Depictions of Jesus

I am a very left-brained person, which explains in part why I was a mathematics teacher and found the subject to be pretty easy to understand. On the other hand, the right side of my brain gets a pulse only once in a great while, so I usually miss a lot of "artistic" things that others who are more right-brained see. While this is true, I do not see any legitimate reason for a Christian to have or make pictures, paintings, or other artistic depictions of Jesus. The basis for this is, of course, the second commandment and the traditional Reformed application of the second commandment in the life of the Christian rather than any lack of life from the right side of my brain. While this is by no means exhaustive or comprehensive, here are some of the objections to the more conservative interpretation of the second commandment and answers to these objections.

Objection #1: The second commandment is really only forbidding the worship of such things. It is true that the second commandment does forbid the worship of graven images and the like. However, notice the way in which the Westminster Larger Catechism interprets the things forbidden in the second commandment: "The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it...." (Q. 109). Notice that for the Westminster Divines it is not either/or, but both/and. Both the worship of images and the making of such images are forbidden. This is how the second commandment itself is worded: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God" (Exodus 20:4-5a). Clearly the Westminster Divines were right - both are forbidden. Thus it is more than merely not worshiping the images, but the making of such images as well.

Objection #2: Such things were a part of the temple worship such as the cherubim on the ark. There are two fundamental problems with this objection. First of all, the objects used in the temple and the ark were made under God's direct command and instruction. Second, to my knowledge none of the objects were depictions of any Person of the Godhead. For this objection to hold any water, one would need to find a Biblical command to make such images (of Christ, specifically) today. No such command in Scripture is found. Since the aforementioned temple objects were merely types and shadows, those things are now passed and find fulfillment in Christ. No commands to depict Jesus are given in the NT and no abrogation of the second commandment is found there either, contrary to many dispensationally minded individuals - but I digress.

Objection #3: Pictures of Jesus are helpful for teaching children who would not understand otherwise, so in that case it's okay. As a former teacher (by trade; in a sense I'm always a teacher as a minister), I can appreciate why such an objection is made. There are some whom I know who have a "no pictures of Jesus" rule for themselves, but will grant this exception in the case of children and their instruction. Nevertheless, children are also responsible to obey God's commands. You and I should not put any stumbling block before them especially at such a young and tender age. Some questions for such objectors: at what age then does it become wrong if at all? How do you go about teaching these grown, former children to unlearn these images? As one of my seminary profs noted, does that therefore mean I need pictures to help children to understand what it means when the Bible says that Adam knew his wife?

Objection #4: Jesus was a man and people saw Him when He walked among other men. There is an enormous difference between what the disciples saw and what images of Jesus depict. Images of Jesus are figments of the artist's imagination and nothing more. What, or rather, who the disciples saw was the God-man, Jesus Christ. They saw the whole person in two distinct natures. The two natures of Christ cannot be separated. In my own opinion, images of Christ come perilously close to an ancient heresy known as Apollonarianism, which taught that Christ had only one nature; this heresy was rightly condemned by the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. The Westminster Confession of faith using language from the ancient creeds states this about Christ: "The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man" (VIII.2; emphasis added). This phenomenon is known in theological circles as the hypostatic union. Jesus Christ has two distinct and inseparable natures - fully God and fully man; He is not half God and half man. One cannot make images of Jesus without separating His two natures, thus one cannot properly depict the God-man. It is a profound mystery not to be pried into, but a mystery to be believed - a mystery which ought to give us a sense of awe and wonder!

At this time of year, it may seem that I am being a Scrooge of sorts. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wish the God-man Jesus Christ to be highly exalted by His people. Pictures and depictions of Him do the opposite. Fear not fellow Christians, for one day you shall see Him as He is!

Sabbath Delight

There is no small amount of debate in the Church today concerning how a Christian is to observe each Sunday. The debate usually revolves around what a Christian may or may not do on Sunday, though some professing Christians deny that we are obligated to follow the Sabbath ordinance since we are in the New Covenant. I should note right away that I am writing this post about the Sabbath/Lord's Day/Sunday from a rather conservative Reformed and Presbyterian perspective. Thus, if there are those who profess Christ and believe the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath is no longer binding, then be forewarned that this post assumes that it is. Perhaps some other time I will argue the continued obligation of the fourth commandment for us today; for now I want to focus on the matter of actual Sabbath observance.

Even in Reformed and Presbyterian circles there are differences of opinion as to how the Lord's Day is to be observed. Note what the Westminster Shorter Catechism says concerning this matter: "Q. 60. How is the sabbath to be sanctified? A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God's worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy." The question of Sabbath observance in my circles centers around the phrase "worldly employments and recreations" and in particular, what is meant or allowed/not allowed by the inclusion of the word "recreations."

The question for so many folks is a question of what is allowable for a person to do on the Sabbath. Can I watch TV? Can I go out to eat? Can I play sports? Can I watch sports? Can I shoot hoops in the driveway with my kids? Can I take a walk in the park? There is an endless number of related questions of allowance on the Sabbath. The difficulty is that there really are a lot of gray areas that can make even the staunchest conservative Sabbitarian say, "I'm not really sure."

My own view, or perhaps more accurately, my own application of the Sabbath principle has changed over the last few years in particular. I would sometimes get bogged down in the "dos and don'ts"of the Sabbath and really miss the fundamental point. Of course, to be perfectly honest, I just wanted to do my own thing, even though I had some standards I tried to follow. What follows is a description of what the Holy Spirit used to sanctify my own thinking concerning the Lord's Day. There was no real list involved, but rather a simple test that I used concerning any activity I thought about doing on the Lord's Day.

This passage of Scripture is a great test, as it were, to help you determine how best to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken” (Isaiah 58:13-14 [ESV]). The key thing to remember as you determine what is entailed in your own Sabbath observance is to call the Sabbath a delight. The activity you are thinking of doing - will it help you to call the Sabbath a delight? Will it help you remember God's greatness and grace in your life? Then by all means, do it! Will a particular activity prevent you from calling the Sabbath a delight? They by all means, don't do it!

Let's take this a step further. The application of the fourth commandment is more than simply concern about your own activities, but concern about the activity of others and their ability to call the Sabbath a delight. Notice that those who are not to work on the Sabbath are your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, or the stranger who is within your gates. Simply put, as far as it is possible with you, you are not to cause others to violate the Sabbath. Apply the above test here as well; any work or activity that you do on the Lord's Day ought to be that which will enable others to call the Sabbath a delight, e.g., the work involved in hospitality. The flip side to this is not to do any work or participate in any activity that would hinder others from calling the Sabbath a delight. People will claim that going out to eat on Sunday is no big deal, but consider that your waiter/waitress at that point is your manservant/maidservant and they, too, are to do no work. Yet there they are working so you don't have to! Interestingly, many Christians lament the fact that too many of the pews in their church are empty and do so during the Sunday brunch at their local restaurant after church. The very act of eating out at a restaurant after church services is a contributing factor in keeping people out of the pews! Many people who work in restaurants need to be there well before it opens, so while you are in the worship service employees of the restaurant have to get ready for you to come to Sunday brunch. This activity does not allow others to call the Sabbath a delight, but rather hinders them from doing so! You really have no justification in lamenting empty pews in Church on Sunday morning if you are engaging in activities that actually keep others away from those pews.

My friends, the Sabbath is not burden, but a delight! Remember Jesus' words regarding the Sabbath: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). The Sabbath is for you. It is a blessing from God to you. How then can we not seek to use the divinely appointed blessing of the Sabbath in the way God has intended for us? Recognize that the Lord's Day is a blessing, call the Sabbath a delight, and God will surely bless you!

Inerrant & Infallible Heroes?

Who is your theological hero? Perhaps it is someone whose writings have greatly influenced you; or their preaching; or their discipleship. Perhaps you have more than one. That happens to be the case for me. I don't think I could pinpoint any one individual theologian or preacher as being THE main go to guy to find answers to perplexing theological or practical matters; I try to see what a number of them will say on an given issue to see which opinion best comports with what the Scriptures say. Depending on the topic, some will be better than others. For some people, though, there is a main go-to guy to get the definitive answer to the matter in question. Unfortunately, I have seen this go too far as the opinions of the said theologian to whom the person will refer becomes its own gospel. "So and so said it, so it must be true; it must be right." In such cases, it becomes nearly impossible to disagree with the person and their pet theologian, because how can their favorite theologian ever possibly be wrong! Now, I don't think everyone does this, and this may not apply to any of you who are reading this; it's just something I've been noticing and thinking about lately and I decided to express some of those thoughts.

What causes such an attitude in people? There are probably a lot of reasons, but there is one in particular that tends to stick out rather prominently in my own observations (which I realize does not prove anything in and of itself). Many times the "hero theologian" is one who had a profound impact on the thought life of the individual. It could be that the person's hero led them to faith in Christ, or more specifically in my circles, led them to the Reformed faith. While not knowing the individuals personally, I know of a particular church where members left because the pastor taught a Sunday School class refuting a book written by a well known heretic radio personality. The book? It was called 1994? by Harold Camping. If I may be allowed to go out on a limb here, I'm guessing my pastor friend was right. Now a lot of those folks that left that church were greatly influenced by Camping and some professed to having been saved through his radio program. Unfortunately, that gratitude turned Camping into an idol for them; in their eyes Camping could say no wrong. So, when my pastor friend taught the Sunday School class refuting the book, they left. Of course, not long after that, Camping declared the church age to be over and that everyone should leave their church - sadly, many did so simply because (insert stadium echo here) HAROLD CAMPING said so. He tried predicting the end of the world again much more recently and many people jumped on his bandwagon again. By the way, if you're reading this blog post, it's a safe bet that he was wrong again.... just sayin'. As an aside, I've seen online references to Camping having repented after his prediction failed to come to fruition. I can only hope that is true.

It's not just guys like Harold Camping though. I see this happen to folks (on Facebook and online discussion groups) who have what we might say are the more conservative theological/pastoral heroes, i.e., men who are regarded as having a high view of Scripture: names like John Piper, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, J Gresham Machen (really, OPC guys can go too far here also!), Meredith Kline, Tim Keller, John Calvin, Doug Wilson, RJ Rushdoony, Michael Horton, Cornelius Van Til, and Joel Osteen. Okay, that last one was just to see who was really paying attention; that name doesn't belong. In all seriousness, while it is a good thing to remember those who went before us and honor those who are currently seeking to proclaim with boldness the truths of Scripture, we cannot make these or any men idols regardless of how much God may have used any or some of them in your Christian walk. They are (were) fallible. They make (made) mistakes. They sin(ned). They need(ed) God's grace in their sanctification. Do not merely assume that simply because "great theologian so and so" said it, that his comments settle the matter. Perhaps he's right, but do not be so quick to assume it merely because it was he who said it - the word of God is what settles the matter!

How do you know if you have made a theologian/pastor into an idol of this kind? Give yourself a little test: do you ever quote other theologians/pastors/authors? Do you ever recommend other theologians/pastors/authors to friends or just your favorite one? Have you ever found anything from your favorite theologian with which you disagree and can articulate what you dislike about it? When someone else critiques your favorite guy in a way you had never considered, do you simply dismiss it with a wave of the hand or do you really think about the substance of the critique? Remember that it is God who saved you; it is God who sanctifies you. These men are merely the instrument by which God brought you to Himself. I'm not saying you should give away all your books from your favorite author, but rather to have a proper perspective. A simple way to do this is to expand your list of theologians whom you read. What do others say about the matter? What do others who disagree with "my guy" say about the matter? Of course, the Holy Spirit speaking in and through the word must be the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal controversy. We ought to thank God that He has raised up men, both past and present, who can expound God's word in great and meaningful ways; let's not make more of them than they are or would even wish to be. They are men saved by grace through faith, men who need the same grace you and I need.

Is There Greater Pain? When Christians Sin Against You

Over the years, I have heard other Christians say that they have been hurt more or in more painful ways by other Christians than they have by non-Christians. Of course, this should not be the case at all. Nevertheless, it is a topic worth considering. Having experienced pain at the hands of other Christians in the not too distant past, as my wife's and my reputation was smeared and I was even accused of not having absorbed some elements of the gospel, we (along with our kids) can attest that there appears to be some truth to this. Why is it that Christians are hurt by other Christians more than they are by non-Christians? How true is it to say that the pain from sin caused by other Christians is more painful than pain caused by non-Christians? Even more importantly, how do we overcome this pain?

In one sense, it really is more painful when a Christian hurts another Christian but in another sense it is not. It is not as though the sin committed against you in and of itself is necessarily worse (though it certainly can be), but rather the fact that it is a fellow Christian – a brother or sister in Christ – that makes it uniquely painful. Let me illustrate it this way. If an acquaintance at work lies to you, it may be an annoyance and even painful. Still, you may be able to shake it off, so to speak, in a relatively short period of time. However, if your spouse were to tell the same lie to you, that's a different story. Deep trust that is supposed to be a crucial characteristic of a marriage is broken; it can and often does take a long time to rebuild that trust even after true repentance has taken place and forgiveness has been granted.

The Westminster Larger Catechism provides us with a little help in this discussion. "Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God? A. All transgressions of the law are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others." Thus, while it is true that some sins in themselves are more heinous than others, it is equally true that there are other considerations which aggravate the pain of a sin - and this holds true when it that sin is committed against us. The Westminster Divines continued:

Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?
A. Sins receive their aggravations,
1. From the persons offending; if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many.
3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, willfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
4. From circumstances of time, and place: if on the Lord's day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

I realize this is a rather extensive list, but notice in particular the first item on the list, namely the persons offending. Connect that now with part of the second item on the list, namely the offended party being any of the saints. Generally speaking, we can see that each of these items can easily overlap, but more specifically, the Westminster Divines rightly noted that one of the things that makes a sin more heinous is a Christian sinning against another Christian.

This truth can be seen in the words of David in Psalm 55. He begins his prayer to God by describing his deep, deep anguish and pleads with God to hear him in his distress. What is the reason for his anguish? "For it is not an enemy who taunts me — then I could bear it; it is not an adversary who deals insolently with me — then I could hide from him. But it is you, a man, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. We used to take sweet counsel together; within God’s house we walked in the throng" (Psalm 55:12-4). Notice how David's pain is due more to the offender than it is to the offense itself, which he admits he could bear if it had been an enemy who did it. It was a friend with whom he counseled, with whom he worshiped God. David doesn't stop here though. "My companion stretched out his hand against his friends; he violated his covenant. His speech was smooth as butter, yet war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords" (51:20-21). Note the fact that David's friend violated his covenant. While we are not told the specifics, we must remember how important the people in David's lifetime viewed a covenant. In those days a covenant was a solemn pledge or bond usually inaugurated by a ceremony indicating what would happen to the one who violated the covenant (see Genesis 15). Simply put, David was hurt by another professing believer and it seems that it hurt him more because of who did it rather than what was done.

Another such place that helps to illustrate this point is in what I call "the other Mathew 18." Most of us are quite familiar Matthew 18:15-19 and the process involved when a brother sins and refuses to repent potentially leading to excommunication. However, in a familiar parable that few remember occurs in Matthew 18 as well, Jesus teaches us what our heart attitude needs to be when a brother who sins against us repents. I'll come back to this below, but for now I want you to notice the debt of the fellow servant. We are told in the parable that the fellow servant owed the first servant a hundred denarii - an amount that is relatively tiny compared to the 10,000 talents the first servant owed his master to be sure. Nevertheless, the point that most teachers neglect to mention is that a hundred denarii is no small amount. A denarius was the usual daily wage for the common day laborer or foot soldier. Assuming a six day work week, you're looking at nearly seventeen weeks or four months of wages. Can you imagine if someone owed you four months of your annual salary? Jesus is in no way minimizing the pain sin can cause – sin hurts! Yes, I realize this is not the main point of the parable, but Jesus is certainly not ignoring the truth that it really hurts when a brother sins against you. He knows that you will find it difficult to forgive because it hurts and this is why He reminds you and me in this parable that we owe our infinite God an infinite debt that we cannot possibly repay... a debt which God forgave out of pity for us when we sought mercy from Him in faith. The point of the parable is that we cannot say we have understood God's grace in our lives if we are unwilling to forgive from the heart a repentant brother who had sinned against us. After all, while it is true that a hundred denarii is no small amount, it is a debt that is not insurmountable. The same is true of a brother's sin against you; it certainly may be painful, but it is not insurmountable.

The pain caused by the sin committed against you by a fellow Christian does not negate our responsibility to forgive him if he repents. Let's face facts here... it's hard to forgive. I submit to you that if you are having difficulty forgiving a repentant brother who sinned against you, then most likely you are not reflecting on God's love and grace nearly enough; you are not reflecting on the well-being and holiness of your brother; you are not concerned about the rift that exists between the two of you; you are not concerned about reconciliation. "Yes, but he really hurt me!" No doubt that is true, but remember our great and sympathetic high priest. He knows what it is like when sinned against; He knows what it is like to be mocked publicly; He knows what it is like to be abandoned and denied by His friends; He knows what it is like to be murdered by those whom He created. He knows. Turn to Him and repent of your own sin of holding a grudge. But how do you know if you're holding a grudge? Ask yourself these questions: Do you gossip to others about your brother and his sin against you? Do you post your mood on Facebook in order to get people to ask you what's wrong? Do you think about the sin rather than reconciliation? Has your own worship of God become cold and rote both privately and corporately? Do you rehearse in your mind over and over again exactly what you would say to that person and how you would say it if given the chance? These things do nothing but increase the rift between you and your brother; it causes bitterness and hatred to take hold of your thoughts and become deeply rooted in your heart when it is a desire for reconciliation to the glory of God that should be you main concern. Reconciliation ought to be your primary goal and granting forgiveness to a repentant brother is a huge step toward achieving that goal.

Forgiveness is hard precisely because sin hurts. Nevertheless, making a habit of meditating on the riches of God's grace in your life despite the infinite debt that you owe to Him will be the most important foundation for you as you seek to demonstrate the same love and grace to a fellow Christian who sinned against you. Granting forgiveness demonstrates to your brother and the world at large that you have comprehended the forgiveness you have received in Christ Jesus; it tells the world and especially your brother that fellowship in Christ is paramount to you. "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you" (Ephesians 4:31). Remember – a brother or sister in the Lord who has repented has been forgiven by God, so how can you not also grant forgiveness? Granting true forgiveness from the heart to a brother in Christ is a wonderful testimony of the grace of the gospel in our lives.

Tribute to Morton H. Smith

It is with some tentativeness that I write this about a man whom I have known for only a few short years. There are many others who have known him far longer and can share much more than I ever could. Nevertheless, when I heard the news that the seminary where I received theological training (Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary) decided to grant Dr. Morton H. Smith emeritus status, I was overjoyed. The news of this can be found here. I had to smile when I first saw the GPTS news link because the photo used was taken with our camera, though there is some debate amongst the three photographers in the family as to who actually took the photo.

It was taken during the 2011 GPTS Spring Theology Conference. His love of preaching the word and Reformed theology was always evident to me. I had him for four classes at GPTS, the seminary which Dr. Smith helped begin. Teaching the truths of the Reformed faith always seemed to give him such life and fire in his eye. There was one particular time that I saw this which will always be ingrained in my memory. In my first year (2008-9) at GPTS, I had the class called "Introduction to Reformed Theology" in which he taught out of his Harmony of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Midway through the semester, Dr. Smith became quite ill with some kind of upper respiratory illness. One class was cancelled and the next week Dr. Pipa, the President of the seminary, taught the class in his place indicating that if needed he would take over and finish the class for Dr. Smith. Well, it wasn't needed and Dr. Smith returned to the classroom, though he was still recovering and a bit weak due to the illness. Yet that day he returned to the classroom as he taught the class, I watched his strength return and the gleam in his eye get brighter and brighter as he joyfully taught the doctrines of the Reformed faith which he loved so dearly. It was so evident that he loved God and His word and this was clear every time he taught or preached at the seminary.

Dr. Smith with Dr. George W. Knight III

Dr. Smith was also a consummate churchman. He was the first stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) - a position he held for 16 years. In 2000 he was elected to be the moderator of their General Assembly. Dr. Smith loved and still loves the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. He wrote a book that played an important role in the formation of the PCA in 1973. This book is entitled How Is the Gold Become Dim. It was required reading for my class on Presbyterian Church History. As I read the book, which traced the decades of decline of the PCUS, I was struck by how long Dr. Smith and others like him endured so many severe theological errors; he loved the church and fought hard to keep her from drifting rather than jumping ship too hastily to form another denomination. Eventually, he and others made the difficult decision to leave the PCUS and form the PCA in 1973. People in the church ought to take a lesson in patience from Dr. Smith and not be so hasty to leave their church over issues even though they may very well be legitimate. While some folks may leave a church over one issue found in one sermon, Dr. Smith pressed on despite many issues over the course of a couple of decades. On the other hand, ministers and elders of the church ought to read his book to avoid the same kind of theological decline Dr. Smith witnessed in the PCUS. As cliché as it might sound, history has a habit of repeating itself. I have always found it remarkable that the decline of various denominations around the world bears so much similarity with one another. Read his book and see if you recognize the same signs of theological decline in your own church.

Dr. Smith signing my copy of his Systematic Theology

It was an honor to learn from Dr. Smith during my years at seminary. I hope and pray that I can have even half of the love and devotion to God, the Bible, the Reformed faith, and the Church as Dr. Smith still has. Thank you Dr. Smith for your service to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church; thank you for the example you gave to me and many others; may God give you many more years of faithful service to His Church. May God continue to raise up such defenders of the faith in Christ's Church.

The Importance of the Five Solas - Soli Deo Gloria

According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." This is one of the most well-known theological statements (answer, really) even among those who are not Reformed or Presbyterian. We have come to the last of the Five Solas namely, Soli Deo Gloria - to God alone be the glory. The previous four solas necessarily lead to this sola.

What exactly is glory? It is a word that is used in many different situations from sports to politics. Despite its wide use, it is not always easy to define the word "glory." It could easily fall into the common phrase someone utters when he finds it difficult to define something: "I'll know it when I see it." Well, when it comes to the God of the Bible and His glory, that is certainly true. The Hebrew word often translated as "glory" in the Old Testament comes from a root meaning "heavy," and some legitimate synonyms are abundance, splendor, brightness, majesty, etc. It could simply be described as the manifestation of the very Godness of God. In the New Testament, we see something similar. We get the English word "doxology" from the usual NT Greek word for "glory." Ordinarily, it can refer to brightness, yet words such as magnificence, excellence, dignity, and majesty are excellent synonyms as well. God has all glory in and of Himself and needs nothing to add to His own glory. If this is the case, then how can we assert that man's chief end is to glorify Him if He already has all glory in and of Himself? The simple answer is that as creatures made in His image, we do all things to reflect God's glory back to Him. This is what we do in a special way in our corporate worship services each Lord's Day as we gather as His redeemed covenant people. While all things that God created do glorify God (cf., Psalm 19:1), man as the pinnacle of God's creation is especially intended to give glory to God on High. "...everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory" (Isaiah 43:7).

As true as it is that all of creation is to glorify God, this sola has a specific area of emphasis, namely the salvation that comes to man by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone according to Scripture alone. Christians glorify God because of the redemption we have in Christ Jesus and God alone gets all the glory for that salvation. Any system of doctrine claiming that man must contribute works toward his salvation or cooperate along side of God's grace effectively robs God of the glory that He alone deserves. "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). We see in these verses not only the fact that salvation is not from works, but we see a crucial result of that fact: no one can boast. Unfortunately, there are too many people in churches today that will have an attitude like one of the following:

• God helps those who help themselves.
• Jesus died for you because you're worth it.
• Jesus is knocking on the door of your heart; won't you please let Him in?
• God has done all He can; now the rest is up to you.

Mindsets such as these rob God of His glory (the last one in particular really makes my skin crawl). If you can help yourself, if you are worth it, if you let Jesus enter your heart when He knocks, and/or if you have to finish what God started, then you have every reason to boast. However, the Bible is clear: you could not and did not do anything to earn or contribute to your salvation. God alone is the reason anyone is redeemed by the blood of Christ. This is why all glory belongs to Him alone. God will not be robbed of His glory. "I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other" (Isaiah 42:8).

As difficult as it may seem to some, the salvation you have in Jesus Christ is not about you. Yes, I realize that we are truly beneficiaries of His divine grace. Nevertheless, the ultimate purpose of your salvation is to glorify God. Notice these verses from the Old Testament: "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes" (Ezekiel 36:22-23). The fascinating thing about these verses is that they are sandwiched in between a passage in which God pronounces judgment and another passage in which God promises salvation. It seems that the point is that God will do both for the sake of His holy name – judgment and salvation. To remove any doubt for the reason of the promise, in verse 32 God repeats the same idea following the promise of salvation. Thus, it is for the sake of His name and His glory that He saves sinners.

My friends, how can we not glorify God for His gift of salvation to us? If we ought to give God the glory because of His creation, then most certainly we ought to give God the glory because of His recreation of us in Christ! This ought to be our most automatic response when we reflect on His grace in our lives. It was certainly the case for the Apostle Paul. In his epistle to the Romans - his magnum opus, as it were - Paul bursts forth into a grand doxology at the end of chapter 11. "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?' 'Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?' For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen" (Romans 11:33-36). What would cause Paul to express himself in such a God glorifying way? From the middle of chapter 3 up to this point in the epistle, Paul had laid out for the Roman church his doctrine of salvation with some special attention given to the doctrine of justification. While this is clearly an oversimplification of what Paul has said in Romans, it is pretty obvious that this is the ground of his doxology - the theology of salvation in Christ. For Paul theology always led to doxology and it should do the same for us. If your study of theology, doctrine, the Bible, etc., does not bring you to doxology, then you're doing it wrong. How wise God is to be able to save sinners in a way that vindicates His holiness - He knew what was needed and He implemented it! How unsearchable His judgments that He would choose to save sinners and rebels from what they deserve! All things, especially our salvation, are from Him and through Him and to Him! You are saved Soli Deo Gloria - to the glory of God alone! Amen and amen.

The Importance of the Five Solas - Sola Fide

Our series on the five solas now moves to look at what many consider to be the heart of the matter, namely Sola Fide - faith alone. James Montgomery Boice noted that the Reformers called the doctrine of Sola Scriptura the “formal principle” of theology and the doctrine of Sola Fide the “material principle.”1 They called Sola Scriptura the “formal principle” because it is from the Bible that we derive our theology, i.e., the Bible is the ultimate source of what we are to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man. On the other hand, the Reformers referred to Sola Fide as the “material principle” because it deals with the very heart or substance of what one needs to believe to be saved. There is a lot that needs to be fleshed out in order to understand the importance of this rich doctrine, and I remind you readers that this was not a novel invention of the Reformers, but rather a return to the truths found in Scripture.

In my last post, we saw that Sola Gratia means that all of salvation comes to God's people only because of His good pleasure to save sinners in Christ Jesus. The doctrine of Sola Fide is much more specific in its focus. This sola teaches us that God justifies a sinner through faith alone. Question #33 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism gives us a concise, yet excellent definition: “Q. What is justification? A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein He pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.” There is so much rich material in this concise answer and some key words that I need to define in order for you to see the beauty of this truth. I’ll define the terms justification, imputation, and faith.

Justification

According to the Roman Catholic Church, to justify means “to make righteous.” Thus, in the eyes of Rome, justification is the process or the work of God making a sinner righteous. Faith is involved, but as noted in a previous post it is not sufficient; good works are required as well. Thus Rome teaches that justification comes by faith and works. I believe the fundamental reason for this belief that justification is a process is because the Latin translation of the Bible uses a word that does indeed mean “to make righteous.” Ironically, this Latin word is where we get the English word “justification.” However, the Bible was not written in Latin originally; the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (and a bit in Aramaic) and the New Testament was written in Greek. Marin Luther rightly noted that in the New Testament the Greek word for “justify” means “to declare righteous.” A Roman Catholic may object by citing Romans 5:19 where the Apostle Paul tells us that it is by the one man’s obedience (Christ’s obedience) that the many will be made righteous. However, that is not the ordinary Greek word for “to make.” In this case, it is a word means something like this: “to legally constitute into the class of.” In other words, because of what Christ has done, the act of justification is God's legally putting the sinner into the class of the righteous. It is also important to note that in Romans 5, Paul is contrasting justification in Christ with condemnation in Adam. Condemnation does not make a person a guilty, but rather it is an act that declares a person to be a guilty sinner. A bit more will be said on that below as it relates to Christ and His sacrifice. There is another somewhat subtle, but crucial difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism with respect to justification: Rome sees justification as a work whereas Protestantism understands justification to be an act, i.e., done only once. When God justifies a sinner, He declares that person to be righteous. But how can this possibly be so? After all, if God is holy and  just, is it not necessary for Him to uphold justice by punishing guilty sinners? How can He simply declare any sinner to be righteous when he is anything but righteous? This is where imputation comes into play.

Imputation

In connection with their definition of justification being “to make righteous,” Rome believes that when a person is justified, righteousness is infused into them in order to make them righteous. However, the Reformers recognized that the righteousness that comes from God to a sinner is imputed, or reckoned to him; some English translations of the Bible will say "reckoned" or "credited to" or something similar (see Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:22). In order for righteousness to be imputed or reckoned to his account, it has to come from somewhere, i.e., there has to be a basis upon which God can stay true to His holy nature as He declares someone righteous. That righteousness comes from Jesus Christ, and this is part of the reason that Christ lived a perfect life on Earth. Christians tend to focus on only His death which takes away the sins of His people. However, as wonderful as that truth is, His perfect life was absolutely necessary for two reasons. Firstly, He needed to be a perfect, sinless sacrifice and most people recognize that right away. Secondly, His perfect righteousness in His obedience to the law is what is credited to our account, i.e., it is imputed to us while our guilt is credited to His account, i.e., our sinful guilt is imputed to Him. Thus, Christ is declared, or legally constituted a sinner; He is not made a sinner, nor is sin infused into Him. Our sinful account is credited to Him and this becomes the basis upon which He bears the full wrath of the Father. His perfect righteousness is credited to our account and this becomes the basis upon which God the Father can declare us righteous, i.e., justify us. Theologians have called this “double imputation” and “the great exchange.” Christ’s perfect righteousness is the ground of our justification. It is how God can be both just and the justifier of those who trust in Christ (Romans 3:21-26). Think about this for a moment - you who trust in Christ for salvation are legally as righteous as Jesus Christ! This is the basis of your justification or right standing with God. How does one appropriate this imputation and declaration of righteousness? This is where faith comes into play.

Faith

What is faith? "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace whereby we receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation, as He is offered to us in the gospel."2 Notice that faith is not described here as a work. It is a gift from God (cf., Philippians 1:29). It serves the conduit through which we appropriate Christ and His benefits. It is through faith and faith alone that we are justified. This is why the Westminster Divines say that faith is "the alone instrument of our justification."3 Does Scripture affirm this truth? That is an important question considering that Scripture alone is the only infallible and inerrant rule of faith and practice - something the Westminster Divines knew so well. The Apostle Paul had to deal with this very issue. In his letter to the Galatians, he had to address the problem of those who said that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved, i.e., one had to obey the law to be saved (cf., Acts 15:1, 5). Paul tells the Galatian church about the time he had to confront the Apostle Peter because his actions were leading people astray (see 2:11ff). While speaking to Peter, Paul said, “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16). For Paul, this was the heart of the gospel and he took the matter with all seriousness - so much so that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he said that anyone who preached another gospel was anathema, i.e., accursed or eternally condemned (Galatians 1:8-9). Roman Catholics will be quick to reply, “Ah, but what about James 2:24? James says we’re justified by works and not by faith alone!” Do we have a contradiction in the Bible? Is this a battle royale between Paul and James? Of course not. James is dealing with a different issue. While Paul was dealing with the issue of legalism, James was dealing with antinomianism (it simply means "against law"). There were those who claimed that since we’ve been saved we can do whatever we want and obedience to the law do not matter at all since we believe. James said that such a faith is a dead faith. It’s important to read the whole passage in second half of James 2, but especially note the question he was answering: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14). The simple answer is "No." James in no way taught justification by faith plus works nor did he contradict the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

To get this doctrine wrong is to get the gospel wrong and to get the gospel wrong leaves no hope for sinners. This is why Martin Luther said, “When the article of justification has fallen, everything has fallen…. This is the chief article from which all other doctrines have flowed…. It alone begets, nourishes, builds, preserves, and defends the church of God; and without it the church of God cannot exist for one hour.”4 To put this more positively, this is a doctrine of such profound beauty. It is a doctrine that frees us from all unnecessary burdens because we rest on Christ and His righteousness alone. We receive from God a declaration of righteousness through faith; we receive Christ’s perfect righteousness to our own account. We need only trust in Christ and His work. We need only receive and rest upon Christ alone as He is offered to us in the gospel. God pardons our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight, and this comes to us Sola Fide – by faith alone.

---

1 James Montgomery Boice, Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?: Recovering the Doctrines That Shook the World (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001), 129.  

2 Westminster Shorter Catechism Q.86. 

3 Westminster Confession of Faith XI.2 

4 Cited in Boice, Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?, 130.

The Importance of the Five Solas - Sola Gratia

Our brief look at the Five Solas continues with a discussion of the next sola known as Sola Gratia, or Grace Alone. It is important for me to note that some of what is discussed in this doctrine overlaps rather nicely with the Reformed or Calvinist doctrine known as Unconditional Election, which I will address sometime in the not too distant future. In addition, there is some of this same overlap within any treatment of the five solas as well with respect to the question of man's good works. It is nearly impossible to avoid discussing the good works of men as not contributing to salvation in a treatment of Sola Gratia as well as Solus Christus and Sola Fide (the next post). However, it simply becomes a matter of emphasis and the place a discussion of a man's works has under the umbrella of a particular Sola or a particular point of Calvinism.

When Reformed theologians speak of Sola Gratia, i.e., grace alone, they are simply saying that mankind has no claim upon God at all. God does not owe sinful man anything much less salvation unto eternal life. The only thing that God owes to man - because man has earned it - is punishment for sin and rebellion against God. Thus if God is to save you, me, or anyone else it is on account of His grace and His grace alone. During the medieval period leading up to the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church did emphasize the need for grace in salvation; this cannot be denied. However, Rome believed that man had to do his own part to cooperate with that grace, so while Rome did believe that grace was necessary, she did not believe grace was sufficient. Today's saying "God helps those who help themselves" is an echo of the same belief and modern Evangelicalism has bought into this way of thinking. Modern Evangelicalism has bought into the belief that God owes everyone a chance to be saved and should a person be saved it is because of our own free-will decision to accept Jesus into our heart. A simple way to put this is that the grace of God only goes so far and man must meet it halfway for it to be effective.

The Reformers in reaction against such thinking insisted on grace alone because they rightly believed that man is incapable of coming to faith by any methods, plans, or techniques done on his part. The Bible clearly teaches us that faith itself is a gift from God. "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV; cf., Philippians 1:29). Focus on the phrase "this is not your own doing" for just a moment and ask yourself, "what is not my own doing?" Paul's "this" refers the whole previous phrase, i.e., salvation by grace through faith; salvation is not your doing and not a result any contributing works on your part. Knowing that your salvation is by grace alone ought to prevent every Christian from boasting; such a fact ought to humble us and stimulate us to give all glory to whom it is due - the God who saves in Christ Jesus by grace.

This discussion is missing something that we take for granted far too often - the meaning of grace. Some may define grace as unmerited favor and this is a decent definition as far as it goes. Grace can be illustrated or demonstrated by the giving of a gift to someone who did not do anything to deserve it. However, grace as it is found and explained in the Bible goes much, much deeper than this. Grace in the Bible is the unmerited favor of God in spite of what you deserve from Him. What is it that you and I deserve from God? Nothing less than His eternal wrath and punishment. According to Leon Morris in an entry he wrote on "Propitiation" in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, the idea of God's wrath is "stubbornly rooted in the Old Testament where it is referred to 585 times." The New Testament does not shy away from the idea of God's wrath despite what many may claim to the contrary. The Apostle Paul, for example, reminds us that it is the wrath of God that is revealed to men against all ungodliness (Romans 1:18). It is this truth, it is this reality that makes grace so amazing! There is no hope for sinners apart from His love and grace - a grace that He owes to no one, yet He gives freely because He pays the debt we owe fully in Christ who bore His Father's wrath in our place. Let this truth stimulate a deep love for our God because of the grace He has given to you in Christ though you deserved the opposite! May God grant us the ability to grasp the depth and riches of His love that comes to us Sola Gratia - by grace alone.

The Importance of the Five Solas - Solus Christus

Biblical Christianity is unique. Every other religion requires a man to contribute something to his eternal destiny in heaven, yet true Christianity following the word of God in proclaiming that mankind cannot contribute anything to merit entrance into heaven. For the Christian, it is through Christ alone that one can enter into eternal life in the new heavens and the new earth. Indeed, Christianity is centered on Christ. The Apostle Paul stressed this truth when he said, "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2;  ESV). His chief concern for the Church was not to make the world a better place (as good as that would be), but for them to know Christ and what He did for His people. This is the doctrine of Solus Christus or Christ alone. From beginning to end, the Bible is about Christ and His redemption.

As noted in the previous post, the five solas of the Protestant Reformation were doctrines set forth by the Reformers in an attempt to return to biblical Christianity and the teachings found in Scripture. At the time of the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church taught that in addition to Christ's work, a man must contribute his own good works toward his salvation (e.g., see session six of the Council of Trent, On Justification, Canon XXXII). The Reformers rightly noted that the Bible stresses clearly that it is only through Christ and His work that one is saved; man does not and cannot contribute anything toward his salvation because he is a sinner. It is precisely because man cannot contribute to his salvation that Christ had to come and die on the cross for the sins of His people in order to save them. It is important to note that the Second Person of the Trinity did not have to take to Himself a human nature and save anyone. However, since God determined to save people to Himself there was no other way that this could be accomplished except through Christ's sacrifice. Therein lies the beauty of the gospel message: Christ died for sinners and though He was under no obligation to do so He loved them and died for them because there was no other way to save them. To put it simply, Christ did not have to save anyone, but the only way for God to save sinners was for His Son to take a human nature and die in their place for their sins.

There are many in the world today who think that Christianity is an arrogant religion because it claims that there is no other way to heaven except through Christ. We live in such a pluralistic society that says all roads lead to heaven and Jesus is just one of many ways to get there; to say that Jesus is the only way is not fair since one religion is just as good as another. Sadly, there are many who profess Christianity who believe just as so much of the world does, namely that Jesus is just one way and not the only way. Such thinking is full of problems. First of all the Bible makes it clear that all other religions are false and this means that there cannot be another way to heaven; there is no other god except the Living and True God of the Bible (cf., Deut. 4:35, 39). The only way to heaven is God's way - the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself declared, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Peter, speaking of Jesus, declared to the Jewish leaders of his day, "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The Bible is clear - the way to heaven is found in Christ alone.

As to the question of fairness, that topic is something people really do not consider carefully enough. Do you really want God to treat you fairly? Think about it for a moment. If God were to treat us all fairly, we would all suffer His holy and just wrath for all eternity because we are sinners. Please note that I am not saying that God is some kind of sadistic despot sitting in heaven waiting to zap someone just for kicks. Yes, I know that God is love, but He is also holy and just. His wrath and punishment that will be poured out is a wrath and punishment that mankind deserves and because He is just, sinners must be punished for their sin and for their guilt; divine justice must be satisfied. Sin is an affront to a thrice holy God. Is it fair that there is only one way to heaven? No, it isn't fair.... it's grace!! I am so very thankful that God does not treat me fairly; I am thankful that God loved sinners enough to save them from the judgment they deserve - sinners like me. I am thankful that God sent His only begotten and beloved Son into this world and poured out His wrath on Him in my place, thus satisfying divine justice. The world at large finds the claims that Christ to be the only way of salvation to be a horrid thing. My friends, here's the reality: it is an amazing, beautiful, loving, and gracious thing that God has provided any way of salvation. This is the good news! There is a way of salvation - a salvation that is found Solus Christus, in Christ alone.

The Importance of the Five Solas - Sola Scriptura

Previously, I had indicated that I was going to give a brief description of the Reformed faith. One post will simply not do the trick. While I do intend to keep my posts brief (relatively speaking), it is a topic that is by no means small. Thus what I hope to do is start here with a series of posts on the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation followed by what is commonly known as the Five Points of Calvinism.

To begin with, what are the Five Solas? Those of you that are friends of mine on Facebook have probably noticed on Reformation Day (October 31) I would post something like this: "I am justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone according to Scripture alone." In that one sentence we have the Five Solas. They can be identified as follows:

• Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone 
• Solus Christus - Christ Alone
• Sola Gratia - Grace Alone 
• Sola Fide - Faith Alone 
• Soli Deo Gloria - The Glory of God Alone

This and subsequent posts will deal with these in the order we see in the list. Here we begin with Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

What do we mean by Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone? Simply put, the phrase indicates that Scripture (i.e., the Old and New Testaments in the Bible, not the Apochrypha) is the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and life. I want to be clear on this; it does not mean that it is the only authority. As a Presbyterian minister, I vowed to receive and adopt the Westminster Standards (i.e., the Confession of Faith and the Larger & Shorter Catechisms) as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. Thus, the Westminster Standards are an authority, but they are not and can never be the ultimate or absolute authority as God's word is. If it could be legitimately demonstrated that Scripture conflicts with something in those Standards, Scripture wins. Period. Every other authority whether confession, creed, or council must be subordinate to the authority of Scripture alone because they are inferior to Scripture. This doctrine became a rally cry of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century because the Roman Catholic Church placed the Church itself along with her councils and traditions at the same level (at the very least!) of Scripture and determined that she was the only true and final interpreter of Scripture. According to Rome at the Council of Trent, Scripture cannot be interpreted in any way that she does not approve. This led to all kinds of abuses of church power leading up to the time of the Reformation. It must be noted that the Reformers did not invent this doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but rather brought it back to light. I admit, this is a simplistic explanation, but it should be sufficient for our purposes here.

Why is Scripture the ultimate and absolute authority? The Bible is God's word in written form and therefore cannot be anything but absolutely authoritative. When you open the pages of the Bible, the content of those pages is God speaking to you in that word. Scripture alone shows the way of salvation found in Jesus Christ. Thus the Bible is God's redemptive word. Scripture alone has the final say in what God requires of man. While it is certainly true that human authors penned the words, the ultimate author is God Himself. "All Scripture is breathed out by God...." (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV; see also 2 Peter 1:20-21). In the original Greek, that description of Scripture is a single word — God-breathed; many English translations use some form of the word "inspired." It is precisely for this reason that the Bible is inerrant (free from error) and infallible (free from error in teaching). Thus Scripture is the final and ultimate authority in matters of faith and life.

Now for the practical side of the discussion. At the time of the Protestant Reformation the key issue was the level of authority Scripture had in the life of believers compared to other authorities, specifically the authority of the Church. The authority of the Bible is certainly questioned by many today, yet even within the church itself it has also become a question of the sufficiency of Scripture among those who testify that the Bible has ultimate authority. As James Montgomery Boice noted, today's battle is against those who would use worldly means to do God's work (Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?, 66). So many in the Church today look to other means for evangelism, guidance, and growth in grace in order to make the Church and Christianity appear more relevant. My friends, what could possibly be more relevant for such things than God's perfect word? In the desire to seem relevant, so many doctrines of Scripture get watered down or simply ignored. Psalm 19 describes God's word as perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true, and altogether righteous; God's word revives the soul, makes men wise, makes the heart rejoice, enlightens the eyes, and endures forever; we ought to desire His word more than fine gold for it is sweeter than honey from the comb. Seek God's word to guide and comfort you. Look to God's word to deepen your love of Christ. Your church ought to make the word of God and His gospel message central in its ministry. Why did the Reformers emphasize so strongly this wonderful doctrine? In the pages of Scripture there is light for a darkened world; in them is a soothing balm for a scraped and sore heart; in them is a bubbling spring for a dry and parched soul; in them is life - life eternal found in the Lord Jesus Christ!

Eating from the Theological Dumpster?

What follows is an edited version of a "note" I had posted on Facebook about two years ago - long before I really gave much thought to doing a blog. I have mentioned "Reformed" theology on more than one occasion. A subsequent post will be an attempt at a basic description of Reformed theology for those who may not be familiar with it.

**********************

I like a good steak. I like it cooked medium and seared to perfection. I like going to a classy restaurant and ordering a nice filet mignon. I love it when it comes to my table and I take the knife and make that first cut into the middle, watching the juices spread out on my plate. I love taking that first bite and savoring the goodness of quality beef, slowly chewing it as it practically melts in my mouth. Hungry yet? Well let's fix that...

Imagine for a moment someone comes up to you and offers you a rather small portion of a steak that appears to have been cut already. You ask them, "Where did you get this?" You ask him this not because the steak looks bad in and of itself, but because it looks, well.... a bit used. What's left looks fine, but you're curious and ask your eager friend where he got that steak. He answers with bubbling excitement, "Oh, I went behind the restaurant and rummaged through the dumpster and found this after seeing the bus boy take the trash out. Ain't it great!?! Have some! There's plenty more where it came from!"

This seems rather absurd for anyone save the starving and homeless. Why would anyone do such a thing? Sure, one can rummage around the trash of a dumpster and find nuggets of leftovers that were tossed and make an adequate meal of it. But I ask again: Why would anyone do such a thing? After all, it was in the dumpster!

This is meant to illustrate a point that all Christians need to contemplate. In today's day and age there is an endless supply of Christian books aimed at providing help for people. Help with loss; help with abuse; help with marriage; help with parenting; help with determining God's will; help with finances; help with helping helpers; and on and on it goes. Unfortunately, so much of what is produced today is at best fluff. When I was in seminary, one of my professors told my fellow students and me that the 20th century saw very few solid theological and practical books. A couple of exceptions are Packer's Knowing God and Sproul's The Holiness of God. He probably mentioned others, but I remember these specifically because I own them. They were instrumental in bringing me to a deeper knowledge of God. They helped plant in me a desire to know who God is and how we relate to him - all of which we learn from His word. In other words, they stirred in me a desire for good theology. The problem today is that not only is so much of what passes as 'Christian' nothing more than fluff and feel-good-fuzzy stuff, it is just theologically wrong and unbiblical. In some cases, it is downright heretical - which can be eternally damaging to one's well-being.

Over the years, I've had discussions with fellow believers about various Christian authors, seminars, conferences, etc. One thing that folks usually will tell me is that I don't have to agree with everything I read from these authors, but just try to find those nuggets of truth and goodness in it; then they will usually ask me, "After all, you don't believe everything in your favorite authors, do you?" To be fair, there is something to this. It is true, I don't agree with everything that my favorite Reformed authors say. Nevertheless I would still recommend many of these Reformed works because of the benefit these writings can be to people - writings from those who strive to be true to the teachings of Scripture.

What I am writing about are those authors & speakers who are clearly portraying God as something other than what He has revealed Himself to be in His word, clearly portraying man (especially themselves) to be something other than what God has revealed about man in His word, and clearly portraying God's requirements for man to be something other than what God has revealed in His word. We must not compromise those doctrines which are foundational to the Christian faith as God has revealed them to us in His word. Sure, occasionally we can find some good things out of these kinds of authors. That's because we're all made in God's image and by His common grace we are not all evil all of the time. After all, even Hitler did some good things, but do we look to him at all as an example.... for anything? Granted, it's an extreme example, but the principle is the same. Why settle for theological junk? If your expectations are low, they will probably be met with ease. A broken clock may be right twice a day, but it is still a broken clock that is only right twice a day.

Friends, I write this because of concern. You and I need to feast on quality doctrines. You and I need to savor theologically and practically rich material for our benefit and growth in grace. We ought to be fed in such a way that it will drive us to our knees in thankfulness and praise to our most gracious God in heaven. So where does one begin? Well, one obvious place is the Bible itself. Learn it well; meditate on it; chew its cud; love it. I would also refer you to R.C. Sproul's Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. In it you will find brief but helpful explanations of many doctrines found in Scripture; thus it is a good starting place for those who are new to the study of theology and in particular Reformed theology. Think of it as a mini Systematic Theology. Sproul included a recommended bibliography in the back of the book to get you started on the filet mignons of theology as opposed to the corn dogs that are all over the shelves of Christian bookstores today. That bibliography alone may be worth the price of the book. Go and seek out rich theological food for the nourishment of your soul and growth in grace.

"Open my eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of your law." -Psalm 119:18

Blessings....

Welcome to My Blog!

Welcome to my blog! My purpose for creating this blog is to reflect on theological matters. Some of these matters may be rather complex, while other matters may be simple and practical. So why did I start a blog? Are there not enough blogs out there that deal with theology? Unquestionably that is true and this will just be another addition to the world of theological blogging. Originally, my wife and I had considered doing a blog together where she would write on matters of the home and I would write on theological topics. However, after further discussion we decided that each of us should write our own with those ideas. Her blog can be found here. Another reason for this blog is a bit selfish. It gives me a better opportunity to improve my writing abilities which are currently less than scholarly to say the least. Grammar nazis are likely to have a conniption fit or three. Don't say I didn't warn you; corrections are certainly welcome.

A bit about myself: I am a recently ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) serving as the organizing pastor of Providence Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I graduated from Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary last year. The OPC has been described by some as the little denomination with the big mouth and Greenville Seminary has been described by some as the little seminary with the big mouth. No doubt many who have known me a long time would say that I fit right in. I tend to be a bull in a china shop in discussions and thus many of my posts may sound rather blunt. Please know that I share my musings for the benefit of others and not their detriment. I hope to discuss ideas and do not wish to disparage people.

That being said it's time to go down the Reformed Path. My own interest in studying theology was sparked by a book by Dr. RC Sproul entitled Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Interestingly, it was not the main body of the book, but rather the introduction that convicted me. In it, Sproul provided ten causes he believed led many to spurn theology with the result of very little growth in spiritual maturity. Not all ten applied to me and no doubt the ones that did will not necessarily apply to the readers of this blog. Back then, I almost never read introductions to books, and I don't recall what piqued my curiosity to read it for this book. Which items convicted me? Well, let's leave that out for now since I'd rather you read that introduction yourself and see what may apply to your own life. Since reading Sproul's book, I have studied a lot of Reformed theology and am grateful to God for the opportunity to study formally at Greenville Seminary.

So why bother with the study theology? Why can't it just be me and Jesus? Theology just causes all kinds of controversies and schisms, so can't we all just sit around the campfire, hold hands, and sing "Kumbaya?" Theology is just not that important. Or is it?

Stop and think about this for a minute. What does the word "theology" mean? Simply put, theology means the study of God. Similarly, my trusty iMac's included Oxford American Dictionary defines theology this way: the study of the nature of God and religious belief. Now take either of these definitions and substitute it for the word "theology" in the underlined sentence just above. What is the result? "The study of God is just not that important" or "the study of the nature of God and religious belief is just not that important." Well now, that ought to give all of us pause. Do any of us really believe and want to say that the study of God is unimportant? If you are one who feels that theology (i.e., the study of God) is unimportant, are you prepared to tell Him that?

All of us who love God and His word ought to be students of theology in some way, shape, or form. Granted, not all of us are called to be professional theologians and ministers. All of us have different abilities, jobs, time constraints, etc., and many of these are clearly legitimate. Nevertheless, if you believe in our heart of hearts that man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, then you need to study God and His nature in order to know how best to glorify and enjoy Him. Thus the purpose of studying theology is that you may delight God and delight in God. Studying theology can be hard; it takes diligence, time, and energy. Think of it as an exercise program; it can be difficult at first, but in the long run the rewards will be worth it. May God grant all of us the grace and desire to study Him so that we might glorify Him and enjoy Him both now and forevermore.