A beautiful day here in Orlando. While my wife attended a Bible Study, I spent a considerable amount of time in the local library. What a treasure! I bought 8 books for $7. I read another 40 pages of Murray’s Principles of Conduct, which is a masterpiece. I do not agree with his reassessment of the death penalty for certain crimes in the New Covenant era, but nevertheless he makes some valid points overall.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part VII
As a Young Man taken by his brother Warren
I would like to continue dealing in shorter articles with Book III. It is here where Lewis discusses the Cardinal and Theological Virtues. These virtues have the power to transform cultures. Lewis speaks in a few words of what a Christian society ought to look like:
Those who do not work, do not eat; everyone is to work with their own hands; they are to produce something good; obedience to magistrates; from children to parents; lending money at interest is forbidden; charity is an essential part of Christian morality; we fear insecurity, which is why we do not give.[1]
Social morality is a natural outworking of genuine faith. History is filled with covenant breakers, and they have never and will never seek the restoration of a purely Christian society, until they embrace a new Lord and turn their backs on Caesar. In the words of C.S. Lewis:
A Christian society is not going to arrive until most of us really want it: and we are not going to want it until we become fully Christian.[2]
To become fully Christian is to see this world as God’s World. All goes back to the issue of sovereignty. Whose sovereignty? God’s or autonomous man? This Christian paradise where God’s law prevails and where Christian man lives as unto the Lord in all things,is not a utopia. Nevertheless, it is an outflow of pure (Mere) Christianity.
It is interesting how dogmatic Reformed Christians are about the transformation that must occur in the individual after conversion. However, they are less than sure about the transformation that must occur when all these individuals begin to interact with society at large. This, once again, is that insipid Christianity that tastes more like Gnosticism than historic catholicity. Andrew Sandlin expressed this well some years ago when he said that if individual sanctification should change the environment you abide, then corporate sanctification will change the environment of the world.
[1] Mere Christianity, pg. 81.[2] Ibid. 83.
An Analysis of Luther’s Understanding of the Fruit of the Spirit and Its Implications for our Sanctification Part I
Professor Sinclair Ferguson has said that “All the energy of the Trinity for our salvation has been focused on transforming us into Christ-likeness.”[1] Christ-likeness is our greatest goal in this present existence. Far from the existentialist who desires to live for the now, Christian religion is best understood when past, present, and future are joined in their pursuit of the one aim, being like our Lord. In the Scriptures we find a host of passages that seek to give guidance to the Christian in his pursuit of Christ-likeness (see Matthew 5-7, I Corinthians 13, etc.). Nevertheless, no one passage so clearly defines for us what Christ-likeness looks like than Paul’s description in Galatians 5:22-23.
Paul has already dealt with the barbaric nature of fleshly pursuit and he now finds it significant to contrast the life of “flesh” with the life of the “Spirit.” It is in this section where the German Reformer Martin Luther is very helpful in deciphering and enabling the reader to grasp such profound descriptions.[2] This portion of Scripture is commonly known as the “Fruit of the Spirit.” Here “fruit” is singular because it represents a unit, not a variety of manifestations at different times. Paul here advocates that when the Spirit grants new life to the unbeliever, he (the new believer) receives the fruit of the Spirit. These nine fruits serve as a profound demonstration that God has in mercy granted the sinner a new life in which the fruit are its proof. Luther in contrasting the fruit of the Spirit with the “fruit” of the flesh says that the fruit of the Spirit are “excellent fruits…for they that have them give glory to God and with the same do allure and provoke others to embrace the doctrine and faith of Christ.”[3]
[1] Professor Sinclair Ferguson’s lectures on Sanctification; also see his book The Christian Life.
[2] For further reference also see Video Series entitled: Developing Christian Character by R.C. Sproul.
[3] Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, Modern English Edition. Published by Fleming H. Revell; A division of Baker Book House Co. Grand Rapids, MI, 1988), p.378.
Philosophical Language in the Reformation
Who depended on whom? Some have said that the Reformers simply traded the Aristotle of Aquinas for Plato. But who did the Reformers rely for their Reformation? Did they attempt to borrow from Greeks to establish their world view? The clearest answer to this is that the Reformers depended on the Greeks when they were necessary. For instance, in refuting the deadly arguments against the deity of Christ in the early church, some of the later Reformers made no quarrels about using early church apologist like Justin Martyr and others. Some in the church have despised so much of Scholasticism that they have forgotten that the majority of the terms they use to express their frustrations with scholasticism, come from that period itself. Further, let us not forget that the great Trinitarian lexicon comes from that same time. As Professor John Frame has mentioned: “It isn’t wrong to use extrabiblical language to formulate theology” (Docrine of God, p.3).
At this point we ought to differentiate between Pre-Reformation theologians, and Post-Reformation theologians. The scholastic tendencies were seen in the post-Reformation Reformers. One must remember that they were developing detailed treatement of certain areas yet not so well developed in the church (Covenant Theology comes to mind). My immediate response is that the Reformers emphasized a brilliantly holistic view of the Christian faith. Our religion (faith) is physical (opposing Plato) and spiritual (opposing pagan Hedonists). One may rightly assert that modern day Reformed churches have not embraced this totus approach. They have placed a largely spiritual emphasis on almost all matters of life. To escape or to abide in the heavenlies is their most desired quest. However, what makes the Reformed tradition entirely different in its hermeneutic is that it sees life and theology as one. The abstract is not really abstract and the mundane transcends life, and yay, the two shall meet.
A Defense of Sabbath Observance
Bishop J.C. Ryle: The Sabbath is a Day to Keep
There is a subject in the present day which demands the serious attention of all professing Christians in the United Kingdom. That subject is the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s Day.
It is a subject which is forced upon our notice. The minds of many are agitated by questions arising out of it. “Is the observance of a Sabbath binding on Christians? Have we any right to tell a man that to do his business or seek his pleasure on a Sunday is a sin? Is it desirable to open places of public amusement on the Lord’s Day?” All these are questions that are continually asked. They are questions to which we ought to be able to give a decided answer. Read the rest…
On The Sabbath Day
This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their wordly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
CHAPTER XXI – Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath-day
Preaching and sacraments!
I will be making a few generalizations in this blog, and hopefully the larger context of friends will not be too highly offended. Now that I am World Cup free I am able to concentrate a bit more on some pertinent issues that will actually affect my life. This next semester I will be doing an Independent Study on the Sacraments. I will be mentored by Keith Matthison. Dr. Matthison has done a great service to the church in many ways. Beyond his contributions in the area of eschatology, Keith has done some significant research in the area of the sacraments (particularly n the Reformational era). Anyone familiar with Ligonier Ministries knows that their primary goal is to restore God-centeredness in worship by adoring a Holy God. However, adoration and worship have certain demands. For instance, a sacramental gap in worship necessarily lowers the adoration of a Holy God. Though the sacraments to me are significant, in fact, significant enough that without it Orthodox Christianity crumbles, I realize that without preaching, the church does not exist. Parallels can be fallacious because sometime A’s situation differs with B in a minute way, hence avoiding a perfect parallel scenario. Nevertheless parallels in worship have in the last few years made so much sense to me that I cannot but come to one simple conclusion: modern approaches to preaching lead to a weakening of a sacramental life. Some may scorn at my phraseology. However, it is my contention that 95% of the time you show me modern expressions of worship you will also see modern expressions of the sacraments. What does this mean? It means that it is virtually non-existent. R.C. Sproul comments on this when writings in the foreword to Dr. Matthsion’s book:
The absence of a fixed pulpit was not too much of a cultural shock for me as I have seen countless churches wherein plexiglas lecterns serve as portable pulpits, easily removed to make room for the drama presentation.The ancient and historic use of the elevated pulpit that symbolizes the lofty import of the Word of God preached, is now relegated to the realm of the vestigial remnants of the dar ages.
Later he writes that “all forms are art forms and all art forms communicate something.” Everything done communicates something. No earthly expression in worship can be neutral. Modern forms present an uneasiness to historic ways of doing things and actually it may lead to an un-biblical approach to worship. The debate surrounding the regulative principle can be discussed elsewhere, but those on both sides must realize that contemporary applications have affected tremendously our understanding of the Holy. I confess it has not been positive.
Preaching is “indispensable to Christianity” said John Stott, so why is preaching today dispensable for the first activity that overcomes the local church with excitement? The sacraments nourish the church, so why is the church hesitant to give it to the people? If you think one thing does not affect the other you are already part of that unfortunate parallel.
A Case for Preterism and a Critique of Dispensationalism, Hoekema and a host of other eschatological discussions Part 4
Some final comments are necessary here to summarize thus far. I will try to explain briefly some of the major differences between Hoekema and Demar in their understanding of prophecy and in the next few posts will deal with John’s language in Revelation 20.
Both Hoekema and Demar are committed to a Reformed Hermeneutics. Within this hermeneutic there is a certain level of disagreement between these two esteemed authors. Hoekema is applying the traditional Reformed Dutch approach to prophetic literature (espoused by Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, i.e. Dr. Dick Gaffin), whereas Demar applies a hermeneutic similar to that of the Divines such as John Lightfoot. Gary Demar appears to be more faithful to the text since he allows the text to indicate nothing more or nothing less than what it requires. Certainly much of this discussion centers on the dual/double fulfillment theory. That is, that much of what the Bible indicates in terms of prophetic literature can be fulfilled in a near future, but also ultimately in the distant future. This form of interpretation makes good sense in an Amillennarian framework. Amillenialists are fond of seeing both near and future (or ultimate fulfillment) fulfillment in certain prophetic texts. This method can be useful in numerous ways such as prophecies concerning Christ (Isaiah 7:14). For instance, when Isaiah 7:14 is interpreted, the reader is exposed to its immediate fulfillment (in this case, Isaiah 8) and also with its ultimate fulfillment (see Matthew 1). This is a clear case of double fulfillment. However, there is no such language expressed in the Olivet Discourse or the revelation of Christ in Revelation.
The danger of the Amillennial position expressed by Hoekema is that it can lead to vague, unnecessary, and unbiblical formulations of Biblical prophecy. Once again, the reader is called to return to the time texts, which leads us into a more accurate understanding of the Scriptures. This is a central premise of the Preterist position.
This writer affirms the sober approach of Preterism and Postmillennialism and calls the reader to the hermeneutic of the Puritans, the Princeton Scholars (Warfield, Hodge), and modern Theonomic advocates.
Heaven our ultimate destiny? Part 1
Hoekema in his very influential The Bible and the Future describes the outlandish confession of many Christians that heaven is our ultimate destiny. Many of these proclamations are found in the hymnology of the church, particularly in more evangelical hymnody. The emphasis tends to always be on the glory of heaven without any mention of the New Heavens and the New Earth. Hoekema argues brilliantly that the church has forgotten that the restored creation is the place of ultimate consummation. He further elaborates that the “New Heavens and the New Earth are equivalent to the created universe” and therefore, in my estimation, is a much more grandeur expression than God’s original creation. The garden was only an incomplete picture of the glorious destiny of the elect, not a replica.
Bishop N.T. Wright mentioned a few years ago at the Evangelical Theological Society that the evangelical emphasis on the life to come has detracted from the emphasis on the eternal life of God’s people. In other words, Wright’s point is that heaven is only a glimpse of the world to come. He mentioned the Pilgrim’s Progress by Bunyan, which gives the distinct impression that when Christian reaches the great city, this will be his final home forever. Let us not forget John’s words in describing those who are now in heaven in Revelation 6:10: They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” The saints in heaven cry out to God to bring ultimate justice to His creation and restore all things. The restoration of the cosmos is the ultimate purpose of God (or the Missio Dei). If we are so bold as Professor Richard Pratt, we may even say that heaven pales in comparison to the glorified and purified world where righteousnes dwells.
Doctrine As Concrete
Neil Postman’s understanding of modern society 20 years ago was that we have amused ourselves to death by salivating over what I call “media materialism.” Not only are we unaware about the growing indifference evangelicals have towards historical doctrine, but we have also to a certain extent fallen for this deadly disease. Augustine’s dictum: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love,” must play a substantial role in intra-mural disputations. However, when doctrinal certainty or the minimizing of central aspects of Christian worship (i.e. sacraments) become the norm in the church, then we might as well pack our post-modern bags and embrace the latest ecclesiastical novelties.
There is something very profound about our Reformed heritage: doctrine was always a matter of seriousness. In J. Gresham Machen’s classic work, Christianity and Liberalism he writes:
Luther (as we believe) was wrong about the Lord’s Supper; and it would have been a far greater calamity if being wrong about the Supper he had represented the whole question as a trifling affair. Luther was wrong about the Supper, but not nearly so wrong as he would have been if, being wrong, he had said to his opponents: ” Brethren, this matter is a trifle; and it makes really very little difference what a man thinks about the table of the Lord.” Such indifferentism would have been far more deadly than all the divisions between the branches of the Church. A Luther who would have compromised with regard to the Lord’s Supper never would have said at the Diet of Worms, “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me, Amen.” Indifferentism about doctrine makes no heroes of the faith.
The deep significance rooted in Machen’s comment stems from a commitment to doctrine; not necessarily one that divides at all times, but one that unites our past with our future and gives us a firm ground to stand.