Spiritual Marriage, Spiritual Union

Posted on May 16, 2011 by blund

The section on “spiritual marriage” is short, but chock full of gospel excellence.

Growing up in American Evangelicalism, I knew how to “close” an evangelistic encounter. Having sufficiently stirred with the target’s emotions and guilt, you led them in the (sacrament of the?) Sinner’s Prayer™ (© 1954), and both parties left (often never seeing each other again) satisfied that eternal security had been purchased [/sarcasm]. But upon stumbling into the doctrines of grace, how do you actually lead someone into saving faith? Sure, your TULIP and covenant theology come into sharper focus, but how do you appeal to a spiritually dead will for conversion?

I submit that Evangelista’s interaction with Neophytus serves as an excellent example of how to press the Gospel message home. Evangelista’s question: “But tell me truly, are you resolved to put forth all your power to believe, and so to take Christ?” is a fantastic picture – not of subverting the emotions and the will – but of testing in a ministerial manner whether or not God has brought life out of death (Ephesians 2:1-10). Continue reading at TheMarrow.Org…

Sanctification: Ryle vs. Pink?

Posted on May 10, 2011 by blund

What role does sanctification play in the Christian life? And specifically, is sanctification necessary for a Christian to ultimately be saved? Sometimes this issue can be confusing for Reformed Protestants who wish to maintain salvation by God’s saving grace from first to last, and yet also trumpet the need for holiness and good works. Even reading erstwhile helpful pastors and expositors can be confusing, as J.C. Ryle and Arthur W. Pink demonstrate. Consider their separate comments:

From bottom left going clockwise: Ryle, Pink, Owen, Calvin

J.C. Ryle- “Holiness” pg.28-29

“Sanctification, in the last place, is absolutely necessary, in order to train and prepare us for heaven Continue reading →

Link

Tullian: “I hear people say that there are two equal dangers Christians must avoid: legalism and lawlessness. Legalism, they say, happens when you focus too much on law, or rules. Lawlessness, they say, happens when you focus too much on grace. Therefore, in order to maintain spiritual equilibrium, you have to balance law and grace. Legalism and lawlessness are typically presented as two ditches on either side of the Gospel that we must avoid. If you start getting too much law, you need to balance it with grace. Too much grace, you need to balance it with law. But I’ve come to believe that this “balanced” way of framing the issue can unwittingly keep us from really understanding the gospel of grace in all of its depth and beauty.”

God’s Attributes and Poverty in Ethiopia

Posted on April 7, 2011 by blund

Pastor,
Why do we see starving people in countries like Ethiopia? More or less; why does God allow things like this if he is love?

Dear [redacted],
Those are great questions. And difficult ones. I think the place to start is to remember God’s sovereignty over all things as Creator and Sustainer. He is sovereign over the sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the rise and fall of governments and kingdoms (Daniel 4:34-37) and traveling and business plans (James 4:15).
Continue reading →

Explaining Repentance

Posted on April 5, 2011 by blund

Repentance unto Life by John Brown of Haddington

Q. 87 What is repentance unto life?

A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after new obedience.

This catechetical exploration of repentance, written by John Brown of Haddington, helpfully explores the full extent to which Christians should consider when forsaking sin. For most Christians familiar with American Evangelicalism, you will be shocked by thoroughness and intricate consideration given to turning from sin, and turning to God. He considers, in turn: 1) Worldly Sorrow, 2) Legal Repentance, 3) the Grace of Repentance, 4) Five Aspects of Gospel Repentance, 5) New Obedience, and 6) Concluding Observations. Many of us have never thought so deeply about any subject in our lives, much less repentance. May these question and answers provoke deeper and truer repentance in us all.

Q. Why is this mean of salvation called repentance unto life?

A. Because it proceeds from, and is an evidence of spiritual life, and issueth in eternal life.
Continue reading →

Theological Pedigree Does Not Determine Orthodoxy nor Faithfulness

Posted on April 4, 2011 by blund

Consider the following:

Theodore Beza (1519 – 1605) was handpicked by Calvin to continue the Academy at Geneva.
While teaching there, Beza instructed a new student Jacob Arminius (1560 – 1609).
Arminius became an instructor at the University of Leiden, where he taught Gisbertus Voetius (1589 – 1676).
Voetius spent seven years at Leiden. Among his teachers were both Gomarus and Arminius.

Few theologians are known for a higher Calvinism than Beza or Voetius. And yet Arminius fits squarely within their pedagogical history. What conclusions can we draw from this?

We must not become either too mechanical – as if good teachers automatically produce good students – or too indifferent (e.g., “it doesn’t matter who my professors are; I’ll turn out just fine”). Yes, Arminius studied under Beza, but he also learned from Johann Kolmann. True, Voetius learned from Arminius, but he also sat at Gomarus’ feet. Teachers do exert an effect on their students, but it is not automatic or without nuance.
I thank God for the professors I had at Westminster West, but a theologically sound faculty is no guarantee for theological soundness. Students blessed to have excellent teachers should be cautious to proceed in their fathers’ footsteps, and never depart.
Poor theological education is no final impediment to your theological growth. If you lament your professors or education, Voetius is an example of rising above your education and proving to be a master at his craft despite some inadequate examples.

Singing Through Tears

Posted on March 28, 2011 by blund

When the wounds and scars of this world come, we have several options in front of us. Numb the hurt by denying reality (drugs, drunkenness, other-worldly asceticism)? Wallow in the pain and let it consume us? Lash out in rage at that which causes pain?

Or, we can join the Psalmist and cry out to God, singing through the tears and waiting for the Lord to arise and banish our foes and fears. If you’re suffering, consider the two songs below as good examples of ultimately looking to the Lord through the pain. Your Good Shepherd does not promise to keep you from the valley of the shadow of death, but He does promise to bring you through to the green pastures and still waters on the other side.
Continue reading →

Trueman on the Heidelberg Catechism

Posted on March 21, 2011 by blund

(HT: @DanBorvan)

Wollebius on Heretics & Schismatics

Posted on March 11, 2011 by blund

I mentioned in a different post the tricky nature of distinguishing between heresy, heterodoxy, bad teaching, etc. Johannes Wollebius (1586-1629) described some careful thinking and distinguishing between the various categories. In chapter 27 on “The False Church” of his Prolegomena, he notes:

1. Not every error makes a heretic.
There may be error against the foundation like that of the Arians and Marcionites, who denied, the one the deity, and the other the humanity, of Christ; or concerning the foundation, as the papists err in teaching transubstantiation, by which the truth of the human nature of Christ is taken away; or error by addition to the foundation, which errors are by Paul called hay, wood, etc. (1 Cor. 3:12).
2. The following makes a heretic: (i) an error against the foundation or concerning the foundation, (ii) conviction, (iii) contumacy.
3. Not every schismatic is a heretic.
A schismatic is one who, although holding to the foundation of the faith, departs from some practice [ritus] of the church, rashly or because of ambition.