is rather suprising. How is that God can declare man to be righteous? We would think that the basis of our justification before God is that someone has actually done what God required. God declares a man to be righteous on the basis of his works or what he has done. If man has not done what God required, then, by all rights, he should not be justified.

However, God has revealed a different way of justification. He has revealed the way of justification by faith. When we say that we are justified by faith, it is "just another way of saying that of ourselves we do nothing," as Machen says (Christianity & Liberalism, 147). When we go to God to be justified by faith, we are saying that we cannot be justified on the basis of what we have done. We can only be justified on the basis of what Christ has done. Faith is saying, "I cannot present a righteousness to Christ. Let Christ do it for me on my behalf."

This interpretation is often misunderstood today. We hear people saying that Christ was justified by faith alone and that Adam was justified by faith alone before the fall. This is completely false and brings in disastrous confusion about what the Bible means by justification by faith. Before the fall, Adam was justified by his obedience. He obeyed God, and God credited that to Adam as righteousness. Adam did have faith, but that faith was neither the basis nor the instrument of his justification. So it is with Christ. Christ obeyed God perfectly, and this was His righteousness before God. Christ as man did have faith, but that faith was neither the ground nor the instrument of His justification. He was justified by His works, that is, His own obedience.

Adam before the fall and the last Adam, Christ, had the ability to obey God. Thus, they did not need to be justified by the obedience of another and thus not by faith alone. As they continued to obey God, they could present their own righteousness before God, and there was nothing wrong with that. It is completely natural for man as such to be accepted before God on the basis of His own obedience. Indeed, that is what should have happened!

But there is a problem. We have sin. The problem with the law is not that it is bad or that works (obedience) is not a good way to relate to God. The "problem" with the law is me. I have not obeyed it. I am sinful. I have no obedience to present to God as the basis on which He might accept me.

That is why we need to have faith. We need to have faith, not because good works are bad, but because I do not have good works or the obedience by which a creature may be accepted before God. Thus, faith says, "I am not righteous. If I am to stand before God, I need the righteousness of Christ. Christ's obedience, not my own, will constitute me righteous before God." Faith relies on Christ totally and completely for justification.

The same is also true of sanctification. We have nothing in us by nature that will produce sanctification. We must be sanctified by faith. That is, Christ must work in us a new life, if it is to happen at all.

Many people today say that faith is a wondrous thing. We hear much talk of people of faith, as if faith were some great virtue. Now, faith in a certain sense is a virtue (when it is faith in the true God). However, the true wonder of faith is not that it is a virtue. The wonder of what faith accomplishes is the wonder of the Savior who accomplishes justification for us and sanctification in us. His righteousness is the sole basis of my standing before God. His power is the sole basis of the renewal of my nature. He is all in all. The wonder of faith is really the wonder of Christ.

Faith Utterly Alone In Our Justification Before God

2009-02-23T09:36:00.004-07:00

In Galatians 2:16, the Holy Spirit teaches that we are justified by faith alone. He does this by saying in three different ways that we are not justified by the works of the law. Not one bit of our obedience contributes anything whatsoever to our justification. Yes, faith is obedience to a command from God, but its obedient character contributes nothing to our justification. Its work in justification is simply to receive Christ whose righteousness once received is more than enough to justify us before God.

In Galatians 2, the occasion for the dispute about justification is the Judaizer's misuses of the ceremonial law. However, the issue was not merely the ceremonial law but that some believed that there was saving power in obedience to that law (cf. Acts 15:1, 5). This was the real heart of the issue. As Calvin says, "It would not have given so much uneasiness to Paul that ceremonies should be observed, as that the confident hope and the glory of salvation should be made to rest on works" (see his commentary on this passage).

Many people both ancient and modern have been led astray by looking only at the external issue in Galatians, as is if it was simply about circumcision. They have believed that the works of the law that are excluded from our justification refer only to the ceremonial laws or boundary markers of the Jewish nation.

But this is not the case. Instead, the works of the law include all obedience and all laws whatsoever, which are utterly and completely excluded from our justification before God. Consider the following data from Galatians. In Gal. 3:10, Paul says all who are of the works of the law are under a curse. Why? Because they did not continue in all of the things written in the book of the law to do them. Second, the law was given four hundred and thirty years after the covenant with Abraham. This law included not merely the ceremonial law but also the moral law. Third, in Gal. 3:22, the law is that which confines us under sin. This refers not merely to the ceremonial law but chiefly to the moral law. Finally, the whole law is summed up in "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." This is obviously moral. It is the works or observing of the same law that commands us to love God and our neighbor that are excluded from our justification before God. Not one bit of our obedience contributes to our righteous standing before God in Christ.

What is surprising today is to find those within Protestantism, even in conservative circles of Protestantism, who disagree with this interpretation. There are some who want to say that the works of the law that are excluded from our justification refer only to a certain type of works. In other words, only some of our obedience is excluded from our justification before God, which must mean that some of our obedience is included in our justification before God.

How can I make such a claim? Listen to P. Andrew Sandlin in his essay in the book A Faith That Is Never Alone: "'Works of the law' denotes not the revelatory law, but a perversion of the law by the self-righteous, a law without Christ" (p. 220). In other words, the phrase the "works of the law" does not exclude obedience to God's revealed law. Instead, it merely excludes a wrong use of the law. We might say that all that is really intended here, according to Sandlin, is that our justification before God excludes our sin. But who would ever disagree with that?

Consider also Norman Shepherd. In his essay, "Justification by Faith in Pauline Theology" in Backbone of the Bible, he writes, "By works of the law Paul means obedience to a limited selection of laws found in the Scripture” (emphasis, mine, p. 97). “These works of the law were not good works; they were not the obedience of faith wrought by the power of God” (emphasis mine, p. 99). Many people have had a hard time seeing the errors of Norman Shepherd. This is in part because he often describes his unorthodox theology by using the terms of orthodox theology in a different way than they have been used. However, here Shepherd states his view plainly. When Paul excludes works from our justification before God, Paul, according to Shepherd, does not mean to exclude our good works from that justification. Nothing could be more foreign to the conception of the Apostle Paul and the Biblical Gospel.

One of the most fundamental points of the Reformation is that our justification is by faith alone. This rests firmly on the Biblical teaching of the Apostles and Prophets. Herman Witsius, writing in the late 17th century, was amazed when a Protestant historian, Dr. Cave, tried to say that the works of the law only excluded some works. Listen to what he says:

I know not by what right the very learned man [Dr. Cave] takes it for granted that by the works of the law, which Paul excludes from justification, are understood works before conversion, done without faith, by our own strength, which popish fiction the Protestant champions have so often and so solidly refuted, that it is amazing [that] a Protestant is found who again patronizes it (Irenical Animadversions, VIII.5).

What was amazing in Witsius' day is still amazing today.

When Paul states that all our works are excluded from justification, he is not simply making a sidepoint. He is proclaiming the heart of the Gospel. "For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain" (Gal. 2:21). Here, if anywhere, we need to be black and white. We need to be just as clear and just as firm on this point as the Apostle Paul was. It is either Christ's righteousness or ours. It is all or nothing. But why would we not want to say that it is our righteousness? As Martin Luther said against the Papist theologains, "They could not see that ignorance, hatred, and contempt of God in the heart, ingratitude, complaining against God, and resisting the will of God are also deadly sins and that the flesh cannot think, speak, or do anything that is not devilish and altogether against God" (Commentary on Gal. 2:16). No, we must despair of everything other than Christ. We do not want a righteousness that is our own but the righteousness that is is from God and received by faith not by any of our obedience.

Old Testament Prophecy in 3D

2009-02-18T13:44:00.007-07:00

The great Scottish Presbyterian theologian, Patrick Fairbairn, once wrote, "[T]he whole of the Old Testament will be found to rise in our esteem, in proportion as we understand and enter into its typological bearing" (The Typology of Scripture, 1:177). The word "type" is crucial to our understanding of the relationship of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament is filled with types or patterns that are fulfilled in the New Testament antitypes.

So, what is a type? If anyone remembers typewriters, they actually provide a good analogy. It used a metal pattern of a letter attached through various levers to a key. When you pressed the key, the metal pattern would strike the paper with ink and thereby leave the shape of the letter on the paper.

How does this analogy work? In this case, the metal pattern actually represents the New Testament. The pattern left on the paper represents the Old Testament. The important thing to note is that while they are similar they are not identical. They follow the same shape, but the metal pattern in the typewriter was actually the thing itself, and what was left on the paper was merely a picture or "shadow" of the metal pattern.

One more thing about the typewritter analogy. If there is an impress on the paper, there must be a metal pattern that formed it. This is exactly how it works in the Bible. Since the types exist, the antitype must come. That is, it must be fulfilled. Just as the prophecy of Is. 7:14 meant that Jesus had to be born of a virgin, so the type of Isaiah's prophetic work meant that Jesus had to come as the greater fulfillment of Isaiah's work (see Mt. 13:14-15 with Is. 6:9-10 and Heb. 2:13 with Is. 8:17).

The types of the Old Testament are pictures, shadows, or patterns that point forward to the realities of the New Testament, especially the coming of Christ Himself. Really, the types are the same as prophecies of the future except that are in 3D. A type is any institution, person, or event that is designed by God to point to the greater realities of Christ and His heavenly kingdom.

There are basically two mistakes that people have made in typology. Some have thought too little of it. Others have thought too much. Those who have thought too little have said something like, only the types that we find expressly mentioned in the New Testament can be considered to be types. The problem with this is that types are just 3D prophecies. We would never think of limiting the prophecies of Christ to those which are quoted in the New Testament. Why, then, would we do this in the case of types?

Those who think too much of typology want to see types in every detail of every person, event, and institution of the Old Testament. For example, in the narrative of the bronze serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21:6-9, cf. Jn. 3:14), elaborate statements have been given about all the details of this event as pointing to Christ. For example, the bronze of the serpent, being a lesser metal, has been supposed to point to Christ and His humble appearance in His state of humiliation. Although there may be a superficial resemblance here, one is certainly left wondering about the reality of such a connection. Is this really what was intended? Does bronze really relate to the humiliation of Christ? These sorts of superficial connections simply do not give us anything solid to deal with.

In Patrick Fairbairn's book, The Typology of Scripture, he explains a resolution to these two extremes. He notes that we should not simply look at incidental details, but we should seek to get a grasp of matters as whole in their essential function. For example, in the history of the bronze serpent, we should look at the complex event. People were bit by snakes because of the sin of the people. They were about to die. They looked to the bronze serpent that was raised on the pole. Then, they were healed. At this point, one has something solid on which to rest. The complex event gives us a type not the superficial details of the story.

Along this line, Fairbairn emphasizes that we should seek to understand the institution, event, or person in its own context first. It is only on this basis that the pattern can be properly understood and its higher spiritual reality grasped. For example, we should not simply see King David as a fugitive from Saul in order to understand David as a type, otherwise, anyone who suffered opposition could be a type of Christ. In its own context, David was the one who was anointed and equipped with the Holy Spirit to be king over the people of God. As the king, he was to shepherd the people of Israel to lead them toward God, defend them from their enemies that would harm their spiritual and physical well-being, and organize the State of Israel, the Church, in a way that would be in accord with God's will and purpose for that nation. However, God had first ordained that He would go through a period of suffering before he ascended to the his throne. In all of this, a clear picture emerges that is clearly fulfilled in the greater work of David's greater Son and what had to be the case in a higher sense for Jesus Christ.

When we look for these patterns in the institutions, persons, and events of the history of the people of Israel, we will quickly learn that "whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). The Old Testament predicts the realities of Christ and the New Testament, not merely in a few isolated events, acts, or predictions but in the whole of it both extensively and intensively.

With these balanced points in mind (and other principles as well), we ought to press ahead in seeking to understand all the patterns that God has revealed in the Old Testament for the benefit of the Church. These types are still of use today. As Fairbairn notes,

The man of mature age, when pursuing his way amid the perplexing cares and busy avocations of life, finds himself continually indebted to the lessons he was taught and the skill he has acquired during the period of his early culture…The Church, considered as God’s nursery for training souls to a meetness for immortal life and blessedness, is substantially the same through all periods of her existence; and the thigns which were appointed for the behoof of her members in one age, had in them also something of lasting benefit for those on whom the ends of the world are come.

If you want to get a better sense of this, I would highly recommend that you read and study Fairbairn's book on typology. It is hard going at times, but it is worth the effort. After all, the Old Testament is fully three-fourths of the special book by which He has communicated to the Church. For most of us, I'm sure we feel that we would like to make better use of that material. Fairbairn's book is a good help toward that end.

Identifying Non-Saving Faith

2009-02-09T11:57:00.007-07:00

The Bible declares that faith is the condition for salvation so often that no one could question it. When we start to ask what saving faith is, then we have disagreement. Rome and many modern Protestants say too much. They add works, obedience, and love to faith and say that these things contribute to our salvation. On the other side, many Protestants say too little. They believe that faith that does not produce works can be saving. It seems to me that the common view is simply that if someone says they are a Christian that is enough. They do not want to say that anyone is not a Christian. In this essay, I want to demonstrate that this common understanding among evangelicals is false and dangerous.

Saving Faith

Saving faith is not a mere intellectual assent that something is true. This is probably the common root of most problems. In the Greek and Hebrew languages, the words that we translate as "faith" and "believe" carry much more meaning than mere belief. They denote also receiving, resting, trusting, and relying upon. Moreover, faith is always accompanied by other saving graces, even though they do not contribute anything to faith's sanctifying and justifying power, which is derived from Christ alone.

The two major accompaniments of faith are sorrow for sin and a holy life. In Luke 18:13, Christ describes the man who is justified. "And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!'" We might say that sorrow for sin generally precedes the acts of saving faith. A holy life is what follows the act of faith. "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6).

When we consider the acts of faith, we can also understand that it is much more than a mere assent or claim to be a Christian. Faith goes to Christ again and again. When everyone else departs, it stays with Christ and says, "Lord, to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life?" Faith does not merely receive Christ once but receive Him again and again as the source of its justification and sanctification. Brakel describes this beautifully:

By faith true believers frequently receive the Lord Jesus with their heart. They receive Jesus by faith rather than indulging themselves in speculating about doctrinal issues and saving benefits. They go to the fountain itself and are engaged in transactions with God and Christ Himself. To Him they turn, Him they desire, for Him they long, Him they receive, upon Him they rely, to Him they surrender themselves, to Him they desire to be united (The Christian's Reasonable Service, 2:323).

Faith is that which continually takes hold of Christ for all that it needs again and again and again.

Second, faith considers Christ to be precious. The Apostle Peter says, "Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious" (1 Pet. 2:7). The Apostle Paul said that he counted everything as loss in comparison to the excellency of Christ (Phi. 3:7-9). The true believers takes hold of Christ, follows Him, and submits to His way of giving them salvation. There is a readiness to abandon all for the sake of Christ because true faith finds that in Christ there is everything that it needs for life, happiness, and salvation.

Presumptuous Faith

Presumptuous faith is that which claims to be real but is not. From what we have said about true faith, we can readily recognize many things that constitute a feigned or non-saving faith.

1. True faith is not a mere statement that one is a Christian. Jesus says plainly that many will come claiming this, but they will be rejected. "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven" (Mt. 7:21).

2. True faith is not living a "moral" life and attending Church. The Pharisee said in Jesus' parable that he fasted twice a week and gave tithes of all that he possessed but was not justified (Lk. 18:11-12).

3. People who have no interest in God or Christ do not have saving faith. They may claim to be a Christian, but they never think about it. The world consumes all their thoughts. They are not receiving Christ unto salvation.

4. Those who do not seek communion with Jesus have no saving faith. Those who do not pray, read their Bibles, seek out godly conversation, or have any interest in the means of grace (preaching and sacraments) do not have saving faith. In other words, you do not have to go to Church in order to be a Christian but every true Christian will seek out Christ in Church and everywhere else where Christ has said He may be found.

5. Those who have no sorrow over theirs sins have no saving faith. This is true because those who do not sorrow over their sin cannot see their need for justification before God. They do not view their sins as a problem and thus see no need of a solution.

6. Those who do not pursue a godly life and begin to obey the commandmnents of God do not have a saving faith. Faith produces works (Jas. 2:18-20). "He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 Jn. 2:4).

7. Those who have a mere intellectual interest in Christianity do not have saving faith. They may be interested in theology and understanding the Bible. However, they have little or no interaction with Christ. Such people do not have saving faith.

8. Those who do not love God and the brethren do not have saving faith. Those who think Jesus is precious cannot help but love Him. Those who love Jesus will love those who love Jesus. This is an inevitable result of true faith. Consequently, thsoe who lack this love do not have saving faith.

Conclusion

Perhaps you may be alarmed as you read this. You may think, "I'm not sure that I have any of these things." This may be true. If it is, then you need to repent and turn to Christ. Get down on your knees and humble yourself before God. As long as you do not have saving faith, you remain under the wrath of God. You cannot be saved unless and until you receive Jesus Christ by a true faith.

However, recognize that many true Christians often do not exhibit these things as strongly as they would like. They are conscious of their own sinfulness, and it makes them cautious about saying that they actually are saved. Look into your heart and consider. Do you not truly desire these things? Do you not desire to love Jesus? Doesn't it grieve your heart that you don't love Jesus as you should? Do you often sigh over your sinful corruption and the guilt that it brings? Do you desire the way of holiness? If you see the desires for these things and are grieved that you do not have them the way that you would like, then the probability is great that you do believe in Christ. Go to Christ, and seek after Him. Do not run from Him. "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 Jn. 1:7). This will engender assurance.

The proper distinction of saving and non-saving faith is of the utmost importance. If we have true faith, we shall be saved. If we do not, we will be lost. The common confusion is dangerous because it encourages many who do not have true faith in their sin. It unwittingly leads them to eternal destruction by never challenging them to truly seek Christ. The proper understanding is not as difficult as it seems. We must merely let the Bible describe saving faith and not let our sentiment get in the way because we want certain people to be believers in spite of the evidence.

Why People Don't Like Our Religion

2009-02-04T12:00:00.003-07:00

Oftentimes when we think of idols, we think simply of bowing down to statues. This was part of it in the ancient world, but I do not believe that this is the essence of idolatry. The essence of idolatry is fabricating a religion that confirms man in his sinful wordliness. This can be done under the pretense of worhipping the true God or a false god.

Man is by nature a religious being. When he rejects the true worship of the true God, he generally invents a religion that suits his own condition. It seems to me that it often consists of the following elements:

1. Confirmation of man in his worldliness. Man, having rejected the Creator loves the creature and seeks his happiness and comfort in the creature. The religion of fallen man will not challenge this. It confirms him in his worldly pursuits.

2. Confirmation of man in his sinfulness. "They continually say to those who despise Me, 'the Lord has said, "You shall have peace"'" (Jer. 23:17).

3. Lowering the requirements of religion to man's level. In the O.T., for example, they did not want to give the best of their flocks to God. Consequently, the priests allowed them to bring their lame, sick, and weak animals. This characterized the entire perversion of the religion by the Old Testament Church. This was also what the Pharisees did. They gave a tenth of their mint, dill, and cummin, but neglected the more important matters of the law (Mt. 23:23).

4. It appeals to the senses of sinful man. In Jer. 10, a description of the idols is given that describes them as gold and silver. They were appealing to man's senses and impressive to the flesh. The false prophets realized that they lived in a visual culture that needed such things in order to communicate to that generation!

In contrast, the true religion challenges all of these things. Consequently, the natural man hates it. There is nothing in it that is appealing to the flesh. Only those who are born of the Spirit can enter the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:3, 5).

1. It condemns man's addiction to the world. It tells him that his only true happiness is found in God. He must abandon his mad pursuit of the world and give His time and thoughts to God. It tells him to let go of as much of the world as he can in order to be free to pursue God.

2. It condemns man's sinfulness. It tells all men everywhere that their sins have separated them from God and that they must come to Christ in order to be forgiven of their sins and changed into new creatures. It never affirms man where he is at.

3. Instead of lowering the requirements of religion, it contends for true holiness. It challenges us to no longer think as children but as adults (1 Cor. 14:21, cf. Heb. 5:9-12). It challenges us to walk in the ways of true holiness and put to death the deeds of the flesh (Col. 3:5).

4. Instead of appealing to man's senses, it contends that the true worship is worship in spirit and in truth. We must seek after God beyond the visual. God is a spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.

There can be no compromise between these two. We cannot mix the flesh and the Spirit and hope to end up with the Spirit. The only way that man can learn to love the true religion is by the gracious operation of the Spirit. When the Spirit of God takes out our hard hearts, then we get rid of our idolatry (Ez. 36:25).

We ought to expect that the world will find nothing pleasing in our religion. However, we also ought to expect that as the Word of God is preached, people from the world will be converted and we who have been converted will be more and more weened from our addiction to idolatrous religion and brought into the true service of the living God. Then, they will also find that this religion is not grievous but filled with joy inexpressible. Their soul will be filled with marrow and fatness as they seek the Maker of all things.

Synopsis Purioris Finally Online!

2009-01-29T16:41:00.004-07:00

The Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, written by four professors from Leiden shortly after the Synod of Dort is now available online here. This is the 1881 edition edited by Herman Bavinck. It is an excellent statement of classic Reformed theology.

The Justice of the Imputation of Adam's Sin

2009-01-26T11:34:00.005-07:00

Even those who admit that God does punish sin may balk at the idea of God imputing Adam's sin to the human race. They do not see it as fair that God would punish the whole human race for the sin of one man. However, the imputation of Adam's sin to all his natural posterity is Biblical and thus also just.

The imputation of Adam's sin means that Adam's sin is attributed to us in such a way that the human race is judged guitly and worthy of punishment on the basis of that sin. Charles Hodge explains: "In the imputation of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to believers, the nature of imputation is the same, so that one case illustrates the other" (Systematic Theology, 2:194). In this essay, I would like to argue that this doctrine is taught in the Bible. Then, I will seek to answer some of the objections to this doctrine.

Arguments for the Imputation of Adam's Sin

1. In Genesis 2-3, Adam did not act merely for himself. He acted as head of the human race. For example, when he was expelled from the Garden of Eden, the entire race was expelled from the Garden. Thus, the entire race was punished for Adam's sin.

2. The common sinful condition implies that there is a common guilt. As Turretin states, "The immediate imputation of the first sin being denied, the principal foundation of the justice of the propagation is removed. Nor can a sufficient reason be given why Giod willed that hereditary and inherent stain to be transmitted from the parents to their posterity" (Institutes, IX.ix.21). In other words, if infants were not guilty of sin, how could it be that they would born in sinful corruption? How is it that infants sometimes die?

3. Romans 5 explicitly teaches that this is the case. Bypassing the difficulties of Rom. 5:12, the rest of the passage is sufficiently clear. "By the one man's offense many died" (v. 15). "The judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation" (v. 16). "By one man's offense death reigned through the one" (v. 17). "Through one man's offense judgment came to all men resulting in condemnation" (v. 18). All of these passages state that the specific reason for the condemnation was not the corruption or sinfulness of the individuals who were condemned but the sin of the one man, Adam. This is verified by the obedience of Christ. It is the obedience of Christ that is the ground of the justification of others and adjudication of life to others (v. 18); consequently, Adam's sin is also the ground and the material cause of the condemnation and punishment of the human race.

4. This doctrine is also confirmed by the express statement of this principle in other instances as well as examples. Exodus 20:5 tells us that God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Of the many examples in Scripture, we can cite Achan (Josh. 7:24-25), the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:2-3), the sons of Saul (2 Sam. 21:6-9), Jeroboam's family (1 K. 14:9-10), etc.

5. This is also confirmed by history and common human experience. As Hodge notes, "There is no nation now existing on the face of the earth, whose condition for weal or woe is not largely determined by the character and conduct of their ancestors" (Systematic Theology, 2:199). Hodge also notes that this is the common view of the Church. "It is only since the rise of Arminianism that any considerable body of Christians have ventured to set themselves in opposition to a doctrine so clearly taught in the Bible, and sustained by so many facts of history and experience" (2:204).

Answers to Objections

1. The main Scriptural objection is found in Ez. 18:20. It reads, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." The answer to this is rather simple. This does not state a general principle of God's actions. Rather, it denotes a specific dispensation of God toward those to whom this prophecy is addressed. As Turretin notes, "There is not here any declaration of right, but only the declaration of a special agreement. He does not say what he can rightly do, but against the complaints of the people, what he wills to do" (Institues, IX.ix.27).

2. The other main objection is that it is unjust. The opponents of this doctrine would argue that it cannot be Biblical because it is unjust. Of course, we may simply reply, it is Biblical; therefore, it is just.

However, I believe that more may be said. To begin with, we must understand what the condition of Adam and the human race would have been under what Girardeau calls "a naked dispensation of law." Every human being is under absolute obligation to obey everything that God tells them to do. Moreover, since all men owe this to God, they cannot demand that God give them anything in return for what they already owe Him (see my article on merit and the covenant of works). The result of this would be that every individual human would have to obey the law himself and that none of them could expect anything in return.

Girardeau argues that what is an act of benevolence cannot be an act of injustice. Since God could have required obedience of all indefinitely without promising anything, it was an act of benevolence for God to require it of only one man and set before him and his posterity the blessing of eternal life (see my article on this point here). Moreover, this man was fully qualified for the task and well-equipped to complete it.

Someone many further object that Adam was not chosen by the human race. Girardeau responds well to this point when he says,

To take the ground that the application to the race of the representative principle would have been unjust because they had no suffrage in its adoption is to maintain that the subjects of God’s government have a right to take part in its administration. This is absurdly to press the analogy of human government (Calvinism & Evangelical Arminianism, 252).

God was better-equipped to make the choice of a representative than anyone else or the whole human could have been. At any rate, God is the absolute ruler, and He has the right to organize the government of His creatures.

Finally, we should note on this point that if imputation is morally wrong, then it is wrong in all cases. In other words, if it is wrong for God to judge someone based on another's actions, then it is always wrong. In this case, the imputation of our sin to Christ and Christ's obedience to us would be morally wrong. In this case, we would all be forever confined to hell. As Giradeau noted, "Atonement or eternal death: these are the only alternatives to the transgressors of an infinite law" (Ibid., 255).

Conclusion

The Biblical doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin should teach us the true root of the sin of the human race. It is the sin of our first father, Adam, that brought sin and death into the world. We need to recognize that we are involved in this guilt. We ought to mourn over it and confess it to the Lord. We should recognize that we are not worthy to look at the sun, to have a thread to cover our bodies, or to have a morsel of bread. We are worthy of God's wrath and curse. This should lead us to seek the only way out of our common condemnation. We must have our sins imputed to the last Adam, who alone was able to satisfy God's justice for them, and have His righteousness imputed to us. We stand before God either in the first Adam or the last Adam. The former road leads to condemnation; the latter leads to eternal life.

Does God Punish Sin?

2009-01-20T14:13:00.003-07:00

There is no doctrine more scandalous in the Western world today than the idea that God punishes sin. The attributes of God’s justice and holiness are constantly called into question. The general belief of our culture is that God is a loving God who will not punish sin. Even if some do acknowledge that there is such a thing as sin, they believe that God will forgive everyone’s sins and especially their own.

In spite of the popularity of such a view, even on the surface of things, this view is highly questionable. If we just step outside and take a look around, we can easily see that there is little evidence for the idea that God does not punish sin. Indeed, if we examine the evidence around us, we might conclude that God does not show mercy at all. What we observe is that people die and die terrible deaths. Young and old, rich and poor, male and female, they are all subject to the miseries of this world and the dread end of death. Martin Luther spoke eloquently on this point:

All the creatures are against us, prepared and armed to bring about, if possible, our destruction. How many are those whom fire and water destroy? How much peril threatens us from wild and venomous beasts, which harm not only our bodies but also our food, intended for our nourishment? Not to mention that we ourselves fall upon each other and murder each other, just as if there were not enough pestilence and other calamities to threaten us…What are thorns, thistles, water, fire caterpillars, flies, fleas, lice, bugs, etc. what are all these, jointly and severally, but messengers which preach to us of sin and of the wrath of God? Therefore, though we know better and our eyes see it, we are living in a more than Egyptian darkness. Though all creatures ever remind us of the wrath of God, so that we cannot avoid seeing it, yet we do not pay any attention to it (cited in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 1:536-537).

Why is that we are so blind that we do not see it? Martin Luther answered, “[We] love this earthly life and cling to it as our only delight” (Ibid.). In other words, we don’t see the wrath of God all around us because we are willfully blind.

We tend to want to ignore God’s wrath against sin, and our culture continually reinforces this belief. Though our culture does not want to see the evidence of God’s wrath, not all cultures have been equally blind. Many other cultures have believed that God is a God of wrath and tried to placate him with all sorts of sacrifices and good deeds. Timothy Keller in his recent book, Reason for God, recounts a conversation that he had with a woman who was offended with the idea of a God of wrath. He responded, “Why aren’t you offended by the idea of a forgiving God?” He then went on to tell here that many cultures were offended by the idea of such a God. He then said, “Why, I concluded, should Western cultural sensibilities be the final court in which to judge whether Christianity is valid? I asked the woman gently whether she thought her culture superior to non-Western ones.” Many other cultures have drawn a sounder conclusion from the phenomena of death and suffering than we have.

Of course, many people will respond by saying that the Bible teaches us that God is a loving God who forgives sin. This is true. However, if we are going to take the Bible as a source for knowledge about God, then we cannot simply arbitrarily decide what we will and will not take from the Bible. The Bible also teaches that God is a just God who hates and punishes sin. If we cannot believe the Bible when it speaks of God’s wrath against sin, then why should we believe it when it speaks about God’s love?

But does the Bible really teach that God is a God who punishes sin? Even a cursory reading of Scripture can teach us this. Consider three classes of Scripture text that teach this. First, there are those Scripture passages that teach that sin brings punishment. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). “Cursed is anyone who does not continue in all the things that are written in the book of the law to do them” (Dt. 27:26, cf. Gal. 3:10). The Bible teaches that breaking God’s law brings the punishment of eternal death.

Second, there are texts that speak of God’s anger against sin. “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (Hab. 1:13). “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (Jn. 3:36). “Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God” (Rev. 19:15). “God is angry with the wicked every day” (Ps. 7:11). These texts could be multiplied many times over.

Third, there are those texts that state explicitly that God will judge and punish sin and will not clear the guilty. “God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; the LORD avenges and is furious. The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserves wrath for His enemies; the LORD is slow to anger and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked” (Nah. 1:2-3). Ex. 34:7 declares that God is a God who “by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation” (Ex. 34:7). Thus, God will not simply pass over the sins we have committed.

From all these verses, we might think that God is not merciful at all. We might think that we are all doomed. If this is the type of God that He is, how can anyone of us have hope? Isn’t God also a good God? Wilhelmus a Brakel responded to that point long ago. “You have heard that God is gracious, which is true. You are guilty, however, of distorting the essential meaning of the grace of God by interpreting it to refer to remission of sin and absolution apart from satisfaction. Such, however, is not grace” (emphasis mine, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:129). What Brakel means is that God always punishes our sins. We either receive the punishment ourselves, or Christ takes it for us. God is a just God, and He never simply forgives sin. The only reason that He forgives sin is because His justice has been satisfied by the death of Christ.

The conclusion that we should draw from all this is that the only way that we can avoid the punishment of sin is by entrusting ourselves to Jesus Christ. The Bible is plain. Either you go to Jesus admitting your sin and seeking His grace and death to cover your sin, or you will bear the punishment of your sin to all eternity. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). God is a God of wrath. We must not let our culture or sentiments blind us to that reality. The only way that we can escape God’s wrath is through Jesus Christ who delivers us from the day of God’s wrath (1 Thess. 1:10).

The End Is Near

2009-01-06T13:37:00.004-07:00

Whatever your eschatology may be, we should agree that we can always say that the end is near. One hundred years from now, nearly everyone alive today will be dead. For the overwhelming majority of those people, the end will come much sooner. For some of them, it will even come today.

As we enter into the New Year, I think it's helpful for us to consider how short our time is. Death is fast approaching. The Bible continually compares our lives to grass, the flowers of the field, and a vapor, which are all here for a very brief time and then gone.

In the Psalms, David and Moses both recognized the importance of this and made two similar prayers. David said, "LORD, make me to know my end, and what is the measure of my days, that I may know how frail I am" (Ps. 39:4). Moses prayed, "So teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom" (Ps. 90:12).

Why do we need God to teach us to number our days? It is because we are likely to ignore it and forget it. This is in part simply for the natural reason that we are made to live, not to die. On the other hand, there is also the sinful reason that we get too involved in the things of this life. We love this present life and simply want to enjoy it without the inconvenient and unpleasant thought of death. Jesus warned us of this long ago. "But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly" (Lk. 21:34). Consequently, we need to pray that God will keep the reality of the brevity of our lives before us.

Thinking about the shortness of life is important both in relation to others and in relation to ourselves. In relationship to others, it gives us a proper perspective on both the converted and the uncoverted.

We have but a short time with the unconverted. We all have neighbors, friends, and relatives who do not know Christ. Either we or they will soon part from this life. If we do not share the Gospel with them now, we may never have the opportunity to do so.

We have but a short time with the people of God. We only have a little bit of time to profit from them and to bless them. We should observe them and spend time with the godly so that we can learn from them. We should seek to do good to them, since, according to Christ, this reverberates into eternity. "And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home" (Lk. 16:9, cf. Mt. 25:31-46).

Each us of individually has but a little time. None of us can guarantee that we will live out this day. We should make sure that we are reconciled to God in Christ. Once the door of this life shuts, there will be no more time to seek the forgiveness in Christ. What are we waiting for? Each of us should strive daily to be justified before God in our consciences and in the Word of God. Wilhelmus a Brakel says, “Review your account, examine your debts, and place the satisfaction of Christ over against it. Endeavor by faith to have this account signed with the blood of the Lord Jesus.”

Not knowing the moment we enter into eternity, we should strive as Brakel says "to enter heaven in a full run." We should be striving to attain unto the heavenly kingdom. This means that we should always be seeking the Lord. We should always make it our chief delight to fellowship with God whether alone or with His people. Even when we are doing other things, our flesh and heart should always be crying to see the living God in His temple, to be able to focus on Him more directly. If we live in such a state, we will enter heaven in a full run.

This is, of course, not a work that we are capable of fulfilling. That is why we must go back to the Psalms. Teach me, O Lord, to see the brevity of my life that I may gain wisdom, living always in the light of eternity.