The Canons of Dort: part II

Each head is set up with the doctrine explained followed by a rejection of errors associated with the doctrine. I have found that the rejection of errors is just as valuable as the explanation because it further clarifies the doctrine.

Some of these caused a spontaneous reaction in me of worship and praise to God for His sovereign work of accomplishing my redemption. May the reader be blessed as I was.

REJECTION OF ERRORS

The true doctrine concerning election and reprobation having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 1. Who teach[RH1] : That the will of God to save those who would believe and would persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decree of election, and that nothing else concerning this decree has been revealed in God's Word.

For these deceive the simple and plainly contradict the Scriptures, which declare that God will not only save those who will believe, but that He has also from eternity chosen certain particular persons to whom, above others, He will grant in time, both faith in Christ and perseverance; as it is written "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. (John 17:6). "and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)". And "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. (Eph 1:4)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH [RH2] 2. Who teach: That there are various kinds of election of God unto eternal life: the one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and that the latter in turn is either incomplete, revocable, non-decisive, and conditional, or complete, irrevocable, decisive, and absolute. Likewise: That there is one election unto faith and another unto salvation, so that election can be unto justifying faith, without being a decisive election unto salvation.
For this is a fancy of men's minds, invented regardless of the Scriptures, whereby the doctrine of election is corrupted, and this golden chain of our salvation is broken: "And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Rom 8:30)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH [RH3] 3. Who teach: That the good pleasure and purpose of God, of which Scripture makes mention in the doctrine of election, does not consist in this, that God chose certain persons rather than others, but in this, that He chose out of all possible conditions (among which are also the works of the law), or out of the whole order of things, that act of faith which from its very nature is undeserving, as well as it incomplete obedience, as a condition of salvation, and that He would graciously consider this in itself as a complete obedience and count it worthy of the reward of eternal life.

For by this injurious error the pleasure of God and the merits of Christ are made of none effect[RH4] , and men are drawn away by useless questions from the truth of gracious justification and from the simplicity of Scripture, and this declaration of the apostle is charged as untrue: "who has saved us and called us to a holy life, not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace[RH5] . This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Tim 1:9)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 4[RH6] . Who teach: That in the election unto faith this condition [RH7] is beforehand demanded that man should use the light of nature aright, be pious, humble, meek, and fit for eternal life, as if on these things election were in any way dependent.

For this savors of the teaching of Pelagius, and is opposed to the doctrine of the apostle when he writes: "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph 2:3-9)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 5. Who teach: That the incomplete and non-decisive election of particular persons to salvation occurred because of a foreseen faith, conversion, holiness, godliness, which either began or continued for some time; but that the complete and decisive election occurred because of foreseen perseverance unto the end in faith, conversion, holiness, and godliness; and that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, for the sake of which he who is chosen is more worthy than he who is not chosen; and that therefore faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions which, being required beforehand, were foreseen as being met by those who will be fully elected, and are causes without which the unchangeable election to glory does not occur[RH8] .

This is repugnant to the entire Scripture[RH9] , which constantly inculcates this and similar declarations: Election is "not by works but by him who calls (Rom 9:12)." "And all who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48)." "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight (Eph 1:4)." "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name (John 15:16)." "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works (Rom 11:6)." "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son (1 John 4:10)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 6. Who teach: That not every election unto salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the elect, any decree of God notwithstanding, can yet perish and do indeed perish.

By this gross error[RH10] they make God be changeable, and destroy the comfort which the godly obtain out of the firmness of their election, and contradict the Holy Scripture, which teaches that the elect can not be led astray (Matt 24:24), that Christ does not lose those whom the Father gave him (John 6:39), and that God also glorified those whom he foreordained, called, and justified (Rom 8:30).

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 7. Who teach[RH11] : That there is in this life no fruit and no consciousness of the unchangeable elect to glory, nor any certainty, except that which depends on a changeable and uncertain condition.

For not only is it absurd to speak of an uncertain certainty, but also contrary to the experience of the saints, who by virtue of the consciousness of their election rejoice with the apostle and praise this favor of God (Eph 1); who according to Christ's admonition rejoice with his disciples that their names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20); who also place the consciousness of their election over against the fiery darts of the devil, asking: "Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? (Rom 8:33)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 8. Who teach: That God, simply by virtue of His righteous will, did not decide either to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state sin and condemnation, or to pass anyone by in the communication of grace which is necessary for faith and conversion.
For this is firmly decreed: "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden (Rom 9:18)." And also this: "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them (Mat 13:11)." Likewise: "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes , Father, for this was your good pleasure (Mat 11:25-26[RH12] )."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 9. Who teach[RH13] : That the reason why God sends the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely the good pleasure of God, but rather the fact that one people is better and worthier than another to which the gospel is not communicated.
For this Moses denies, addressing the people of Israel as follows: "To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. Yet the LORD set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today (Deu 10:14-15)." And Christ said: "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes (Mat 11:21)."

[RH1]Yes, there is no choice on the part of God in this teaching, there is only a human response.

[RH2]Yes.

[RH3]Agree. This teaching is a works salvation. If this were true, salvation would be to my own praise, because God thought I was so awesome in my act of faith that He wanted to grace me with salvation.

[RH4]So true!!

[RH5]Praise God!! I would be eternally lost without this, because I have no light within myself to illumine my mind to Christ--apart from the Holy Spirit’s regeneration; which is God’s work first, not mine.

[RH6]Paragraph 4, when read through carefully with the Scriptures open, causes spontaneous worship. I praise God for this response. Realizing the depth of my sin and the estranged and unregenerate condition my sin had placed me in, I can only glory in the cross of my Redeemer and in God’s sovereign purpose that bestows this grace on me. How I thank God for this, because it pulled me out of the depths of my sin and established my feet. God puts a new song in my mouth when I read this.

[RH7]Yes, election is in no way based on the merits of the elect. God did not choose us because we were searching for him.

[RH8]Yes!! We must reject this teaching. Again and again, election is based on God’s good pleasure to do so, not on my own merit. How could one believe that there is something resident within himself that causes God to smile on him? If God based election upon His foreknowledge of my choice of Him, I would never have been elect, because I never would have chosen Him.

[RH9]True

[RH10]A good summation of this view. If God elects, God will keep as well. Eternal security for those who are truly elect. Praise God the He perseveres us, because again, if it were up to me to maintain an election, I would lose it. Those who are elect will and must persevere because God causes them to do so. This is evidenced by love and devotion to Him, springing, not from within the elect sinner, but from the Holy Spirit who resides in the elect sinner.

[RH11]If I understand this right, this is a rejection of the teaching that you cannot know you are elect.

[RH12]While this one may grate against me, I cannot deny the Scriptural evidence. I do not believe, however, that a doctrine of Reprobation equals a doctrine of double election.

[RH13]It is obvious why this one is incorrect.

The Canons of Dort

I am working through the canons of Dort right now because I have been challenged not to reduce my theology to a flower, but to see the full field. I love the beauty of God's glory found in redemption, and I know that my walk with God will deepen as I search out these mysteries more and more.

My pastor has been very strong in exhorting me not to fall into the ditch of ascribing to something that I only partially understand. I respect and embrace his advice, and so I have committed to read through these and comment on my affirmation or denial of them.

Here are my thoughts. For those who silently read this blog, please feel free to challenge me whether in person or on the blog. I crave the mentorship and discipleship of godly men.

First Head of Doctrine.
Divine Election and Reprobation

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH1] 1. As all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death, God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin, according to the words of the apostle: "that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." (Rom 3:19). And: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Rom 3:23). And: "For the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH2] 2. but in this the love of God was manifested, that He "sent his one and only Son into the world, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (1 John 4:9, John 3:16).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH3] 3. And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tiding to whom He will and at what time He pleases; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom 10:14-15).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH4] 4. The wrath of God abides upon those who believe not this gospel. But such as receive it and embrace Jesus the Savior by a true and living faith are by Him delivered from the wrath of God and from destruction, and have the gift of eternal life conferred upon them.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH5] 5. The cause or guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Likewise: "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH6] 6. That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree. "For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18 A.V.). "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Eph 1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin[RH7] ; or that decree of election and reprobation[RH8] , revealed in the Word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest it to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH9] 7. Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from the primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him, and effectually to call an draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit; to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His son, finally to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy, and for the praise of the riches of His glorious [RH10] grace; as it is written "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." (Eph 1:4-6). And elsewhere: "And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." (Rom 8:30).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH11] 8. There are not various decrees of election, but one and the same decree respecting all those who shall be saved, both under the Old and New Testament; since the Scripture declares the good pleasure, purpose, and counsel of the divine will to be one, according to which He has chosen us from eternity, both to grace and to glory, to salvation and to the way of salvation, which He has ordained that we should walk therein (Eph 1:4, 5; 2:10).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH12] 9. This election was not founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition of which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc. Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to the testimony of the apostle: "For he chose us (not because we were, but) in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." (Eph 1:4).
FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH13] 10. The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election; which does not consist herein that out of all possible qualities and actions of men God has chosen some as a condition of salvation, but that He was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to Himself, as it is written: "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she (Rebekah) was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" (Rom 9:11-13). "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH14] 11. And as God Himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by Him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled, or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH15] 12. The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God—such as, a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH16] 13. The sense and certainty of this election afford to the children of God additional matter for daily humiliation before Him, for adoring the depth of His mercies, for cleansing themselves, and rendering grateful returns of ardent love to Him who first manifested so great love towards them. The consideration of this doctrine of election is so far from encouraging remissness in the observance of the divine commands or from sinking men in carnal security, that these, in the just judgment of God, are the usual effects of rash presumption or of idle and wanton trifling with the grace of election, in those who refuse to walk in the ways of the elect.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH17] 14. As the doctrine of election by the most wise counsel of God was declared by the prophets, by Christ Himself, and by the apostles, and is clearly revealed in the Scriptures both of the Old and the New Testament, so it is still to be published in due time and place in the Church of God, for which it was peculiarly designed, provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety, for the glory of God's most holy Name, and for enlivening and comforting His people, without vainly attempting to investigate the secret ways of the Most High (Acts 20:27; Rom 11:33f; 12:3; Heb 6:17f).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH18] 15. What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scripture that not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, has decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but, permitting them in His just judgment to follow their own ways, at last, for the declaration of His justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins. And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the Author of sin (the very though of which is blasphemy), but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge and Avenger thereof.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 16. Those in whom a living faith in Christ, and assured confidence of soul, peace of conscience, an earnest endeavor after filial obedience, a glorying in God through Christ, is not as yet strongly felt, and who nevertheless make use of the means which God has appointed for working these graces in us, ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to rank themselves among the reprobate, but diligently to persevere in the use of means, and with ardent desires devoutly and humble to wait for a season of richer grace.[RH19] Much less cause to be terrified by the doctrine of reprobation have they who, though they seriously desire to be turned to God, to please Him only, and to be delivered from the body of death, cannot yet reach that measure of holiness and faith to which they aspire; since a merciful God has promised that He will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed.[RH20] But this doctrine is justly terrible to those who, regardless of God and of the Savior Jesus Christ, have wholly given themselves up to the cares of the world and the pleasures of the flesh, so long as they are not seriously converted to God[RH21] .

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH22] 17. Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 7:14).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE [RH23] 18. To those who murmur at the free grace of election and the just severity of reprobation we answer with the apostle "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Rom 9:20), and quote the language of our Savior: "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own?" (Matt 20:15). And therefore, with holy adoration of these mysteries, we exclaim in the words of the apostle: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 'Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?' 'Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?' For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory [RH24] forever! Amen." (Rom 11:33-36).

[RH1]Agree – this is total depravity, the total inability, the lack of desire for God upon the depraved individual.

[RH2]Yes – God shows his love in giving His son.

[RH3]Yes – Secondary causation. God uses men to accomplish His purposes. This is evangelism. God sends messengers to share the news. No room for a non-evangelistic Calvinism here.

[RH4]Yes – responsibility of men. There is a conscious choice on the part of the believer. However, his choice of God follows God’s gracious, effectual call (logically speaking).

[RH5]Yes, God is able to hold men responsible for sin, yet only God is held responsible for salvation.

[RH7]There is nothing special about the elect that causes God to chose them, He does it of His own good pleasure.

[RH8]Reprobation is for those who are passed over, it is not a double election, but a wholly separate decree.

[RH9]Yes!!!!

[RH10]Salvation is for the purpose of bringing glory to God. Therefore if you feel that the Word of God is the story of His salvation, it is also the story of His glory. God loves His own glory before He loves us.

[RH11]Yes, although I don’t really understand the need for this statement.

[RH12]Yes, foreknowledge is cognitive, not causative.

[RH14]Yes, a logical conclusion based on the decree of God, His Sovereign ability to preserve those whom He chooses, and His unchanging nature.

[RH15]Yes, the true faith in Christ being the first evidence.

[RH16]Yes, perseverance. This is our goal

[RH17]Yes, although I wonder what is meant by the “secret ways of the most High.” Why are they not to be investigated?

[RH18]Not a double predestination, but a decree of reprobation.

[RH20]I agree with this. Basically, those who have not obtained perfect holiness, but have a desire to be right with God, should not worry about being reprobate just because they are not holy, because sanctification is a process.

[RH22]I don’t think that I fully agree with this. I do think that we should not worry about those who die in their infancy. However, I do not believe that they are saved just because their parents were. This is where I would differ with something like the covenant of grace, which would include the children of the elect. There does not seem to be any support for inclusion of the children because they have not come to a personal faith in Christ – which God says is necessary for salvation. Sola Fide. This is something I choose to leave in that realm of the mystery of God.

[RH23]Yes!!!

[RH24]To emphasize redemption is to emphasize God’s glory.

virtual tour of the new hall house: part III

Sorry about the long wait on these. We have finally gotten around to taking some post renovation pictures. I have provided before and after photos so you can see the difference. Sorry that some of them are so dark...the house really isn't that dark. I guess if you really want to see what it looks like you can come and visit.

Our bedroom (notice the flashlight down next to the bed on the right side; that was our light in the room for a while) before:


and after:



an angle of the living room coming from the hallway before:


and after:


again the living room before:


and after:



Now this is my favorite. This is probably the most drastic change; we have the kitchen before:


and after:



This is also the kitchen looking from the living room in towards the sink
before:


also before


and after:


You can see how we totally changed the layout of the kitchen. We are thankful for God's provision to get these project done.

Up to this point we have knocked out the wall between the kitchen and living room to create a feeling of more space (with the help of Eric Lee); changed some of the wiring (thanks Jared); moved the washer dryer hookups; re-plastered the walls/ceilings; painted the walls/ceilings; installed new ceiling fans; installed new light fixtures; gutted the kitchen; and put new sink/faucet, cabinets, countertops and bar (high counter) in the kitchen (besides miscellaneous projects around the yard). Our next project will be the floors - we plan to tile the kitchen, and refinish the oak floors in the living room and dining room. In the hopefully not so distant future we would like to paint the exterior, redo the bathroom, and add central AC. Along the way, our plan has been to invest money in these projects, thereby increasing the value of the house for resale when we leave.

Thanks to all of the friends who have helped with this so far.

Review of Pursuit of Purity

In Pursuit of Purity is a book on the history of Fundamentalism in the United States. David O. Beale spends 37 chapters laying out this history from a scholarly view point. This paper will give an overview of the chapter content of the book, followed by a summation of the book’s strengths and weakness.

Overview of the Book
This book is divided into five parts. Part one is “The Fountainheads of Fundamentalism.” In seven chapters, Beal attempts to define Fundamentalism, and then to describe the early stages of the movement, including the controversy of the day and the need for such a movement. Beal is content to define the ideal Fundamentalist as one who “desires to reach out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness” (3). He further elaborates by stating that the essence of Fundamentalism as “the unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures.” These are the definitions that will govern the entire rest of the book.

The remainder of the first section is spent in tracing the roots of Fundamentalism. Beal goes into great detail mentioning the people and events that elicited a need for this movement. Chapter seven is titled, “Transdenominational Responses to Liberalism”, which sums the purpose and aim of early fundamentalism in forming conferences that brought together those who wished to respond to liberalism. These conferences and the subsequent cooperation of those wishing to identify liberalism within the denominations resulted in the formulations of works such as The Fundamentals and The Scofield Reference Bible.

The second section titled “Presbyterian Fundamentalism to 1930” gives a history of Presbyterianism in America. Starting with theological controversies in the first chapter of this section, the second chapter moves through the establishment of schools of theology such as Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, McCormick Theological Seminary, Lane Theological Seminary, and Union Theological Seminary. An entire chapter is given to a discussion of the rise of Princeton and its champion, B.B Warfield. Another chapter is dedicated to the fall of Princeton and the subsequent establishment of Westminster Theological Seminary. This section also covers heresy trials within the denomination over liberalism and the controversy the tolerance of modernists such as Harry Emerson Fosdick brought to the table.

The third section is devoted to the rise of fundamentalism among the Baptists in America. Much of the controversy revolved around liberalism within the Northern Baptist Convention which seemed to be doomed from its inception. Some of the Baptists withdrew from the convention, while others stayed in an attempt to purge the convention. Beale points out how eschatological views were not an issue of separation in early Baptist fundamentalism.

Some of the results of Baptist fundamentalism were several fellowships and conferences that were organized to bring unity to the Fundamentalists. It seems that the Baptists considered fellowships and conferences their primary weapon in contending with Modernism. These had their start in the National Federation of Fundamentalists of the Northern Baptists which was started in Buffalo, New York. In these meetings, men attempted to identify modernism and combat it. Subsequent to these meetings were many other gatherings intent on girding the commitment to the movement. This section does take the time to mention the controversial actions of J. Frank Norris, and the poor eye from the public that Fundamentalism received subsequently.

The fourth section is dedicated to a shift in the Fundamentalist movement that began in the 1930’s. Separation was the key doctrine that governed this time period. Apparently, up to this point, Fundamentalist were considered to be non-conformists who remained within their denominations. But after this, they felt the need to make a clear and definitive separation from all they considered to be unholy. Beale does point out that many of the Bible conferences of this time were transdenominational. These moves resulted in associations such as the National Association of Evangelicals. Beale also mentions the rise of New Evangelicalism, a response to the separatism of Fundamentalism. Beale states that there are factions of this that are essentially identical to the historical expression of fundamentalism in theology, but who “refuse to regard the militant defense of the faith and the full doctrine and practice of holiness as intrinsically fundamental” (268). Some of these at the time were Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, John MacArthur, Jay Adams, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, and others.

Beale also uses this section to describe the rise of the General Association of Regular Baptists and the part that Robert Ketcham played in its founding. This section also covers the life of W.B. Riley and his contribution in founding the Minnesota Baptist Convention which led to the establishment of schools such as Pillsbury Bible College and Central Baptist Theological Seminary. This section also covers the founding of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, considered still the major Fundamentalist voice, and Methodist Fundamentalism.

The last section is titled “Fundamentalism Today.” This section goes into some detail in describing the Christian School movement, which is considered to be one of the most effective tools for continued Fundamentalist discipleship. This section clearly reveals Beales sympathies and devotion. In this section he also makes an appeal to the fundamentalist of the future to continue to pursue purity and holiness, which is the holy ideal and light of Fundamentalism (359).

Strengths of the Book
This book finds its strength in three areas. First it is historically thorough. Beale goes to great lengths to show the different sections of Fundamentalism’s part in the battles that were fought. He goes into the not just the fundamentalist history, but the American history of the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists to show their roots. He speaks of the impact the awakenings had on the controversy from the revival era of Finney and its watered down Calvinism that gave way to the entrance of Liberalism. Beale approaches the early historicity of the movement in a very scholarly fashion that shows the depth of study he has put into this subject.

Along with the book’s historical thoroughness comes a second strength; Beale documents his work very well. The reader is inundated with a flood of resources that provide pathways for future study. These resources may prove to be the value of the book.

Finally, Beale’s historical thoroughness sets up the fact that there was a need for the movement in its early stages. He presents the material in such a way as to show the danger of the rise of liberalism and the consequences it would have held for Christianity. In this way, the reader is able to come to a true and better appreciation for the work and tenacity of the early fundamentalists.

Weakness of the Book
While the scholarly strength of this book represents itself easily in the thoroughness and accuracy of the research, the weakness comes more from the inherent writing presuppositions that Beale very clearly communicates as his book unfolds. The first weakness that can be observed is that Beale gives Fundamentalism a faulty premise. He reveals this in his very first chapter in which he attempts to define fundamentalism and gives a pathway for his book to follow. Regarding his theme, Beale states, “The second and central theme of this study is that, while Fundamentalism has always embraced and defended the cardinal doctrines of traditional Christianity, the movement has been characterized by an emphasis on the doctrine and practice of holiness.” He goes on to state, “In both the Hebrew and Greek languages, the word holiness, or sanctification, carries the basic idea of separation” (6). Apparently, Beale feels that these statements validate his presupposition of holiness without the need for a textual argument. From here, Beale equates holiness, sanctification, and separation without regard to the context of the passages that would give a biblical theology of holiness and sanctification. This is the attitude that governs the rest of the unsavory light in which Fundamentalism is cast. A biblical theology of holiness throughout Scripture would reveal that holiness is more about a relationship with God that produces an image of Christ, which will be very distinct. But it is not about placing the “sword into the enemies’ bosoms” (357).

Flowing out of this first weakness is a second, Beale is very one-sided. He does not present the issues and problems of infighting over petty issues with the later generations of Fundamentalism. He does not even mention these. A book such as this needs to give an accurate representation of these. Rather, much of his language sounds rather like a fundamentalist propaganda presenting the movement as perfect. This is particularly true in chapter 36. The whole movement, warts and all, needs to be presented for proper evaluation.

A third weakness is that this book is dated. It is twenty years old, and the face of fundamentalism has changed much in the last twenty years. It may be helpful for someone to do a scholarly updating of this book with a chapter evaluating the last twenty years of fundamentalism with the new problems the current generation is facing.

Conclusion
This book is a good read for any who need to know about the early roots of Fundamentalism. It is thorough and mentions many of the men who were instrumental in standing up for the truth of orthodox Christianity. However, the reader must be cautioned that the presuppositions that Beal reveals in his first chapter are to govern the rest of the book. With this in mind, the reader can benefit from this book and come to a greater appreciate of the work that was done in the struggle against a liberal ideal.

montanus: case study in church history: part 1

A Time of Tension
The mid to end of the second century was a time ripe for a schismatic such as Montanism to come on the scene. The events in church history leading up to this time period had created a tension that would cause a person with radical ideas such as Montanus to be welcome to those who may be have been confused about the mixed messages that were pervasive during this time period. The locus of these mixed messages centers around the work of the Holy Spirit, and specifically His gift of prophecy; the way this issue had been dealt with up to the time of Montanus, although with good intentions, had not addressed the topic in a systematic manner that, while addressing the problems, would clearly emphasize the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit.

Church writers during this time period were reactionaries. They addressed a need as it came up; Tillich observes that the theologians of the time period developed their systems in opposition to heresies, “The greatness of theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian is that they saw this danger, and used the Logos doctrine to develop constructive theological ideas in relation to the religious movements of their own period.”[1] While Tillich is noting the strength in this, there is an inherent weakness as well in that the tendency is to only address the wrong and not to clearly lay out what is right. In the midst of the confusion, Montanus finds his place in during this time in church history.

The confusion of this time period can be demonstrated through observing several facets of the church up to the time Montanus came around. Hopefully, these will clearly illustrate the tensions of ideas. First, there was an awareness of problems with abuse of the gift of prophecy. Evidence from early on shows that there were false prophets going around attempting to promote themselves and deceive the people among whom they “ministered.” The Didache demonstrates this problem in XI:2, “But if the teacher himself being perverted teaches another teaching to the destruction [of this], hear him not, but if [he teach] to the increase of righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.”[2] In this section the writer is attempting to provide an objective way of determining whether or not someone was a false prophet.
While at the point of the writing of the Didache (somewhere between 70 and 110 A.D.)[3], they could not declare that there was no longer a gift of prophecy because all of the apostles had not yet passed off the scene, they felt that they had to do something to combat the abuses of those who would deceive people with their “prophetic” messages.
The Didache places us into the situation between the church polity of the Pastoral Epistles and the establishment of Episcopacy, or between St. Paul and Ignatius of Antioch. The Apostolic government was about to cease, and the Episcopal government had not yet taken its place. A secondary order of Apostles and Prophets were moving about and continued the missionary work of the primitive Apostles.[4]

A second demonstration that helps to build the tension is the heresy of Gnosticism. Flourishing between the first and third centuries, Gnosticism made its assertions based on secret traditions that were in opposition to biblical writings.[5] Some believe that Paul himself was combating early forms of Gnosticism as early as the writing of Colossians.[6] While it is not the purpose of this paper to outline the beliefs of this heresy, it is interesting to observe as does Tillich that, “The problem which the Gnostics posed for the church was in the realm of authority, the question whether the Holy Scriptures were decisive over against the secret teachings of the Gnostics.”[7] Tillich goes on to observe that the Gnosticism of the day was reacted against so strongly that the church was pushed into a more rigid expression and the work of the Holy Spirit was thereby minimized. Anything that smelled like a special work in an individual, (the gnosis) was looked at with suspicion. Thus, this set the scene up for a suspicion and depression of any work of the Holy Spirit that would be considered special. The heresy of Gnosticism was prior to and contemporary with Montanism, and Tillich concludes that Montanism was a reaction against the rigid development of the spirit of order.[8]

Third, the Apostle John had passed off the scene less than one hundred years before this. His words freshly written in his gospel and Revelation were still ringing in the ears of the early church. While modern theologians would view John’s promise of the Paraclete as having been fulfilled after Pentecost in Acts 2, it may be that the believers, not having access to all Scriptural documents of the first century, were looking for the promised Paraclete with which John laces his gospel. Not only that, but the eschaton would have been on their minds as well as they read about Christ from John’s book of Revelation. Groh notes, “Christianity in Asia Minor had long treasured the Gospel of John with its promise of the Paraclete, and was the setting for the eschatological prophecy of the Book of Revelation.”[9] With the expectation of the coming of the Lord having been disappointed, the apostolic fathers began to establish this order mentioned above, thus a tension is acknowledged in the second century, and Montanus comes on the scene to answer the questions.

The Beginning of Montanism
Montanus came from the village of Ardabau in Phrygia, an area in Asia Minor. Frend suggests that he was possibly a priest of Cybele, a goddess of nature and fertility.[10] While there is no clear testimony to Montanus’ prior involvement in the religion of Cybele, it is of note that Phrygia was known for its frenzy and fanaticism in worship of Cybele,[11] because similar practices are found in Montanus’ teachings later on. In fact, Boer asserts that Montanus, “expressed his new religion in the old religious manner. It was thus natural for him to emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit.”[12]

The writings of Eusebius state that Montanus was converted to Christianity, and shortly after his conversion he began to babble and prophesy in a manner contrary to what had been accepted in the church thus far.[13] Burgess observes that Montanus claimed to be the inspired organ of the Holy Spirit, and describes Epiphanius as accusing Montanus of claiming to have a fuller revelation of the Spirit than the church possessed.[14] There is a controversy over the exact dating of these events. Some would place it at 155,[15] while others would place it around 170.[16] With either date, the movement is seen to have begun in the mid to late second century A.D.. Montanus' form of religion was to take over the area of Phrygia and dominate it.[17]

Before long, Montanus was joined by two women who had abandoned their husbands to follow Montanus and prophesy with him. Their names were Priscilla and Maximilla. They took up the same ecstatic behavior that Montanus had manifested, and all three continued their work together under the umbrella of a claim to the Paraclete, Montanus even in his ecstasy denying his humanity and claiming to be God.[18] Montanus taught that through him the age of the Paraclete had come. He taught that this was the beginning of the New Prophecy that would accompany the eschaton,[19] which would culminate in the Parousia coming down in the village of Pepuzza near Philadelphia.[20]

Montanist Teachings
The Montanists believed their prophecy was exclusive and was the final revelation to man.[21] Additional Montanist teachings alongside the claim to new revelation from the Paraclete and the coming down of the Parousia in Pepuzza include the teaching that Christians should not avoid persecution, the teaching that any type of remarriage is sinful, the teaching of strict asceticism, including dietary rules, and the teaching that certain sins could not be forgiven after baptism.[22]

While these teachings appear to be very legalistic, Montanism still was attractive for two reasons. First, it offered a vibrant work of the Holy Spirit in contrast to the perceived deadness that an anti-Gnostic orthodoxy was spawning; second, the rules combated the perceived sinful excesses that that this anti-Gnostic orthodoxy was spawning. This was so influential, that around the year 207, Tertullian converted to Montanism. Much of what is known about the teachings of the Montanists comes from the writings of Tertullian.[23]

Some of those who opposed Montanism were Irenaeus, and Eusebius. While these men came from a tradition that did not deny the existence of prophecy or its exercise in the church, they reacted strongly against the way it was exercised by Montanus and the authority Montanus placed upon his prophecy as superseding that of the apostles and even Christ.[24] Another who opposed Montanus from a standpoint of an end of prophecy with the death of the last apostle was Hippolytus of Rome.[25] These men and their views will be discussed in a later chapter in this paper.

The Decline of Montanism
The Montanist movement continued on with force in Phrygia. However, as time progressed, the promised Parousia did not come. The Montanists organized a church to rival their opponents, but found themselves guilty of the same orthodoxy with which they would accuse their opponents.[26] They continued on in weakness until the sixth century when they were exterminated by the church under Justinian.[27] The rise and fall of this movement can be seen to be prescriptive of a cycle of action and reaction in the church. The best way one can learn from this event is to study the ensuing reactions and observe how to remain in a state of delicate balance on a firm foundation when excesses reveal themselves.


[1]Paul Tillich, A Complete History of Christian Thought (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), 37.

[2]Philip Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: The Didache and Kindred Documents in the Original (London: Pendleburys Church House, 2001 [reprint of the 1885 edition]), 64.

[3]Ibid. 62.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984), 35.

[6]J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1879),74.

[7]Tillich, A Complete History of Christian Thought, 38.

[8]Ibid. 40.

[9]Dennis E. Groh, “Montanism,” The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity 2nd ed. vol. 2, 778.

[10]W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 253.

[11]W. Le Saint, “Montanism,” New Catholic Encyclopedia vol. IX, 1078-1079.

[12]Harry R. Boer, A Short History of the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 63.

[13]A New Eusebius, ed. by F. Stevenson (London: SPCK, 1965), 108.

[14]Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions, 49.

[15]S. M. Burgess, “The Holy Spirit, Doctrine of: The Ancient Church Fathers,” Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 419.

[16]Groh, “Montanism,” 778.

[17]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 254.

[18]A History of Christianity vol. 1, ed. by Ray C. Petry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 90.

[19]Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, 63.

[20]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 254.

[21]Ibid.

[22]“Montanists,” A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 461.

[23]Ibid.

[24]Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions, 51.

[25]Ibid. 52.

[26]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 256.

[27]Burgess, “The Holy Spirit, Doctrine of: The Ancient Church Fathers,” 420.

studying hard

Sorry for the very few updates on the blog lately. Julie and I have been very busy in getting started with the new semester. We love all of our family and friends who have heard little from us lately.

I plan to post some pictures of our post renovation dwelling soon, but until then, I thought I might share some of my research lately. Please don't feel like you have to read the entire text (as if anyone every felt that way). But please do feel that I want interaction and contstructive criticism.

Enjoy

resourceful help

For any of my friends who are willing to contribute:

I am doing research on early church pneumatology in light of modern cessationism/continuationism controversies for a seminary class I am taking on early church history. This has been a topic I have wanted to research for several years now, and I now have a good excuse to do so. I would be open to suggestions as to books, journal articles, and magazines that would shed light on how either side would use church fathers to support their view.

Warfield, Lloyd-Jones, Grudem, Fee, and Williams are on my list of writers to explore. To be honest, at this point in my research I am not running across any continuationists that address church fathers or issues of a closed canon early in church history. I know there must be some, but I need help finding them so that the paper is well rounded and not ignorant.

I welcome any suggestions that would help my research to be the most informed it can be. I do not want to neglect any writers coming from either side.

I've been tagged

Tim Baylor tagged me to answer these questions. I am normally repulsed by chain emails and things like them, but this one seems profitable. By the way, this one disclaimer - just because I list it here as a book that I like does not mean I am in full agreement with everything in the book :)

1. One book that changed your life
Life Change is something that is happening every day, so some of these I have read a long time ago, and others just recently. Besides the Bible, I think I would have to say Transforming Grace by Jerry Bridges. I would add to that Future Grace by John Piper, and The Passion of Christ, by John Piper.

I would also add God's Empowering Presence by Gordon Fee. I was doing some study on the work of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8 at the time I read the book, and boy, what an encouragement and support to the grace of God and gospel for everyday life!

2. One book you’ve read more than once
Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan.

3. One book you’d want on a desert island
I think I'd want my Reformation Study Bible.

4. One book that made you laugh
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain.

5. One book that made you cry
Can't think of any off the top of my head, although I'm with Baylor on D J Kennedy's Why I Believe. That part about proof for the existence of hell based on near death experiences really got to me. Also, I would add Criswell's Guidbook for Pastors.

6. One book you wish had been written
A Theology of The Church as the Unified Body of Christ from a First Century Perspective. I think in many ways we have come far from what the church is supposed to be both in form and function. I pray that individually I can study this topic and apply it to my life, and then represent it accurately and biblically to whatever local assembly God may be pleased to allow me to grow with in the future.

7. One book you wish had never been written
Dave Hunt's What Love is This?

8. One book you’re currently reading
Brothers We are Not Professionals by John Piper. I am very challenged by the call to non-secular, Christ centered ministry.

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read
The Works of Jonathan Edwards, and anything by John Owen. He did some foundational works in Christology and Pneumatology. Also A Call to Spiritual Reformation by D.A. Carson.

10. Tag 5 others
Julie Hall, Phil Hall, Stephen Branine, Kit Johnson, (if he had a blog), Jordan Heijermans (if he had a blog), Brian Morgan.

11. I am adding my own 11th question - a book you started, put down, never finished, but wished you had
Calvin's Institutes. I will finish them some day.

virtual tour of the new Hall house: part 2

continued from a previous post....Entering the sun room from the back door, and turning around you can see out into the back yard. I think this sun room is one of our favorite features of the house. Unfortunately, it is taken up with most of our furniture and kitchen items right now while we are working on prinside. Hopefully that will change soon...




From the same spot I can turn around and see Jules in the laundry area... We'd like to eventually have a stack washer and dryer here to free up some space.

Here is the oven--in a very inconvenient location. Our plan is to get rid of the wall behind it, opening up the kitchen and laundry area a little more. Then we'll move the oven to the other side of the kitchen. If you look up in the corner, you can see some exposed lumber. There was actually a piece of wall here that looked like inverted stair steps. Really wierd...so I got rid of it.


This is the existing sink and counter with the diswasher on the left. The window looks into the back yard. Someone gave us a cast iron sink we are going to put in, along with new cabinets and countertops.



If I back out from the sink into the living room, you can see where we removed the wall that separated the kitchen from the living room. It still looks like a construction area right now, but we are going to put a counter top there on the half wall, making a kind of breakfast nook area with high stools. The layout for the new kitchen has the oven about where the fridge is now, and the fridge will go directly to the left of the dishwasher.


Blogger has a limit on the number of pics I can put up, so more to come later...

virtual tour of the new Hall house: part 1

For our friends and family: Julie and I would like to take you on a virtual tour of our new house in Portsmouth.

This is a rough diagram of the layout of the house. Pictures of the inside will come later :)


This picture is taken from accross the street. You can see where we have cleared out a lot of the jungle already. Part of the "selling" point of this house was that it boast over a thousand bulbs in the garden. We did not see a mess of dead plants as a value however. We are keeping some of it, but we want to thin it out.

Looking down the driveway you can see the garage in the back. Now we are going to walk into the backyard from the gate to the right of the car.


This picture is looking from the gate into the backyard...

Going into the backyard you can look back and see the sun room off the back of our house. This picture is taken from next to the shed you saw in the previous pic.

We are thankful for what God has provided, and we look forward to many visits from our family and friends.

live in His presence

I felt the conviction of Holy Spirit today. After reading a portion of Genesis and being reminded of God's first act of creation that declares His sovereignty, I spent the day modifying the bit of creation that He has entrusted me with by cleaning up my yard - a task I did with joy for two reasons: first because this is the spot of ground God has given to Julie and me to keep as a stewarship for him, and second because I take pride in putting my fingerprints on our new property. God is good in all of His gifts; this is one that is easy for me to understand.

Clouds rolled in as I was cleaning up for the day and it began to rain. It was refreshing because I had been sweating all day, and I was reminded of the words written by William Cowper

"Fearful saints do courage take,
The clouds which you now dread
are bid with mercy and will break
in blessings on your head."

I pondered the thought that in this rain I had an illustration of the fact that often in dark times we cannot see how God is using our circumstances to accomplish His glory through forming the image of Christ in us. But sometimes when we step away from those dark times, we can see how those dark clouds rained down God's blessings on us in ways that never would have been so potent had we not experienced the darkness. I was praising God for this fact as it rained, because I have found this to be true so many times in my own life.

I went inside, showered and got in my vehicle to go see my wife at work and then go to the library to study. On the way I stopped at 7-11 to fill my extreme gulp (if you don't have one of these you need one) because I was parched.

As I left 7-11, an extremely thin man approached me. He opened his mouth and prefaced his story with the statement "I'm not a bum." I believed him. He went on to explain that he had cancer and needed medicine from the drugstore. He had everything he needed except that he was $3.86 short. I told him that I had no cash and I got in my vehicle and left. As I neared my wife's place of employment the thought struck me (or maybe I should say Holy Spirit confronted me); I had an opportunity to show this man Christ by speaking His name and I passed it by because I was busy. I had the opportunity to be the blessings showered on this man be introducing him to the grace of Christ when all he could see was darkness.

Please don't get me wrong. I believe with all my heart that God draws His elect to Himself and will accomplish their regeneration and perserverance. But part of my perserverance is to testify of the grace of Christ to those who do not have it in redemption. Peter exhorts us to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have.

With this I challenge myself and my brothers and sisters in Christ; do not be weak. Live your theology and speak the Name. Walk in the presence of God, and let it be known by your life and your words. Share redemption.

arguments from the character of God

I have been going through Old Testament Introduction at the seminary. In light of a recent question regarding the defense of the doctrine of preservation of Scriptures, I just wanted to throw this topic out for discussion, if anyone is still reading this blog. The question is:

To what extent can we use the character of God (or what we assume the character of God to be) as an answer for difficult questions?

If the phraseology of this question seems unclear, let me set it in its context and then provide some other examples of arguments where this answer is undeniably misused.

The Context of the Question
In OTI, we have been discussing the preservation of Scriptures. The argument has been postulated that we appeal to the character of God by saying that the Word must be preserved, because God would not withold anything from us that we need to live and walk with Him. I would agree with this, but only on the basis of what the text actually says about application of God's character. Namely, II Peter 1:3 "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,"

The way I would interpret this is that God has actually said in His Word that He has supplied us with everything we need to be godly, from which you can infer that He has not witheld anything that we need to be godly. Thus, if we need Scripture to be godly (which Scripture says) then everything we need to be godly must be preserved.

Let me point out that I am not arguing this way, "since God is loving, He must preserve Scripture." Rather, I am saying, "Since God said He gave us what we need, He must preserve what we need."

Some Wrong Uses of the Argument from the Character of God

• God is loving, so He would not allow people to go to hell.
• God is loving, so He would not allow 9/11.
• God is loving, so He would not allow the holocaust.

I know that these are extreme examples (unless you are an open theist), but here are some that hit a little closer to home for some:

• God would not assign a sinful nature to human beings without them having the opportunity to choose sin for themselves.
• God would not choose some to eternal life and leave others to eternal punishment.

Please respond with your comments and insights. What regulates when we can and cannot say "God's character is ____ so he wouldn't _____ " (you fill in the blanks)?

is there grace in james?

I just thought I would throw this question out there. Our reformation friend Martin L. would have said no. This is understandable coming from someone who came out of the works-based, Roman Catholic Church through the study of Paul's theology of justification in Romans. Luther firmly believed salvation was by faith alone. He believed the book of James was a straw epistle that should not be included in the canon, mainly because James says that faith without works is dead.

This question comes mostly from my personal study of James as Nate Mihelis and I have been teaching through the book in Sunday School at CBC. Although I am a firm believer that we hold the full canon in our sixty-six books of the Bible, I will have to admit that previously I did not have much appreciation for James because I did not see it as a gracious book.

My view of James has changed somewhat. The readers of this blog can tell me if this is a stretch or not. The book is undoubtedly a practical book describing perseverance in the life of the believer. But I have come to find it full of grace...what I mean is that I don't do these works to persevere, God accomplishes these works in me as I seek His grace in a right relationship with Him.

I find grace in James 1:5, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him." This wisdom parallels the works that faith produces found in James 2:14-26. I find this grace further described when James says in 3:17, "The wisdom from above is first pure, then peacable, etc..." This is wisdom that must come from above. Sourced in myself, this wisdom/faith-produced works does not exist. But James further comments in a section of the book calling the reader to repentance, "but he gives more grace..." (4:6).

A song says:

Grace paid for my sins and brought me to life
Grace robes me with power to do what is right.

I desire for others to see the grace of God that produces perseverance as is taught by James.

worship, addictions, and preaching

I was sitting in church this Sunday morning enjoying the worship when the time of corporate singing came to an end and Pastor Daniel said something along the lines of “To cap our time of worship, I want to direct our attention to the Scriptures.” This was the introduction to the message. Pastor Daniel has been preaching out of the book of Revelation lately; his first message remained mostly in Revelation 1 where John sees the glory of Christ. Something that I can’t help but appreciate about Pastor Daniel’s preaching, no matter what passage he is in, is the fact that he tends to attempt to exalt the glory of God and not to harp on issues or trends.

As I was thinking about Pastor Daniel’s introduction, I thought about the fact that I have often heard and have generally believed myself that corporate church worship should emphasize the preaching of Scripture. Everything should be streamlined to point to the time when the Scriptures are opened and the Word is preached. Pastor Daniel’s introductory comments this Sunday portrayed the sermon as the capstone of the corporate church worship experience, which, I believe, it should be. But why? I don’t think I have often asked why. I think the answer to this will come from several observations having to do with the definition of worship, and the role that corporate assembly and specifically preaching plays in the definition of worship.

I have found my definition of worship to have changed over the last seven years. In our compartmentalizing evangelical society, many Christians have tended to leave worship as the activity that takes place on Sunday and maybe for 30 minutes or so in personal devotions every day. It is primarily an activity, but nothing more. I propose that worship is not primarily an activity; it is to be an addiction.

Let me illustrate my point. Since Ephesians 5 uses this illustration, it seems appropriate. There can be two types of drinkers. On the one hand, there is the social drinker who occasionally indulges at a party or at a romantic evening meal with his wife. The consumption of an alcoholic beverage is an activity that takes place occasionally for this person. On the other hand, there is the alcoholic. From early in the morning, this person craves drink. He drinks as soon as possible and spends the rest of his day doing so. Even if he can put off the activity, he is constantly aware of his “need” for a drink. Society tells him he has a disease because every part of his being is affected by this drive. It is a consuming passion that controls his every activity. He is addicted to drink. Worship is to be an addiction, not an activity—a lifestyle, not a social event on the weekends.

What I mean is what is urged by Paul in Romans 12:1-2: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer you bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Paul is saying, "be addicted to worship." Paul has spent this book talking about salvation and sanctification. The life that is sanctified by the power of Spirit control as outlined in Romans 8 is the life that is spent offered as a living sacrifice to God. This is worship.

So my definition of worship is, living every moment of your life, in the grip of the grace of God and controlled by the Spirit. Worship is no longer an activity, it is an addiction—a consuming passion. Worship is no longer a once a week happening, or even a once a day event in my devotions, but it is the essence of sanctification…living life being changed into the image of God through the power of God. Worship is grace—living my life in obedience to God not by my ability but by God’s ability. I am changed into the image of God by God’s power in this; this is sanctification. Worship is sanctification.

So how does this play into the emphasis of preaching in the corporate assembly? Let me explain. For this I must turn to II Corinthians 3:18, “And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” We find the glory of God in the unveiled Scriptures, and we are changed into the image of Christ (sanctification/worship) by this exposure to the glory of God. Note that we are not changed by doing a bunch of ‘good’ things, or by getting our all-important ‘issues’ straight, we are changed by exposure to the glory of God. These other things detract from the glory of God and therefore detract from true worship. They give us reason to boast in our own ‘glory.’

The corporate assembly functions as the time when believers can come together and worship by encouraging each other to worship every day of their lives. II Corinthians 3:18 states that through beholding the glory of God, one is changed into the image of God (sanctification/worship). Thus, when we spend time exalting God’s glory together in song and then someone enters the pulpit and exalts God’s glory through examination of His Word, we are encouraged to spend all of our time, every minute of our day, fostering our worship-addiction. This is an addiction that overcomes any sin-addictions one may have, but it does so by focusing on what is right, the glory of God and a right relationship with Him, not on what is wrong.

I must conclude from this that the corporate worship assembly must be organized to center around exposing Christians to the glory of God. God gave Scripture to reveal His glory, so expositional preaching must be central to the corporate worship assembly. I must further conclude that preaching must only be designed to expose the listeners to the glory of God. Preaching with any man-centered motivation is contrary to worship.

Gracious Father, I love the glory of the cross of Christ which has been the means of my relationship with You. Please help me to constantly seek to be exposed to your glory through every minute of the day. May it become to me as necessary as breathing. May I be addicted to worship and not to sin; may I be addicted to a relationship with You and to nothing of this world that I would idolize. In my striving to expose others to Your glory, may I never exalt myself or anything of man, and may I be true to Your Word.

unless the Lord builds a house...

Here it is. Julie and I have bought a house in Portsmouth. The home inspector took this picture as we were doing the walk-through. We are thankful for the confirmation of the sovereignty of God once again in this matter. This is our first time buying, so naturally, we were nervous about the purchase. But the Lord has orchestrated every step and it has gone smoothly the whole way.

Our true desire in this purchase is to be good stewards of the time and resources God has given us. We would like to put some "sweat equity" into the place and sell it when God moves us following seminary. We trust Him to provide between now and then. God is so good. There is nothing greater or more satisfying than living every minute of your life as an active worshipper. May every step we take, whether it be involvement with a local church, going to seminary, or buying a house be done as we give control to Holy Spirit.

For Women Only

I am by nature a very skeptical person, so when I walk into Barnes and Noble there are a lot of books I will spend little time considering reading. For Women Only is just one of those books. It's another one of those "I have the answer about your husband. It doesn't matter who he is; I'm sure I have the corner on all men in the world" kind of books. Or so I thought. I never would have read it, but one of my friends suggested it so I agreed to give it a try.

It turns out that the author, Shaunti Feldhahn, is making some generalizations, but she is good to express her reasons and share the outcome of her surveys so the reader can be the judge. Basically what she did was survey hundreds of men from all walks of life and tried to ask pertinent questions. This left her with a few interesting discoveries about the way men think and feel.

I felt like the book did have a lot of challenging ideas. And even though every guy is different, there are some things that are in common with most. I guess after reading the book, I thought even if there are just a few ways that I can be a better help to Rob, it is worth it. And I would challenge any wife to consider at least looking over the book and considering a few things Shaunti says. She comes from a Christian mindset and really has a heart to love her husband and help other wives to do so as well.

Maybe in the future I won't be quite so hasty as I take my walk through Barnes and Noble.