15 December 2013

The Kindness and Severity of God: An Advent Devotion


The Kindness and Severity of God: An Advent Devotion

Text: Ephesians 2:1-7

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” (Ephesians 2:4-6)

As you reflect with your families upon the coming and birth of Christ, it is important that we understand that what Joseph and Mary witnessed that evening in Bethlehem, was the historic incarnation of the eternal Son of God. We understand and believe that in eternity past, the triune God made a covenant of redemption between the persons of his Holy Trinity. In which the Father, Son and Spirit work together to accomplish the historical redemption of the people of God. In order for you or I, or any other sinning son or daughter of Adam to be brought into fellowship with God, someone had to die. Grace and love cannot be experienced at the expense of justice. There had to be a transferral of righteousness to the account of the guilty, and a removal of, and payment for, the guilt of the guilty. The Son of God came and entered into his creation in order to accomplish that mission. He alone, fully obedient to the Father, has become righteous, and he alone can bear the weight of the sin of God’s people; so that when he drinks from the cup of God’s wrath on our sin, he drains the entire challis and no condemnation is left for us. When he dies, we also die with him, and we, who could not have tasted God’s wrath and lived, are also raised up with him when he conquers death. Those initial two words in verse 4 are so extraordinarily lovely. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones spoke well when he said that they, being so beautiful, “in a sense contain the whole of the gospel.”

            In the midst of our misery, as wicked children of wrath, the almighty God has tenderly loved us and because of his love, he purposed and accomplished our salvation in his beloved Son. Yet not only are we made alive together with Christ, we are also raised up with him and seated with him in the heavenly places. We are not left with a potential salvation, but an actual, historically accomplished, and efficacious salvation. Though we be faithful saints now (Eph. 1:1) we were all once dead (Eph. 2:1). Willful and witless, we followed our evil captain to increasing disobedience. It is against the backdrop of that great darkness that the grace and kindness of God shines bright in the face of Jesus Christ, a child born and a Son given. This truly is the gospel, and in the reality explained in those two words, “But God,” we find and anchor all our hope.

For further reading and discussion:

Proverbs 17:15

Romans 3:23-26

Isaiah 53:4-6

10 July 2013

Luther, Creeds and Sola Scriptura


While I yearn desperately to flee from a contentious spirit, and while I do not delight in controversy for its own sake, I feel the need to respond publicly to a statement made publicly. Perhaps it can be seen that friends who differ can have significant intellectual and graceful conversations about the things of God.

It was said,

“For a group supposedly defined by the motto "Sola Scriptura", the reformers sure did have a remarkable affinity for extra-biblical creeds and confessions. Also, if the great Martin Luther found "Sola Scriptura" so important, why did he devote so much ink and paper to focus directing prefaces in his translation of the scriptures?

Perhaps Luther still stubbornly clung to the Catholic idea that the "laymen" needed adequate clerical guidance in order to understand God's word. Perhaps this is still a problem with "reformed" theology...”

Regarding an “affinity for extra biblical creeds and confessions.”

I think you misunderstand and misrepresent the nature of creeds and confessions. They do not take the place of Holy Scripture, but they are rather, helpful statements of what we believe the Scriptures teach. That is why they are used, because they are succinct and memorable. The word “creed” comes from the Latin “credo” meaning, “I believe.” Any time you say that you believe something, you are making a creedal statement. Perhaps a good example of this is a belief in the Trinity. You can summarize what you believe the Bible teaches concerning the eternal tri-personhood of God existing in one perfect being by making the statement, “I believe in the Trinity.” You wont find the word Trinity in the bible, however you will find the doctrine taught in its pages. By stating that you believe that God is a Trinity, you are making a confession of your faith. We are told to teach what accords with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1) to, build our selves up in our most holy faith (Jude 20) and to be ready at all times to give a defense for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15). Do you expect then the believers to refrain from making statements of that most holy faith? The sometimes heard “No creed but Christ,” is unbiblical, unhelpful and manifestly untrue since it, being itself a creedal statement, is logically invalid.

Furthermore, creeds and confessions should be understood as historical responses to controversy and heresy. They are written to take a stand on what is believed to be true regarding essential doctrines, like the person and work of God the Father and Jesus over against the denial of those essential doctrines. They are  “boundary markers that set the rules for intelligent, creative conversation about God and his creation.”[1] They are cherished for their succinct statements that help Christians distinguish between essential and non-essential beliefs; focus their faith and worship on the issues that matter most; and articulate clearly how their beliefs differ from other teachings.[2] They have never ever been thought of as replacing the study or reading or preaching of Scripture, which as Sola Scriptura teaches is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, it alone is the word of God, it alone is the final authority of Christian doctrine, and all other authorities in the church are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, it.

Concerning Luther and his supposed “stubbornness in clutching to the Catholic idea that the “layman” needed adequate clerical guidance in order to understand God’s word.” (Slightly reworded).

I think you here, like before, both misunderstand and misrepresent the heart of the Reformation. Luther believed that Rome held Christians “captive.” Bruce Shelly explains “he attacked the papacy for depriving the individual Christian of his freedom to approach God directly by his faith, without the mediation of priests.”[3] From the heart of the Reformation comes the teaching of the priesthood of all believers. We stand directly before God and are accountable to him, and have the right to study the Scriptures and worship God as he reveals himself there, and we furthermore have the right to do it in our own language. This last point is what drove men like John Wycliffe, Martin Luther and the King James translators to translate the bible into the native tongues of their people. Martin Luther specifically wanted to translate from the original languages, since the current German translation was done from the Latin Vulgate. To the question-where does religious authority lie?-Luther responded: “Not in the visible institution called the Roman Church, but in the Word of God found in the Bible.”[4] Michael Horton explains, “‘Scripture is not the word of the Church; the church is the church of the Word.’ Therefore, ‘the church is the hearing church.’[5] Only because the church passes on what it has heard is its authority something other than an arbitrary exercise of institutional power.”[6]

As Reformed people and Evangelicals, we believe that grace is immediately connected to the believers. That is, that the grace of God does not have a necessary sacramental medium through which it works ex opere operato, that is by the working of the thing it self. I am accountable directly to God, and Christ alone is the ground of my salvation and mediator between God and man. While we certainly believe that God has given gifts of preaching, teaching, insight and exegetical skill to men who will become Elders and Deacons, who will instruct and teach the congregations, and that many things are difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16), we do not believe that they themselves are the arbiters of truth. Every Christian has the responsibility to weigh everything by Scripture and to earnestly seek the face of God in prayer as they look for Scriptural understanding. Luther and all the rest of the reformers believed this, and those who are confessionally Reformed today also believe these things. To say that we don’t or they didn’t is entirely fallacious. The Westminster Confession states in 1.4, “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”

I’m not quite sure why you even venture to write these things. Do you deny Sola Scriptura? Or perhaps you are meaning only to undercut Reformed theology by setting up straw men. Perhaps you don’t know that they are straw men. I’m not certain what you have read or heard that compels you to say what you’ve said, but I believe it is misleading, and should be corrected. It furthermore seems rather silly to think that since Luther believed in Sola Scriptura and thought that it was important, that he should have some limit set, by whom I have no idea, on just how much ink he is allowed to use and pages he is allowed use when writing prefaces.

In thinking about the place of creeds and confessions, I will end with an apt admonition given by Dr. David Steele. He says, “Remember that godly people gave their lives to hammer out the creeds and confessions to protect the church from theological wolves.  The creeds were carefully and prayerfully fashioned so we might know and worship Christ rightly.  This Christ is the uncreated One who himself created all things (Col. 1:16).  He was born of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:26-35), the Savior who was tempted as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:21-24).  This Christ perfectly obeyed the law of God, died on the cross for sinners, and rose on the third day for our justification (1 Cor. 15:3-5; Rom. 4:25; Acts 2:22-24).  This Christ is fully God and fully man and stood in the place of everyone who would ever believe (Gal. 3:13; Isa. 53:4-6), bearing their sins (2 Cor. 5:21), satisfying the wrath of God (Rom. 3:23-26), redeeming them from hell (Col. 1:13-14), and reconciling them to a God (Rom. 5:10).  And this Christ is worthy of our undivided allegiance, devotion, and worship!”[7]



[1] Benjamin Galan. Creeds and Heresies, Then and Now pamphlet. Rose. Torrance, CA. 2009. Print
[2] ibid
[3] Bruce Shelly. Church History in Plain Language. Pg. 241. Nelson. Nashville, TN. 1995. Print
[4] ibid. pg. 246.
[5] Horton is here quoting John Webster’s work Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch.
[6] Michael Horton. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Pg. 200. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2011. Print
[7] http://baldreformer.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/no-creed-but-christ/

01 July 2013

Another Nail in the Coffin



Another Nail in the Coffin

Cable television, the window into the winding vice of the secular world. My wife and I have been married for four years now, and have been perfectly happy so far with no cable. Yet due largely to what I’m calling the super-gravitational pull of the Food Network and Discovery Channel, we and by “we” I mean “I,” have given in and installed the little black mind numbing box with blinky green lights much to the chagrin of our monthly entertainment budget. While there is so much that is interesting, and at times even downright wholesome on the tube, there is even more about the box that beckons me to abandon the thing. Not just programs, those can at least be turned off or not watched at all, but mainly the zombie-like – mindroting - timewarpy effect that it has in Bluetooth conjunction with the butt attracting magnet that I’m sure has been secretly planted in the couch.
That all being said, I have recently seen some commercials for Sealy’s 2013 posturepedic mattress line that should be commented on. After images of bed-jumping, child-playing, couples coupling and some other everyday things,  We hear and see the tagline, “Whatever you do in bed, Sealy supports it.” A line which Reuters reports as the brand’s overarching marketing campaign.[1] Now, my goal here is to ask you to think, and to make connections. Look beyond the words to ground they come from. It is beyond obvious that despite the lack of homosexual images (a fact that The Conscious Man[2] calls “close-minded,” “exclusionary,” and even homophobic,” since it should “obviously” include images like these if it were truly on the side of love) that Sealy as a company is taking a firm-mattressy stand on one side of the line. And perhaps at this point in time it is strategic not to include images that would spark controversy so that they can appeal to the homosexual agenda without necessarily upsetting or alienating those who haven’t boarded that ship yet. But that’s the problem I think. It is controversial! It does make it’s case brilliantly clear, and only fails to alienate those who have their brains turned off, despite what unconscious individuals like The Conscious Man (who want what James White has rightly called “Uber rights,” not to be confused with “equal rights”) say about it.
Here’s the main point, I do not believe for one minute that Sealy supports whatever you want to do in bed. Neither do I believe for one millisecond that those who “stand on the side of love” and want “marriage equality” actually support all love or marriage equality. I’m sure that Sealy is completely supportive of women exchanging natural relations for those that are contrary to nature and men giving up natural relations with women and being consumed with passion for one another (Romans 1:26-27), but I doubt they support a man having sexual relations with his dog or a woman sleeping with her twelve year old son or daughter or nephew or neighbor.  Is there equality in rights and marriage for those who want what is called “intergenerational love?[3]” Will they stand on the side of love when a hundred “born this way” men and women stand in the streets with signs declaring their love for their kittens and horses? Certainly not! At least not right now God-forbid that in fifty years we have movie stars taking roles and righting books, as if they were authorities on the subjects, about bestiality. Horseback Mountain hits the screen, and all of a sudden amidst the tear jerking and wide smoky landscapes, a musically moved audience swallows the pill and simply must forever support what is to them a natural and socially progressive expression of passion and humanity.
Is this where Sealy wants to go? It this what they mean when they say, “whatever you do in bed, we support it?” “What if I commit adultery in my bed?” What about Jeffry Dahmer, and all he did in his bed, does Sealy stamp approval on that? Not only is this a morally wrong ad campaign in what it intends to support; it is ignorant and foolish concerning what it supports unintentionally. This campaign has been named a finalist for the 2011 Jay Chiat Awards for Strategic Excellence, and Sleep Retailers Magazine calls it “innovative.[4]” The Futures Company calls it “sensible[5],” and Caledon Virtual places it on their “best of” list.[6] Behold your Cool-Aid. While brilliantly strategic, and certainly a foothold of a certain innovation, it is also foolish and a slope that will drag out and down the already debased immorality of our American culture. When the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a ditch (Matthew 15:14). The ditch is before our country and us; statements like this one from Sealy are throwing another scoop of coal into the fire of the engine driving this train off the cliff. It is one more nail in the coffin of our judgment.
What does this mean for us who cling to Christ? It certainly means a lot, but one thing I would like to say is that, there is none righteous, no not one. That means you and me along with everyone else in the world including those who pervert marriage. The wrath of God is being revealed, and part of that judgment is the giving over of the culture to its sexual lusts. The growing fluid continuum of sexuality in our culture is a result of judgment since we have not honored God or given thanks to him (Romans 1:18-24), and it will bring further judgment and death. We need the Gospel because of the wrath being revealed. Even as we encounter the atrocities of our godless culture that does not honor God as God or give thanks to him, we should remember that there is severity as well as tenderness in the voice of God.[7] Renew your mind; don’t listen to slippery rhetoric of the world. But as you seek to avoid even passively (like Sealy’s tag line) giving your approval to those who practice evil (Rom. 1:32), remember that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Flee the wrath to come, acknowledge God and believe the word of Truth, the gospel of your salvation and run to Jesus, you will find in him a perfect savior. Be careful, weigh everything even the most innocent of ad campaigns, don’t be lied to. And engage the world with the gospel, which is their and our only hope.


[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/28/nc-zz-new2013line-idUSnPnCG49646+160+PRN20130128
[2] http://theconsciousman.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/superbowl-homophobia/
[3] http://uryourstory.org/index.php/our-own-stories/133-in-defence-of-intergenerational-love
[4] http://bedroomretailers.com/marketing-update/“whatever-you-do-in-bed-sealy-supports-it”-campaign-nominated-for-prestigious-award/
[5] http://trendandtonic.thefuturescompany.com/whatever-you-do-in-bed-sealy-supports-it/
[6] http://www.caledonvirtual.com/author/calevir
[7] http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-wrath-of-god-against-ungodliness-and-unrighteousness

27 April 2013

A Christian Worldview Reflected Through the Centuries.




            Like a flower, which draws its existence and life sustaining energy from the nutritious soil in which it is planted, I believe that any value, principle or ideal has its root in, and draws life from, a particular worldview. I mean to say that the soil of a worldview is what holds and sustains any value that a person may posses. Worldviews ought to be exposed and tested, we should evaluate the presuppositions that produce and sustain our values. What follows is a reflection on a worldview, a particular set of core truths that, as I understand them, produce the many principles that flow through history. I don’t mean to eisegetically impose my worldview on to or into the examined texts, but to speculate on the ribbon that I believe runs through history and which, even in the midst of varying and sometimes exclusive worldviews, holds and nourishes what principles I consider to be valuable. I am someone who believes in the necessary and objective existence of an infinite, singular, personal and creating God and who furthermore believes that humanity is made in the image of that God and has received the words of God that they may know how to live obediently to the laws of God; laws which are his by right of his sovereign kingship. This has massive implications on what is valuable and virtuous, and how those values and virtues are mediated. I value deeply such principles and ideals as honor, propriety, piety, honesty, love, infinity and creativity, particularly because I believe they are aspects of God’s attributes, that are necessarily pleasing to him and are given to us as part of the imago dei.  

30 March 2013

Matthew 23:37 Response






There is much to be dealt with in your article, like the assertions that Calvinists believe that 1) “man’s will is not involved in the salvation of the believer,” and 2) “the grace of God is superimposed upon the believer regardless of whether he wills to be saved or not.” However, I want to focus on your own use of Matthew 23:37, and your rebuttal to what you have called argument #2.

            You said that Calvinists believe that,

 “Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and not to Jerusalem as a whole.”

This is however only part of the argument, and not even the principle part. It seems you have dismissed the other parts without giving us a reason for doing so. Like you said, the point made by Reformed readers of this text is that Jesus is speaking to the religious establishment in Jerusalem, when he says “Jerusalem, Jerusalem” he is addressing those who spiritually lead the city and the nation, and in this way, the city as a whole is being indentified by those who lead it. The rebuke he gives concerns their children, by children we are obviously talking about the children of Jerusalem, that is all of the city dwellers who are lead and cared for and watched over by the Pharisees. Your rebuttal points out rightly so that Jesus tells the leaders of Jerusalem that he would have gathered their children together as a mother hen gathers her chicks. However you completely miss the point of the distinction made between the leaders Jesus is talking to, and the people those leaders lead. Lets have an example.

Suppose I have a brother and sister in law. John, my brother and Rebekah, his wife have 3 children. These children are my nieces and nephews, and I want to visit them and tell them about how much I love them. Now lets say that my brother and sister in law do not like me and want me to stay away from their children. I love my nieces and nephews, and I want to be a part of their life, so I send them letter after letter, and gift after gift to tell them how much I love them. My brother and his wife however, burn all my letters and gifts as they come in, and teach my nieces and nephews to hate their uncle. So then I say to my brother and sister in law when I come to visit them, “John and Rebekah, I have longed to gather your children to me, to show them my love, but you were not willing for me to be in their life, you hated me and took every opportunity to destroy everything I sent them that told them how much I loved them.

I am trying to point out the distinction between those Jesus is talking to who are unwilling, and those he desires to gather to himself. Jesus does NOT say, “I longed to gather you but you were not willing.” Jesus also does NOT say, “I longed to gather your children but your children were not willing.”

He says, I longed to gather your children but you were not willing.  Confusing these two is the problem, and leads to people believing that those Jesus desires to draw are resisting his drawing.
You yourself make this error. You said,

“Jesus clearly states that He would have gathered them together, but they would not.”

That is it right there, the ones Jesus wants to gather, and the ones who are unwilling are two different groups. This is the principle point made by Reformed readers that you have dismissed. Furthermore, the error dispelled by properly reading the text, is the error you continue to make in your other rebuttals and into your conclusion when you say,

“If Jesus WOULD HAVE gathered them, then that means He COULD HAVE gathered them, and the parallel between verses 37 and 39 show that he COULD NOT because they WOULD NOT.”

I hope that since I have pointed out your misunderstanding of our argument and reading of the text, I will not need to show you how you commit the error again in the lines quoted above. Remember the ones he would have gathered,   are   a   completely   different   group   from   those that would not.
Let me prove my point further and press it home by color-coding the pronouns in the verse.

Matthew 23:37
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”










He longs to gather the children, but the city that kills the prophets is working against him, because their wills are bent against him, and so they do not want him to gather the children to himself. The point is, that the Pharisees are doing everything in their power to oppose Jesus and to work against the will of God. And this is what all people are doing all the time. The fact that people oppose the will of God is not an anti Calvinist point, but a very Calvinistic one! It is the very point made by the doctrine of Total Depravity, and exemplified in such texts as John 6:44, Romans 1:18-25, Romans 3:9-18 and Ephesians 2:1-3.

Jerusalem should be the center of praise and love toward Jesus, the very temple of God itself was there, and so it is dear to Christ. The history of his people is wrapped up in and around that city. Yet, it is in that very city and from those very wrong religious leaders that Jesus is rejected. That is why he says in v38, “See, your house is left to you desolate.” And in v39, “For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” The children of Jerusalem, who may or may not have actually come to Jesus, are being prevented from coming to him by the Leaders of the city. We should note that Jesus never says that he was unable to gather the children, all he says is that the leaders of Jerusalem were working against him at every turn. There is a parallel passage, which explains this very thing.

1 Thessalonians 2:14b-16
“For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!”


The point is that Jesus is expressing his sorrow for the state of affairs in Jerusalem where his sheep, his children are being held back from him by the unbelieving brood of vipers who rule the city. I am worshipful and thankful that Jesus is the good shepherd who lays his life down for his sheep (John 10: 11, 15), his sheep know his voice, follow him and he gives them eternal life (John 10:27), and no matter what, no matter how the world may try, no matter how hard the Pharisees may work, they cannot snatch Jesus’ sheep out of his hand (John 10:28-29). I am thankful that the Lord accomplishes whatever he pleases in heaven and earth (Psalm 135:6), and no one can stay his hand (Daniel 4:35). We should also pray for those who lead us that they would not be a hindrance to the gospel, and reap judgment and wrath upon themselves like those in 1 Thessalonians 2:14b-16. Thank you for reading.

19 March 2013

The Text of "John 6. A Very Brief Walkthrough."



This was written as a response to a question given to me via YouTube. It moves fast due to the length constraints I was putting it under. Please read John Chapter 6 through fully and prayerfully prior to reading this, and then re read the sections listed as they come. I hope this is helpful and useful to anyone who may read it. Despite length constraints, even a very brief walkthrough such as this still took up considerable space, so I created a video from it which can be seen on my YouTube channel or HERE at Things of Old.

Verses 1-15

When I zoom out to the whole chapter, I see in vs. 1-15, Jesus feeding the 5000, who followed and gathered around him because they saw the healings he had done (v2) and for his miracle of multiplying the loves and fishes, the crowd call him the prophet (v14) and are desirous to make him king (15).

Verses 15-20

13 March 2013

John 6: A Very Brief Walkthrough


A fellow on YouTube asked me to take a walk through John 6, and the written response turned out longer than can be easily given...  so I made a video!



02 January 2013

The Reactionary God of Paradise Lost




I perceive the question of God’s foreknowledge of temporal events to be critical in understanding the ways of a good, perfect and just God as they relate to men in an obviously imperfect world. As I have read, Paradise Lost, I have done so asking, “What does Milton believe and teach concerning how God knows what he knows?” Reading the work has lead me to believe that Milton does not give a full answer to that question. Instead the how of God’s knowledge is lost amid the details and appeal, as explanation for culpability, to a libertarian moral freedom in humanity. This explanation, and defense of the goodness and justice of God, is without merit if Milton does not address how God foreknows the fall, and all other events in human history, because the nature of human freedom and God’s governance in Paradise Lost is dependant upon what Milton believes concerning God’s foreknowledge. Though Milton writes Paradise Lost to justify the ways of God to man, he ultimately cannot do so and maintain a foundational trust in God’s control or ultimate victory because he has a theology of God’s foreknowledge, that creates the problem he purports to dispel by making God a mere reactor to temporal events.