Category: Reformed Theology

Posted on

Covenant Blessings and Curses in the Face of a Righteous King

In recent years my understanding of Covenant Theology has increased in various ways. Indeed, it was only four years ago when I would have mocked at such a thought of conditionality from God’s part. Nevertheless, my studies have led me to see God’s covenanatal dealings with man  in at least two simple ways: faithful and harmful. By faithful, I refer to God’s gracious offer of preservation to a line, which in many ways were not and continues to not be very faithful. And by harmful, I acknowledge that God’s patience, though longsuffering, is still limited. Covenant breakers and Covenant Keepers alike are cursed, and at the same time, both are blessed. In an ultimate sense, this process is totalized by God, and covenant breakers receive their eternal punishment and covenant keepers receive their eternal bliss.

So, in what sense is this background necessary? First, the priority given by God is that Covenant keepers be blessed in every respect. In fact, if God were to deny blessings to His faithful seed (line) He would be an unjust ruler. In a real sense, God as a King provides both nourishment and spiritual healing for His people. Secondly, God offers judgment to those who live under His rule, but betray His good provision. This is akin to the kind hospitality of a family towards a poor single in the youth group, only to find out later that he has robbed the family gold and has abandoned the city. In this sense, God has no other way of treating the infidel, but to pursue and punish him in the most severe fashion.

The modern concept of “God is love,” is replaced by the Scriptural language of God’s faithfulness and condemnation. God is faithful to His people to the extent of the faithfulness of the people to Him. To give an example of this concept (which can be very easily distorted), let me suggest that one is not kept in God’s covenant by earning or by achieving a human condition not attainable in this life (perfectionism), but rather he remains in the covenant by the daily sustenance of God. Here is where it is helpful to employ the language of temporary blessing and eternal blessing.

Covenant members are destined to either eternal or temporary blessings; the answer to this either/or question lies in the faithfulness of the member to accept or to reject the promise of daily spiritual provision.

In summary, covenant members are destined to all goods in their spiritual lives (Hebrews 6), but by rejecting God’s gracious provision they spit in the face of God. God, on the other hand, will not be mocked and applies the results of covenant breaking to the traitor. It is here where we realize that God’s commitment to His people as King is a faithful one. God will be mocked, but behold the mockery of God turns against the unworthy member in a destructive manner. Hence, God’s dealing with covenant breakers is harmful. God may be mocked temporarily, only so that the one who mocks may in the end see that the joke was on him.

Posted on

Sinclair Ferguson on the Relationship between church and kingdom

news_ferguson_207x270.jpgWhat then is the relationship between the church and the kingdom? The theme of the kingdom is referred to 100 plus times in the gospels. Through Jesus the kingdom has broken through. Can the term basileia always be substituted for ekklesia? No. However closely related, they are not defined by each other. What then is the relationship?

Ridderbos says: (354)”…basileia is the great divine work of salvation in its fullness and consummation in Christ. All Kingdom authority is his. Ekklesia is the people elect/called by God who share in the bliss of the kingdom.” The church is constituted by the people of the kingdom. The church is the people of God, called by God that already share in the bliss of the yet to be consummated kingdom. There are three things we can say about the church and the kingdom:

(1)The church manifests the kingdom. The church is the family to which the working of the kingdom gives birth. The church on earth is an interim imperfect pre-eschatological manifestation of the kingdom. This is one of the main themes of Mt 13; parables of the wheat and the tares. The tares are mixed up with the good seed. Despite the presence of the tares, the righteous grow. The purpose is to indicate that the presence of this community is a present manifestation of the kingdom… it is the pre-eschatological form of the manifestation of the kingdom.

(2)The church is the sphere in which the kingdom expresses itself in this age. Mt 4:23ff There is a contrast between the now and the then. The present working of the kingdom is a not yet consummated working. Where can I see the kingdom of God working? In the church. The church is the sphere in which the transforming power of the kingdom is visible.
(a)The beatitudes are expressions of the Kingdom through Jesus in the church. Miracles are not just acts of power, but localized works which show what the kingdom will look like when all things are restored. A momentary glimpse of how it will be. Miracles are Jesus momentarily switching on the light. There is going to be a final regeneration of all things. The power is seen not only in miracles but in the moral transformation of those whose lives have begun to be transformed to the kingdom.
(i)The life of a disciple is the moral version of the physical miracle. In this imperfect form, we are given illustrations of what it will be.

(3)The Church is the instrument of the establishment of the kingdom in the world. The church is salt of the earth; light of the world; a city that can’t be hidden. The church is seen as the temporary manifestation of the Kingdom. It becomes the bridging community of the Kingdom, until it fills and transforms the entire universe.

Posted on

Sinclair Ferguson teaches his last class at RTS/Orlando


I just found out today that Dr. Sinclair Ferguson will no longer be teaching at RTS during Winter classes. I am very thankful to have sat under this godly and brilliant man. His lectures on the church and the sacraments have truly accentuated my already present interest on these doctrines. During the next few weeks I will continue to post some of his quotes from the class I just took entitled: Ecclesiology and the Sacraments (Systematic Theology IV).

Posted on

Ecclesiology and the Sacraments with Sinclair Ferguson

Here are a few of Dr. Ferguson’s lecture notes from the class I am currently taking with him at Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando):

This topic is so key today because of the demise of the church in the West (Europe especially), and the growth of the church in the East (3rd world). The problem with the Evangelicals today is that the Church is simply an additional appendage to Salvation but that it is not important in the ongoing life of the Christian. For Jesus (as we will see), salvation to people was the instrumental means for the building of the church. It is not an incidental doctrine to Christ. But it is central to the entire Bible. My salvation is the means to an end-glory of God and of his Church.

The term “ecclesia” (church) only occurs twice in the gospels. Here in Matt 16:18, and 18:17. An argument is made by liberals that these two sayings are reworking by later writers who wanted to put these words in Jesus’ mouth. The infrequency of the words must then mean that the Church was not important to Jesus! They argue that the radical eschatology of Christ did not leave room for a continuing Church. He thought he was coming back. Thus, the Church evolves as a result of the failure of Jesus’ vision. Loisy said: “Jesus foretold the kingdom; and it was the church that came!” This is a prominent view of NT scholarship. CK Barrett said that Jesus didn’t envisage a period of history where a Church would have a place, but only an apocalyptic act of vindication. Thus, the authenticity of these two verses has been doubted.

(a)Responses
(i)The uniqueness of these statements suggest their authenticity in the teaching of Jesus. If the idea of the Church were an invention, it is more likely that their use of the idea in the editing would have been far more pervasive than it actually is.
(ii)Loisy’s formula doesn’t work. When we look at the rest of the NT, we see that the Church is not a replacement for the kingdom. Rom 14:17, Gal 5:21. The Church and the Kingdom exist in some kind of relationship with one another. Not viewed as synonymous with each other, but intimately related.
(iii)That which is denoted by “ecclesia” is completely consistent with the rest of Jesus’ teaching. So the infrequency of its use is inadequate grounds for ignoring it.

Posted on

Psalm Singing

tissot-david-singing427x620.jpgThe debate over Psalm singing is particularly discussed in Reformed circles. The issue involves adherence to the “regulative principle,” which affirms that only that which is in the Scriptures is to be practiced in the church. Some have come to accept the practice of exclusive Psalm singing (exclusive Psalmnody). They argue the Bible does not offer other forms of singing in the Scriptures, ergo, God has left the church with 150 Psalms. While Psalm singing is desirable in Sabbath worship or private worship, it is necessary to realize that the texts used to defend Psalm singing are commonly misinterpreted. There are primarily two texts used. Edmund Clowney in his respected volume on the church writes:

Those who insist that the church should sing Biblical Psalms exclusively need to consider more carefully the apostle’s words in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:18-20. It is the wisdom that is the enduement of the Spirit-filled church, taught by the Word of Christ, that enables to admonish and teach one another; they do so in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Paul’s expression shows that he is thinking of the wisdom that composes psalms, and therefore not of the psalms of David. Nor do his words refer to inspired compositions exclusively. The context of his use of spiritual wisdom in Colossians 1:19, his prayers for wisdom, and his charge to walk in wisdom show that he thinks of the wisdom of the Spirit as the daily need of every Christian, not a gift of revelation to bring the Word of Christ (136).

Clowney finds the theme of this passage “wisdom,” not a prescribed form of worship. Granted, Psalm singing is edifying and needful; the church today lacks a catechized youth because the Scriptures are not sung nor are they brought to memorization. Surely the singing of God’s Word facilitates immensely this process. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental concern that must be addressed. Exclusive Psalm-singers argue that only Scriptures can carry the intensity and loveliness of worship. Since it is the only writing in which there can be found no error and since it claims self-authentication, ergo, it is the only prescribed form of worship. Any singing that is non-scriptural runs the serious risk of raising voices to a fallible and erroneous composition. This logic urges worshipers to consider their sinful natures and their conspicuous tendency to err. This is a critique worth considering and must come to the attention of the composer and the worshiper as he lifts his voice to glorify his Maker.

Greg Bahnsen answers the argument raised by exclusive Psalm-singers (these arguments must not be thrown out as infantile, but should be considered and learned from – for a profitable discussion of exclusive Psalm-singing see Bahnsen’s discussion) by noting that:

…to prohibit congregational singing of anything but the Old Testament psalms is an unwarranted addition to the word of God (cf. Deut.4:2) and – ironically – a violation of the regulative principle of worship thereby. The crucial question is this: Where in Scripture does God restrict His people to singing only the songs in the book of Psalms? No such restriction can be demonstrated. Those who try to infer it end up relying on fallacious arguments. Those who insist that we must positively demonstrate that anything we sing has the explicit warrant of Scripture have misunderstood and misapplied the “regulative principle” – on a par with somebody who would hold that the very words of our prayers and sermons must have the explicit warrant of Scripture.

Bahnsen’ s main argument rests on the fact that if we are to follow the logic of Psalm-singers who claim to be adherents of the “Regulative Principle,” we must further apply this to all of worship. This means we must carefully commit all our prayers to reflect word-for-word or thought-for-thought the prayers found throughout Scriptures.

In conclusion, though exclusive Psalm singing is wrong, Psalm singers exemplify, if perhaps a bit extreme, the sincere urge to commit our minds and our voices to the worship of our God in words that lift, adore, praise, magnify, and reflect the grandeur of our Great God. May all of us be ever mindful of the duty of worshipping God in beauty and authentic spirit-led adoration.

Posted on

Minimizing the gospel…

In what seems to be a life or death situation, some Reformed scholars have gone so far as to say that justification by faith is the gospel. You wouldn’t expect such language from reputable professors who are embedded with the tradition of Calvin and Luther. But they have become so opposed to unity that they have opted to bring in their theological armory to the final battle of Armageddon. I wonder if Paul would have gone that far since in the New Testament “justification” does not seem to be his central concern, but one among many. But since when has the church learned to focus on majors? You see, when justification by faith alone becomes the judge of whether one is authentic or a non-authentic believer then we might as well eliminate 1600 years of Church History and limit regeneration to a very insubstantial amount of time in our history.

When I mentioned yesterday that I do not believe in justification alone alone, (double “alone” is purposeful) I meant that the doctrine itself is correct, but the doctrine alone does not encompass nor does it define Christianity. Justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel, but no one lives with a heart alone. We need much more to exist. The gospel finds its root even earlier than Luther’s rediscovery of Pauline theology, it is summarized clearly for us in the Creeds of the early church. Both the Nicene and Apostle’s Creed expand on what the gospel represents, but neither make any reference whatsoever to “justification by faith alone.” These were the Creeds that united us in the past and continues to unite the Orthodox Church today.
Some in the New Perspective arena have clearly denied the truth of justifcation by faith and denied that it can even be found in Pauline writings. With this I clearly disagree. However, I am not prone to praise a doctrine (though precious) that has not been a historical part of the church. To do so, would be ignorance.
The Gospel needs to be elevated not minimized to whether one believes he is saved by faith alone or not. There are many who profess this truth but inwardly reject it nor live by it. There are some in the Roman catholic faith who embrace this doctrine with much more firmness than some evangelicals. In the end, the stress of a particular definition of the gospel hinders its very power. It is my understanding that justification by faith alone is essential to true gospel , but not the only doctrine that formulates our faith.

In recent controversies (AAPC and NPP – though I agree with proponents of both in some cases) justification by faith has been attacked. Some have attempted to obliterate the very concept in order to find more in common with those of other faiths. Some have elevated this doctrine so high that unless one subscribes to every jot and tittle of their definition of this doctrine he is condemned already. This sounds more like idolatry than love for the truth. I think the proper response to these debates is to realize that the gospel does not rest in the arms of faith alone, rather it rests in the arms of Christ alone as Lord and Savior.
The gospel is simple indeed, but also deep indeed; enough to cover the waters of the sea and to triumph over the enemies of the earth. It is redemption applied and redemption lived. We are justified as a community and individually. Will we learn individually to love the community? Will we learn communally to love the gospel in its completeness? But again, does unity in the body matter anymore? As long as popes continue to speak from a less than pure chair, these questions will have no relevance.

Posted on

Keith Mathison on Why Evangelicals Must Recover sola Scriptura

The Evangelical church has not awakened readily to a fact that many Roman Catholic apologists have been quick to notice. The simple fact of the matter is this: the modern Evangelical doctrine of Scripture-solo Scriptura-is self-contradictory and fundamentally absurd. If applied consistently it is fatal to Christianity. A growing number of Evangelicals are realizing this, and because they have been told that solo Scriptura is the Reformation and Protestant doctrine, they are flocking to Rome and Constantinople in an attempt to maintain a coherent faith.If Evangelical Protestantism is to survive, if it is to regain its calling, it must reject the essentially man-centered doctrine of solo Scriptura. The Evangelical church cannot call Christendom to reform and to a return to apostolic Christianity by rejecting one of the fundamental tenets of apostolic Christianity. Why should we expect or even want those within Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy to reject institutional autonomy in favor of individual autonomy? Solo scriptura cannot result in anything other than doctrinal chaos.Instead of advocating chaos, the Evangelical church must regain an understanding of the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, which is essentially nothing more than the early Church’s doctrine of Scripture and tradition framed within a different historical context. The Church must affirm that Scripture is the sole, final, and infallible norm of faith and practice. And the Church must affirm that Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the communion of saints within the theological context of the rule of faith. Only by rejecting all forms of autonomy, institutional or individual, can any branch of the Church be in obedience to Jesus Christ the Lord. (Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura [Moscow, ID: Canon, 2001], pp.346-47)