The World's Ruined

The Ground of Sanctification...

2012-01-05T16:30:00.000-08:00

Regarding the liberty from sin for which man so thirsts, I ended my last post (first post here) with these words of Owen's:

Fourthly; Christ is not in the law; he is not proposed in it, not communicated by it, - we are not made partakers of him thereby. This is the work of grace, of the gospel. In it is Christ revealed, by it he is proposed and exhibited unto us; thereby are we made partakers of him and all the benefits of his mediation. And he it is alone who came to, and can, destroy this work of the devil.... This "the Son of God was manifested to destroy." He alone ruins the kingdom of Satan, whose power is acted in the rule of sin. Wherefore, hereunto our assurance of this comfortable truth is principally resolved. And what Christ hath done, and doth, for this end, is a great part of the subject of gospel revelation.

Me:
Again, the subject matter under discussion by Owen is summarized by the verse from Romans 6:14, "Sin shall no longer have dominion over you; for ye are not under law but under grace." The law is limited by God's purpose for it. It can only point the way. The law gives no aid in freeing the sinner from the rule and tyranny of sin. That office is found alone in God's sovereign grace declared in the gospel of Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection from the grave. Through faith in Him by grace alone, sins are pardoned, the believer is justified with the righteousness of Christ, and the reign and rule of Sin is broken. The believer has been delivered from sin's dominion and translated to the kingdom of Christ Jesus, now under God's reign of grace unto righteousness. And this good news, the power of God unto salvation as witnessed to and transmitted by the Holy Spirit, is the effectual ground upon which the believer walks in sanctification. It is not a walk free of sin or battles with the flesh - but a walk, though with many limitations and weaknesses, that nonetheless increases in faith and godliness through trusting dependence upon the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and that which He has secured for the redeemed.

From the last section in Owen's A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace:

It is that which the law and all the duties of it cannot procure. The law and its duties, as we have declared, can never destroy the dominion of sin. All men will find the truth hereof that ever come to fall under the power of real conviction. When sin presseth on them, and they are afraid of its consequents, they will find that the law is weak, and the flesh is weak, and their duties are weak, and their resolutions and vows are weak; - all insufficient to relieve them. ... They sin and promise amendment, and endeavor recompenses by some duties, yet can never extricate themselves from the yoke of sin. We may therefore learn the excellency of this privilege, first, from its causes, whereof I shall mention some only:- 1. The meritorious procuring cause of this liberty is the death and blood of Jesus Christ. So it is declared, 1Pet.1:18-19; 1Cor.6:20, 7:23. Nothing else could purchase this freedom... "Christ died, and rose, and revived," that he might be our Lord, Rom.14:9, and so deliver us from the power of all other lords whatever.
... Let those that are believers, in all the conflicts with sin, live in the exercise of faith on this purchase of liberty made by the blood of Christ; for two thing will hence ensue:- [1.] That they will have a weighty argument always in readiness to oppose unto the deceit and violence of sin... See Rom.6:2. [2.] The internal efficient cause of this liberty, or that whereby the power and rule of sin is destroyed in us, is the Holy Spirit himself; which farther evinceth the greatness of this mercy. Every act for the mortification of sin is no less immediately from him than those positive graces are whereby we are sanctified. It is "through the Spirit" that we "mortify the deeds of the body," Rom.8:13. Where he is, there, and there alone, is liberty...
...Wherefore, a great part of our wisdom for the attaining and preserving this liberty consists in the acting of faith on that promise of our Saviour, that our heavenly Father will "give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him" of him. When sin in any instance, by any temptation, urgeth for power and rule in us, we are ready to turn into ourselves and our own resolutions, which in their place are not to be neglected; but immediate cries unto God for such supplies of his Spirit as without which sin will not be subdued, we shall find our best relief. Bear it in mind, try it on the next occasion, and God will bless it with success....
... We are called into a theatre, to fight and contend; into a field, to be tried in a warfare. Our enemy is this sin, which strives and contends for the rule over us....
... First, The conflict with sin, making continual repentance and mortification absolutely necessary, will continue in us whilst we are in this world. Pretences of perfection here are contrary to the Scriptures, contrary to the universal experience of all believers, and contrary to the sense and conscience of them by whom they are pleaded, as they make it evident everyday.
... This is our lot and portion; this is the consequent of our apostasy from God, and of the depravation of our nature thereby.... ... It is so ordered that the continuance of sin in us shall be the ground, reason, and occasion, of the exercise of all grace, and of putting a lustre on our obedience.
... Herein lies the spring of humility and self-resignation to the will of God.
... Wherefore, the continuance of us in this state and condition in this world, - is best for us, and highly suited unto divine wisdom, considering the office and care of our Lord Jesus Christ for our relief.
... There is mercy administered in and by the gospel for the pardon of all that is evil in itself or in any of its effects: "There is no condemnation unto them that are in Christ Jesus." Pardoning mercy, according to the tenor of the covenant, doth always disarm this sin in believers of its condemning power; so that, notwithstanding the utmost endeavours of it, "being justified by faith, they have peace with God."
... The great rule for preventing the increase and power of vicious habits is, watch against beginnings. Sin doth not attempt dominion but in particular instances, by one especial lust or another.
... The strict charge given us by our Lord Jesus Christ to "watch," and that of the wise man, "above all keepings to keep our heart," have especial regard unto these beginnings of sins's obtaining power in us.
... Make continual applications unto the Lord Christ, in all the acts of his mediation, for the ruin of sin, especially when it attempts a dominion in you, Heb.4:16. This is the life and soul of all directions in this case, which needs not here to be enlarged on; it is frequently spoken unto. Lastly, Remember that a due sense of deliverance from the dominion of sin is the most effectual motive unto universal obedience and holiness; as such it is proposed and managed by the apostle, Rom.4.

Year End Poem...

2011-12-30T14:00:00.000-08:00

Romans 6:14 - For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.

Inspired by John Owen's A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace:

On the cross Christ Jesus for sinners procured

Sin's pardon, release from guilt and shame.

Under grace not law, believer's liberty secured.

Sin's dominion broken, no longer to reign.

Yet rebellious remnant still seeks to control,

To assert Satan's power, to regain its sway.

Holy Law gives no aid, cannot make one whole.

"Do this and live" points only the way.

God's foolish Word answers: Mercy declared!

Power unto salvation Holy Spirit conveys.

Jesus’ blood and body, food rightly shared,

Faith looks not within but to Christ who was raised.

Sweet exchange, man's sin for Christ's merit proclaimed.

No condemnation, comfort alone in Him found.

Faith-repentance liturgy each day, as

Sinners-Saints plod along solid ground.

-Jack Miller

John Owen on Sin, Law, and Gospel - II

2011-12-27T15:14:00.000-08:00

Continuing from the last post on Owen's A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace - which ended with his question, "But how doth this [the gospel] give relief'" - to the believer - regarding the dethroning of sin and delivering him from its dominion to a life empowered unto godliness under the rule of grace? What follows is a message that needs a hearing and indeed a following in the local church. It is encouraging and strengthening, reinforcing the proclamation of the Gospel of the grace in Christ Jesus administered in both Word and Sacrament. In that glorious gospel we receive through faith not only our justification, but also the transforming power of Christ crucified and risen through the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of sanctification in us unto salvation.

Owen:
"But how doth this [the gospel] give relief? Why, it is the ordinance, the instrument of God, which he [the believer] will use unto this end - namely, the communication of such supplies of grace and spiritual strength as shall eternally defeat the dominion of sin."
This is the one principle difference between the law and the gospel, and was ever so esteemed in the church of God, until all communication of efficacious grace began to be called in question:

Owen here is referring to the corruption of the means of grace in both the preaching of the Word and the right administration of the Sacraments in the medieval and then current Roman church. The two Words of Scripture, law and gospel, had receded from the scene and were no longer employed by the Church in order to bring souls to Christ and build up and strengthen them in faith and godliness. Owen goes on to explain the purposes and limitations of the law regarding sin and the centrality of the gospel administered in breaking the dominion of sin and as the power of God unto salvation for the work of sanctification in the believer.

Owen:
The law guides, directs, commands, all things that are against the interest and rule of sin. It judgeth and condemneth both the things that promote it and the persons that do them; it frightens and terrifies the consciences of those who are under its dominion. But if you shall say unto it, "What then shall we do? this tyrant, this enemy, is too hard for us. What aid and assistance against it will you afford unto us? what power will you communicate unto its destruction?" Here the law is utterly silent, or says that nothing of this nature is committed unto it of God: nay, the strength it hath it gives unto sin for the condemnation of the sinner: "The strength of sin is the law." But the gospel, or the grace of it, is the means and instrument of God for the communication of internal spiritual strength unto believers. By it do they receive supplies of the Spirit or aids of grace for the subduing of sin and the destruction of its dominion....
Hereon then depends, in the first place, the assurance of the apostles's assertion, that "sin shall not have dominion over us," because we are "under grace." We are in such a state as wherein we have supplies in readiness to defeat all the attempts of sin for rule and dominion in us.
But some may say hereon, they greatly fear they are not in this state...
In answer hereunto the things ensuing are proposed: -

Remember what hath been declared concerning the dominion of sin. If it be not known what it is and wherein it doth consist... A clear distinction between the rebellion of sin and the dominion of sin is a great advantage unto spiritual peace.
Consider the end for which aids of grace are granted and communicated by the gospel. Now, this is not that sin may at once be utterly destroyed and consumed in us, that it should have no being, motion, or power in us any more. This work is reserved for glory, in the full redemption of body and soul, which we here do by groan after. But it is given unto us for this end, that sin may be so crucified and mortified in us, - that is, so gradually weakened and destroyed, - as that it shall not ruin spiritual life in us... although our conflict with sin doth continue, although we are perplexed by it, yet we are under grace, and sin shall have no more dominion over us. This is enough for us, that sin shall be gradually destroyed, and we shall have sufficiency of grace on all occasions to prevent its ruling prevalency.
Live in the faith of this sacred truth, and ever keep alive in your souls expectation of supplies of grace suitable thereunto. It is of the nature of true and saving faith, inseparable from it, to believe that the gospel is the way of God's administration of grace for the ruin of sin. He that believes it not believes not the gospel itself, which is "the power of God unto salvation," Rom.1:16... This is the fundamental principle of the gospel state, that we live in expectation of continual communications of life, grace, and strength, from Jesus Christ, who is "our life," and from whose "fulness we receive, and grace for grace."... This faith, hope, and expectation, we are called unto by the gospel; and when they are not cherished, when they are not kept up unto a due exercise, all things will go backward in our spiritual condition.
... Does [sin] take advantage from our darkness and confusion, under troubles, distresses, or temptations? On these and the like occasions it is required that we make especial fervent application unto the Lord Christ for such supplies of grace as may be sufficient and efficacious to control the power of sin in them all. This, under the consideration of his office and authority unto this end, his grace and readiness form special inducements, we are directed unto, Heb. 4:14-16.
... we may be sure we shall not fail of divine assistance, according to the established rule of the administration of gospel of grace.

... the truth stands firm, that "sin shall not have dominion over us, for we are not under the law, but under grace;"... the law gives no liberty of any kind, it gendereth unto bondage, and so cannot free us from any dominion, - not that of sin, for this must be by liberty. But this we have also by the gospel. There is a twofold liberty: - 1. Of state and condition; 2. Of internal operation; and we have both by the gospel...

The first consists in our deliverance from the law and its curse, with all things which claim a right against us by virtue thereof; Satan, death, and hell... This liberty Christ proclaims in the gospel unto all that do believe, Isa.61:1. Hereon they who hear and receive the joyful sound are discharged from all debts, bonds, accounts, rights, and titles, and are brought into a state of perfect freedom. In this state sin can lay no claim to dominion over any one soul. They are gone over into the kingdom of Christ, and out from the power of sin, Satan, and darkness. Herein, indeed, lies the foundation of our assured freedom from the rule of sin. It cannot make an incursion on the kingdom of Christ, so as to carry away any of its subjects into a state of sin and darkness again...

2. ... Again, there is an internal liberty, which is the freedom of the mind from the powerful inward chains of sin... Hereby is the power of sin in the soul destroyed. And this also is given us in the gospel. There is power administered in it to live unto God, and to walk in all his commandments; and this also gives evidence unto the truth of the apostle's assertion.

Thirdly, The law doth not supply us with effectual motives and encouragements to endeavour the ruin of the dominion of sin in a way of duty; which must be done... It works only by fear and dread, with threatenings and terrors... "Do this, and live," yet withal it discovers such an impossibility in our nature to comply with its commands... Now, these things enervate, weaken, and discourage, the soul in its conflict against sin; they give it no life, activity, cheerfulness, or courage, in what is undertaken.

... But the law makes nothing perfect, nor are the motives it gives for the ruin of the interest of sin in us able to bear us out and carry us through that undertaking. Fourthly; Christ is not in the law; he is not proposed in it, not communicated by it, - we are not made partakers of him thereby. This is the work of grace, of the gospel. In it is Christ revealed, by it he is proposed and exhibited unto us; thereby are we made partakers of him and all the benefits of his mediation. And he it is alone who came to, and can, destroy this work of the devil.... This "the Son of God was manifested to destroy." He alone ruins the kingdom of Satan, whose power is acted in the rule of sin. Wherefore, hereunto our assurance of this comfortable truth is principally resolved. And what Christ hath done, and doth, for this end, is a great part of the subject of gospel revelation.

Amen!

John Owen on Sin, Law and Gospel...

2011-12-19T16:28:00.000-08:00

What does a believer need to hear, believe, and do in order to navigate what is called his sanctification? I find there is much out there that helps, yet even more that confuses. In practice where does the power for change come from? Is the Christian life a two track path: one path that celebrates the free gift of forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ (our justification), the other path the believer's job to appropriate the grace and power of the Holy Spirit to battle and find victory over sin and live obediently (our sanctification)? What is the biblical remedy and food that is offered to counter and weaken that remnant of sin that daily seeks to draw the believer off the path of godliness and throw him into despondency?

In John Owen's A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace one finds a most helpful exposition on the role of law and gospel as regards sanctification and more specifically the battle against sin. The book presents a focused teaching built around the Romans 6:14 verse, "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law but under grace" (ASV). For the one who has believed the gospel and received forgiveness of sins by the grace of God in Christ Jesus, the holy law continues to be the righteous, moral standard to which he is still called. It nonetheless, Owen explains, has certain weaknesses and limitations as far as its ability to be a remedy for sin's dominion in the unregenerate or providing any comfort or aid in mortifying sin's continued rebellion within the believer. Below are some gleanings regarding the law from the treatise.

The law falls under a double consideration, but in neither of them was designed to give power of strength against sin:-

As it was given unto mankind in the state of innocency; and it did then absolutely and exactly declare the whole duty of man, whatever God in his wisdom and holiness did require of us. It was God's ruling of man according to the principle of the righteousness wherein he was created. But it gave no new aids against sin; nor was there any need that so it should do. It was not the ordinance of God to administer new or more grace unto man, but to rule and govern him according to what he had received; and this it continueth to do forever. It claims and continues a rule over all men, according to what they had and what they have; but it never had power to bar the entrance of sin, nor to cast it out when it is once enthroned.
As it was renewed and enjoined unto the church of Israel on Mount Sinai, and with them unto all that would join themselves unto the Lord out of the nations of the world. Yet neither was it then, nor as such, designed unto any such end as to destroy or dethrone sin by an administration of spiritual strength and grace. It had some new ends given then unto it, which it had not in its original constitution, the principal whereof was to drive men to the promise, and Christ therein; and this it doth by all the acts and powers of it on the souls of men. As it discovers sin, as it irritates and provokes it by its severity, as it judgeth and condemneth it, as it denounceth a curse on sinners, it drives unto this end; for this was added of grace in the renovation of it, this new end was given unto it. In itself it hath nothing to do with sinners, but to judge, curse, and condemn them. // There is, therefore, no help to be expected against the dominion of sin from the law. It was never ordained of God unto that end; nor doth it contain, nor is it communicative of, the grace necessary unto that end, Rom. viii.3. // Wherefore, those who are "under the law: are under the dominion of sin. "The law is holy." but it cannot make them holy who have made themselves unholy; it is :just," but it cannot make them so, - it cannot justify them whom it doth condemn; it is "good," but can do them no good, as unto their deliverance from the power of sin. God hath not appointed it unto that end. Sin will never be dethroned by it, it will not give place unto the law, neither in its title nor its power.

Those under law...
"will attend unto what the saith, under whose power they are, and endeavour a compliance therewith; many duties shall be performed, and many evils abstained from, in order to the quitting themselves of sin's dominion. But, alas! the law cannot enable them hereunto, - it cannot give them life and strength to go through with what their convictions press them unto; therefore, after a while they begin to faint and wax weary in their progress, and at length give quite over."

Having explained the purpose and limitations of the law, Owen goes on to explain the presence of sin and the role of the gospel in the believer who is no longer under law but under grace.

"Grace" is a word of various acceptations in the Scripture. As we are here said to be under it, and as it is opposed unto the law, it is used or taken for the gospel, as it is the instrument of God for the communication of himself and his grace by Jesus Christ unto those that do believe, with that state of acceptation with himself which they are brought into thereby, Rom. v.1,2. Wherefore, to be "under grace" is to have an interest in the gospel covenant and state, with a right unto all the privileges and benefits thereof, to be brought under the administration of grace by Jesus Christ, - to be a true believer....
Is it that there shall be no sin in them any more? Even this is true in some sense. Sin as unto its condemning power hath no place in this state, Rom. viii.1. All the sins of them that believe are expiated or done away, as to the guilt of them, in the blood of Christ, Heb.i.3; 1 John i.7. This branch of the dominion of sin, which consists in its condemning power, is utterly cast out of the state. But sin as unto its being and operation doth still continue in believers whilst they are in this world; they are all sensible of it...
Wherefore, to be freed from the dominion of sin is not to be freed absolutely from all sin, so as that it should in no sense abide in us any more. This is not to be under grace, but to be in glory...
But the assurance here given is built on other considerations; whereof the first is, that the gospel is the means ordained and instrument used by God for the communication of spiritual strength unto them that believe, for the dethroning of sin. It is the "power of God unto salvation," Rom.i.16, that whereby and wherein he puts forth the his power unto that end... We are absolve, quitted, freed from the rule of sin, as unto its pretended right and title, by the promise of the gospel; for thereby are we freed and discharged from the rule of the law, wherein all the title of sin unto dominion is founded, for "the strength of sin is in the law:" but we are freed from it, as unto its internal power and exercise of its dominion, by the internal spiritual grace and strength in its due exercise. Now, this is communicated by the gospel; it gives life and power, with such continual supplies of grace as are able to dethrone sin, and forever to prohibit its return...
"This you have," saith the apostle, "Ye are not under law, but under grace; of the rule of the grace of God in Christ Jesus, administered in the gospel." But how doth this give relief?

To be continued...

Object of Faith vs. the Act of Faith

2011-11-17T16:22:00.000-08:00

I came across this quote (below) by Martin Luther a while back. Unfortunately I don't remember where I found it. Luther succinctly explains the difference between the object of our faith - Christ Jesus our Saviour - and the strength of that faith which holds as its object Christ alone. We are called to look away from ourselves and the vain focus on our faith - strong or weak, our many sins and weaknesses, our efforts at moral self-improvement, our successes, our failures, our pride. We are to look solely to the One of peerless worth who, for our salvation, lived a perfect life, learning obedience through the things he suffered (Heb 2:10); who bore the penalty of our sins through his death upon the cross, fully satisfying the justice of God. This One who was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven as both Lord and Saviour is now given to believers as their righteousness and sanctification... their full salvation... through simple faith in him.

Martin Luther wrote:
In this Christian brotherhood no man possesses more than another. St. Peter and St. Paul have no more than Mary Magdalene or you or I. To sum up: Taking them all together, they are brothers, and there is no difference between the persons. Mary, the Mother of the Lord, and John the Baptist, and the thief on the cross, they all possess the selfsame good which you and I possess, and all who are baptised and do the Father’s Will. And what have all the saints? They have comfort and help promised them through Christ in every kind of need, against sin, death, and the devil. And I have the same, and you, and all believers have.

But this also is true, that you and I do not believe it so firmly as John the Baptist and St. Paul; and yet it is the one and only treasure. It is the same as when two men hold a glass of wine, one with a trembling, the other with a steady hand. Or when two men hold a bag of money, one in a weak, the other in a strong hand. Whether the hand be strong, or weak, as God wills, it neither adds to the contents of the bag, nor takes away. In the same way there is no other difference here between the Apostles and me, than that they hold the treasure firmer. Nevertheless, I should and must know that I possess the same treasure as all holy Prophets, Apostles, and all saints have possessed.

See-Saw Reform: The Church of England's confused course...

2011-10-21T11:46:00.000-07:00

The duck-billed platypus pictured here has been proposed by some as a sort of "patron" mascot of the Anglican Church, inasmuch as the odd looking creature is hard to define. Bird, mammal, reptile? Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox? By in large I appreciate the intent of the analogy, that being that there is nothing incompatible between that which is truly small 'c' Catholic and truly Protestant. Yet I wonder if this depiction might, unfortunately, be apt for another reason: that it's a metaphor for unresolved tensions in Anglicanism that have their origins in the 16th century reformation of the English Church. What I'm referring to is the battle for the doctrinal soul of the Church of England that began with Thomas Cranmer becoming the Archbishop in 1533 and the subsequent years of reform and compromise in both doctrine and practice.

By the time of his appointment, Cranmer had already had come to accept the essential doctrines of the reformation. Over the next several years he would leave behind the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, as well as accepting only two sacraments (holy communion and baptism) as of the gospel and instituted by Christ. The other five so-called sacraments (confession, marriage, confirmation, anointing of the sick, holy orders), though valid and godly in nature, were not biblically instituted as such nor had they two parts (outward material sign and inward grace) necessary for a sacrament.

Cranmer's reformed path was quite distinct from a large percentage of the bishops who served throughout England at that time. Many of those men were still Roman Catholic in outlook, if not in doctrine and practice. The years leading up to the death of King Henry VIII were marked by a kind of see-saw slow-motion reform... three steps forward, two steps back, so to speak. This was clearly seen in the first attempt at a church confession, the Ten Articles, which was a compromise between the Roman Catholic party and those favoring reform. King Henry as monarch had become the Supreme Head of the Church when England threw off the Pope's authority. As was his wont when deciding doctrinal questions, he selected the committee bishops by appointing equal representation from the Catholic conservatives and the evangelical reformers; the perfect formula for doctrine compromise based on a political consensus rather than Holy Scripture alone.

This was to be the pattern throughout the latter part of Henry's reign. It reflected his own theological ambivalence and ever-changing political concerns. This course set the stage for three developments that stayed with the English Church for the next 100-plus years of back and forth reform. One, it unofficially institutionalized a doctrinal see-saw battle between the Evangelicals and those of the more Catholic/medieval persuasion. Two, it validated a kind of rear-guard action by the Catholic conservative bishops (often in sync with the King or Queen) to preserve or reinstate certain medieval doctrines and practices and resist a fuller reformation of the English Church. Three, the involvement of the Monarch as both head of State and Church guaranteed that political calculations as well as personal religious preferences would intrude themselves in matters of Church doctrine, practice, and further reform.

Experiential Christian goo...

2011-09-21T16:22:00.000-07:00

Back in the 1920's, J. Gresham Machen diagnosed not only the intellectual and theological drift of his day but of the ensuing 90 years. He wrote,

The depreciation of the intellect, with the exaltation in the place of it of the feelings or of the will, is, we think, a basic fact in modern life, which is rapidly leading to a condition in which men neither know anything nor care anything about the doctrinal content of the Christian religion, and in which there is in general a lamentable intellectual decline. (What is Faith?, p.28)

The drift away from theology, i.e. the events of the redemptive-historical drama in the Bible and their meaning (doctrine), left a vacuum that has been gradually filled with other things. The main result has been the rise of both the relational and the experiential as pillars of modern Christianity.

The Aquarius age of the sixties surely ushered in the full-blown relational era. All you need is love, the Beatles sang. I remember as a young Christian in the 1970's hearing the oft prescribed formula for gospel acceptance by the world... they will know you're my disciples by your love for one another. It was no coincidence that Body-life became all the rage. In fact, a popular book came out at that time with that very title by Ray Stedman, who summed up his model for the church this way,

The church is a living organism. In the physical body, the hand moves when the brain says to. So too the members of Jesus’ spiritual body takes direction from Him as our Head. Jesus gives each member gifts and talents, making himself alive within his church. He equips his people to love one another, and to serve in unity his kingdom. This is Body Life.

Jesus gives each member gifts and talents, making himself alive within his church... The relational thus led to the experiential. Sharing one's "experience of Christ" with other Christians in more informal church settings became the cutting edge of body life. What was needed was not dead doctrines, but life supplied from the members of the body of Christ (grace given is now horizontal-relational). And of course this accelerated the already established trend of democratizing truth by elevating the greatest common denominator among believers, a person's subjective experience. Everyone had one! No longer was edification to flow directly from the objective truth of what Christ had accomplished in his death and resurrection for unworthy sinners (doctrine from above). Being built up in Christ now had to do with being touched by someone's testimony of an experience in their life, accompanied by the interpretation of the Holy Spirit's work in that moment. And of course, it was incumbent upon those listening to be appropriately and relationally supportive with "amens" and "praise the Lords." Interestingly, that's not too different from what one finds in any number of different support groups. The means of grace in Word and Sacrament by which sinner/saint is comforted and strengthened in faith was gradually replaced with the partaking of shared testimonies of one another's subjective experiences and mystical worship moments of the corporate sense of "God's Spirit."

Doctrine fell off the radar screen as an ancient and unnecessary appendage that was simply "dead-head knowledge." Faith no longer was fed by hearing and understanding the gospel truths. What one needed was Life which came through the Spirit, who was to be found in one's personal experience. Faith, no longer rooted in the theological objectivity of the gospel, was directed toward the elusive subjective. So, once again Machen's words in the twenties presciently prescribed that which was ahead,

But if theology be thus abandoned, or if rather (to ease the transition) it be made merely the symbolic expression of religious experience, what is to be put into its place?... Mysticism unquestionably is the natural result of the anti-intellectual tendency which now prevails; for mysticism is the consistent exaltation of experience at the expense of thought. (p.35)

A mark of today's evangelical church is the subjective, which has indeed become both the route to God and that which is deemed spiritually authentic. Speak of doctrine or objective biblical truth and eyes begin roll in boredom and pity. Share your experience of a God-moment and heaven has come to earth.

Calvin: The Lord's Supper - the visible gospel...

2011-09-15T10:25:00.000-07:00

I recently finished reading the biography Calvin by Bruce Gordon. Gordon gives a very accessible, balanced portrait of the man, his life and theology and I would recommend it to anyone wanting to learn more about this 16th century reformer. I want to draw from Gordon's chapter on "Healing Christ's Body" to highlight a theme I've touched on before (here, here, and here), the feeding of God's people in the preaching of the gospel and the Lord's Supper:

... when asked in the Genevan catechism why God had instituted the signs of bread and wine, the response was 'the Lord consulted our weakness, teaching us in a more familiar manner that he is not only food to our souls, but drink also, so that we are not to seek any part of spiritual life anywhere else than in him alone'... Gospel and sacrament, for Calvin, are the same but different, and cannot exist without one another. Humans, sensuous creatures that they are, require external forms as aid to faith, and this is what God has provided. Eating the bread and drinking the wine are not simply an act, but together with the Word of God spoken from the pulpit they form the means by which the Christian receives Christ. (p.165)

From A Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, Calvin wrote:

Here, then, is the singular consolation which we derive from the Supper. It directs and leads us to the cross of Jesus Christ and to his resurrection, to certify that whatever iniquity there may be in us, the Lord nevertheless recognises and accepts us as righteous - whatever materials of death may be in us, he nevertheless gives us life - whatever misery may be in us, he nevertheless fills us with all felicity. Or to explain the matter more simply - as in ourselves we are devoid of all good, and have not one particle of what might help to procure salvation, the Supper is an attestation that, having been made partakers of the death and passion of Jesus Christ, we have every thing that is useful and salutary to us.

Gordon continues,

Through the instruments of bread and wine God gives Christ to the people - to receive the symbols (bread and wine) is to receive what they signify (Christ). The dynamic in Calvin's teaching is between knowledge and faith. Through preaching, catechising and schooling the people are taught the nature of God and salvation through Christ. They are instructed in the Christian life. This is the knowledge revealed in scripture and it is the duty of ministers to teach and of laity to learn. But Calvin did not mean mere head learning, as we might call it - facts about religion. In learning of God and Christ a person begins to hunger for that salvation. That is the work of faith, which opens eyes to the reality of sin and the goodness of God. Yet because humans, even the faithful, are weak and sinful, they need to be continually fed. This is the role of preaching and the Lord's Supper [emphasis mine]. (p.166)

Works of Sanctification - Reward found not in their merit...

2011-09-07T14:07:00.000-07:00

Whatever value is indeed received in the works of sanctification by those who trust in Christ, it is accrued to them not by the spirituality or devoutness of their own righteous deeds, but rather on the basis of God's gratuitous grace. And I might add that the grace of God in both our justification and sanctification in Christ is received solely by faith alone.

"Our third and last exception relates to the recompense of works, we maintaining that it depends not on their own value or merit, but rather on the mere benignity of God. Our opponents, indeed, admit that there is no proportion between the merit of the work and its reward; but they do not attend to what is of primary moment in the matter: that is, that the good works of believers are never so pure as that they can please without pardon. They consider not, I say, that they are always sprinkled with some spots or blemishes, because they never proceed from that pure and perfect love of God which is demanded by the law. Our doctrine, therefore, is that the good works of believers are always devoid of a spotless purity which can stand the inspection of God; nay, that when they are tried by the strict rule of justice, they are, to a certain extent, impure. But, when once God has graciously adopted believers, he not only accepts and loves their persons, but their works also, and condescends to honor them with a reward.

"In one word, as we said of man, so we may say of works: they are justified not by their own desert, but by the merits of Christ alone; the faults by which they would otherwise displease being covered by the sacrifice of Christ. This consideration is of very great practical importance, both in retaining men in the fear of God, that they may not arrogate to their works that which proceeds from his fatherly kindness; and also in inspiring them with the best consolation, and so preventing them from giving way to despondency, when they reflect on the imperfection or impurity of their works, by reminding them that God, of his paternal indulgence, is pleased to pardon it."

-The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543), John Calvin.

Faith, what is it?

2011-09-06T15:57:00.000-07:00

Faith is ultimately “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Calvin, Institutes, 1:551 [3.2.7]).

Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures.

An excerpt from Martin Luther -"An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans,"

"Faith is indeed intellectual; it involves an apprehension of certain things as facts; and vain is the modern effort to divorce faith from knowledge. But although faith is intellectual, it is not only intellectual. You cannot have faith without having knowledge; but you will not have faith if you have only knowledge. Faith is the acceptance of a gift at the hands of Christ. We cannot accept the gift without knowing certain things about the gift and about the giver. But we might know all those things and still not accept the gift. We might know what the gift is and still not accept it. Knowledge is thus absolutely necessary to faith, but it is not all that is necessary. Christ comes offering us that right relation to God which He wrought for us on the cross. Shall we accept the gift or shall we hold it in disdain? The acceptance of the gift is called faith, It is a very wonderful thing; it involves a change of the whole nature of man; it involves a new hatred of sin and a new hunger and thirst after righteousness. Such a wonderful change is not the work of man; faith itself is given us by the Spirit of God. Christians never make themselves Christians; but they are made Christians by God."
— J. Gresham Machen

"The true reason why faith is given such an exclusive place by the New Testament, so far as the attainment of salvation is concerned, over against love and over against everything else in man...is that faith means receiving something, not doing something or even being something. To say, therefore, that our faith saves us means that we do not save ourselves even in slightest measure, but that God saves us."
— J. Gresham Machen (What Is Faith?)

"This is why Paul upholds the teaching of the gospel in such a forceful way ... Seeing such an example and such a picture of man’s great weakness and fickleness, Paul states that the truth of the gospel must supersede anything that we may devise … he is showing us that we ought to know the substance of the doctrine which is brought to us in the name of God, so that our faith can be fully grounded upon it. Then we will not be tossed about with every wind, nor will we wander about aimlessly, changing our opinions a hundred times a day; we will persist in this doctrine until the end. This, in brief, is what we must remember."
— John Calvin (Sermons on Galatians)

Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 86. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.

Our Testimony on Justification - The Faculty of Westminster Seminary California:
Faith and faith alone is the instrument that looks away from self to Jesus and receives the imputation of his [Christ's] perfect righteousness. (p. 438, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry)

The Gospel bottom line - not by any works...

2011-08-29T15:40:00.000-07:00

In his book "What Is Faith" J. Gresham Machen wrote:

The man who has felt the burden of his sin roll away at the sight of the Cross, who has said of the Lord Jesus, "He loved me and gave Himself for me," who has sung with Toplady: "Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling"-- that man knows in his heart of hearts that the Apostle is right, that to trust Christ only for part is not to trust Him at all, that our own righteousness is insufficient even to bridge the smallest gap which might be left open between us and God, that there is no hope unless we can safely say to the Lord Jesus, without shadow of reservation, without shadow of self-trust: "Thou must save, and Thou alone." (p. 194)

The affirmation of the gospel's bottom line, the simple truth that cuts against the grain of the pride of our own works, can be found in Romans 4:

4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: ⁷ "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

Faith offers nothing to God. If it did, it would be a work and thus anything received would be that which was owed to it. Rather, faith simply trusts in Christ, receiving that which man needs but cannot supply, i.e. perfect works of righteousness that meet the standard of God's holy law. In not counting our many sins against us, God declares us righteous by faith apart from any works done by us. The securing of our salvation is (thankfully) out of our hands. We need salvation, not renovation. We look not to our works as a means of entrance into salvation nor as a surety to retain that salvation. It is all of grace, and our only glorying and boast is in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior, who bore the penalty of our sins upon the cross. And yet, there are good works in our lives. But these works are not evidences of any inherent righteousness within us now. Rather our good deeds, though imperfect, are acceptable offerings to God through faith and flow forth as a grateful response to grace bestowed, the fruit of trust in Christ alone.

More from J. Gresham Machen in "What Is Faith" -

"That is the centre of the Christian religion--the absolutely undeserved and sovereign grace of God, saving sinful men by the gift of Christ upon the cross. Condemnation is earned by men; salvation is given by God" ( p.194).
"If our salvation depended upon what we have done, then, according to Paul, we should still be bondslaves; we should still be endeavouring feverishly to keep God's law so well that at the end we might possibly win His favour. It would be a hopeless endeavour because of the deadly guilt of sin; we should be like debtors endeavouring to pay, but in the very effort getting deeper and deeper into debt. But as it is, in accordance with the gospel, God has granted us His favour as an absolutely free gift; He has brought us into right relation to Himself not on the basis of any merit of ours, but altogether on the basis of the merit of Christ. Great is the guilt of our sins; but Christ took it all upon Himself when He died for us on Calvary. We do not need, then, to make ourselves good before we become God's children; but we can come to God just as we are, all laden with our sins, and be quite certain that the guilt of sin will be removed and the we shall be received. When God looks upon us, to receive us or to cast us off, it is not we that He regards but our great Advocate, Christ Jesus the Lord. // Such is the glorious certainty of the gospel. The salvation of the Christian is certain because it depends altogether upon God; if it depended in lightest measure upon us, the certainty of it would be gone. Hence appears the vital importance of the great Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone; that doctrine is at the very centre of Christianity" (p. 200).

Of Justification and Sanctification...

2011-08-24T12:16:00.000-07:00

What sanctification is and how it operates in our lives as believers in Christ has been an ongoing topic of inquiry of mine for some time. Being that the human heart at times can so easily deceive itself and revert to a subtle and deceptive form of works righteousness, upsetting our comfort and assurance, I thought it would be helpful to put together the relevant articles and chapters on Justification and Sanctification from the following:

The Belgic Confession

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

The Heidelberg Catechism

The Westminster Confession of Faith

The Westminster Shorter Catechism

The Westminster Larger Catechism

I've highlighted certain portions that I struck me as especially important as regards our justification or righteousness by faith in Christ, the process of sanctification and what it contains.

BC-Article XIII: Of Justification
We believe that our salvation consists in the remission of our sins for Jesus Christ's sake, and that therein our righteousness before God is implied: as David and Paul teach us, declaring this to be the happiness of man, that God imputes righteousness to him without works. And the same apostle saith, that we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ. And therefore we always hold fast this foundation, ascribing all the glory to God, humbling ourselves before him, and acknowledging ourselves to be such as we really are, without presuming to trust in any thing in ourselves, or in any merit of ours, relying and resting upon the obedience of Christ crucified alone, which becomes ours, when we believe in him. This is sufficient to cover our iniquities, and to give us confidence in approaching to God; freeing the conscience of fear, terror and dread, without following the example of our first father, Adam, who, trembling, attempted to cover himself with fig-leaves. And verily if we should appear before God, relying on ourselves, or on any other creature, though ever so little, we should, alas! be consumed. And therefore every one must pray with David: O Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

39 Articles-XI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

WCF_Chapter XI: Of Justification
I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.
III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf. Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.
V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.

WSC-Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

WLC-Question 70: What is justification?
Answer: Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardons all their sins, accepts and accounts their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

WLC-Question 71: How is justification an act of God's free grace?
Answer: Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet inasmuch as God accepts the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

WLC-Question 72: What is justifying faith?
Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

WLC-Question 73: How does faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
Answer: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness.

HC-Question 61. Why sayest thou, that thou art righteous by faith only?
Answer: Not that I am acceptable to God, on account of the worthiness of my faith; but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, is my righteousness before God; and that I cannot receive and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only.

BC-Article XIV: Of man's Sanctification and Good Works
We believe that this true faith being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being true, that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man: for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith, which is called in Scripture, a faith that worketh by love, which excites man to the practice of those works, which God has commanded in his Word. Which works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by his grace: howbeit they are of no account towards our justification. For it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works; otherwise they could not be good works, any more than the fruit of a tree can be good, before the tree itself is good. Therefore we do good works, but not to merit by them, (for what can they merit?) nay, we are beholden to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he that worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Let us therefore attend to what is written: when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do. In the meantime, we do not deny that God rewards our good works, but it is through his grace that he crowns his gifts. Moreover, though we do good works, we do not found our salvation upon them; for we do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them. Thus then we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences continually vexed, if they relied not on the merits of the suffering and death of our Savior.

39 Articles-XII. Of Good Works.
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

WCF-Chapter XIII: Of Sanctification
I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

WSC-Q. 35. What is sanctification?
A. Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.

WLC-Question 75: What is sanctification?
Answer: Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.

WLC-Question 77: Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
Answer: Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputes the righteousness of Christ;in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace, and enables to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one does equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.

HC-Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?
Answer: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.

WLC-Question 78: Whence arises the imperfection of sanctification in believers?
Answer: The imperfection of sanctification in believers arises from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit; whereby they are often foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins, are hindered in all their spiritual services, and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God.

HC-Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?
Answer: This reward is not of merit, but of grace.

Sanctification makes us righteous?

2011-08-19T15:34:00.000-07:00

In summing up the differences between justification and sanctification, Kevin DeYoung in an online essay at The Gospel Coalition writes: "One reckons us righteous; the other makes us righteous. One allows for no increase or degrees; the other expects progress and growth. One is a declaration of God about us, the other a work of God in us."

I'm having difficulty with the description of sanctification as that which "makes us righteous." I think, at best, it is a confusing phrase. When Kevin writes that sanctification "expects progress and growth", I take it he is referring back to the phrase makes us righteous. So, is sanctification a process of being made more and more righteous? One hang-up with that construction is that it implies one can be partially righteous. Kind of like the oxymoron of a woman being "almost pregnant." She either is or she isn't. I don't see how there can be such a thing as partial righteousness. If a work is righteous then it is without any imperfection or impurity. And in this life that will never be the case as taught in the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 78. Whence ariseth the imperfection of sanctification in believers?

A. The imperfection of sanctification in believers ariseth from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit; whereby they are often foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins, are hindered in all their spiritual services, and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God.

Now what I am not saying is that in response to the gospel believers do not exhibit good works in their lives or grow in those godly characteristics that are called "the fruit of the Spirit." Clearly where true faith exists there will be evidence (good works) of a new heart and right-will born of the Spirit, works that are nonetheless imperfect (not righteous in and of themselves). A new direction unto righteousness will be there, evidence of our faith in Christ. This, of course, is the point of Martin Luther's quote, "We are saved by faith alone but not by faith that is alone."

But I don't think one should say that the good works of a believer are evidence of a growing or progressing righteousness within the believer which seems to be a logical inference from the above definition of sanctification. Rather, aren't good works evidence of a true and lively faith, as taught in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the WCF and the WLC:

XII. Of Good Works.
ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

WCF 16.2 states, "These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith...." The WLC speaks in a similar way, of "the good works that are the fruits" of the "faith [that] justifies a sinner in the sight of God...."

I take the above to be simply saying that good works are to a lively faith what fruit is to a tree. And it is faith that apprehends the righteousness of Christ, "But the righteous shall live by faith." John Calvin wrote, "In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified; and that the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause" (Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote). So I don't think we can say that good works are evidence of a progressing righteousness within us. Instead, they are evidence of having found complete salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. It is all His accomplishment. But hasn't God foreordained believers to be conformed to the image of His Son?. Yes, His work. And aren't we exhorted "to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work"?... indeed, but isn't that fruit in every good work still imperfect?

Sanctification is a "work of God in us." Yet, by defining this work as that which makes us righteous, I find my eyes deceptively drawn away from Christ's provision of pardon and perfect obedience on my behalf to a mixed-motive heart inside of me. Inevitably, I'm searching within for evidence of that which supposedly should be produced by sanctification. For what I long for is true righteousness in me. But it is not to be found there, unless of course, I entertain a weak view of sin and righteousness, which is just another way of saying it isn't there. And where has faith gone? It has been assigned a bystander role as I vainly work to progress along a righteousness-making path. To the HC:

Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?

Answer: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.

Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?

Answer: This reward is not of merit, but of grace.

The acceptance of our imperfect works as righteous is not of their deservings but of God's grace. The already but not yet formulation is applicable here. We are already accounted righteous for Christ's sake, but in this life not yet righteous... whether partially or in whole. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (1 Cor. 5:21).

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

(1 John 3:2-3)

Our faith is built upon Thy promise free...

2011-08-14T18:29:00.000-07:00

In this morning's worship we opened with the hymn I Greet Thee, Who My Sure Redeemer Art. I so enjoyed singing this song of praise and worship that I decided to google it in order to find out who wrote it. Although not dispositive, there is evidence that it was written by John Calvin. Yes, I know the RPW psalmody-only-chorus will object and point out that Calvin was a Psalms-only-man and that the hymn could very well have been penned by Jean Garnier. For purposes of this post it is really not an issue. But here is a blip that weighs in for Calvin:

The hymn first appeared in the 1545 Strasbourg Psalter, the very same year Calvin produced the new liturgy for his old congregation. Is it not possible that he wrote the hymn for them too? According to Philip Schaff, it was also discovered in ‘an old Genevese prayer-book.’ (Christ in Song, Anson Randolph, New York, 1869, 678). While external evidence might not be conclusive (see Bushell, op.cit., [Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, Crown and Covenant Publications, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1980."] p.199, n. 56), strong internal evidence of style and piety comparing the hymn with Calvin’s recorded prayers arguably strengthens Schaff’s case for Calvin’s authorship of the hymn.

The Westminster Directory of Public Worship (1645) article by Alan Clifford, 1989

The lyrics:
I greet thee, who my sure Redeemer art,
My only trust and Saviour of my heart,
Who pain didst undergo for my poor sake;
I pray thee from our hearts all cares to take.

Thou art the King of mercy and of grace,
Reigning omnipotent in every place:
So come, O King, and our whole being sway;
Shine on us with the light of thy pure day.

Thou art the life, by which alone we live,
And all our substance and our strength receive;
O comfort us in death's approaching hour,
Strong-hearted then to face it by thy pow'r.

Thou hast the true and perfect gentleness,
No harshness hast thou and no bitterness:
Make us to taste the sweet grace found in thee
And ever stay in thy sweet unity.

Our hope is in no other save in thee;
Our faith is built upon thy promise free;
O grant to us such stronger hope and sure
That we can boldly conquer and endure.

In particular I loved the last stanza and, in light several of my recent posts (here, here, and here) on faith, I want to expand on "Our faith is built upon thy promise free." His promise free, the gospel, is the food that feeds and builds our faith.

3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness... 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all...
(Romans 4) ESV

In the ears of the hearer, the proclamation of the good news of God's free and gratuitous salvation in Christ Jesus is that which initiates, nourishes, and builds faith. That growing faith in Christ alone, apart from any works of our own, is at the center of what strengthens our sure hope and is inseparable from our sanctification... our conquering and endurance. This faith is not some empty effort exerted by the hearer, but a work and gift of the Spirit who, through the preaching of the Word, presents Christ crucified as food to his people... the sure and only refuge in their sojourn. The presentation of God's free promise of righteousness through faith to all that believe is food for the soul on every Lord's day. And it is reinforced as the Lord's people partake of Christ's body and blood in the Supper. In the words of the Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer:

HE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.
HE Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.

Personally, I'm partial to the idea that this hymn was composed by Calvin. But regardless of who was the author, the truths contained therein are both solid and eternal.

John Stott, R.I.P. - By Michael Potemra - The Corner - National Review Online

2011-07-27T22:32:00.000-07:00

John Stott, R.I.P. - By Michael Potemra - The Corner - National Review Online

The first book I read after being brought to faith in college (1972) was John Stott's "Basic Christianity. He was a man of the gospel of Christ in the Anglican Church which over the last fifty years has had few such men of God.

Almighty God, we do thank you for this Thy servant and shepherd of Thy people.

Faith, Law, Gospel...

2011-07-23T11:54:00.000-07:00

As you surely know, often throughout a church service, and specifically in the sermon, one hears the word faith. The faith of the gospel, faith in God, faith in Jesus, our faith... This word is central to what a Christian is, yet oddly enough not always clearly understood nor explained. What does faith mean? How is it found? How is it nourished? Faith in his grace? Faith in Jesus... his example? Faith in the power of the Holy Spirit? These questions are more important than might otherwise seem apparent. The references to faith most often seem to come in the appeals and exhortations to godly living, finding the blessing of God, and other admonitions to obedience. One may, not surprisingly, come to think, "I need to have more faith so that I'll be more obedient to God." Thus faith becomes a means of climbing the ladder of obedience to God's law.

Coming to faith in Christ and growing in that faith is a work of God's Spirit. It, initially and always, is linked to God's law - his holy commands, our utter sinfulness as exposed by that law and its terrible judgment, and the unmerited, gratuitous remedy secured by Jesus Christ through his death and resurrection. Apart from the intersection of God's law and God's good news in Christ there is no Biblical faith.

A little book, not well known except in some Reformed circles, is "What Is Faith" by J. Gresham Machen. Some selected excerpts:

In the Bible, then, it is not merely God as Creator who is the object of faith, but also, and primarily, God as Redeemer from sin. We fear God because of our guilt; but we trust Him because of His grace. We trust Him because He has brought us by the Cross of Christ, despite all our sin, into His holy presence. Faith in God depends altogether upon His redeeming work. (p 87)
... it is impossible to have faith in a person without having knowledge of that person; faith is always based upon knowledge. (p 88)
We are committing to Him the most precious thing that we possess--our own immortal souls... It is a stupendous act of trust. And it can be justified only by an appeal to facts. (p 93)

From Chapter IV: Faith Born of Need -
... if we are to trust Jesus, we must come to Him personally and individually with some need of the soul which He alone can relieve.
That need of the soul from which Jesus alone can save is sin. But when I say "sin," I do not mean merely the sins of the world or the sins of other people, but I mean your sin--your sin and mine...
The true conviction of sin appears as the prerequisite of faith in a verse in the Epistle of Galatians, which describes in briefest compass the true Christian way of approach to Christ. "Wherefore," says Paul, "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." No doubt Paul is referring specifically to the law of Moses as the schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ; but we are fully justified in giving the verse a far wider application....
The law of Moses, according to Paul, was a schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ because it produced the consciousness of sin. But if so, it is natural to suppose that any revelation of the law of God which, like the law of Moses, produces the consciousness of sin may similarly serve as a schoolmaster unto Christ... However the law is manifested, then, whether in the Old Testament, or (still more clearly) in the teaching and example of Jesus, in in the voice of conscience, it may be a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ if it produces the consciousness of sin...
Certainly if there be no absolute law of God, where can be o consciousness of sin; and if there be no consciousness of sin, there can be no faith in the Saviour Jesus Christ. It is no wonder that many persons regard Jesus merely as the initiator of a "Christ life" into which they are perfectly able, without more ado, to enter; it is no wonder that they regard their lives as differing only in degree from His. They will never catch a real glimpse of the majesty of His Person and they will never understand His redeeming work, until they come again into contact with the majesty of the law. Then and then only will they recognize their sin and need, and so some to that renunciation of all confidence in themselves which is the basis of faith...
No man can call Jesus friend who does not also call Him Lord; and no man can call Him Lord who could not say first: "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord." At the root of all true companionship with Jesus, therefore, is the consciousness of sin and with it the reliance upon His mercy; to have fellowship with Him it is necessary to learn the terrible lesson of God's law...
... putting into practice "the principles of Christ" by one's own efforts--these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's own obedience to God's commands. And they are undertaken because of a lax view of what those commands are. So it always is: a low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace.

Is the lesson of the law that we should obey (which of course we should)? No, rather the law exposes our utter inability to meet its demands as well as our enmity with God in that we are inherently inclined toward disobedience. The lesson of the law (thankfully) is to convince us that we are indeed miserable offenders, to bring us, again and again, to an end of trust in ourselves and cause us to flee to the grace of God in the gospel of Christ. It is faith that receives the gift of forgiveness of sin and justification offered in Christ and it is faith that holds it. As the old hymn states, "all other ground is sinking sand." I like to think of this as something like the liturgy of the Christian life: law, guilt, repentance, faith in Christ alone, grateful renewed direction in godly living. And it is in this liturgy of life that faith grows as it increasingly apprehends its object, Christ crucified. All glory and thanks thus be to God, by the merits and mediation of Christ Jesus our Lord.

More food for thought on preaching...

2011-07-11T19:00:00.000-07:00

Following up on my two posts (here and here) concerning feeding the sheep through word and sacrament, I want to present a couple of imperfect analogies to hopefully amplify what I think is lacking in much of the preaching in churches today.

As a thumbnail sketch, most pastors preach from the Bible. There is usually a text upon which the sermon is based. The passage is often presented in terms of its historical, doctrinal, and character settings. As one listens, he may hear that God is loving, gives grace, and that there is much to be thankful for as a believer. The listener is encouraged to trust in God's faithfulness as lessons are drawn from the verses. The believer is admonished to go forth with renewed obedience trusting in the ever-present help of the Holy Spirit. In the same way God was faithful to [list any number of Biblical characters], he is faithful to you, the present day believer. As the song says, "trust and obey - there's no other way..." What is missing?

Analogy #1:
Imagine you are plagued with a failing heart, one riddled with disease. You have an operation scheduled with a skilled surgeon. You go to the hospital. You're taken into the operating room and the doctor enters. From his scholarly medical books he begins laying out before you the procedures that have been developed over many years that have been shown to be successful in curing heart disease. He explains in detail the countless individuals who have benefited from these amazing techniques. Step by step and precept upon precept the medical procedure is detailed. He concludes by explaining how one can go forth and live a normal life as a result of this amazing wonder of medicine. He smiles, shakes your hand, gives you a bill, and then leaves having finished what he came to do.

Analogy #2:
Imagine that you and many others have been invited to a dinner party hosted by a highly-trained chef. You arrive at the restaurant. Upon entering the reserved dining room you observe an elaborately prepared setting. The finest linen, expensive china dinnerware, sterling silver utensils, and fine crystal glasses adorn the table. Everyone sits down. The chef enters. Appetites are whetted and hopes run high for a much anticipated and needed satisfying feast.

The chef then opens his cookbook and spends the next forty minutes describing how the meal is prepared. He shows pictures of each course of the dinner while reciting all the ingredients with their proportions and nutritional values. Most of all, he stresses how delicious, healthful, and sustaining the food is. He then thanks everyone for coming, bids them farewell until the next dinner party. The people leave, duly impressed and yet wondering what the aching, empty feeling in their stomach could mean. You think to yourself, "if only I can remember these recipes and apply them better to my life..."

Conclusion:
Sheep need to hear why they are hungry... they are prone to look for food in all the wrong places. This the Bible identifies as sin. "For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water" (Jer. 2:13) and "Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." (John 6: 27).  Yes, even as Christians we all too often trust in our own judgments and seek our own misguided paths of self-righteousness. Or even more often, we settle into the dull despair of guilt and condemnation, wondering whether there is just something uniquely wrong with us (unlike other Christians!), keeping at a distance the blessings of God. In this life this will always be the default position for the sinner/saint. He believes in Christ and yet he is often wandering in the fog of his own failed devices. He senses something is wrong within him. Exhortations to "trust and obey" only exacerbate the feelings of failure and spiritual hunger.

* Pastors, identify what is going on in your sheep. Diagnose it for what it is... our sinful natures that still wage war against the spirit. Though saved by the grace of God, sheep come to the church service wearied and dirtied with the dust of the week's past sojourn. And then having thus rightly diagnosed the inward reality of doubt and self-directed ways of the sheep, wash their feet by once again dispensing the heavenly food that is the message of God's righteousness which comes by faith.  Proclaim the cleansing and refreshing Good News of Christ crucified which proclamation renews, sustains, and nourishes the believer's faith.

"Oh people of God, what you have failed to do as directed in this passage; that which, in fact, you are unable to do no matter how much effort you exert... i.e. to trust and obey in thought, word, and deed, to live righteously... Jesus has accomplished for you by his perfect obedience. And even more! Jesus, by his shedding of blood in his death on the cross, cleanses you from all the filth of your sin which so stubbornly clings to your conscience."

In a nutshell, Christians need to hear that even after having become believers, the sin with which they are so easily entangled, that which in their minds and according to the Law disqualifies them, is in fact that which qualifies them for one glorious thing - the measureless grace of God displayed in Christ, the food of heaven. So then their eyes may be turned again away from themselves, from their lack of obedience and faithfulness, unto the crucified Christ's all-sufficient sacrificial love and triumphant resurrection that assures our righteous standing before our holy Father now, tomorrow, and forever. This message of God's good news, this food of the Gospel feeds faith and does truly bring forth the fruit of righteousness through faith, though still imperfect in this life (it doesn't need to be!). This leads to that grateful obedience to Him (not to bolster my standing in my own eyes, God's or others) as taught in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion:
XII. Of Good Works.
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Believers-still-sinners are fed through the Gospel preached which nourishes a true and lively faith. Good works do necessarily follow as fruit of that faith, not as evidence of our own goodness. Thus Christians are encouraged to go forth not looking to themselves, but with eyes of faith fixed on Christ Jesus - resting and trusting in God's amazing love and grace.

And I will bring Israel back to his pasture and he will graze on Carmel and Bashan, and his desire will be satisfied in the hill country of Ephraim and Gilead.  In those days and at that time,’ declares the LORD, ‘search will be made for the iniquity of Israel, but there will be none; and for the sins of Judah, but they will not be found; for I will pardon those whom I leave as a remnant.’ (Jer. 50: 19-20)

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.  For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. (Rom 5: 6-10)

The Ohio Anglican.blog: Alban the Protomartyr of Britain

2011-06-22T21:46:00.000-07:00

The Ohio Anglican.blog: Alban the

Protomartyr of Britain

Alban the Protomartyr of Britain
St. Alban was born in the third century in Roman Britain, and was martyred around 304. According to the English Christian historian, the Venerable Bede, Alban was a pagan, and a soldier in the Roman Army.

Alban offered refuge to a Christian priest named Amphibalus during a persecution. The priest ended up converting him, and when soldiers arrived at his home, Alban dressed in the priest's clothes to protect him. Alban was taken prisoner allowing the priest to flee. When compelled to offer sacrifice to the pagan gods, Alban refused to renounce his new faith, and was beheaded as a consequence. He thus became the first Christian martyr in Britain. The second was the executioner who was to kill him, but who heard his testimony and was so impressed that he became a Christian on the spot, and refused to kill Alban. The third was the priest, who when he learned that Alban had been arrested in his place, hurried to the court in the hope of saving Alban by turning himself in. The place of their deaths is near the site of St. Alban's Cathedral today.

The Collect.

ALMIGHTY God, by whose grace and power thy holy martyr Alban triumphed over suffering, and despised death: Grant, we beseech thee, that enduring hardness, and waxing valiant in fight, we may with the noble army of martyrs receive the crown of everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Him We Proclaim...

2011-06-20T11:27:00.000-07:00

If there was only one book that a pastor had to read on preaching from the pulpit, my enthusiastic recommendation would be Him We Proclaim - Preaching Christ From All The Scriptures by Dr. Dennis E. Johnson, Professor of Practical Theology at Westminster Calif. But not only pastors... this is a valuable resource for any Christian who wants to understand how to read the Scriptures in order to strengthen faith and hold fast the hope of the gospel.

Early on in my Christian life I was exposed, like many, to the understanding that the purpose of preaching was to present Christ to the listeners. Depending on one's template that can mean different things. Is the purpose of preaching to edify believers? to lead them into a mystical experience of Christ? to encourage Christians to live as Jesus did by the Spirit's power? to heal hurts and correct dysfunctional living? Dr. Johnson addresses this question and more as he clearly sets forth the Christ to be preached as the Christ of the gospel of grace as revealed throughout God's redemptive history in the Bible - a proclamation sufficient for both our justification and sanctification. To paraphrase the Westminster Shorter Catechism, sinners effectually convinced and converted by the Word through the Spirit of God are, by that very same Word, built up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation; faith that continues to grow as it is nourished by and relies upon the gospel of grace found in the finished work of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

At The White Horse Inn Michael Horton conducts an excellent interview with Dr. Johnson on the topic of the book. Please listen, it is really worth the time.

To give the reader a taste of Dr. Johnson's book, below are some excerpts from early parts of the book.

Dr. Johnson provides this helpful quote of Jay Adam's to set the stage:
"I am convinced that the purpose is of such vital importance to all a preacher does that it ought to control his thinking and actions from start to finish in the preparation and delivery of sermons." (p. 25)

Regarding the purpose of preaching:
"Second, one's understanding of the purpose of preaching is controlled by one's theology proper, theological anthropology, and soteriology... A particular diagnosis of our human malady and corresponding prescription of divine cure will produce one sort of sermon rather than another, and will seek one sort of response from the hearers rather than another." (p.26)

Dr. Johnson highlights Tim Keller's view:
"Christians are constantly tempted to relapse into legalistic attitudes in their pursuit of sanctification, so we never out grow our need to hear the good news of God's free and sovereign grace in Christ. Sanctification, no less than justification must come by grace alone, through faith alone - we grow more like Christ only growing more consistent in trusting Christ alone, thinking, feeling, acting in line with the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14). From this grace alone can flow true sanctification, motivated by gratitude and empowered by the Spirit. We need to repent not only of our sins but also of our righteousness - our efforts at self-atonement in lieu of surrender to the all-sufficient grace of Christ... Keller insists that the same gospel that introduces people into the family of God is the power that transforms them as children of God... The gospel is not just the A-B-C's but the A to Z of Christianity [footnote 71]" (pp. 55-56, 59)

Dr. Johnson:
"We cannot evaluate our own strengths and weaknesses in preaching, nor our progress in strengthening strengths and minimizing weaknesses, unless we know what preaching is suppose to do, what purpose it is to accomplish." (p. 63)

"Preaching is God's instrument to elicit faith, thereby uniting us to Christ and his community." (p.67)

"Therefore, the same gospel that initially called us to faith is the means that perfects us in faith. As surely as Christ's obedience, death, and resurrection constitute the all-sufficient, once-for-all ground of our justification by faith, so also Christ's righteous life, sacrificial death, and vindication in resurrection power are the fount from which flows our sanctification by faith as we now grow in grace. The preaching that matures and edifies, no less than the preaching that evangelizes and converts, calls believers not beyond the gospel to deeper mysteries (as some were promising the Colossian Christians - Col. 2:16-23) but more deeply into the gospel and its implications for our attitudes, affections, motivations, and actions... [see Col. 2:6-7, Therefore, as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him...]... The Christian walk follows the path already laid out in the gospel by which Christ was first received, namely the path of faith, with thanksgiving for amazing grace." (pp 68-69)

"Apostolic preaching addresses human needs in all their diversity and depth. It does not just apply bandages to felt needs, which are symptoms of secret infection. When God does the diagnosis through his whole Word, he pierces through the surface symptoms all the way to the heart, with the radical cure of God's holy truth exposing our infection n all its ugliness and applying Christ's amazing grace in all its sweetness and strength." (p.71)

"Paul preached nothing but Christ because he knew Jesus to be the supreme revealer of God the Creator and the only reconciler of God's people." (p. 75)

"... Paul's single, Christocentric message: redemptive history and grace... Preaching Christ is preaching the fulfillment of God's redemptive plan for history." (p. 78)

"Preaching Christ is preaching grace... Preaching Christ as Paul preached Christ, however, is preaching grace as the sole source and rationale of salvation and transformation from start to finish: grace that imparts life to the spiritually dead, grace that imputes righteousness to the guilty, grace that instills the Spirit's power in those otherwise impotent to want or to do good, grace that holds fast the feeble and fainting, securing pilgrim's arrival at the destination in glory. Grace points hearers to the sovereign, saving initiative and intervention of God to do for guilty and paralyzed sinners what we could never do for ourselves, not even with heavenly help" (p. 81)

Get Him We Proclaim here and read it!

Dispensing Food - Word and Sacrament...

2011-06-14T22:40:00.000-07:00

In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer - The Ordering of Priests, as a new minister is ordained the Bishop exhorts: And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Following up on my last post, "Feed My Sheep" - Preach Good News, which presents the view that the preaching of the Word is not primarily the giving of Biblical truths and information. It is not intended to be basically a means of exhortation to more godly living. The preaching of the Word is a means of grace by which Christ feeds his sheep. And this food is the Gospel; specifically the righteousness of God received through faith.

Jesus himself makes the point in the Gospels that all of Scripture points to Him. He is its main character. His mission as the Lamb of God, the Redeemer of his people is the central drama.

John 5:  ³⁹ Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; ⁴⁰ and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.
Luke 24:  (Jesus and the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus) ²⁵ And he said unto them , O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! ²⁶ Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? ²⁷ And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself... (later, Jesus with the apostles) ⁴⁴ And he said unto them , These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me.⁴⁵ Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures; ASV

The above passage in Luke makes the point that not only did Jesus show that the entire Scripture foretold and spoke of him, but the he "interpreted to them in all the scriptures the thing concerning himself." As J. Gresham Machen points out in Christianity and Liberalism, "But Jesus announced not only an event; He announced also the meaning of the event. It is natural, indeed, that the full meaning could be made clear only after the event had taken place. If Jesus really came, then, to announce, and to bring about, an event, the disciples were not departing from His purpose, if they set forth the meaning of the event more fully than it could be set forth during the preliminary period constituted by the earthly ministry of their Master."

And this is what I think Paul was getting at in 1 Corinthians 1 when he states "but we preach Christ crucified"; and continuing he writes, "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption." The heart and purpose of the preaching of the Word is the putting forth of this good news - Christ crucified and the meaning (doctrine) of his life lived, his death and resurrection - as indispensable daily food - for the believer. This must necessarily be presented as the context for all that is preached by the preacher precisely because the demands of the God's holy law, whether that in our conscience or that revealed in the Mosaic Covenant are woven into the very image of man and throughout all of Scripture. The law demands sinlessness and perfect obedience - that which we do not have. The gospel gives complete pardon for sin and a perfect righteousness received though faith - by the life lived and the sacrificial death and life-giving resurrection of Jesus Christ. As believers our sustenance cannot be found in the sacrifice of our obedience and good works offered to God. No, our spiritual nourishment can only be found in Christ's sacrifice, his obedience and good works offered to God for the ungodly. It is to this that the Holy Spirit points and bear witness.

Let's look back at that passage in Luke 24 and road to Emmaus account.
²⁷ And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. ²⁸ And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go further. ²⁹ And they constrained him, saying, Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in to abide with them. ³⁰ And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the bread and blessed; and breaking it he gave to them. ³¹ And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. ³² And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures? ASV

Here we have the repetition of the Lord's Supper which Jesus instituted before his crucifixion. He blesses the bread, breaks it, and gives it to his disciples. From his Commentary on this passage Matthew Henry writes: "See how Christ by his Spirit and grace makes himself known to the souls of his people. He opens the Scriptures to them. He meets them at his table, in the ordinance of the Lord's supper; is known to them in breaking of bread. But the work is completed by the opening of the eyes of their mind..." The opening of the Scriptures and the breaking of bread work together to communicate Christ's saving benefits to the one who hears and receives.

Q. 96. What is the Lord’s Supper?
A. The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his death is showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace. (Westminster Shorter Catechism)

Article XXVIII Of The Lord's Supper reads in part: ... it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ... The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. (The 39 Articles of Religion)

In the Lord's Supper the Holy Spirit gives and through faith we receive the spiritual body and blood of Christ - the grace of his sacrifice for the pardon of our sins and his perfect righteousness as our own. Thus in the Supper we eat and drink with thanksgiving the very same spiritual food, i.e. the Gospel, as proclaimed in the preaching of the Word, both being effectual means of God's grace for our justification and our sanctification. The good news of Christ our righteousness proclaimed in the preaching of the Word thus strengthens and informs our faith as we then come to the Table receiving the same spiritual benefits dispensed in bread and cup.

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah.  In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.  In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.' (Jeremiah 33:14-16) ESV

"Feed My sheep" - Preach Good News

2011-06-10T13:23:00.000-07:00

^{Gospel food for thought...}

¹⁵ So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. -John 21

In the passage from which the above verse is taken, Peter is commanded twice by Jesus to "feed" his lambs or sheep and once to "tend" his sheep. What does this mean? What is feeding the sheep? What is the food, and what is it aimed at, i.e. what is nourished or strengthened by that food? Whatever the answers, Jesus emphasizes its importance by twice commanding Peter, "Feed My..." This command is at the heart of what should be more in focus when it comes to the preaching of sermons, for it leads to a fundamental question - "what is the purpose of preaching?" Is it to teach? to edify? to inform as to the how to's of Christian living? How the question is answered will determine what will be offered to the sheep by the preacher.

Cutting to the chase - I don't think the sermon is primarily intended to show us how to live the Christian life. It is not essentially an essay of Biblical truth communicated through properly exegeted passages of Scripture in order that believers would walk in a godly manner. It is not implicitly or explicitly intended to be an "if - then" message to God's people. If you trust, if you believe this, if you allow the Spirit, if you walk this way - then blessings...

Any "do this" teaching, in and of itself, is essentially the giving of law. And law inherently proclaims what many Reformers referred to as the works principle - 'do this' and receive blessing, fail to 'do this' and receive curse. As important as it is to hear God's law taught, preaching should present more than just expressions of law. It should by intention also dispense a certain kind of necessary food - a sure means of grace - to the sheep; not an admonition, not examples of faith, not a demand or requirement, but food.

From The Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Question: How is the word made effectual to salvation?
Answer: The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them [converted sinners] up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.

Indeed it is the Holy Spirit who is at work applying God's grace to us believers, believers who are still yet sinners. The sermon is meant to address a condition, and that condition is not an information problem, an encouragement problem, etc. The problem, if you would, for the believer is the same problem for the unbeliever. It is the moral problem resulting from the knowledge of God's law and the presence of sin - the ever present reality of how, in and of ourselves, we fall miserably short of the perfection required by God's law. And ever-lurking on our shoulders is the judgment of that law. This is not just some external template. It is written on our hearts, our consciences bearing witness.

From Romans 1:
¹⁹ because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them...
³² who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death...
and Romans 2:
¹³ for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
¹⁴ (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
¹⁵ in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

David VanDrunen in his essay "Natural Law and The Works Principle Under Adam and Moses" (The Law is Not of Faith) writes: ... they [many Reformed theologians] teach that it is precisely the image-bearing nature with which God created human beings that makes his imposition of the works principle [moral law] upon them appropriate and even that the image-bearing nature itself impresses this natural knowledge of the law and its consequences upon human consciousness. [pg. 288]

As a sinner made in the image of God I'm inwardly aware of God's law and its consequences. I can't escape that. And as a sinner saved, I am also aware of an internal conflict between my new right-willed heart desiring to do good and my all-too-often reflexive sinful nature that does evil.

The Apostle Paul gives expression to this reality in the believer in Romans 7:
¹⁹ For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise...
²¹ I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present.
²² For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
²³ but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.
²⁴ Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?

Someone will say, "but we have been forgiven - justified - saved from sin!" Indeed the penalty for our sin has been borne by our Savior. By faith we have been accounted as righteous for Christ's sake. As our Mediator, Jesus has fulfilled our obligation to the law. But please don't assume that this is just information or truth which everyone has already absorbed. Jesus said, "Feed My lambs." We are but lambs who need to be fed again and again that gospel food for our comfort when the Word is preached. As Article XI from the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion states in part: "...Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort..."

So here is a lamb sitting in the pew as law (do this) is preached - preached as it should be. Whatever is required of him - Old Testament or New - triggers an automatic image-bearing reality within him, uncomfortably reminding him not only that he has fallen short in the past (sins) and that of his own works he will fall short again in the future, but also of an evil resistance (sin) to holiness very present in him. And this corresponds to the true state of things as noted above by Paul. In this case the resultant judgment in his conscience is no trick of Satan, the Accuser of the brethren. Instead, it is the just verdict of God upon the things he has done and left undone in thought, word, deed and upon the very principle of sin which dwells within him. From whence comes his comfort?

OK, back to the WSC - Question: How is the word made effectual to salvation?
Answer: The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.

The word rightly preached is an effectual means of grace applied by the Holy Spirit to sinners when the announcement of God's free gift of righteousness in Christ is proclaimed, heard, and believed. It declares good news that sinner-saints need to hear - news that strengthens faith and is laid hold of only through faith. We find no righteousness that faith can receive nor rely upon either in the law (it only demands and doesn't give) or within us. Preaching must cause us to look not only within, which the law does as it highlights our plight - our sinful condition - causing us, out of desperate need, to look for another righteousness. The sermon also needs to present God's comfort - the gospel - which invites us to look away from our rags of failed righteousness to the perfect righteousness of Another, One who has accomplished for us what we should do but can't. The food that feeds our faith is Christ Jesus crucified for our sins... Christ raised for our justification... Christ our substitutionary law-keeper. There in Him, our mediator, we find credited to us the verdict of "well done." In Him we find justification now and cause for a sure hope... the hope of righteousness on that final day. It is in the proclamation of this good news that the Holy Spirit leads us to the food of God - the Lamb slain for lambs. It is the very same food of grace that is offered and received by faith when we partake of the Lord's Supper. Food that convinces, converts, and builds holiness and comfort in sinners through faith which finds its object only in the always needed good news of the cross of Christ... And it is that gospel food that nourishes the sheep. And their response by the grace of God... is thankfulness with encouraged hearts and renewed obedience, walking by faith that looks not for a righteousness within themselves but a faith that looks away unto Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption. (1 Cor. 1:30)

All Scripture verses from the American Standard Version.

Continuing Anglican Contentions...

2011-05-23T12:10:00.000-07:00

My, my... such a confused situation in this rearranging of church jurisdictions in the U.S. As regards the recently organized ACNA, I fear that it too will prove itself significantly wedded to non-reformed Anglican traditions thus ensuring the same latitudinarian drift that was at the root of the ECUSA's liberal and apostate trek (not to mention the relics of Romish tendencies). It seems that as long as the reformed doctrines of the English Reformation are minimized or obscured, then any particular Anglican denomination eventually trends towards liberalism or towards Rome. And this is why it so important to stress again the necessity of the Anglican Church returning to, and once again holding firmly, its doctrinal confession of the Reformation: the Thirty-Nine Articles; which confession falls well within the consensus of both the English and Continental reformed churches.

As I've previously lamented, there is unfortunately no current Anglican church body today that faithfully stands in that reformed tradition. It is her heritage and yet it has been largely abandoned. Personally, I hold out little hope for the various incarnations coming forth or the ones now in existence. Too many little fiefdoms holding their particular "sacred ground" of true Anglicanism with no inclination to reconsider or examine their claims historically and theologically in the context of the English reformation. What is needed? What is to be done? Truly what is needed in these various jurisdictions is an Anglican reformation that once again exalts the Gospel instead of traditions, one that would hopefully be embraced and promoted by existing clergy (where are the Cranmers, Hoopers, Ridleys and Jewells of today?). The likelihood of that? Nil it seems to me. Sadly, the Church of England and Anglicanism-at-large has been in one long drift and "rewrite of theological history" since the early 17th century. And each group, be it liberal, apostate, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical-Charismatic - each with their own disparate neo-Anglican or revisonist-Reformation interpretation - is convinced of their position.

For myself, this is why I decided to set sail for a safe harbor in the reformed church tradition about eight months ago. I can get along without the Book of Common Prayer in the church service (although barely sometimes). What I can't do is get along without the doctrines of the BCP, doctrines which embody the 16th century reformed-catholic recovery of and contention for the faith once delivered.

There are many Anglicans who are longing (and some laboring) for a return to a direction that reflects the piety and practice of a reformed-catholic church. Many throughout the last 475 years labored to keep that testimony alive - Christians contending for the faith once delivered. The New Testament epistles are replete with that storyline and exhortation. But in actuality it is not an extraordinary calling born of an emergency, but rather the normal Christian church life encapsulated in the descriptor "the Church Militant." This contention is in fact the earnest faithful fight for and proclamation of the Gospel, a fight to which believers are called and that for which the Church on the earth exists. Lose sight of the Gospel and the Church loses her way... because everything regarding true faith and practice flows from that Gospel, the good news of the crucified and risen Christ. And that is why the 16th and 17th century Reformers emphasized and spoke of the five solas: sola scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), soli Deo gloria (the glory of God alone); as well as the three marks of a true church: sound doctrine (gospel), right administration of the sacraments (visible gospel), right use of ecclesiastical discipline (shepherding, correcting and restoring in light of the gospel). These are sure marks and sign posts by which the Church is to contend for the faith once delivered while navigating her voyage, be it in calm or trouble waters.

Loss

2011-05-10T15:46:00.000-07:00

Losing what was never mine
Spectral idols tempting me
Fruitless paths and ravaged time
Companions in my misery

Fading hopes refuse decline
Distracted thoughts mocking me
Circle now this body find
A dying dream not to be

Yet ‘neath these ruins’ wasted climb
The quiet recall in memory
Reasserts the truth sublime
Through loss, life found eternally

Jack Miller - August 28, 2008

"And there is no health in us"... total depravity?

2011-05-05T18:34:00.000-07:00

"No... not that dreadful Calvinist doctrine!", huffed the Anglo-Catholic churchman in an tone of indignant-cultured outrage...

In a previous post I considered the case for the reformed doctrine of predestination being taught in Article 17 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. But what about the reformed doctrine of total depravity? Is it likewise to be found in the Anglican formularies or is it merely a morbid innovation of of those "hyper-puritan Calvinists"? This question is posed in the context of the larger question that this blogger has explored, what is the historical Reformational heritage of the Anglican Church?

First up we need a definition... what is the doctrine of total depravity? I like how this pastor defines it:

What total depravity means then is that every area of man has been affected by the Fall: man's entire body, soul and spirit has suffered a radical corruption. This does not mean that man is without a conscience or any sense of right or wrong, nor that every sinner is devoid of all the qualities that are both pleasing to men and useful to society, when those qualities are judged only by human standards. In addition, this does not mean that every sinner is prone to every form of sin...

Perhaps "radical corruption" is a better term to describe our fallen condition than the historic term "total depravity." "Radical" not in the sense of being "extreme," but radical in the sense of its original meaning, stemming from the Latin word for "root" or "core." Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being, permeating our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that Romans 3:10-12 declares: "There is none righteous, no not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one."

Man, by nature, does not want to know God. "There is no one who seeks after God," as the above Scripture says. As Dr. Michael Horton noted, "We cannot find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a police officer." [Pastor John Samson]

You've got to love that Horton quote, eh?

Simply put, sin has affected all parts of man. And this corruption touches the entire man - heart, emotions, will, mind, and body. In that respect man is completely sinful, though not as sinful as he could be. So, is this doctrine to be found among the teachings of the Thirty-Nine Articles or the Homilies or the prayers of the Book of Common Prayer? Let's take a survey...

Excerpts from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer...
4th Sunday in Advent Collect: ... that whereas, through our sins and wickedness, we are sore let and hindered in running the race that is set before us...

Morning Prayer Confession of Sin: And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders.
The Lenten Collects: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness...
... Almighty God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves...
Easter-Even Collect: ... so by continual mortifying our corrupt affections we may be buried with him...
Easter Day Collect: ... as by thy special grace preventing us thou dost put into our minds good desires... [how else to interpret this than without God's special grace going before us we are incapable of even good desires, let alone any good, i.e. righteous, works]
4th Sunday After Easter Collect: Almighty God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men... [how else to take this than we have no power to rule over or against our sinful affections]
1st Sunday After Trinity Collect: ... through the weakness of our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee...
9th Sunday After Trinity Collect: ...that we, who cannot do any thing that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will...
15th Sunday After Trinity Collect: ...because the frailty of man without thee cannot but fall...
24th Sunday After Trinity Collect: ...absolve thy people from their offences; that through thy bountiful goodness we may all be delivered from the bands of those sins, which by our frailty we have committed...
Holy Communion General Confession: We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us.
Prayer preceding kneeling at the Lord's Table: We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table.
The Commination: Ps. 51 - Behold, I was shapen in wickedness: and in sin hath my mother conceived me.
The Commination Confession: ...enter not into judgement with thy servants, who are vile earth, and miserable sinners; but so turn thine anger from us, who meekly acknowledge our vileness, and truly repent us of our faults...
Psalm 14:1-8: The fool hath said in his heart : There is no God.
2. They are corrupt, and become abominable in their doings : there is none that doeth good, no not one.
3. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men : to see if there were any that would understand, and seek after God.
4. But they are all gone out of the way, they are altogether become abominable : there is none that doeth good, no not one.
5. Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues have they deceived : the poison of asps is under their lips.
6. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness : their feet are swift to shed blood.
7. Destruction and unhappiness is in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known ; there is no fear of God before their eyes.
8. Have they no knowledge, that they are all such workers of mischief : eating up my people as it were bread, and call not upon the Lord?

Psalm 53: 1-4: The foolish body hath said in his heart : There is no God.
2. Corrupt are they, and become abominable in their wickedness : there is none that doeth good.
3. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men : to see if there were any that would understand, and seek after God.
4. But they are all gone out of the way, they are altogether become abominable : there is also none that doeth good, no not one.

Psalm 58:3: The ungodly are froward, even from their mother's womb : as soon as they are born, they go astray, and speak lies.
Article IX. Of Original or Birth Sin: Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.
Article X. Of Free Will: The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing ( us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.
Article XIII. Of Works before Justification: Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

Update (5-8-2011): And this tidbit - Article XIV. Of Works of Supererogation: ... Whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to do, say, We be unprofitable servants.
[Me: That is, we bring nothing to the table when it comes to the demands of God's holiness, for we always fall short due to the corruption of our nature]

And you may want to take the time to read these selected excerpts below as they are part of the authoritative doctrinal teaching (see Article XXXV. Of Homilies) for the the Church of England concerning the fallen state of man:

Book I-Homily #2 Of The Misery of All Mankind: ... And all men, of their evilness and natural proneness, were so universally given to sin that, as the Scripture saith [Gen. 6:6] *God repented that ever he made man... And thus he setteth us forth, speaking by his faithful Apostle St. Paul: [Rom. 3:9–18] All men, Jews and Gentiles, are under sin. There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way; they are all unprofitable: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used Craft and deceit; the poison of serpents is under their lips. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and wretchedness are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes...

St. Paul in many places painteth us out in our colours, calling us the children of the wrath of God when we be born; saying also that we cannot think a good thought of ourselves, much less we can say well or do well of ourselves... And our Saviour Christ saith there is none good but God, and that we can do nothing that is good without him, nor no man can come to the Father but by him. He commandeth us all to say that we be unprofitable servants, when we have done all that we can do... He saith he came not to save but the sheep that were utterly lost and cast away...

We be of ourselves of such earth as can bring forth but weeds, nettles, brambles, briars, cockle, and darnel. Our fruits be declared in the fifth chapter to the Galathians. [Gal. 5:[19–23].] We have neither faith, charity, hope, patience, chastity, nor any thing else that good is...

Let us therefore acknowledge ourselves before God, as we be indeed, miserable and wretched sinners... For truly there be imperfections in our best works... Let us therefore not be ashamed to confess plainly our state of imperfection; yea, let us not be ashamed to confess imperfection even in all our own best works...

Thus we have heard how evil we be of ourselves; how, of ourselves and by ourselves, we have no goodness, help, nor salvation, but contrariwise sin, damnation, and death everlasting: which if we deeply weigh and consider, we shall the better understand the great mercy of God, and how our salvation cometh only by Christ... Hitherto have we heard what we are of ourselves; verily, sinful, wretched, and damnable.

Again, we have heard how that, of ourselves and by ourselves, we are not able either to think a good thought, or work a good deed: so that we can find in ourselves no hope of salvation, but rather whatsoever maketh unto our destruction... Let us also knowledge the exceeding mercy of God toward us, and confess that, as of ourselves cometh all evil and damnation, so likewise of him cometh all goodness and salvation; as God himself saith by the Prophet Osee: [Hos. 13:9] O Israel, thy destruction cometh of thyself, but in me only is thy help and comfort.

Well... what do you think? Can a case be made that the reformed doctrine of total depravity is reflected in the Anglican formularies as exampled in the above quotes? It seems difficult to come to any other conclusion; a conclusion which magnifies the radical remedy that God provided for us miserable sinners: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, God come in the flesh - the perfect holy one - on the cross for sinful humans. Nothing less was needed and because of the great mercy and love of God, nothing less was provided.

Apostolic Succession Pt. 4: Addendum to the Postscript...

2011-04-21T11:23:00.000-07:00

Some more interesting notes to add to the three earlier installments (here, here, and here) - this from John Booty, in an article posted at the Church Society. He adds further detail to Richard Hooker's thinking regarding Apostolic Succession and church polity:

Thus the basic conflict emerged between Travers, who believed that the only right government for the Church of England was that of the apostolic Church most perfectly manifested in Calvin’s Geneva, and Hooker, who believed that the Church was under no obligation to imitate the church government either of apostolic times or of the sixteenth-century Genevan Church. Travers sought for obedience to the positive commands of Scripture in matters of polity, while Hooker argued that Scripture neither gave nor was intended to give a pattern for the outward government of the Church, but rather presupposed the operation of natural law and positive human laws in such matters...

... Hooker’s argument concerning the laws of the universe was presented in order to demonstrate the errors of the Puritans. Revelation in Jesus Christ was given for a purpose and that purpose is the salvation of fallen men and women. It was not given in order to provide rules for the construction of ecclesiastical polity Nor was it given in order to lay down rules for the government of civil society. The external government of church and state is rooted in natural and positive-human law, a fact presupposed by Scripture. This does not mean that such government is not under the judgment of and must not be responsive to God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. It simply means that Scripture is not dealing with the outward forms of such government. This rooting of ecclesiastical and civil government in law was basic to his argument against the Puritans and led Hooker into the tragic situation in which he ended his life. And this is so because his point of view collided with the developing doctrine concerning episcopacy and the gradual emergence of the divine right theory of royal power.

Thus rooting all power of government in law, Hooker was led to conclude that the basis of all power is located mediately in the people from whom all positive law proceeds. He did not teach any strict theory of social contract, but he did locate the source of royal power in the original assent of the people to such power and believed that all such power was limited by law and custom, located in the common law tradition of England. When Bancroft, one of Whitgift’s henchmen, asserted the apostolic succession of bishops and thus placed them outside of human law, or at least tended to do so, he was teaching something antithetical to Hooker’s basic position. We can understand Bancroft’s urge to preach as he did; the Puritans rooted their polity in Scripture and thereby sought for it an absolute authority apart from the state. In a sense it was natural that their enemies should seek to root the established polity of the Church of England in a similar way. But in so doing, they were departing from the nascent tradition of the English Reformers and were saying something which try as he might (and there is evidence of his spending some effort on the matter) Hooker could not say. Professor Houk, speaking of Book VII, has said:
The theory of apostolical succession viewed the episcopacy as an order derived not from the whole church but descending from the apostles, a class within the Church. Hooker’s theory of the Social Contract and of the sovereignty of the people was so fundamental with him that he would have been slow to accept a newly-advanced theory incompatible with it.

And from The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, we find this additional corroboration concerning the views of the English Reformers on church polity and the necessity of holding to a divinely instituted apostolic succession in order to have a true Church:

IV. The Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States tolerate two classes of opinion,—the Anglo-Catholic or High-church view, and the Low- or Broad-church view. (1) The Anglo-Catholic view of the episcopate is in essential particulars that of the Roman Catholic Church. It does not recognize the superior authority of the pope, as the vicar of Christ and the infallible successor of St. Peter, nor even place ordination among the sacraments. But it regards episcopacy as indispensable to the very being of the Church, holds to the transmission of grace by the imposition of hands, accepts apostolic succession, and denies validity to any ministry not ordained by bishops. Bishops "as being the successors of the apostles are possessed of the same power of jurisdiction" (J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, p. 85, London, 1870). They are, and have been from the time of the apostles, an order distinct from the priesthood and diaconate and higher than both. As late as 1618 the highest authority in the Church of England, James I., recognized the ordination of the Reformed Churches of the Continent when he sent a delegation made up in part of bishops to the Synod of Dort. Archbishop Laud (1633—45) was the most extreme representative of the jure divino right of episcopacy the Church of England has had, and his intolerance brought him to the block. The Low- and Broad-church view regards the episcopate as desirable and necessary for the wellbeing, not to the being, of the Church. The episcopal Episcopius is not the only form of government with Scriptural authority (if, indeed, it or any other be recommended by Scripture); but it is the one best adapted to forward the interests of Christ's kingdom among men. The best Anglican writers on this side agree that the episcopate developed out of the prcsbyterate, and that there are only two orders of the ministry in the New Testament,—presbyters and deacons. Dr. Lightfoot, bishop of Durham, in his scholarly and exhaustive discussion of the subject (commentary on Philippians, pp. 180-267), says, "It is clear, that, at the close of the Apostolic Age, the two lower orders of the threefold ministry were firmly and widely established; but traces of the episcopate, properly so called, are few and indistinct. . . . The episcopate was formed out of the presbyteral order by elevation; and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief of them." And again he says, "The episcopate was formed out of the presbytery." After he was made bishop he stated that his views on the episcopate had been misunderstood. Dean Stanley (Christian Institutions, p. 210) representing the same view, says, "According to the strict rules of the Church derived from those early times, there arc but two orders,—presbyters and deacons."

This view, which is also held by such men as Arnold, Alford, Jacob, and Hatch, was the view of the divines of the English Reformation. Cranmer, Jewel, Grindal, and afterward Field (" The apostles left none to succeed them," Of the Church, vol. iv., p. vii.), defended episcopacy as the most ancient and general form of government, but always acknowledged the validity of Presbyterian orders. (Cf. G. P. Fisher, in the New Englander, 1874, pp. 121-172.) Bishop Parkhurst looked upon the Church of Zurich as the absolute pattern of a Christian community; and Bishop Ponet would have abandoned even the term "bishop" to the Catholics, Ecclesiastics held positions in the Church of England who had received only Presbyterian ordination. Such were Whittingham, Dean of Durham, Cartwright, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and Travers, provost of Trinity College, Dublin. It is doubtful whether any prelate of the English Church in Elizabeth's reign held the jure divino theory of episcopacy, though Archbishop Bancroft (d. 1605) seems to have been the first Anglican prelate to avow it.

Apostolic Succession Pt. 3 - A Cranmer postscript

2011-04-18T16:07:00.000-07:00

As an addendum to Part 1 and Part 2, I would like to add some research from the award winning biography on Thomas Cranmer by the scholar Diarmaid MacColluch. As already presented, I've seen no direct evidence in the historical record that the English reformers held to a doctrine of divinely instituted Apostolic Succession, as either an essential mark of a true church or necessary for the validity of the Sacraments.

John Jewell echoes other reformers such as Calvin, Vermigli, Bucer, and Bullinger in his Homily (part of the the CoE's formularies) when defining the three necessary marks or notes of a true church: sound doctrine, the sacraments rightly administered, and the right exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. Conspicuously missing is any mention of Apostolic Succession.

Similarly in Article XIX. Of the Church from the Thirty-Nine Articles, we find the first two marks:
The Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

Likewise Hooker writes, “we must not simply without exception urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination.”

But are there clues or bits of insight in the historical record that would give us a window into Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's personal view concerning Apostolic Succession? Here are some excerpts from the chapter Salvaging the Cause (pp. 276-279) in MacCulloch' biography concerning events of 1541:

... he [Cranmer] was otherwise engaged, mainly in presiding over the contentious work of the doctrinal commission set up by the King at the beginning of April... The doctrinal committee seems to have worked within a framework formed by seventeen set questions on doctrine... - The other notable feature is their [i.e. the surviving documents] collection of marginalia from King Henry in truculently reformist mood, questioning the scriptural origins of confirmation, unction and chrism, challenging the exclusive right of bishops to ordain clergy, and wanting proof for the origins of their office...

Cranmers' most extensive answers were made in relation to the definition of royal power in the Church... which now occupied six of the seventeen questions...

Even King Henry had questions concerning the origins of the office of ordination held by bishops. MacCulloch continues as he describes Cranmer's peculiar and antiquated One Kingdom view of Christendom and that of royal power as pertains to the appointing of bishops. Cranmer tackled the following question before the committee:

"Whether the apostles lacking a higher power, as in not having a Christian king among them, made bishops by that necessity, or by authority given them by God?" In this, he revealed a breathtaking skepticism about any independent character for the church. His starting point was the basic character of a Christian polity, royal supremacy in its purest form: God had delivered to 'all Christian princes... the whole cure of souls, as concerning the ministration of things political and civil governance'. Ministers within this commonwealth were divided between those whose functions were 'civil' and those 'of Gods' word'. And 'comely ceremonies and solemnities' by which they were admitted (in other words, ordination and consecration in the case of clergy) were 'only for a good order and seemly fashion', without any special conferring of grace by the 'promise of God'. The basic assumption had an important consequence for Cranmer's view of the course of Church history; it was a journey towards the righting of a wrong, the lack of proper authority in the apostolic Church, which had only been remedied when the first Christian rulers appeared, in the third-century Armenia and the Roman Empire under Constantine the Great. The apostles of the first century AD had lacked 'remedy then for the correction of vice, or appointing of ministers' and had to make do with 'the consent of christian multitude among themselves'...

MacCulloch summarizes Cranmers' understanding:

Far from holding any doctrine of apostolic succession in 1540, therefore, Cranmer saw the first Christians casting round to create makeshift structures of authority: 'they were constrained of necessity to take such curates and priests as either they knew themselves to be meet thereunto, or else as were commended unto them by other that were so replete with the Spirit of God... that they ought even of very conscience to give credit unto them'. Sometimes the apostles sent ministers to the people, sometimes the people chose their own. Hence he had no difficulty in assenting to the idea Christian rulers could start the ministry off anew, creating bishops and priests, if they had no alternative... Cranmer affirmed that 'princes and governors' had as much right as bishops to make a priest, or even, as he had to admit on the analogy of the early Church, 'the people also by their election [i.e. choice].

In the above we may even see some seeds that contribute to the articles concerning ordination of ministers and ceremonies in the Church:

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church. It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word. Whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly that other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers. The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering; neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated or ordered.

My main contention in these three posts on Apostolic Succession is that if an Anglican wants to hold a divinely instituted Apostolic Succession as necessary for a true church and for valid sacraments, he will not find its warrant in the 16th century English reformers, nor in the writings of early church fathers such as Jerome... let alone the New Testament. So where is one to go to find direct support? The only place I know of is either the medieval Roman church period or to the more recent Anglo-Catholic movement of the 19th century with its revisionist take on the English reformation.

Apostolic Succession Pt. 2 - Hooker and Jerome

2011-04-12T16:00:00.000-07:00

As presented in Apostolic Succession Pt. 1 , the physical succession of bishops, as contended by Jewell, does not rise to that of a mark or note of a true church. In addition, any evidence of physical succession from the first century is not proof of its role as a necessary esse of the church. As it is said, correlation is not proof of causality. Jewell was not arguing, nor am I, against proper church ordination of ministers. Rather, that a physical line of apostolic succession going back (supposedly) to the Apostles is not a mark of a true church. This is evident from many of the writings and letters of the English reformers including Hooker. Those reformers, in fact, recognized the reformed churches of the Continent with their presbyterian polity as true churches. Inasmuch as one of the marks of a true church was the right administration of the Sacraments, they were thus by extension validating the Baptism and the Lord's Supper of those Continental churches. Though they argued for the episcopal form of church government as the more scriptural polity, they did not insist on it as a necessary mark of a true church. But they did insist on the succession of apostolic teaching as opposed to "mere succession of sees." I am aware of nothing written by the 16th English reformers that would elevate or recognize physical succession from the time of the Apostles as a necessary mark of a true church nor equating such succession with episcopal polity. And evidently that is why it is not mentioned even as an aside in the 39 Articles of Religion, Jewell's homily for Whit-Sunday, or even Hooker's defense of the episcopacy in his Laws. And it seems any discovery of physical succession in the penumbra of those writings would simply be a concession of the historic record of the above.

C. Sydney Carter writes:
Jewel, in treating of the unity of the Visible Church, had stressed the importance of an orderly episcopal ministry, although he declared that “God's grace is promised to one who feareth God and not to sees or successions.” Keble in his Preface to Hooker's Works states that the Elizabethan bishops and divines were content “to show that the government by Archbishops and Bishops was ancient and allowable: they never ventured to urge its exclusive claim or to connect it with the validity of the Holy Sacraments." In confirmation of this statement we find that Hooker's patron, Archbishop Whitgift, clearly asserts that “no certain manner or form of electing ministers is prescribed in Scripture and that every Church may do therein as it shall seem most expedient.” Hooker fully concurred in this opinion, since he declares that the unity of the Church consists in three essentials, the possession of “the one Lord, the one Faith, and the one Baptism.” Although he insisted that “without the work of the Ministry religion by no means can possibly continue,” he asserts clearly that “the complete form of Church polity . . . is not taught in Scripture,” while “much that it hath taught may become unrequisite, sometime because we need not use it, sometime because we cannot.” And in this latter category he placed the Reformed non-episcopal Churches, including the Scottish and French, who, he declares, “have been driven without any fault of their own by the necessity of the present times” to practise a presbyterian form of government... But in spite of his later “higher” view of episcopacy, which was probably occasioned by the increasing insistence of the extreme Puritans on the exclusive necessity of a Presbyterian polity, Hooker was still prepared to admit, as he did in commenting on the case of Theodore Beza's ordination by Calvin, that “there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination without a bishop.”... Again, in cases where it is not possible to secure a bishop for ordination, Hooker admits that the ordinary institution of God must be waived. And so he adds: “we must not simply without exception urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination.” Professor Sisson is therefore surely correct when he affirms that “there is nothing in Hooker to serve as a foundation for an episcopacy by Apostolic Succession and divine institution...

But some may object and claim that apostolic succession is divinely instituted from the first century. Yet here we have the early church father, Jerome, weighing in:

"When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself." (Letter 146:1)

"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’" (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:562-563)

"Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained." (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563)

Lastly and by way of observation, it seems that the more a church body adheres to so-called "divinely instituted apostolic succession", the less one finds in that body the preaching of and adherence to the pure gospel of salvation of sinners by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone - which is the crucial core of sound doctrine as found in Holy Scripture. The church is born of a message about something God alone has done, the gospel of Jesus Christ; that gospel's very origins being in the counsel of God before the foundations of the world (Eph. 1:3-6). She is nourished and maintained by that glorious gospel as administered by those called and ordained. And it is that gospel which will be the at the center of sound doctrine, the administration of the Sacraments, and proper ecclesiastical discipline - the marks of a true church.

Update: A related article/worthwhile read by Robin Jordon can be found at: Anglicans Ablaze

Generous Justice: A Response

2011-04-01T09:54:00.000-07:00

My wife, Barbara, recently read Tim Keller's latest book. She wrote the following and consented to post it here:

Why am I a wee bit bothered by Tim Keller’s Generous Justice? I might even say I’m troubled. I have benefited much from TK, as have so many. However, when I FEEL my Christian liberty is being stolen away, the hair on my neck stands up, and I get fidgety! Then I get a little crazy. I start accusing TK of patronizing the poor and pandering to the powerful.

I’m just a simple cave (wo)man. I can understand when someone tells me I have fallen way short of what God commands. I can understand when someone tells me that, on my behalf, Jesus has met the very demands of which I fall so short. I can understand when someone says go therefore and live out a thankful, generous, charitable life.

I cannot understand when someone tells me THAT must look like THIS. Tim Keller is saying just that in Generous Justice. I love that he wants Christians to be aware of needs. I love that he wants Christians to be given and that he wants us to consider how we might be more so. But a red flag goes up when the call to love my neighbor is put out there as looking a particular way - that true Christianity is about healing the community around us, even remedying its systemic injustices. Really? How it looks to love one another will have everything to do with our own place. But please don’t tell the single mom to spend her time fixing a broken community program; she is mending broken hearts. Why heap guilt on the stay-at-home mom who, though not organizing soup kitchens, is taking a meal to a sick neighbor while trying desperately to be kind to her kids and unselfish towards her hard-working husband?

Jesus’ yoke is easy and His burden is light. Why? Because He has fulfilled all those demands of which I fall so short. He did come to bring justice, generously! He points me in His good direction, puts me on the path, and nourishes me along the way. That sustenance has everything to do with what HE HAS DONE. The way is clear. The fruit I will bear in acceptance of the sweet message of what He has done for me will be love, joy, peace, self-control, patience, gentleness, kindness, longsuffering, goodness, faithfulness. My family, my neighbors, my community benefit as I seek to put others above myself, to give increasingly of time and resources.

That my heart is stirred is natural. God loves the unlovely. He cares for the downtrodden. To care is written on the heart. Tim, we all know we could and should do more. The suffering in and out of the city is before us daily. We know that we haven’t given all we could. As Christ’s we pray that we would walk more selflessly everyday.

Guilt is not the sweet response that Christ’s own have to their Savior. But it seems here guilt is the motivator for action. Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone does not result in a vague persistent sense of guilt but in fruit borne of the Spirit.

We beggars in the pews are clinging to the bright sufficiency of what Christ has done. Please don’t over burden us. His yoke is easy. His burden is light. Our rested souls seek to serve. Our thankful hearts have a myriad of ways to do so everyday. Generous Justice? For this wayfarer learning to be just generous will do.

-Barbara VB Miller

Apostolic Succession Pt. 1 - John Jewell

2011-03-29T16:09:00.000-07:00

The question that hangs out there in Anglican circles is as follows: Is the church born of the gospel, i.e. the Word of God rightly preached, and thus legitimized by sound doctrine or does the church itself through the official succession of its ministers effect legitimacy upon herself? The one option raises right doctrine as taught in Scripture as the primary and necessary mark of a true church. The other puts forth the continuation of a physical lineage of ministerial successors from the Apostles as the esse of a true church. It is one or the other. It can't be both.

John Jewell was a disciple of Peter Martyr Vermigli. He was also a Marian exile and later Bishop of Salisbury, as well as the chief author of the Homilies Book II. Richard Hooker spoke of him as the "worthiest divine that Christendom hath bred for some hundreds of years." In his Apology Jewell touches upon the above question. But it remained to be more directly addressed in his Reply Unto M. Hardings Answer. Finally in his Homily for Whit-Sunday, Jewell states the confessional position of the Church of England regarding the marks of a true church. Needless to say, while Jewell clearly embraced episcopal polity and proper ordination of clergy, he steered clear of any strict interpretation of apostolic authority residing in bishops or presbyters due to physical succession (via laying on of hands) from the Apostles on down. Rather, he argues and teaches that what ensures the validity of the visible church before God is the retention and communication of sound Apostolic teaching, the faith once delivered.

Some excerpts from Jewell's Reply:
"To be Peter's lawful successor, it is not sufficient to leap into Peter's stall. Lawful succession standeth not only in possession of place, but also, and much rather, in doctrine and diligence. Yet the bishops of Rome, as if there were nothing else required, evermore put us in mind and tell us many gay tales of their succession." [pg. 201]
"... But Christ's love passeth not by inheritance of succession of sees." [pg. 283]
"... But Christ saith: By order of succession, the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair..." [pg. 322]
"... This is M. Harding's holy succession - Though faith fall, yet succession must hold; for unto succession God hath bound the Holy Ghost." [pg. 347]
"... Now, M. Harding, if the pope and his Roman clergy, by his own friends confession, be fallen from God's grace, and departed from Christ to antichrist, what a miserable claim is it for them to hold only to bare succession! It is not sufficient to claim succession of place: it behooveth us rather to have regard to the succession of doctrine. St. Benard saith: What availeth it, if they be chosen in order, and live out of order." [pg. 349]
"... The faith of Christ, M. Harding, goeth not always by succession. The bishops of Rome have been Arians, Nestorians..." [pg.610]
"And for that cause they say, We are Peter's successors: even as the Pharisees sometime said, We be the children of Abraham. But John said unto them, Put not your affiance in such succession. For God is able even of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." [pg. 439]

Now the above quotes aren't intended as any kind of definitive case by Jewell. But his deemphasis and outright dismissal of physical succession as that which validates the ministry is evident. Likewise, he elevates sound doctrine as the key trait of a true minister of God. Finally in his Homily for Whit-Sunday, Jewell, in defining a true church and noting the marks which do validate such a church, avoids any mention of so-called Apostolic Succession. Instead he writes:

"The true church is a universal congregation or fellowship of GOD's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone (Eph. 2:20). And it hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known. Pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of Ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the ancient fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith."

What would Jesus cut? Two kingdoms confusion...

2011-03-08T21:52:00.000-08:00

I came across this column via this post at the Spectator Blog . Jim Wallis, the column's author and "progressive" Christian of Sojourners fame is concerned as to what programs the U.S. Congress will choose to cut in order to rein in seemingly out-of-control government deficit spending. He writes - "Already, in a first wave of response to the proposed cuts, thousands of Christians told their members of Congress that they need to ask themselves, "What Would Jesus Cut?" They believe, and so do I, that the moral test of any society is how it treats its poorest and most vulnerable citizens. And that is exactly what the Bible says, over and over again... Taking the cutting knife to programs that benefit low-income people, while refusing to scrutinize the much larger blank checks we keep giving to defense contractors and corporate executives, is hypocritical and cruel."

My point here is not to argue what should or shouldn't be cut. I'm sure I would have some differences with Mr. Wallis, as well as some areas of agreement. Rather, I want to take issue with the use of Jesus' name as a means of rallying people to a political cause. The question What would Jesus cut? exposes, at a minimum, an ignorance as to the nature of the kingdom of this world vis-à-vis the kingdom of God - and Christ's mission as Savior. I added a comment on the Spectator blog and then a follow-up to respond to another commenter. I'm posting a summary here to expand on my point:

"Jesus, what would you cut?" I don't think he would answer such a question with a list of programs. The closest he would ever get to opining on tax cuts is probably what is recorded in the Gospel of Mark:

14-They came and said to Him, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is is lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? 15-"Shall we pay or shall we not pay?" But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at." 16-They brought one. And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" And they said to Him, "Caesar's." 17-And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him.

Wallis is simply misusing/misappropriating the name of Christ for his own well-intended personal/political agenda in Caesar's kingdom, just as the questioner was attempting to do in the above interchange.

Someone replied to my initial comments with the following: "I am no theologian and would welcome any informed input. I have always regarded this passage as meaning that things of this world, including money and material goods are ephemeral and unimportant when contrasted to the kingdom of heaven. Christians please do not take offense if I say it seems similar to Buddhist teaching."

I replied that the above passage has more to do with the nature of Christ's kingdom and mission than the relative importance of material things. Jesus came not to remake this present world kingdom, but to call lost souls out of it; out of this kingdom of darkness and into his kingdom. This is similar to the passage in John 18:

35-Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Thing own nation and the chief priets have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" 36-Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

Jesus was not advocating pacifism, but again was speaking to the nature of his calling, his kingdom as contrasted with the kingdom of this world, and the means his followers would and wouldn't utilize for his cause. The kingdom of God is not established by the sword. It is not advanced or inhibited by the power of earthly governments. God's kingdom is not brought about by the transforming of societies through various legislative schemes and programs. Though Christians, in this sense, are not "of the world", they still are "in the world". So actually the point is not that earthly things don't matter or are unimportant (money, jobs, possessions, governments). Christianity is very non-Buddhist in that the things of this world are important. They're just not the things of Christ's kingdom. They're things of this world.

A Christian is a citizen of two kingdoms. As a citizen of Christ's kingdom, he has a responsibility to follow Jesus' command to "Love thy neighbor as thyself" as the thankful and obedient response to the love and grace he, a sinner, has been shown by God. As a citizen in this world the Christian also has a duty to take seriously what would lead to the betterment of society around him by whatever legal and wise means he deems best; voting for whatever policies that seem the most likely to be just and effective towards particular societal goals. He can and does seek to help the disadvantaged and those who are suffering. But doing so through the means of his involvement in the political process is simply just being a good citizen of this world, as embodied in the teaching of Romans 13: 1-7. Mr. Wallis blurs the line (as Christians also often do from the political right) between God's kingdom and that of this world by equating certain legislative schemes (good or bad) as "Jesus' preferred policies."

The commenter responded: "Thank you. Your reply is quite informative. It's good to get past some of the nonsense and this site and make contact with intelligence."

Me: Well, that was very gracious of him, especially as this is only a partial sketchy outline of a much debated and misunderstood teaching of Scripture. For those who want to delve into this doctrine of two kingdoms more deeply I recommend the David VanDrunen book Living in God's Two Kingdoms.

From Jesus' prayer in John 17: 9-23-

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine:

and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them.

And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves.

I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one.

They are not of the world even as I am not of the world.

Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.

As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world.

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word;

that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.

Jane Russell crosses the divide...

2011-02-28T20:06:00.000-08:00

If it had not been for the good fortune of being invited to Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.'s 90th birthday almost 2 and 1/2 years ago (I became acquainted with him as a fellow member of Church of Our Saviour Santa Barbara), I would not have known the true story of Jane Russell, committed Christian, sinner saved by grace, and a woman of many "lively good works" who is now at peace in the presence of her Lord and Saviour. Oh the stories we (hopefully) will share on that glorious hallelujah day.

The L.A. Times obituary is Here and the rest of the story is Here.

[photo left to right - Jane Russell, Rhonda Fleming, James Garner, Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., John Kerr, and Anne Jeffreys]

The Regulative Principle of Worship

2011-02-20T09:45:00.000-08:00

   As one who came to the Anglican tradition about eight years ago, and more recently to the Reformed tradition, I have found the issue of the Regulative Principle of Worship to be a hotly argued and more often than not, misunderstood teaching. A couple years ago I read R.S. Clark's book Recovering the Reformed Confession, and highly recommend it.  At the time I had some questions here and there (and a few still remain), but otherwise I learned much. The discussion is a necessary one in light of today's multi-quilted worship formats in Christianity, seemingly to fit any and every inclination. And as it is that I am still thinking this through, it would probably benefit me to go back and reread the book even though my understanding of the RPW has matured since then.
   That being said, one crucial point that's helped in my understanding is that rather than being a principle solely to "restrict" what a church can and can't do legitimately in its worship, the RPW in allowing only those"elements" with Scriptural warrant into the Church's worship is a protection for the individual believer's conscience against the Church imposing or requiring anything that extends beyond what God himself requires of his people. Some of the confusion that comes into these discussions is a result of the "elements of worship" often being misdefined. And as well, the three other aspects of the RPW (circumstance, form and rubric) are often ignored or conflated into that of "elements."
   To help shed some light in order to foster a more profitable debate on this topic, I'm posting (with permission) this short book review by T. David Gordon:

Principles of Conduct

"Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle", by Ralph J. Gore, Jr.

T. David Gordon

In light of the comparative dearth of historically and theologically informed studies of Reformed worship, one is inclined to welcome any contribution to the field that is characterized by both. R. J. Gore, Jr.'s most recent book is just that, although the book turns out to be more concerned with the subtitle than the title. He expends only 26 pages on covenantal worship per se; the majority of the work is devoted to the unproven thesis that the Puritans embraced a different principle of worship than Calvin did.

The strongest aspect of the book is the clarity with which Gore describes the differences between the worship practices of the English Puritans and those of Calvin, and the historical occasions of these differences due to Puritan fears of the (perceived or real) tyranny of the Anglican Church. The most refreshing aspect of the book is the candor with which Gore repudiates the teaching of the Westminster Assembly on worship: "All that has preceded has been helpful in determining that the regulative principle of worship, as formulated by the Puritans and as adopted by the divines at the Westminster Assembly, is unworkable. More importantly, it is simply not the teaching of Scripture" (137). While I disagree entirely with both aspects of this sentiment, its boldness contrasts refreshingly with the prevarication usually found among less-candid Presbyterians who have no more regard for the regulative principle of worship than Gore does but who profess to agree with it. Bravo to Gore!

Traditionally, students of Reformed worship have recognized that four categories require careful attention in understanding the regulative principle: element, circumstance, form, and rubric. An element (sometimes called a "part" and sometimes "mode") of worship is a distinct and ordinary act of worship. Prayer, singing praise, the ministry of the Word, the ministry of the Sacraments, are all "elements" of worship. A "circumstance" is some consideration regarding a matter that is not religious in itself, what the Westminster Confession (1:6) calls, "common to human actions and societies." Such considerations include the time and place of the meeting, amplification of the human voice, how best to provide seating and lighting, and so forth. A "form" is the lexical (or, possibly, musical) content of a given element. Thus, if one determines that prayer is an element of worship, the decision to employ the "Lord's Prayer" is a decision regarding "form;" not an element or circumstance. Finally, a "rubric" is a specific manner of conducting an element, such as the rubric of kneeling, standing, or sitting for prayer, or the rubric of breaking the bread (fraction) when administering the Lord's Supper. Each of these four realities is governed differently.

Reformed Christianity (Calvin and the Puritans) has distinguished itself from the Lutheran and Anglican traditions by permitting only those elements that are warranted by Scripture; whereas the Lutheran view permits any element not prohibited by Scripture. Thus, if an element is proposed as a particular act of religious worship, and if Scripture says nothing about it, the Lutheran tradition considers it permissible, and the Reformed forbids it. Consequently, Scripture "regulates" the elements of worship by positive warrant; where a biblical justification is absent, such an element is impermissible. Circumstances, by comparison, are not regulated by the Word alone; to the contrary, the Westminster Confession states that circumstances are "governed by the light of nature and Christian prudence." Thus, when determining whether to amplify the minister's voice, or whether to set the chairs or pews in a certain arrangement, one has no recourse to Scripture, but only to those considerations common to other "human actions and societies."

"Forms" of worship, according to the Reformed tradition, are regulated by the teaching of Scripture (in the sense that whatever is said must accord with biblical truth), but are not restricted to the actual words of Scripture. Thus, while Reformed churches may employ the "Lord's Prayer," ministers may also pray specifically for Mr. Smith's cancer surgery, which is not mentioned expressly in Scripture. Similarly, a sermon must accord with the teaching of the Word of God, but ministers are permitted to do more than merely read Scripture's own words; they compose sermons using their own wisdom and judgment.

"Rubrics" are governed by a combination of the considerations regarding forms and circumstances, because there are specific ways of performing certain acts that could either enhance or impinge upon the biblical realities contained therein. So, all the discussions regarding kneeling or standing in prayer appeal to more than that which is "common to human actions and societies" because such considerations need to grapple with how to perform an element in the most appropriate, most edifying, and most respectful manner.

Although Gore eventually uses all four terms in the book, he employs only two in his discussion of the Puritan understanding of worship: element and circumstance. This removal of "form" and "rubric," combined with his later redefinition of "circumstance" (to refer to "adiaphora") is the fundamental flaw in this book. If there are only two considerations in making decisions about worship (element and circumstance), then everything that is not a circumstance must, by definition, be an element. Thus, for Gore, differences between Calvin and the Puritans on forms and rubrics turn into a full-blown disagreement on the elements of worship.

Gore's failure to do justice to all four aspects of corporate worship leads to his conclusion that the regulative principle of worship is "unworkable." Although he never clarifies this point, what he apparently means is that the doctrine is either "difficult, or "not free from some difficulties," because, as he demonstrates, Reformed Christians have never worshiped uniformly. But the trouble is that this judgment is analogous to saying that the doctrine of the authority of Scripture is "unworkable," because some who profess the doctrine (e.g., Lutherans and Calvinists) arrive at different conclusions. Are the doctrines of the Trinity, or the two natures of Christ, "unworkable" because they are difficult or mysterious? Agreeing that worship is regulated by the teaching of Scripture does not guarantee entire unanimity on the relevant scriptural passages or their meaning.

What Gore's verdict shows, however, is a complete misunderstanding of the regulative principle. That is, what is "unworkable" for him is not the regulative principle itself, as articulated by Calvin or the Westminster Assembly. Instead, what is unworkable is a notion about Reformed worship that is divorced from the doctrine of church power; that confuses "worship as all of life" with "worship" as the first-day gatherings of God's visible covenant people; that redefines "circumstance"; and that fails to appreciate the place of "forms" and "rubrics" alongside the elements of worship.

Ironically, I agree with Gore in preferring Calvin's worship to that of the Puritans. On almost every point where Calvin and the Puritans diverged on some formal issue, or some matter of rubric, I agree with Calvin. For nine years, I pastored a church where we used an order of service that differed only in small details from Calvin's Strasbourg liturgy. I believe in weekly communion and in corporate prayers of confession, especially but not exclusively those found in the old Book of Common Prayer, followed by scriptural declarations of pardon. I believe it is wise to confess the faith weekly using either the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed; and I think the nonsacramental worship typical of the Puritans has tended to remove mystery from worship, and to make the Reformed tradition more ascetic than aesthetic. Yet none of these differences requires me to repudiate the fundamental principle of both Calvin and the Puritans: that when the Christian assembly gathers in the presence of God, it should approach him only by means of his own appointment.

T. David Gordon is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and associate professor of religion at Grove City College (Grove City, Pennsylvania).

This article originally appeared in the 2003 Sept./Oct., Vol. 12; 5 edition of Modern Reformation and is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation, visit Modern Reformation or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved.

Also see: an outline of Nine Lines of Arguments in Favor of the Regulative Principle by Gordon

Calvin and the Church of England

2011-02-14T15:43:00.000-08:00

To continue the topic addressed at The World's Ruined concerning the reformed nature of the English Reformation, here is an excerpt from a Gerald Bray essay commemorating the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth - making the same case, only better!

The precise shape of that Protestantism [in England] however owes more to John Calvin than it does to Henry VIII, who never really broke with the traditional Catholicism of his youth. Calvin never visited England, but he corresponded with people there and welcomed British exiles in Geneva during the reactionary reign of Mary Tudor. It was in Geneva, under his auspices, that the best and most influential early English translation of the Bible appeared (in 1560) and relations between the Swiss city and the British Isles would remain close long after his death.

Calvin’s mentor, Martin Bucer, fled to England in 1548, and although he died there within a year, he made an impact on English theology and worship that can still be detected in the Book of Common Prayer. The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion follow the outline of Calvin’s Institutes to a surprising extent, and their content is similar. It is no exaggeration to say that the theologians who shaped Anglican identity in the Elizabethan era were deeply indebted to Calvin, whose major works were quickly translated into English to become the staple diet of the new-style ordinands being turned out by the universities during those years. Not everyone was equally enthralled by this, of course, but opposition was muted and divided. Anglo-Catholic apologists have tried to find a coherent anti-Calvinistic Anglicanism which they attribute to such figures as Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrewes, but modern non-partisan research has generally shown that their claims cannot be sustained. They are based on the widespread but false assumption that Calvinism and Puritanism are essentially the same thing and that both go back to Calvin himself. In reality, conformist opinion in England was just as imbued with Calvin’s mindset as any Puritan was. This can be seen from the career of Archbishop John Whitgift (1583-1604), whose theology was as Calvinist as anyone in Geneva could have hoped for but who was implacably opposed to Puritanism. It was not until the reign of Charles I (1625-49) that a small group of anti-Calvinists was able to influence the development of the
Church of England, largely thanks to the king’s patronage, but the end result of that was civil war and the overthrow of the high church party, which was seen by most people as an aberrant blemish on the doctrinal purity of the national church, a purity which they identified with the teachings of Calvin.

But although that is undoubtedly true, it must be said that Calvin’s reputation among Anglicans today is not high. Presbyterians and other Reformed Protestants continue to honour him as a foundational theologian comparable to Martin Luther, but while modern Anglicans are often ready to embrace Luther, they generally turn their backs on Calvin and think of him as somehow alien to their own outlook...

Read the whole thing HERE.

Who is Gerald Bray?

Predestination: 39 Articles of Religion

2011-02-10T15:57:00.000-08:00

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

Is the above article from the the Church of England's confession of faith consistent with the Reformed confessions as noted in my last post? Well, among most Anglicans today the answer would be an emphatic "No!" Yet that answer, I think, would be strongly contested by the English 16th century reformers such as Cranmer, Ridley, Jewell, Grindal, Whitgift, and Hooker. H. Bullinger of Zurich was referred to as "the pillar of the Church of England and a Second Elijah" by Jewell and Grindal. Hooker clearly affirms his belief in the Calvinistic tenet of final preservation of all such true believers in Christ. “The faith of true believers,” he declares in his Sermon on the “Certainty and Perpetuity of Faith in the Elect,” “though it have many grievous downfalls, yet it doth still continue invincible, it conquereth and recovereth itself in the end.” [The Church Society] And Cranmer, according to Ashley Null, "described the justification,sanctification, and eternal salvation of the elect wholly in terms of divine activity." [pg. 225, Thomas Cranmer's Doctrine of Repentance]

Let's take a look. The first clause sets the parameters for the rest: Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God... The article then goes about teaching what that is and how God accomplishes it -

whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

To argue that this is not a sovereign work of God's grace alone which reaches back before time, as God alone purposed, is to miss the plain reading and clear import of what is written. Saved man is the mere recipient of gratuitous grace from "before the foundations" all the way through to the attaining "to everlasting felicity." Some might object that man has his part to add in this scheme by noting the article states "they walk religiously in good works." Yes, but that clause is descriptive of the previous one - "they be made like the image of of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ:" Notice the colon. That image of Christ is expressed in believers as "good works", i.e. the good works are evidence of "being made like the image"... not how man himself acquires that image. It is the moral (good works) image of Christ that is in view here.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons...

Why is that? For the good work that God has begun in his people He shall complete according to his decreed purpose stated earlier.

and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God:

It is the Spirit of Christ who is working within us, mortifying the flesh, drawing up our minds up to the heavenly things, where Christ (who is our life) is seated at the right-hand of God. That "working of the Spirit" in the believer inevitably establishes and confirms our faith of this "eternal Salvation"; that it is ours to enjoy through Christ as the Spirit's working rightly kindles love and gratitude towards God in us.

So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Hmm... this is where the article gets a bit vague upon first reading. The clause speaks of a "sentence of God's Predestination" before the eyes of those without or "lacking the Spirit of Christ." And that that condition is "a most dangerous downfall." The implication here is that there is a sentence of condemnation upon those lacking the Spirit of Christ (who is freely given out of God's sheer mercy, not earned or attained), a sentence that flows from God's Predestination. In other words, God has "decreed by his counsel secret to us" not only Predestination to life, but also a sentence or predestination upon those not by God's mercy predestined to life, i.e. without Christ; a sentence unto "a most dangerous downfall", i.e. God's just wrath and judgment upon the ungodly. They confirm and deserve that sentence against them by either their desperation of life or the "wretchedness of most unclean living" that results from being under the Devil's dominion. So it can be argued that in this part of the article one finds the outline of God's predestination of the reprobate, i.e. those not marked off for mercy who thus receive their just sentence of condemnation for their sinful alienation from God. As the Apostle Paul writes in

Romans 9:

¹⁸Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
¹⁹Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
²⁰Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
²¹Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
²²What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
²³And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
and Romans 11:
⁵Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
⁶And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

So then, predestination or election to Life is entirely of God's grace and not resulting from any works of man.

Romans 9:
¹³As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
¹⁴What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
¹⁵For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
¹⁶So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Update [2-11-2011]
A final thought... Cranmer wrote in the above Article the words, "decreed by his counsel secret to us", reflecting the words of Augustine:

"Therefore, as much as it pertains to us, who are not worthy to discern the predestined from those who are not predestined, and because of this we ought to wish all people to be saved, a severe rebuke ought to be applied medicinally by us to all people, lest they perish or destroy others. However, it is God's [place] to make the rebuke useful for those whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." [Of Rebuke and Grace]

Double Predestination

2011-02-09T08:25:00.000-08:00

R.C. Sproul has written this excellent essay on predestination, which is much misunderstood and maligned.

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. III — Art. VI and VII)

One can certainly deny the truth of the above, but it seems rather difficult to make the claim that double predestination is not taught therein. Does this make God the originator of evil and sin in man? No.

The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566

Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man’s evil into good. . . . St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion: “What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly.” (Art. VIII)

What's the problem?

2011-02-09T08:09:00.000-08:00

As I have given thought to some of the problems ailing the the Anglican Church in its various representations I find myself focusing on something that too often gets overlooked. That something is the word of God, the Scriptures. How is that? Well, it's not that Scripture is not given a prominent place in the worship of Anglicans, nor (depending on the minister) in their preaching. Rather, when discussions and debates take place as to the "what ails" the church of Cranmer, Jewel, and Hooker the remedies seem to congregate around the Book of Common Prayer, the auxiliary formularies, historical councils, and writings of various men such as those I just mentioned. These considerations are obviously indispensable if a reformation of sorts is to take place. Yet what seems minimized in the hunt for the true way is the Scripture itself, the ultimate compass for a true and faithful church.

Of Hymns and Confessions...

2011-02-01T09:44:00.000-08:00

There is a voice of consensus that speaks from the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries concerning the doctrines of the Christian faith, but none more than that of the indispensable centrality of Jesus Christ's life and death as the basis for the believer's reconciliation to God and the ground of the believer's life lived now. You find it inferred and invoked in many of Thomas Cranmer's collects and prayers in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer-
   -For the precious death and merits of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord...
   -by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood...
   -by the merits of his most precious death and passion...
You encounter it in the Reformed confessions such as in the Westminster Confession of Faith,
Ch. 8:5-
     The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the
   eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and
   purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven,
   for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
And how wonderful that one also encounters this precious truth in many hymns of worship that have been penned over the centuries as I did this Sunday morning in our church's worship. I was gladdened and edified as we sang these 6th century words from the hymn, Praise the Savior Now and Ever by Venantius Fortunatus (530-609)-
   Praise the Savior now and ever;
   Praise Him, all beneath the skies;
   Prostrate lying, suff’ring, dying
   On the cross, a sacrifice.
   Vict’ry gaining, life obtaining,
   Now in glory He doth rise.

   Man’s work faileth, Christ’s availeth;
   He is all our righteousness;
   He, our Savior, has forever
   Set us free from dire distress.
   Through His merit we inherit
   Light and peace and happiness.

   Sin’s bonds severed, we’re delivered,
   Christ has bruised the serpent’s head;
   Death no longer is the stronger,
   Hell itself is captive led.
   Christ has risen from death’s prison,
   O’er the tomb He light has shed.

   For His favor, praise forever,
   Unto God the Father sing;
   Praise the Savior, praise Him ever,
   Son of God, our Lord and King.
   Praise the Spirit, through Christ’s merit,
   He doth us salvation bring.

How beautifully written, the path for believers to the heavenly inheritance is through the merit of Jesus Christ, the Son of God come in the flesh - the merit of his perfect life lived before the Law of God... and the merit of Christ's full and perfect satisfaction for sins in His death on the cross. It is the Righteous One, the Lamb of God by and through whom the ungodly are justified, sanctified, and glorified; not by any works of our own righteousness. This seems pretty well understood when speaking of justification, being declared or imputed righteous by God on the basis of Jesus' obedience as a man and his death for our sins.
The hymn reads: Through His merit we inherit. But do we add anything in this life that contributes to the merit of that inheritance? What of our practical living unto the Lord - walking worthily of Him who has called as holy ones to be conformed to His righteous image? Commonly called our sanctification, this path likewise is walked only through the merit of our blessed Lord and Savior: Praise the Spirit, through Christ’s merit, He doth us salvation bring.

The WCF Chapter 13 - Of Sanctification:

I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

Given the "remnants of corruption" within our holiest works, and even though through faith they be acceptable and pleasing to God, yet in and of themselves these works fall short of the perfect obedience that the Law demands. Thus the words: They... are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them. Ours is to obey; an obedience, though imperfect, born of gratitude as the reasonable service or duty we owe in light of the abundant grace bestowed on us in Christ. To what purpose? The making of ourselves gradually more holy by our grace-assisted works offered? No. God needs neither our works of righteousness (Christ the Perfect Man has fully supplied them already) nor are we able to truly offer such righteous works, as they fall short. Yet through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection and His Word and Spirit dwelling within we are being changed, yet not of ourselves. As the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:

   -But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness
   and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written: "Let him who boast, boast in the Lord" (30-31).

That all the glory would go to God in all we say and do. He has done it!

So the sojourn here is that of not looking to ourselves and the commands of God with the Spirit's help as the means of sanctification and something we must fulfill in order to inherit. Rather, as the writer of Hebrews says,
   Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every
   encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race
   that is set before us,
   fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him
  endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
  (12:1-2)
This follows fast on Hebrews 11 and the cloud of witnesses who gave testimony, through their suffering, godly living and even death, to the one true and faithful God... and all by faith - a faith that looks away from self (and our subjective measure of keeping law) to Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith. Yet one asks, shouldn't we seek to live obediently to God's commands? Yes, but by a faith that dependently and gratefully puts its whole trust in God's fulfilled promises and mercy in Christ; that looks to Jesus who, by His obedient life lived and sacrificial death on the cross, bearing the full penalty of all our sin, has become both our justification and sanctification:

^{Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.}
   For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
   For  what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son
   in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
   so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the
   flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4)
-And it is the Word and the Spirit that point us to the all-sufficiency of Christ Jesus, Redeemer and Sanctifier.

At the evening service later on Sunday as the church gathered, a stanza in another hymn spoke to my heart that drove home this reassuring truth of God's full provision for us in Christ. From O Love of God, How Strong and True by Horatius Bonar:
   We read thee best in Him Who came
   To bear for us the cross of shame;
   Sent by the Father from on high,
   Our life to live, our death to die.

Wretched man...

2011-01-19T15:14:00.000-08:00

Ah.... wretched man that I am. Overboard? Over-wrought? Get over it? The words of Paul sound so out of sync with today's mindset of boosting self-esteem at all costs by eschewing things too difficult to chew on...

Yet, I think the term "wretched" is not only appropriate in certain contexts describing man, but is also a necessary and Biblical concept. Why would one refer to himself as "wretched'? Not because we are trash, or worth nothing (or less than nothing when feeling depressed). The Christian can own this adjective in light of the fact that he was created in the image of God. He has imprinted on his soul the knowledge of God and his righteousness (Rom. 2:14-15). He is a member of the human race originally created pure and sinless. But now he is no longer pure but a sinner, both by birth (going back to Adam) and by thought, word, and deed. He, by nature, loves the darkness and not the light (John 3:19-21).

Having then been graced by God with the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and having sins forgiven, the term is still an apt description of a Christian in the context of Rom. 7. Though now justified by the blood of Christ, all too often I willingly sin and resist the grace of God. The law of sin in my "members' is still alive and warring with the law in my new heart and mind (born of His Spirit) that agrees with God's righteousness. As a recipient of the salvation of God in Christ, I am now even more aware of how far I had fallen... and how "in my flesh" I still rebelliously embrace sin. Especially in light of God's lavish love and forgiveness, when I sin and turn from his wonderful and freely given grace - I am most wretched.

Interestingly, Paul's awareness of his "wretchedness" in Romans 7 didn't lead to despair but to rejoicing and blessing:

²⁴O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
²⁵I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
next verse beginning of Chapter 8:
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

So at the same time we can say, as Christians, we are both "wretched" and "blessed"... sinner and saint... far from holy - yet wholly justified by Christ's sacrifice and merit... presently being conformed to Christ's righteous image by his Spirit through the ministry of his Word and Sacrament in the Church.

Related thoughts were touched upon in this post from last September.

Dr. Godfrey on Faith Alone...

2011-01-18T15:17:00.000-08:00

I want to recommend the book Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry edited by R.S. Clark of Westminster Seminary of California. The book is comprised of a number of essays by various authors on the doctrine of justification and covenant theology, "two of the most basic and yet most misunderstood doctrines in the contemporary Reformed world". And my referral is given heartily in the spirit of C.S. Lewis' words, "For my own part, I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await others. I believe that many who find that ‘nothing happens’ when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand."

As an introduction and a foretaste, here are some notes and quotes from Dr. Robert Godfrey's contribution, Faith Formed by Love or Faith Alone?:

... Medieval understanding of faith was, in its essence, implicitly a mental category to which the believer must assent...
Thomas Aquinas wrote, "Faith is a habit of the mind, whereby eternal life is begun in us, and which causes the intellect to assent to things not seen..." Charity is not the intrinsic form of faith, but that which brings faith to its form.
Godfrey: "A faith that is 'formed by love' is that infused into man and makes him capable of producing good works."... The Reformers understood"faith alone" not as "doctrinal assent alone." Trent rightly understood the Reformational understanding of "faith alone" and condemned it in Trent Session 6, Canon 12.
Calvin: "Faith is the principle work of the Holy Spirit."
Godfrey: "The union that the Holy Spirit creates with Christ for us is through the gift of faith."
Trent understood the Reformer's doctrine of faith alone and anathematized it clearly...
But for Calvin - faith is knowledge-not just historical facts, but God's attitude toward us in Christ and for Christ's sake. Faith knows about Christ and his reconciling work on our behalf. "Christianity is knowing what Christ has done for us and how God now sees us in Christ."

In Calvin's basic definition of faith, knowledge is central: "Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God's benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit."
Godfrey: Thus "faith is a trusting, confident knowledge."... Not that we don't struggle with our own unbelief... Yet faith ultimately triumphs over our unbelief and the tumults of this life.
Calvin: "For faith does not certainly promise itself either length of years or honor or riches in this life, since the Lord willed that none of these things be appointed for us. But is is content with this certainty: that, however many things fail us that have to do with the maintenance of this life, God will never fail. Rather, the chief assurance of faith rests in the expectation of the life to come, which has been placed beyond doubt through the word of God."
Godfrey: Faith rests in the promise of mercy, and that freely given. Faith is a gift of God's grace... We cannot come to Christ unless drawn by the Holy Spirit - coming to know and trust what they never could have known and trusted if left to themselves apart from the Spirit of God... Reconciliation proceeds sanctification - by a faith that looks away from itself, connected to the perfect righteousness of Christ...
*Faith, the only instrument of receiving the work of Christ.
Calvin: "Faith rests not on ignorance but on knowledge"...
Godfrey: We need to know the gospel promise... "Faith looks away from self to rest in Christ for justification. Therefore, even a weak and imperfect faith still connects with Christ and his perfection when it is genuine."
... So faith working through love does not depend on the virtues of that love for its power of efficacy - for our acts of love are always insufficient, falling short of the requirements of God's judgment. No faith's efficacy is in the perfection of Christ - his obedience, sacrifice, and full satisfaction for sin - faith's object!

Calvin: "Therefore, we cannot come to Christ unless we be drawn by the Spirit of God, so when we are drawn we are lifted up in mind and heart above our understanding."

What Calvin taught on faith and love Luther taught.
Luther: "To preach as follows (as some have formerly done, and some mad spirits are still doing: would be wrong and intolerable: Although you do not keep the commandments of God, do not love God and your neighbor, aye, although you are an adulterer, this does not matter: if you believe, you will be saved."... Luther totally rejected that view! "No my good man, this will not do! You will not possess the kingdom of heaven."
Calvin and Luther agreed: True faith that justifies is a faith that leads to sanctification... a total lack of sanctification means no true saving faith.

Godfrey: "For the Reformation, reconciliation precedes sanctification... Calvin insists that reconciliation means that the Christian is connected to the perfect righteousness of Christ by that faith that looks away from itself, which is only and instrument of receiving the work of Christ." Faith is the vessel in which the riches of Christ's work are brought to us - reconciling us to God... Faith alone, which looks to Christ alone, has its works, but its works, its fruits, or its outcome are in no way part of justification."

Godfrey: To say that one is saved by "grace alone" is not enough. The medieval theologians taught that - that grace alone worked to so transform and sanctify one as to be the basis for final justification. Yet such improved life is still imperfect. What one needs to stand in the judgment is a perfect righteousness!

"Paul indeed taught that faith stands alone in receiving justification from the work of Christ (Rom. 3:24-26). Justification is not received or maintained by any kind of working, and kind of moral improvement, or any kind of sanctifying moral improvement."

Peace with God comes only through faith in Christ alone - His merit, His sacrifice and satisfaction for sin.... As Luther wrote, "A man is justified, not by the works of the law, by by faith alone."

Chrysostom: "O sweet exchange..."

2010-12-21T16:35:00.001-08:00

Good news for sinners from John Chrysostom (c.349-407), Epistle to Diognetus, 9:

‘[God] himself took on him the burden of our iniquities, he gave his own Son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the blameless one for the wicked, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the incorruptible one for the corruptible, the immortal one for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than his righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! — that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single Righteous One, and that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors!’

A definition of the local church?

2010-12-19T14:03:00.000-08:00

This seems to be a decent working definition of the local church that would be helpful to call to mind every now and then as we 'forebear' and 'long-suffer' one with another:

The assembly is not the abode of Christian perfection; it is the abode of the family of God, those who through regeneration have been made partakers of His life and are developing in that life, sometimes in much weakness and limitation. (Torch of the Testimony by John Kennedy, pg. 186-187)

Lessons & Carols 2010

2010-12-18T16:24:00.000-08:00

Here is a video with excerpts from Lessons & Carols held last evening at Santa Barbara Church of Our Savior. The readings are by Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. The harp solo is by Harmony Lange. The intro singing is by Rev. Kemp and the Kemp Family Singers!

Prayer of Contrition

2010-12-04T09:32:00.000-08:00

The words of my mouth ring hollow.
With them do I vainly seek my own glory.
Deceptive thoughts too willingly I invite into my heart;
As if without understanding,
Entertaining them as a subterfuge for sin.
Indeed what I conceive in my heart and do is against Thee.

Yet where shall I now turn, but to Thee?
And who will deliver me from this mire, but the One I offend?
My only hope is in God's mercy.
Dear Lord, save me from my errant ways according to Thy Word.
Cleanse me and deliver me from my iniquity,
That I may know Thy lovingkindness and walk in Thy truth.

The Apostle Paul writes,
"Faithful is the saying and worthy of all acceptance,
That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;
Of whom I am chief: howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy..."

Therefore, my trust is in Thee alone O Lord
Who bore my transgressions on Thy bloody cross,
Who purchased and delivered me from evil unto holiness and life eternal.

Grant then unto me, an unworthy servant, this Thy great salvation.
That what Thou has graciously begun, Thou will complete,
By the merits and worthiness of Thy Son Jesus Christ my Lord.
Amen.
-Jack Miller

[ASV 1 Timothy 1:15-16a]

From the Litany BCP 1662:
From all blindness of heart; from pride, vainglory,
and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice,
and all uncharitableness,
Good Lord, deliver us.

Worship Acceptable to God through Christ Jesus...

2010-12-03T09:34:00.000-08:00

R.S. Clark has a new post at Heidelblog titled The Scandal of Pagans Leading Worship commenting on the rising trend of pastors and clergy allowing "those who make no Christian profession, who regard themselves as non-Christians, non-believers, those we used to call “heathen” or “pagans” to lead worship through leading or playing musical instruments."
This is a timely essay by Scott on a wayward drift that touches too many churches today. It seems that the before-unheard-of idea of "inclusiveness of unbelievers" for the purpose of music in Christian worship is a growing phenomenon; unfortunately one that moves the church in the direction of the muting of the Gospel to the ears of the very unbelievers brought in to aid worship. The rationale, apart from the increased aesthetic of music and singing, is that the talented unbeliever will be exposed to the Gospel. Really? The bright line between lost sinners under God's wrath and the merciful salvation offered in Christ is blurred as churches elevate the vehicle of music aesthetic in worship to a place of importance at or above that of the Word. I was in a church that had unbelieving "cantors" (and, more or less, promoted the idea). Beautiful singing... inspiring! And after two years they moved on to another gig. How can the Gospel be a clear call of repentance and faith to the lost who have already been brought into the worship of the Most High?

Dr. Clark writes:
"Nowhere does the spiritual and epistemic antithesis come to a clearer expression in Holy Scripture than when it considers public, corporate worship. We live in the world, under God’s common providence, with unbeliever’s sharing (Matt 5:48) in God’s common gifts to humanity but when we gather, on the Sabbath, for Christian worship, we withdraw from the common into a special, sacred space and time. It is not a time to celebrate our common humanity with non-believers, it is not a time for cultural, artistic expression and achievement. It is a time to bow before the face of our Holy Triune God and worship him as he as commanded (WCF 21.1). In this sense, holiness is about distinction (antithesis) between belief and unbelief. To make something sacred is to set it aside. That’s what we are, in corporate worship, God’s holy people, his holy priesthood (1 Pet 2:5), a holy temple. It is then that we express our status as a “holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9)."

Amen.

Further thoughts on Justification and Sanctification...

2010-11-24T12:55:00.000-08:00

Over the past year I've had the opportunity to lead two studies in our church - one on the Epistle to the Romans 1-8 and the other on the Epistle to the Galatians. Personally, it has been a rich and rewarding time. My understanding of God's act of "mere mercy" has grown due to, not only to the words of Scripture, but the excellent commentaries of John Stott, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, as well as several articles from Modern Reformation Magazine. Here is what I'll simply call some further thoughts on justification and sanctification...

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is such that upon hearing and trusting in its message sinners are completely set free from all penalties and demands of the Law pertaining to sin and righteousness. For on the cross Jesus Christ took upon himself our sin, our guilt, and the penalty of God’s just wrath. He suffered and died willingly in our place for our sins. This is the love of God. Thus through repentant faith we have been drawn by God to look away from our wretched selves unto Christ only, having received as a free gift of God’s grace the complete forgiveness of all our sins and the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the Law, our righteousness before God.
This is our justification.

    But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness (Rom. 4:5)
… that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:26b)
    For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law (Rom. 3:28)
    … nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified (Gal. 2:16)
    He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. 5:21)
    Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.(Rom.8:1).

And by this faith which looks to Christ alone, the Gospel not only frees us from any and all demands of the law required of us (which we could never perform) - no longer, through works, needing to attain or earn merit of righteousness before God - but also in this Gospel we have been delivered from the dominion of sin and death to that of righteousness and life. We are no longer under law but under grace. And this is the transforming ground upon which we stand and walk as believers. Having become recipients of such immense mercy, we are freed to look away from self's concerns to that of others, embracing the righteous direction of the law.  And this most especially occurs as we bear the burdens of one another, fulfilling the law of Christ - to love thy neighbor as thyself. Though we never love without imperfection (still beset by the remnant of sinful flesh) yet this spiritual service of grateful obedience, led by the Spirit, is acceptable to God by grace through faith. - The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. (Rom. 8: 16)
This is our sanctification.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. (Gal. 5: 6)

    For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal. 5: 13)
    For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." (Gal. 5: 14)
    But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. (Gal. 5: 18)
    If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. (Gal. 5: 25)
For all who are being led by by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. (Rom. 8: 14)
    Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfil the law of the Christ. (Gal. 6: 2)
    And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal. 6: 16)

The Vertical and the Horizontal: Faith without works looks heavenward away from self unto Christ alone and passively receives undeserved justification. This same faith also looks away from self to one’s neighbor to serve him by bearing his burdens, actively working through love born of the Holy Spirit. This latter sanctifying faith flows from the former justifying faith and yet they are inseparable. The justified sinner, who for freedom was set free by Christ, is led of the Spirit into the sanctifying path of loving his neighbor as himself. Through the power of the Spirit he takes up his cross in grateful obedience as a servant of both God and others; to the end that the one who believes might be conformed to the image of His dear Son. (Rom. 8: 29)

    But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. (Rom. 6:22)
[all Scripture verses from the NASV]