stylos

The Vision (1/26/12): Small children at worship services--Why are they present?

2012-01-26T20:54:00.000-05:00

Note: Pastor Steve Clevenger recently posted this article by retired RB Pastor Walter Chantry at his Reformed Baptist Fellowship blog. It is a timely article for any church, especially one which has families with young children, like ours. What can we learn from the ideas Chantry shares about how his church encouraged young children to participate in corporate worship? Here’s the beginning of the article:

There certainly is no Bible verse which tells us when children should begin attending worship services. The customary age at which parents begin to take their children into meetings varies from church to church. It may properly vary among members of the same church, though it tends to follow a pattern because of church decisions touching the nursery, etc. The practice of local churches in this matter comes under the statement made in our Confession of Faith: Chapter I, section 6, paragraph 2:

“We acknowledge that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of churches, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed..”

In our church, parents usually begin to bring their children into our services at the age of two. Our nursery offers to keep children only under two years of age. That policy is not without reasons; though again, it must be emphasized that it is a matter of judgment on the basis of general prudence and general rules of God’s Word.

It is our judgment that children who are two-years-old are usually mature enough to understand when their parents tell them to be quiet and to sit reasonably still for one hour. Furthermore, by the time a child is two, his parents should have progressed far enough in their training of children to be able to enforce such basic orders, which their child can understand. Though teaching this behavior to children may not be easy, it is not unreasonable. It has been done by parents of children with many different character make-ups. Your child is not that unique!

We do wish to provide a nursery for parents when it is really necessary. But, the operation of a nursery takes a number of adults and young people out of our worship service. To extend the age of the children would demand that our women, who serve faithfully and cheerfully, would be absent from worship still more frequently. It is important for all Christians to benefit from the fellowship of the body of God’s people gathered for worship. We feel that regular attendance at worship is so important that we should not be urging others to be absent any more than is absolutely necessary. When it is not demanding too much of parents, thus reasonably to control their children, we do not feel that a nursery should be provided. Of course, exception should be made for all visitors who are not part of the congregation and used to our ways of doing things.

Furthermore, parents of young children are taking an important step by training their sons and daughters to be still and quiet. They are taking the steps necessary for a child to participate in the worship of God. Two and three year olds recognize some of the hymns they have heard in Sunday School and at home. They know a little about prayer. It is interesting to observe that when rare times of special solemnity come in worship, even the youngest children understand and sense something of the presence of God; for even they are unusually still and hushed. Admittedly, these times are few and the youngest children perceive little of the spoken word. Yet it is vital to forge the pattern of whole families coming before God regularly for worship. It is an important part of Christian family life, and it is important for young children to be part of the family.

Some parents seem to feel that when they have won the battles of stillness and silence, their task is done. So long as Junior doesn’t squirm too much or speak out, all is well. But it will not be long before the child can participate in some things. He is taught the doxology in two and three-year-old Sunday School. The pastor may read Scriptures not unfamiliar. He may mention Daniel, David, or Peter – favorite characters already to young hearts. Surely a four-year-old can be taught to pay some attention.

And fathers should be sensitive to how Bible truths of the worship service apply to their young children. The pastor cannot often bring the application down to pre-school children. But, a father can recall the points and apply them at home later….

Read the entire article here.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Translation Note: "fellowdisciples" in John 11:16

2012-01-25T11:26:00.000-05:00

In some devotional reading the other day I was struck by the word “fellowdisciples” in the AV of John 11:16:

KJV: John 11:16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

This compound term only appears here in the KJV. It is the translation of the Greek tois symmathetais (dative masculine plural of symmathetes, which is a hapax in the NT taken from the common base word for “disciple,” mathetes). The NKJV simply adds a space and translates by “fellow disciples.” When I checked my facsimile of the original 1611 KJV it also includes the space and reads, “fellow disciples.” One wonders if the collapsed “fellowdisciples” came through a later printing error omitting the space or whether it was intentionally chosen by a later editor. However it entered, I like the compound “fellowdisciple” for its accurate representation of the unusual Greek word that appears here.

JTR

Textual Note: Matthew 5:44

2012-01-24T10:02:00.000-05:00

THE ISSUE:

When preaching last Sunday on Romans 12:14-21, I made comparison throughout to Jesus’ teaching on the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5—7). When it came to Romans 12:14 (“Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.”) I drew comparison to Matthew 5:44. The traditional text, however, is quite different from the modern critical text. A comparison of English translations makes clear the differences:

Translations based on traditional text (emphasis added to phrases omitted in modern text):

Geneva: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies: bless them that curse you: do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which hurt you, and persecute you.

KJV: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Translations based on modern critical text:

NIV (1984): Matthew 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

NASB: Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you

ANALYSIS:

External Evidence:

A look at the critical apparati for Matthew 5:44 reveals some minor variations in the disputed phrases but, in general, the traditional text is supported by D, L, W, Theta, family 13, 33, and the Majority text tradition.

The modern critical text is, predictably, supported by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Burgon, with typical bite, chides Wescott and Hort for the “deplorable error” of omitting these phrases: “You relied almost exclusively on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiously fond, B and Aleph: regardless of the testimony of almost all the other copies besides:--of almost all the VERSIONS: --and of a host of primitive FATHERS" (Revision Revised, p. 410). Among the fathers who support the traditional text he cites the following: Justin Martyr (140 AD); Theophilus Ant. (168 AD); Athenagoras (177 AD); Clemens Alexand. (192 AD); Origen (210 AD); Apostolic Constitution (3rd century AD); etc.

Internal Evidence:

One of the canons of modern text criticism is that the shorter reading is to be preferred to the longer reading. It is assumed that longer readings usually represent expansions and harmonization. In this case, it is assumed that the traditional text of Matthew 5:44 reflects a harmonization with Luke 6:27-28, where both the traditional and modern text agree. Compare:

KJV: Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

NIV: Luke 6:27 But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Metzger concludes, “Later witnesses enrich the text by incorporating clauses from the parallel account in Luke 6:27-28” (Textual Commentary, p. 14). He adds that if the traditional reading is original, its omission in early witnesses would be “entirely unaccountable.”

In answer, however, one might ask whether some pious scribes might have been offended by the non-retaliation ethic of Jesus in the traditional text of Matthew 5:44. A similar motivation might have led to the effort to remove John 7:53—8:11. It seems that the “harmonization theory” also assumes a situation where a scribe was intentionally making comparison with Luke 6:27-28 and intentionally tinkering with the text. Is this a plausible scenario? We might also ask about the early witnesses to the traditional text as cited by Burgon. Of course, my guess is that a modern text critic would dismiss these by arguing that the texts of the Fathers were also harmonized to reflect the traditional reading.

CONCLUSION:

In the end, it is the same old story. Do you base your reading on the traditional text that came to be most widely accepted and copied or on the minority reading as reflected in the reading that was ultimately set aside and not copied? The traditional text was, of course, also adopted by the Reformers and became the basis for the Reformation era “vulgar” translations. This traditional reading brings into harmony the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27-28 and is also reflected in the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 12:14 (demonstrating Paul’s familiarity with the earthly ministry and teaching of Jesus, another contested point in modern scholarship, true even if one only had Luke 6:27-28 to compare). Of course, modern critics see this kind of harmony as suspect. From a preacher’s perspective, however, it is most useful. Surprise: I prefer the traditional text.

God works in mysterious ways

2012-01-24T08:30:00.000-05:00

After years of service in Africa, the missionary Robert Moffat returned to Scotland to recruit helpers. When he arrived at church one cold wintry night, he was dismayed that only a small group had come out to hear him. What bothered him even more was that the only people in attendance were ladies. Although he was grateful for their interest, he had hoped to challenge men. He had chosen as his text Proverbs 8:4, “Unto you, O men, I call.” In his discouragement, he almost failed to notice one small boy in the loft pumping the bellows of the organ. Moffat felt frustrated as he gave the message, for he realized that very few women could be expected to undergo the rigorous life in undeveloped jungles. But God works in mysterious ways. Although no one volunteered that evening, the young fellow assisting the organist was deeply moved by the challenge. As a result, he promised God he would follow in the footsteps of this pioneer missionary. And he remained true to his vow. When he grew up, he went and ministered to the unreached tribes of Africa. His name was David Livingstone!

As shared by John Thackway in The Bible League Quarterly, January-March, 2012, p. 167.

"Tebow Law" in Virginia gaining ground?

2012-01-23T10:41:00.000-05:00

The AP had an article yesterday reporting that with Republican control of the senate in the Virginia General Assembly that there will be another effort to pass a so-called "Tebow Law" in Virginia that would allow homeschoolers to participate in public school sports, as they do in 15 other states. The VHSL is fighting tooth and nail against it. Here's part of the article from the Virginia Pilot (note the debate in the comments; it was in today's print version of the Daily Progress):

For years, a bill that would open public school sports teams to home-schooled athletes living in their attendance districts has come before the General Assembly and just as often, it floundered, usually before the Senate Education and Health Committee.

But with the Senate under new conservative management with this month's disputed Republican takeover, three bills by Republican House members revive the issue. Sponsors call it the "Tebow Law," named for Tim Tebow, an evangelical former homeschooler who won a Heisman Trophy and led the Gators to a 2008 national title at the University of Florida, then quarterbacked the Denver Broncos into this season's NFL playoffs.

"These people pay taxes that support their public schools. You can't just shut them out from the facilities and activities they're paying for just like everybody else," said Del. Rob Bell, a 44-year-old Albemarle Republican who sponsors one of the bills and is burnishing his conservative credentials for a 2013 race for attorney general.

Florida is among at least 15 states across the country that put no restrictions on home-schooled students who want to play interscholastic sports at public schools in their communities, according a state-by-state summary from the Home School Legal Defense Association. At least 13 states allow home-schooled children conditional or partial opportunities for extracurricular involvement at public schools.

JTR

Watson on Providence

2012-01-23T08:48:00.000-05:00

I continued the Spurgeon Baptist Catechism series Sunday afternoon with a message on What are God’s works of providence? I was helped by reading the section on this question from Thomas Watson’s A Body of Divinity (orig. 1692; Banner of Truth, reprint). Here are a few quotes from Watson on the doctrine of providence:

“God is not like an artificer that builds a house, and then leaves it, but like a pilot he steers the ship of the whole creation” (p. 120).

“God takes care of every saint in particular, as if he had none else to care for” (p. 120).

“God’s children sometimes scarce know how they are fed, except that providence feeds them” (p. 120).

“Providence reaches to the very hairs of our head. ‘The hairs of your head are all numbered.’ Matt x 30. Surely if providence reaches to our hairs, much more to our souls” (p. 121).

“Suppose you were in a smith’s shop, and should see several sorts of tools, some crooked, some bowed, others hooked, would you condemn all these things, because they look not handsome? The smith makes use of them all for doing his work.” He concludes, “Thus you see God’s providences are wise and regular, though to us they seem very strange and crooked” (p. 121).

“The falling of a tile upon one’s head, the breaking out of a fire, is casual [accidental] to us, but it is ordered by the providence of God…. Things which seem to fall out casual [by accident], and by chance, are the issues of God’s decrees, and the interpretation of his will” (p. 123).

“God’s providence is greatly to be observed, but we are not to make it the rule of our actions…. Providence is a Christian’s diary, but not his Bible” (p. 123).

“The providences of God are chequer-work, they are intermingled. In the life to come there shall be no more mixture; in hell there will be nothing but bitter and in heaven nothing but sweet; but in this life the providences of God are mixed, there is something of the sweet in them, and something of the bitter” (p. 124).

“If God’s providence should be withdrawn but for a while, creatures would be dissolved, and run into their first nothing” (p. 124).

“Our clothes would not warm us, our food would not nourish us, without the special providence of God” (p. 124).

“Does any affliction befall you? Remember God sees it is that which is fit for you, or it would not come. Your clothes cannot be so fit for you as your crosses” (p. 125).

“The church is the apple of God’s eye, and the eyelid of his providence daily covers and defends it” (p. 127).

“There is no providence but we shall see a wonder or mercy in it” (p. 127).

The gospel: sanctification or evangelization?

2012-01-21T16:57:00.001-05:00

The other day I ran across D. H. Hart’s recent post If Wrapping Yourself in the U.S. Flag is in Bad Taste, What About Wrapping Yourself in the Gospel? It has a link to a review by Matthew Lee Anderson of Jared C. Wilson’s book Gospel Wakefulness (Crossway, 2011).

I have been struck for some time by the use of the word/concept “gospel” in New Calvinistic circles. The word “gospel” is prominent in the names of para-church ministries and conference (e. g., “Together for the Gospel” and “The Gospel Coalition”). A number of recent books that have come from New Calvinistic authors have made use of the word “gospel” in their titles and as their subjects. Language about the “gospel” tends to permeate New Calvinistic preaching and teaching, where phrases such as the following are frequently heard:

“We need to remind ourselves of the gospel every day.”

“We need to preach the gospel to ourselves.”

“We need to meditate on the gospel.”

The problem with this language is that it seems primarily to make the “gospel” a focus of personal contemplation and a means of spiritual growth for believers rather than the good news (euangelion) of God’s work in Christ that is to be preached to non-believers. The idea of Christians preaching the gospel to themselves has undertones of the “Sonship” theology. The normative use of the “gospel” in the Scriptures, however, relates to its proclamation to unbelievers. Typical would be Mark 13:10: “And the gospel must first be published among all nations.” Or, the Great Commission in Mark 16:15: “Go ye and preach the gospel to every creature.” In fact, a little concordance work will show that when the word “gospel” is mentioned in the Gospels and Acts it is almost always done in the context of evangelistic preaching (with “preach” or “preaching” from kerusso). When Paul says he is “separated unto the gospel” (Rom 1:1), he most certainly means that he has been called to an apostolic ministry of preaching the gospel (cf. Rom 15:20: “so have I strived to preach the gospel [euangelizomai], where Christ has not been named”). He can also refer to the gospel as the core content of the evangelistic message that he preaches to unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 15:1). It is orthodox and not “another gospel” (Gal 1:6).

I once heard a “Sonship” influenced speaker claim Romans 1:15 as justification for the New Calvinistic way of speaking about the gospel. Indeed, Paul does say to the believers, “I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also” (Rom 1:15). See, the speaker said, Paul was preaching the gospel to those who were already Christians in Rome. He went on to stress all the ways a Christian might apply the “gospel” to his life. The dative pronoun humin (“to you”), however, more likely has the sense of “among you” or, even, “with you” in Romans 1:15, as Paul anticipated engaging with the Roman Christians in evangelistic preaching. In context, Paul makes clear in the very next verse the evangelistic focus of the gospel of which he is not ashamed, as it is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Rom 1:16).

Hart drew on the book review cited above to make the point that rallying around “the gospel” is pointless without also rallying around other defining doctrines. He’d rather be part of the “Presbyterian Coalition” than the “Gospel Coalition.” For me, the review of Gospel Wakefulness points more to confusion in New Calvinistic circles of the “gospel” with “sanctification” rather than “evangelization.”

JTR

Mueller on Post-Reformation Reformed Views on the Text of Scripture

2012-01-21T09:51:00.001-05:00

I recently started reading Richard A. Mueller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (Baker, 1993). Of special interest is chapter six “The Canon of Scripture and Its Integrity” (pp. 389-463). Mueller stresses the difference between how the post-Reformation men approached the text of Scripture, emphasizing its providential preservation in the extant copies (apographa), in contrast with the modern Princetonian emphasis on the elusive inerrant original copies (autographa). This is the kind of book where I find I want to underline just about every sentence. Here, at least, is part of one outstanding paragraph:

By “original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the sources of all versions…. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to the autographa in those languages; the “original and authentic” text of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments of a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility (p. 433).

JTR

Owen contrasts the inspiration of the Bible with the Koran

2012-01-20T12:07:00.000-05:00

In John Owen’s The Divine Original of the Scripture (Collected Works, Vol. 16), he draws a contrast between the innate authority of the Christian Scriptures in comparison to uninspired writings. Of these, Owen refers to the Koran in particular:

“…‘the Scriptures,’ have that glory of light and power accompanying them, as wholly distinguish them by infallible signs and evidences from all words and writings not divine; conveying their truth and power into the souls and consciences of men with an infallible certainty. On this account are they received as from God by all that receive them, who have any real, distinguishing foundation for their faith, which would not be—separated from these grounds—as effectual an expedient for the reception of the Koran” (p. 325).

JTR

The Vision (1/19/12): Be kindly affectioned

2012-01-19T21:11:00.000-05:00

Note: The following is drawn from the sermon notes from last Sunday’s message on instructions for the loving life (Romans 12:9-13).

The first clause in Romans 12:10 reads: “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love.”

The first word in the Greek of v. 10 is philadelphia. So, literally, it would begin, “With respect to brotherly love (philadelphia) to one another (be) kindly affectioned.” The word for “kindly affectioned” in Greek is philostorgos. It is a special word that only appears here in the NT but in classical Greek it usually refers to the love and devotion that is expressed in a family. Agape means Christian love; philos means friendly love, eros means romantic love; and philostorgos means family love. So, Paul is saying, with regard to the relationships that you have with your fellow believers in the church, it should be like those you have with your family.

Let me ask you this. If you are a Christian man and you had an argument, even a significant one, with your wife, are you allowed just to dump her and move on to another wife? As a parent, if your child disappoints you, are you allowed just to dump him and pick up a new child? Children, if your parents frustrate you with all their rules (that they say are actually good for you even if you don’t always understand them) are you allowed to take them back to the parent store and get a refund or trade them in for new parents? Of course NOT! But how many people treat their relationship to their brethren within the church in this way?

Paul says, with respect to your relationship to your brethren within the local church, have a family-like love and devotion to them. The KJV rendering of “be kindly affectioned” does not mean “kind” in a sort of syrupy sweet way, but it is “kind” from the old root of “kin.” Be as devoted to your Christian brothers as you are to your “kind” or to your “kin-folk”!

May the Lord grant us a family love (philostorgos) within our fellowship at CRBC.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Text Note on Romans 12:11

2012-01-19T10:17:00.000-05:00

In study for last week’s message on Romans 12:9-13, I ran across the textual variant in Romans 12:11 in the clause “serving the Lord [to kurio douleuontes].”

In a handful of manuscripts, the text reads “time” (kairos) rather than “Lord” (kurios). These include: the original hand of D, F, G, and the Latin (both Old Latin and Vulgate). If adopted, the reading would be “serving the time” rather than “serving the Lord.”

Both the traditional text and the modern critical text prefer “Lord” here and this is reflected in translations based on either of these. John Murray offers a footnote on the variant in his Romans commentary (vol. 2, p. 131, n. 20), concluding “we may not adopt kairo as the proper text.”

Of note is the fact that Calvin in his commentary gives credence to “time” and adopts it as the reading, noting, for as the course of our life is short, the opportunity of doing good soon passes away; it hence becomes us to show more alacrity in the performance of our duty.” He is, however, aware of the textual variant, adding, “But as kurio, the Lord, is read in many old copies, though it may seem at first sight foreign to this passage, I yet dare not wholly reject this reading.”

Matthew Poole comments first on the traditional reading, “serving the Lord,” but then adds this note: “Some copies read it, serving the times, in such sense as it does in Eph 5:16 and Col 4:5.”

Conclusion:

I don’t think there is any question based on both external and internal evidence that “serving the Lord” is the preferred reading. The discussion in the Protestant exegetes, however, is interesting for the following reasons:

1. It shows that the old men were both interested in and aware of textual issues. This is a point often neglected by moderns who assume that they were ignorant of such issues.

2. It shows the high regard given to the Latin tradition even if it was not strongly supported by extant Greek manuscripts. Though they looked to the original language sources of Hebrew and Greek, there was also weight given to the Latin tradition. In the end, however, the best attested Greek reading here is the one that prevailed in the traditional received text.

JTR

CRBC hosts Dr. Andy McIntosh on Creation and Faith on February 11-12

2012-01-17T17:01:00.000-05:00

Christ Reformed Baptist Church will be hosting Dr. Andy Mcintosh for two upcoming presentations on Creation and Faith:

Saturday, February 11th at 2:00 pm. Topic: "Design Intelligence and the Word of God."

Sunday, February 12th at 2:00 pm. Topic: "Creation, God's Timeline, and the Gospel."

Both sessions will be held at the Covenant Lower School, 1000 Birdwood Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903.

Here is Dr. McIntosh's bio:

Professor Andy McIntosh (Leeds) holds an emeritus chair in Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory, and has lectured and researched in these fields for over 20 years. He has a PhD in combustion theory from the aerodynamics department of what was then Cranfield Institute of Technology (now Cranfield University), a DSc in Applied Mathematics from the University of Wales and worked for a number of years at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, the Institute of Energy, the Institute of Physics and the Royal Aeronautical Society. A chartered mathematician and engineer. author of over 180 papers and articles, his research has been in combustion in fluids and solids. His work has also included investigations into the fundamental link between thermodynamics and information, and in the last few years he has been involved in research in the area of biomimetics where the minute combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle has inspired a patented novel spray technology with applications to fuel injectors, pharmaceutical sprays, fire extinguishers and aerosols. This research was awarded the 2010 Times Higher Educational award for the Outstanding Contribution to Innovation and Technology.

Andy became a Christian in 1969 and is committed to a belief in the Biblical Creation account maintaining that Genesis is crucial to our understanding of the Gospel. He has authored the book “Genesis for Today” (Day One, 4th Edition, 2010), contributed to the books “In six days” (Master Books, 2009) and “Should Christians embrace Evolution?” (IVP, 2009), and has appeared on a number of TV and radio programs. He delights to present the scientific evidence for Creation and passionately believes that there is no excuse for scientific minds not to accept the truth of Creation. Favorite talks (most available on DVD) are ‘Creation- so what’s the issue?’, ‘Intricacies of Flight’, ‘Design, Intelligence and the Word of God’, ‘Fossils, Dinosaurs and the Bible’, ‘The Flood and the return of Christ’, ‘Genesis, Babel and the Nations’, ‘Design, Thermodynamics and Information’ and ‘Faraday – man of science, man of God’. He is married with 3 children and 5 grandchildren.

Reluctant response to the latest evangelical video fad

2012-01-16T09:34:00.001-05:00

OK, so I usually try to avoid doing blog posts about anything that is "relevant," but I did have two students from CRBC ask me last week what I thought about the video from Seattle based Jefferson Bethke titled Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus that has gone viral, especially via Facebook, among young evangelical types. Both our students picked up on the fact that something wasn't quite right about the video's message. Hooray for them! It also got some discussion on the RB pastors yahoo list. Here are two critiques:

First, one charitably written by Kevin DeYoung.

Second, a spot on video response from Lutheran Dude (though I'm not crazy about the baptismal regeneration undertones):

Sermon of the Week: The AV: Its Relevance Among the Young in a Multicultural Society

2012-01-16T08:46:00.000-05:00

Iranian born Reformed Baptist Pastor Pooyan Mehrshahi preached a message at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Trinitarian Bible Society on The Authorised Version: Its Relevance Among the Young in a Multicultural Society. Pastor Mehrshahi ably critiques and responds to the objections of those who claim that the venerable AV is no longer "relevant." Worth hearing.

JTR

Note on translation of Romans 12:4

2012-01-14T10:58:00.001-05:00

I noted in comments related to last week’s sermon on Romans 12:3-8 the divide between older and modern commentaries on the spiritual gift list in vv. 6-8. Older commentators apply this list to the officers of the church (elders and deacons) while modern commentators tend to interpret this list as generally applicable to all believers.

I also found several interesting translation and interpretation related issues in this passage. One involves the translation of the noun praxis in v. 4.

The KJV renders it as follows: “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office (praxis).”

The Geneva Bible gives a similar rendering of praxis: “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not one office.”

It seems that this translation choice for praxis as “office” in v. 4 is related to the interpretation of the gift list in vv. 6-8 as applying to office bearers. Modern translations of praxis in v. 4, on the other hand, reflect the modern interpretation of the gift list as egalitarian in application by choosing to render the word as ‘function” rather than “office.” Examples:

NIV Romans 12:4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function,

NAS Romans 12:4 For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function,

NKJ Romans 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function,

ESV Romans 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,

Here is a place where the older translations (Geneva, AV), emerging from the Reformation context, diverge from modern translations in a way that reflects a distinctive interpretation of the passage.

JTR

The Vision (1/12/12): Borrow not a few

2012-01-12T16:12:00.000-05:00

In my “state of the church” report at our annual CRBC membership meeting last evening, I shared some reflections from the miracle of the widow’s oil in 2 Kings 4:1-7.

First, the narrative tells of a great need (v. 1). There was a certain woman, the wife of a prophet, whose husband had died. She came to the prophet Elisha in her distress. The creditors were coming ready to sell her two sons into slavery to pay her debts.

Second, there were only meager means (v. 2). Elisha asks, “What shall I do for thee?” He then asked what of any value she had in her house. She replied that she had nothing, “save a pot of oil.”

Third, there was a miracle of provision and blessing (vv. 3-7). Elisha told the desperate women to go to her neighbors and to borrow vessels, adding “borrow not a few” (v. 3). The woman did as commanded, pouring out her oil into the borrowed vessels. Miraculously the oil did not cease to flow till all the vessels were filled. Only when the last one was full, do we read, “And the oil stayed” (v. 6). By selling the miraculously supplied oil she had all she needed to pay her debts (v. 7).

I suggested that the church often finds herself in the situation of the widow. We are poor, in a state of need, and completely dependent on the Lord for help. Consider also the gaping needs of the world all around us. From a worldly perspective, we have only meager means. Still, the Lord commands us to gather our vessels, and he is then so often pleased to provide beyond all that we could ever ask or think (Ephesians 3:20).

As we enter the year ahead we look forward to experiencing all the ways God will bless, grow, provide, fill, stretch, and encourage us, as we depend on him for everything.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The "charismata" of Romans 12:6-8

2012-01-10T14:19:00.002-05:00

I preached last Sunday on Many Members in One Body (Romans 12:3-8). I summarized the core meaning of the text as follows: that it is necessary and central for a Christian to be rightly joined to a body of believers where spiritual gifts and spiritual offices are being exercised to the glory of God and to the blessing and benefit of man.

The most intriguing aspect of interpreting this text is understanding the seven "gifts" (charismata, v. 6) listed in vv. 6-8: prophecy, ministry, teaching , exhortation, giving, rule, and mercy.

In the introduction I noted:

This passage is one place (along with 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4) in Scripture where we find a listing of spiritual gifts (charismata, v. 6). The modern tendency is to focus on such gift lists as potentially applying to all Christians generally. We create spiritual gifts inventories and use them like evangelical Myers-Briggs personality assessment instruments (I’ve even used such myself a few times earlier in my ministry) to figure out which gifts we possess. But as I read through our passage this week, I was struck by the fact, however, that this passage must be understood in the context of the Biblical church and its government. As we shall see, when Paul lists these gifts I believe he was thinking primarily about spiritual qualities that the officers of the church were to possess and exercise with the body for its edification, rather than about the distribution of these gifts within the body at large.

I later added:

This list is one of those places where you see a divide in interpretation between modern commentaries and “old school” (Reformed Fathers, Puritan, or old path) commentaries. Modern interpreters tend to take this list and apply it to all believers. The old men, however, seem to be united in saying that Paul is speaking here about the particular gifts that are to be possessed and exercised by the officers of the church (namely the elders and deacons).

In favor of the old school interpretation is the fact that in the other two places where there is an emphasis on spiritual gifts it is associated with church officers. Compare 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 and, especially, Ephesians 4:8-11 where the "gifts" (here domata) given by Jesus are the offices themselves (both extraordinary, like apostles, prophets, and evangelists [I take the office of evangelist to be extraordinary as it composed the apostolic associates including those who would write Gospels like Mark and Luke]) and ordinary (like pastors and teachers).

To confirm this distinction between modern and old school interpretations of this passage, just compare the comments on this passage in standard evangelical commentaries (like MacArthur's or the ESV) and then contrast it with the view taken by the old commentators like John Calvin, Matthew Poole, or Matthew Henry.

Here is how I summed up my exposition of the seven "gifts":

Having looked at these seven gifts more closely, we can see who each one of them corresponds to the special functions of the church officers:

The Elders, in particular, are to be engaged in prophesying (preaching), ministering (diakonia) the word, teaching (didasko), exhorting (parakaleo), and ruling (proistemi).

And the deacons in the ministry (diakonia) of the tables, in giving, and in mercy.

These offices are gifts that God has given to his church for their care and edification.

JTR

Paul: "through the grace given to me"

2012-01-09T12:06:00.001-05:00

I preached yesterday on Many Members One Body from Romans 12:3-8. In the opening exposition, I reflected on Paul's statement in v. 3 that he writes "through the grace given to me":

Paul is speaking to the church at Rome (1:7). He is addressing “every man that is among you.” These are the same “brethren” called out in v. 1. Paul is appealing to his authority as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ (1:1). He speaks “through the grace given to me.” This is not only the grace of all salvation, but the grace of his apostleship. Cf.: “For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9). This is why Paul calls his apostleship a grace gift to him.

I recently heard a radio interview with a man named Tim Goeglein who worked on the staff of President George W. Bush. This man has recently written a book titled The Man in the Middle about his White House experiences. He told of a time when it was uncovered by a reporter that he had plagiarized some material in several newspaper articles. He went to President Bush, ready to hand in his resignation, and told him about the incident. Then Goeglin said: "Before I could get barely a few words out … he looked at me, and he said, 'Tim, grace and mercy are real. I have known grace and mercy in my life, and I'm extending it to you. You're forgiven.’”

That is a pretty powerful story of forgiveness, but Paul’s is even greater. A holy God took a man who had persecuted his people and he made that same man an apostle.

Having climbed to his perch of apostolic authority, what does Paul say to every man among the Romans? He says, “not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think…” He begins here with a call to humility.

John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion wrote, “…if you ask me concerning the precepts of the Christian religion, first, second, third, and always I would answer ‘Humility’” (II.II; pp. 268-269).

JTR

Calvin on Prayer

2012-01-07T12:15:00.000-05:00

For devotional reading, I’ve started working my way through John Calvin’s section on prayer in the Institutes (Book III; chapter xx). Strange how some could accuse Calvin’s doctrine of being cold, clinical, or sterile, when he writes so warmly about prayer and piety. Some quotes (all from the Battles translation):

“…we clearly see how destitute and devoid of all good things man is, and how he lacks all aid to salvation. Therefore, if he seeks resources to succor him in his need, he must go outside himself and get them elsewhere” (p. 850).

“Words fail to explain how necessary prayer is, and in how many ways the exercise of prayer is profitable” (p. 851).

“….our most merciful Father, although he never sleeps or idles, still very often gives the impression of one sleeping or idling in order that he may thus train us, otherwise idle and lazy, to seek, to ask, and entreat him to our great good” (p. 853).

“The eyes of God are therefore watchful to assist the blind in their necessity, but he is willing in turn to hear our groanings that he may the better prove his love toward us” (p. 853).

What is the work of creation?

2012-01-06T17:59:00.001-05:00

Note: I've been enjoying preaching on Sunday afternoons at CRBC through Spurgeon's Catechism. Here are my notes from last Sunday's message:

What is the work of creation?

Spurgeon Catechism Series: Question 9

Genesis 1:1

CRBC January 1, 2012

We return to our catechism series where the initial focus is on the being and work of God. The catechism stresses the unity of God. There is one God but also this one God is three persons. The Biblical God is a Trinity. It then proceeds to tell us what this God does. He is a decreeing God. He ordains “whatsoever comes to pass.” Then, as we saw last week, he is an executing God. He is the great Executive. And he executes his decrees in two spheres: creation and providence.

Today we move to consider the first of those two spheres, creation.

Question 9: What is the work of creation?

Answer: The work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of His power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

There are five parts in this response that we can explore by five corresponding questions:

First, we might ask: What is meant by “the work of creation.” This simply means everything that is in existence. It means the vast physical universe and every element within it, from the largest planet to the smallest microscopic organism.

I did a “Grace Points” radio devotional last year titled “Bigger than we knew” in which I made reference to an article in the the journal Nature which reported the recent scientific conclusion that there are a mind-blowing 300 sextillion stars in the universe, or three times as many as scientists previously calculated. That is a 3 followed by 23 zeros. Or 3 trillion times 100 billion.

They now estimate that there are 100 billion to a trillion galaxies in the universe each holding from 100 billion to a trillion stars.

I concluded in that article: “The world is bigger than we knew. We are even more in awe of our Creator.”

The vastness of creation is truly mind-boggling. In Psalm 8 David marveled:

3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

In addition to the physical, visible world, God also created the spiritual, invisible world. He created heaven as his dwelling. He created the angelic creatures, the hosts of heaven, the principalities and powers, many of which, like man, would rebel against him.

So, when we look at the creation, man should know there is a Creator. He gives us two books of revelation: the book of creation and the book of Scripture.

Thomas Watson in A Body of Divinity observes:

“The creation is the heathen man’s Bible, the ploughman’s primer, and the traveler’s perspective glass” through which he sees the “the excellencies which are in God” (p. 113).

“The world must have a maker, and could not make itself. If one should go into a far country, and see stately edifices, he would never imagine that they had built themselves….so this great fabric of the world could not create itself, it must have some builder or maker, and that is God” (pp. 113-114).

Second, we might ask, “From what did God make the world?” The catechism affirms that God’s creation was “of nothing.” Scripture affirms creatio ex nihilo. Thomas Watson: “God brought all this glorious fabric of the world out of the womb of nothing” (p. 114). This is contra the ancient notion that the world was made from some eternal building blocks. Scripture affirms, however, that there is only one who is “from everlasting to everlasting”:

KJV Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

He made even the formless void (Hebrew: tohu wabohu; Gen 1:2) over which his Spirit hovered at creation.

Third, we ask, “How did God make creation?” And the response: He made creation “by the word of his power.” That is by the fiat power of his word. Compare:

KJV Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Creation is an act of the triune God.

God the Father creates: See Psalm 90:2 above.

God the Son creates: See: John 1:3: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

God the Spirit creates: See Genesis 1:2.

Fourth, we ask, “In what time frame did God make the world?” The catechism simply accepts the historicity of the Biblical narrative in faith, affirming that God completed his work of creation “in the space of six days.” So, it affirms a six day creation. The third Scripture proof:

KJV Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This has been the component most under attack in the modern era. This is not a problem for the believer, howeer, if we consider that God might have created the world with the appearance of age. Adam was not made an infant but a full grown man. There is, as Francis Schaeffer said, in the end “no final conflict” between Scripture and science.

It is interesting to see that the old Puritan fathers did not see the point of this clause as simply verifying the historicity of the Bible’s account of creation, a fact which they took for granted. But in their exposition, the real gold here was found in the way that the six day pattern of creation established the Sabbath as a perpetual ordinance. So Thomas Vincent exposits:

In what time did God create all things?

God created all things in the space of six days. He could have created all things together in a moment; but he took six days’ time to work in, and rested on the seventh day, that we might the better apprehend the order of the creation, and that we might imitate him in working but six days of the week, and in resting on the seventh.

Finally, “How does God now view his creation?” And the answer is that it was “all very good.” This is the Lord’s own pronouncement concerning the creation that is repeated on each day of creation that it is “all very good” (see Genesis 1). This goodness has been marred by the fall but not obliterated.

Again, contra so many world religions, Biblical faith sees the world as good. It is not God, but it is good. It is to be mastered but not to be worshipped. Thus, Biblical faith gives us science and technology and blessing.

The Vision (1/5/12): New Year's Resolutions for Believers

2012-01-05T21:29:00.001-05:00

I heard a radio interview this week with an executive from a major national weight loss program who said the first week in January was like the “Super Bowl” for his business. Indeed, the start of a new year often leads to the making of resolutions. Let me suggest some resolutions the believer should seriously consider:

1. Read through the Bible in 2012. There are a number of reading schemes you might consider. One popular plan is that drawn up by the Scottish minister Robert Murray M’Cheyne (look here). You can also just begin a consecutive reading through either the OT or NT. Tremendous things happen to us spiritually when we consistently read and meditate upon God’s word.

2. If you are not now a member of a local church, join one. There are no perfect churches. You should be able to find one, however, that is Christ-centered and Bible-focused. In fact, if you live in the Charlottesville area, I happen to know of a very winsome congregation I can recommend. We can add to this that if you have not yet been baptized, then submit yourself to this ordinance of our Lord (Matt 28:19-20) and show that you love him by obeying his commandments (John 14:15). As we tell our children, delayed obedience is disobedience.

3. Commit yourself to consistent churchmanship. This means supporting the Lord’s Day worship services that are hosted by your church. It also means being a faithful steward of your time, money, and talents. Do this cheerfully, expectantly, and contentedly.

4. Develop the discipline of prayer. You might be aided by making a set time for prayer and/or by making a designated place for prayer. Pray for the officers of your church, for your fellow members, for your family, for the salvation of the lost, for your personal needs, for the nation, for missionaries and ministers. Take advantage of opportunities for corporate prayer in Lord’s Day worship and at mid-week prayer meetings.

5. Pursue personal ministry. This might be outreach to a widow or home-bound person. It might be sending encouraging notes to a missionary. It might be visiting a prison or nursing home. It might be taking on a responsibility in the church. The possibilities are truly endless.

I believe that if we take up resolutions such as these the Lord will richly bless us in the year ahead.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

A book is like nature or the world

2012-01-05T09:13:00.001-05:00

Here's a good quote to follow up the annual reading list post:

"If you ask a living teacher a question, he will probably answer you. If you are puzzled by what he says, you can save yourself the trouble of thinking by asking him what he means. If, however, you ask a book a question, you must answer it yourself. In this respect a book is like nature or the world. When you queston it, it answers you only to the extent that you do the work of thinking and analysis yourself."

--Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book (Touchstone, 1972): p. 15.

2011 Top Ten Books

2012-01-03T08:04:00.000-05:00

Image: My favorite bookstore discovered in 2011: Riverby Books in Frederickburg, Virginia

Time for my annual reading review. You can view past reading lists from 2008, 2009, and 2010. Here are ten of the top books I read in 2011 (in no particular order):

1. William O. Einwechter, English Bible Translations: By What Standard? (Chapel Library, 2010): 52 pp.

This little booklet is the best short treatment I have found on the importance of the traditional original language texts in choosing an English Bible translation. You can get cheap copies from Chapel Library. I have given many away in 2011.

2. W. Gary Crampton, From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism: A Critique of the Westminster Standards on the Subjects of Baptism (RBAP, 2010): 126 pp.

This is a solid defense of believer’s baptism written by a former paedobaptist. Great book to share with our Presbyterian friends.

3. Albert N. Martin, Preaching In the Holy Spirit (Reformation Heritage Books, 2011): 67 pp.

A great booklet on preaching that can really only be understood by preachers. Reads like a Puritan work.

4. John Owen, Spiritual Mindedness (as revised by R. J. K. Law) (Banner of Truth, 2009; original 1681): 249 pp.

Owen was my “Puritan of the Year” for 2011. This extended meditation on Romans 8:6 (“For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.”) is devotional gold. As with much of Owen, it must be read slowly and not all at once.

5. Joel R. Beeke and Anthony T. Selvaggio, Sing a New Song: Recovering Psalm Singing for the Twenty-First Century (Reformation Heritage, 2010): 19 pp.

A stimulating anthology of articles on the importance of psalm singing in Scripturally regulated worship.

6. John Murray, Romans, Vol. I (Eerdmans, 1959): 408 pp.

Murray has been my companion over the last several years as I have preached through Romans. I completed Volume I in 2011 and will be working on Volume II in 2012. Murray writes in devotional prose, expounding and exploring the heights and depths of this greatest of Paul’s epistles.

7. D. C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible (The British Library/Hendricksen, 2010): 195 pp.

D. C. Parker is perhaps the world’s most influential academic text critic. Though I do not agree with his conclusions on NT text criticism, this book is a valuable introduction on a popular level to this very influential early codex and to its recent online version. Most interesting is Parker’s demythologizing of the legends surrounding Tichendorf’s discovery of this ancient manuscript at St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mt. Sinai.

8. John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church and Its Government, in Volume 16 of The Works of John Owen (Banner of Truth, 1968 reprint): pp. 1-208.

This book has shaped my convictions on ecclesiology more than anything I have ever read, beyond Scripture. I re-read it this year after first reading it in 2009. Look for more from me on this book in 2012.

9. John Bunyan, The Jerusalem Sinner Saved: Good News for the Vilest of Men (Reiner Pub., 1968): 112 pp.

A lesser known Bunyan classic. The “Jerusalem Sinner” is the chief and worst of sinners, but God delights in saving such men to show the better his glory. A humbling work.

10. R. L. Dabney, The Life and Campaigns of Stonewall Jackson (Sprinkle Reprint, 1983): 742 pp.

I read this book in honor of the beginning of the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the American Civil War (aka, The War Between the States) in 2011 (1861-1865). Who could not be stirred by the piety of Jackson?

Here are some other notable reads in 2011:

John Owen: Mortification of Sin (orig. 1656; Banner of Truth, 2004) [re-read]; Communion with God (Banner of Truth, 1991); The Holy Spirit (Banner of Truth, 1998);

Other Puritans: Thomas Watson, The Beatitudes: An Exposition of Matthew 5:1-12 (Banner of Truth, 1971; orig. 1660); Henry Scougal, The Life of God in the Soul of Man (Sprinkle, 2005); Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm (orig. 1669; Northampton Press, 2007).

Banner “Pocket Puritans”: John Flavel, Binge Drinking (2008); Thomas Brooks, United We Stand (2009); John Flavel, Sinful Speech (2009); John Flavel, Impure Lusts (2008); Thomas Brooks, Repent and Believe (2008)

Text and Translation of Scripture: James B. Williams, Gen. Ed. From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: A Layman’s Guide to How We Got Our Bible (Ambassador-Emerald International, 1998); Leland Ryken, The Legacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most Influential English Translation (Crossway, 2011); Robert B. Stewart, Ed. The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue (Fortress, 2011); Gordon Clark, Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism (Trinity Foundation, 1986); C. P. Hallihan, The Authorised Version: A Wonderful and Unfinished History (TBS, 2010);

Bible Study: James Montgomery Boice, Romans, Vol. 2 (Baker, 1992); James Montgomery Boice, Romans, Vol. 3 (Baker, 1993); John MacArthur, Beware the Pretenders [A Study of Jude] (Victor, 1980); Dale Ralph Davis, 1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart (Christian Focus, 2000); Matthew Poole, “Commentary on 1 Samuel.”

Biography and Church History: Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Thomas Nelson, 2010); S. M. Houghton, My Life and Books (Banner of Truth, 1988); Iain Murray, John MacArthur: Servant of the Word and Flock (Banner of Truth, 2011); David Teems, Majestie: The King Behind the King James Bible (Thomas Nelson, 2010); Paul Brewster, Andrew Fuller: Model Pastor-Theologian (B & H, 2010); John Rippon, A Brief Memoir of the Life and Writings of the Late Rev. John Gill, D. D. (Sprinkle Pub., 2006); Michael Haykin, A Cloud of Witnesses: Calvinsistic Baptists in the 18th Century (Evangelical Times, 2006);

Theology and Ministry: David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (RFPA, 1980); Bruce A. Ray, Celebrating the Sabbath: Finding Rest in a Restless World (P & R, 2000); David Murray, Christians Get Depressed Too (Reformation Heritage, 2010); William Rushton, A Defense of Particular Redemption (orig., 1831; Primitive Publications, n. d.); Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God’s Covenants (Solid Ground, 2011); Carl R. Trueman, Reformation: Yesterday, Today, and Forever (Christian Focus, 2000, 2011);

Miscellaneous non-theological: W. S. Davis, A Day in Old Athens (Biblo and Tannen Reprint, 1960); Mark Steyn, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon (Regnery, 2011); Brian Selznick, The Invention of Hugo Cabret (Scholastic, 2007).

Other notable booklets, tracts, and pamphlets: Richard Bennet, From Tradition to Truth: A Priest’s Story (Chapel Library, 1998); Peter Masters, Your Reasonable Service in the Lord’s Work (Sword & Trowel, 1987, 1994); Peter Masters, The Power of Prayer Meetings (Sword & Trowel, 1995, 2011); Peter Masters, The Purpose of the Lord’s Supper (Sword & Trowel, 1995, 2011).

JTR

New "Reformed Baptist Trumpet"!

2012-01-02T23:04:00.000-05:00

I sent out the October-November-December 2011 issue of the Reformed Baptist Trumpet e-journal last Saturday (on the last day of the year).

You can read a pdf here or find this and past issues of the Trumpet here. You can also request to be added to the mailing list by sending your request to reformedbaptist.va@gmail.com.

In this issue:

Editorial: 2012 Keach Conference p. 2

Article: Joel Beeke, Consider Christ in Affliction pp. 3-9

Article: Malcolm Watts, God’s Everlasting Covenant pp. 10-15

Book Review: Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology pp. 16-19

Book Review: The Reliability of the New Testament pp. 20-24

Paradosis: Spurgeon on Inspiration and the Down Grade pp. 24-25

JTR

Sermon of the Week: James White on Islam

2011-12-31T10:02:00.000-05:00

This past week I listened to apologist James White's 5 part series from The 2011 Bunyan Conference at Grace Reformed Baptist Church, near Houston, TX on the subject of Islam. Though I do not agree with White on his views of the text of Scripture, I was helped by his presentation.

White makes the point that text criticism is a major issue in apologetics with Islam, since they hold that Christian Scriptures are corrupted. It irks White that Muslims draw on secular NT critics--like Ehrman--to make their points. The problem is that they might draw just as well from evangelical text critics--like Dan Wallace--who have embraced "reasoned eclecticism." How might holding to a providentially preserved traditional text change the dynamics in dialogue with Muslims? White makes the point that the stabilization and standardization of the Koranic text (though there are still variants which orthodox Muslims ignore) came through civil enforcement. This makes the persistence of a consistent traditional text of Christian Scripture all the more amazing since it did not come from civil enforcement and appeared across geographical borders. In other words it simply came from churches which acknowledged it by their practice to be the authentic, preserved Word of God.

White takes on plenty of other issues. I think the best is his argument that the Koran does not understand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity but confuses it with tri-theism. Worth listening.

JTR

CRBC Worship January 2012

2011-12-30T07:44:00.001-05:00

Note: We will return to our series from Romans in Sunday morning worship, beginning an exposition of Romans chapters 12-16. In afternoon worship, we will continue our Spurgeon Catechism Series.

January 1

Opening Psalm Psalm 77

Message: A living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2)

No. 526 Psalm 30 (ELLACOMBE)

No. 28 (CCH) Be Thou My Vision

No. 25 (CCH) Take my life and let it be

Opening Psalm Psalm 78

Message: What is the work of creation? (Genesis 1:1)

Psalm 89:1-16 (ODE TO JOY)

No. 364 Shepherd of souls

P. xvi Doxology (first tune)

January 8

Opening Psalm Psalm 79

Message: Many members in one body (Romans 12:3-8)

Psalm 91 (HYFRYDOL)

No. 587 Like a river glorious

Psalm 133 (AZMON)

Opening Psalm Psalm 80

Message: Jesus Prays in the Garden (Speaker: Brian Overstreet)

(Service at 2 pm at Our Lady of Peace; music TBA)

January 15

Opening Psalm Psalm 81

Message: Instructions for the loving life (Romans 12:9-18)

Psalm 122 (CWM RHONDA)

No. 491 Jesus calls us o’er the tumult

Psalm 101 (AURELIA)

Opening Psalm Psalm 82

Message: How did God create man? (Genesis 1:27)

Psalm 89:17-37 (ODE TO JOY)

No. 437 Christ of all my hopes the ground

No. 3 Psalm 117 (DUKE STREET)

January 22

Opening Psalm Psalm 83

Message: How to treat enemies (Romans 12:19-21)

No. 50 Praise to the Lord, the Almighty

Psalm 12 (Note tune: ST. ANNE)

No. 402 Amazing Grace

Opening Psalm Psalm 84

Message: What are God’s works of providence?

(Hebrews 1:3)

Psalm 89:38-52 (ODE TO JOY)

No. 679 The Light of the World is Jesus

Psalm 9:1-10 (JOANNA)

January 29

Opening Psalm Psalm 85

Message: The powers that be (Romans 13:1-7)

Psalm 147 (LANCASHIRE)

No. 79 The Lord will provide

No. 53 Psalm 146

Opening Psalm Psalm 86

Message: The covenant of works (Gen 2:17; Gal 3:12)

No. 400 Come, Thou Fount of every blessing

No. 403 Not what my hands have done

Psalm 9:11-20 (JOANNA)

The Vision (12/29/11): CRBC Ministry 2011 Reflections and 2012 Visions

2011-12-29T22:12:00.002-05:00

Image: CRBC youth fellowship after a recent mid-week meeting.

As we look back over the past year, we see the many ways that the Lord blessed us in 2012. These include (in no particular order):

• The completion of two radio outreach campaigns in the Spring and Fall, including one minute “Grace Point” devotionals (Spring and Fall) and Sunday morning service broadcasts (Fall).

• The completion of a second annual “Puritan” Vacation Bible School.

• Ordination of Daniel Houseworth as our first Ruling Elder.

• Support for the 2011 Keach Conference at Covenant RBC in Warrenton.

• Growth in worship attendance and in membership.

• Joining other churches to support the translation and distribution of Sam Waldron’s To be Continued book in Romania.

• Meeting of financial needs, including exceeding our $10,000.00 Seed Fund goal by $5,000.00.

• Hosting notable guest ministers in the CRBC pulpit, including Gordon Taylor and Malcolm Watts.

We truly must look back on the past year with grateful hearts for the Lord’s kindness to us as a church.

Now, here are a few ministry visions for 2012 (some of which will be discussed more fully in our January 11th Annual Membership Meeting):

• Regular outreach to Our Lady of Peace Retirement Center. In place of our regular afternoon service, we will lead an outreach worship service at the OLP chapel at 2 pm on the following dates: January 8, March 11, April 8, May 13, June 24, July 8, September 9, September 30, November 11.

• Monthly mid-week home fellowships. At least one mid-week meeting each month will be a home fellowship. I know we are spread out geographically, but let me encourage everyone to make an effort to attend these monthly gatherings and be willing to host them. This will be a great way to get to know our body and to share in hospitality.

• Intentional outreach efforts. I would love to see our church attempt to engage in at least one intentional outreach effort each month in 2012. This might include open air preaching, Bible or literature distribution, visitation, radio ministry, etc. We have also been prayerfully considering launching a Sunday evening preaching point in a nearby town or city that does not have a Reformed Baptist church presence. More info TBA.

• Hosting 2012 Keach Conference on September 28-29 in Charlottesville. This is another opportunity to support this annual theology conference featuring world class speakers.

• Mission partnerships. We would love to be able to find one of more like-minded Reformed Baptist missionaries or church planters to support in 2012.

We look forward with anticipation to see how the Lord will work through this body in the year ahead.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

What does the Reformed pastor preach when December 25 falls on Sunday?

2011-12-27T17:22:00.001-05:00

What do you preach when December 25 falls on Sunday? This is a particularly important question if you are a Reformed church and try to hold to the Regulative Principle. Do you preach on the Incarnation, taking obvious advantage of the season to preach the gospel, or do you ignore it altogether so as not to give credence to man-made holy days?

Last Sunday at CRBC, I chose simply to continue the two series we have been completing. In the morning I preached on The Death of Saul from 1 Samuel 31 and in the afternoon on How does God execute his decrees? from the Spurgeon Baptist Catechism series.

I glanced at sermonaudio.com today to see what other preachers/churches chose to do with their December 25, 2011 messages. One thing I noticed is that with the holiday season, lots of churches (our included) have not yet updated their messages from last Sunday. Here is a brief sample:

Heritage Netherlands Reformed:

AM Donald Vanderklok, The Miracle of Christ’s Incarnation (Luke 2:7)

PM Joel Beeke, Springing Into Gospel Action (Luke 2:15-17)

Robert McCurley, Greenville Presbyterian Church (Free Church of Scotland, Continuing)

AM A Holy God and Holy Days (Deut 7:5, 6)

PM Folly in the Faithful (1 Samuel 27).

John Thackway, Holywell Evangelical Church

AM The Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10)

PM The God-Man (Isaiah 9:6,7)

Greg Barkman, Beacon Baptist Church

AM How God Impoverished Himself (2 Cor 8:9).

On this topic, you might especially find Robert McCurely's am message of interest.

"Don't give me God without his humanity."

2011-12-24T12:44:00.000-05:00

I recently read the reprint of Carl R. Trueman’s Reformation: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Christian Focus, 2000, 2011). At one point, Trueman describes Luther’s “theology of the cross,” including these comments on the Incarnation:

[Luther] had a saying: Don’t give me God without giving me his humanity. The point was simple: it is in the incarnation, in the flesh of Christ, that God both is, and shows himself to be, gracious towards us. Luther rejoiced in the fact that he did not worship a God who was far away, a despot, an abstract and anonymous philosophical principle. No—he worshipped a God who had come close, so close that he even clothed himself in human flesh; a God who was so merciful that he was prepared to welcome sinners into his presence as if they had never sinned; a God who was so loving that he happily freed men and women from all manner of physical and spiritual bondage so that they might know true life; and a God who was so strong that he was prepared to make himself nothing and die that terrible death on the cross in order that human beings should never have to die (p. 47).

The Vision (12/22/11): Calvin on Luke 2:7b

2011-12-22T20:39:00.001-05:00

Image: In lieu of our regular mid-week meeting this week, a group of CRBCers went caroling and visited Miss Z. at Branchlands and then the residents at Our Lady of Peace Retirement Center.

Here is John Calvin’s commentary on Luke 2:7b: “Because there was no room for them in the inn”:

We see here not only the great poverty of Joseph, but the cruel tyranny which admitted no excuse, but compelled Joseph to bring his wife along with him, at an inconvenient season, when she was near the time of her delivery. Indeed, it is probable that those who were the descendents of the royal family were treated more harshly and disdainfully than the rest. Joseph was not so devoid of feeling as to have no concern for his wife’s delivery. He would gladly have avoided this necessity: but, as that is impossible, he is forced to yield, and commends himself to God. We see, at the same time, what sort of beginning the life of the Son of God had, in what cradle he was placed. Such was his condition at his birth, because he had taken upon him our flesh for this purpose, that he might “empty himself” (Phil 2:7) on our account. When he was thrown into a stable, and placed in a manger, and a lodging refused him among men, it was that heaven might be opened to us, not as a temporary lodging, but as our eternal country and inheritance, and that angels might receive us into their abode.

Christ took the manger so that we might have heaven. Are you seeking that “eternal country and inheritance” which Christ came to open for the redeemed?

May the Lord richly bless you and your family during this holiday season!

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Ordinances: Boyce on the Lord's Supper

2011-12-21T07:22:00.001-05:00

James P. Boyce (1827-1888) was a Calvinistic Southern Baptist who studied at Brown under Wayland and at Princeton with Hodge and was one of the founding fathers of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Boyce's A Brief Catechism of Bible Doctrine is included in James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (original 1887, den Dulk reprint): pp. xxiii-xxiv. Below is the section on the Lord's Supper. Of interest is question 3 on the proper participants in the Supper which Boyce defines as "The members of His churches." Baptism is the prerequisite for participation in the Lord's Supper (see question 5), but Boyce also seems to insist that the participants at the Table be not merely members of the invisible church but also of the visible.

The Lord’s Supper

1. What other ordinance has Christ established?

The Lord’s Supper.

2. In what does this ordinance consist?

In eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Christ.

3. Who alone are authorized to receive it?

The members of His churches.

4. In what way is it to be observed?

As a church ordinance, and in token of church fellowship.

5. Is there any established order in which these ordinances are to be observed?

Yes; the believer must be baptized before he partakes of the Lord’s Supper.

6. What does the Lord’s Supper represent?

The death and sufferings of Christ.

7. Does the mere partaking, either of Baptism or the Lord’s Supper confer spiritual blessings?

No; they are worthless, if not injurious, to those who do not exercise faith.

8. But how is it when they are partaken of by those who do exercise faith?

The Spirit of God makes them, to such persons, precious means of grace.

9. Whom has Christ appointed to administer Baptism and the Lord’s Supper?

The authorized ministers of His churches.

Is Michael Horton "Lutheran"?

2011-12-20T09:15:00.001-05:00

Here's another plug for some stimulating recent episodes of the Reformed Forum:

On the 200th episode, the Forum featured an interview with Westminary Seminary (Philadelphia) theology professor Lane Tipton on the doctine of Union with Christ. In the course of the discussion, Tipton took issue with those who stress the doctrine of justification in the ordo salutis over the doctrine of union with Christ. He referred to this as a "Lutheran" position and even suggested it could tend to Pelagianism. Tipton took issue, in particular, with Michael Horton. He also included criticism for J. V. Fesko for questioning the docrine of "definitive sanctification." The conversation demonstrated something of a divide in Reformed circles between Westminster East (Gaffin, Tipton) and Westminster West (Horton, Fesko) on these finer points of soteriology.

Last Friday's 207th episode featured an appearance by Michael Horton who offered a gracious rejoinder to Tipton's criticisms. It ended with host Camden Bucy reading a written response from Tipton. Worth hearing.

JTR

Thomas Boston on Death

2011-12-19T07:43:00.000-05:00

I’ve been reading through Thomas Boston’s spiritual classic, Human Nature in its Fourfold State (first published in 1720; Banner reprint, 1964). The four states are the state of innocence (pre-fallen man), the state of nature (fallen man), the state of grace (regenerate man), and the eternal state. George M. Morrison describes the hold this book had on the people of Scotland when it first appeared:

It was discussed in Edingburgh drawing-rooms. The shepherd read it on the hills. It made its way into the Highland crofts, where stained and tattered copies of the earlier edition may still be found. For more than a hundred years its influence upon the religious life of Scotland was incalculable (pp. 19-20).

He then laments that in his day (1899), however, it was “very little read” (p. 20).

I just started Boston’s discussion of the fourth and final state, the eternal state, which opens with a discussion of death. There is no modern attempt to cover over the realities of mortality. Here are a few (of many, many) vivid quotes that give some idea as to how this book has gripped many through the years:

Why so much care for the body, to the neglect of the concerns of the immortal soul? O be not so anxious for what can only serve your bodies, since, ere long, the clods of cold earth will serve for back and belly too (p. 334).

The finest clothes are but badges of our sin and shame, and in a little time will be exchanged for a winding-sheet, when the body will become a feast for worms (p. 335).

The world is a great inn in the road to eternity to which you are traveling (p. 337).

The worst men can do is to take away that life which we cannot long keep, though all the world should conspire to help us to retain the spirit (p. 337).

Our life in the world is but a short preface to long eternity, and much of the tale is told (p. 338).

We have nothing we can call ours, but the present moment; and that is flying away (p. 339).

Now the flying shadow of our life allows no time for loitering…. Therefore prepare for death (p. 339).

Ordinances: Hiscox's "Eucharistic Propositions"

2011-12-17T12:28:00.000-05:00

In Edward T. Hiscox's influential 19th century church manual, Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches (1893), he lays out guidelines for the observance of the Lord's Supper.

Eucharistic Propositions

The following propositions may be stated:

Prop. 1.—The Gospel calls on all men, everywhere to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation. This is the first act of submission to divine authority required of men.

Prop. 2.—Such as have exercised saving faith in Christ, and are thus born of the Spirit, are commanded to be baptized, as a declaration of that change, and a profession of inward washing of regeneration, which has transpired in them. And no one is required to be, or properly can be, baptized till he has believed.

Prop. 3.—All persons, having savingly believed on Christ, and having been baptized into His name on a profession of faith, are expected, and required, to unite themselves thereby with the company of the disciples as members, in fellowship with a Church which is Christ’s visible body. And no one can properly become a member of a Church till he has believed and been baptized.

Prop. 4.—It becomes the privilege of the duty of all who have been regenerated by the Spirit, baptized on profession of faith, and are walking in fellowship with the Church, to celebrate the death of Christ in the Supper. Moreover, it is the duty of all who believe they love the Lord to be baptized, and unite with His Church, in order that they may obey His command, “This do in remembrance of me.” No true disciple should neglect it.

Prop. 5.—It becomes the imperative duty of the churches, to whom the ordinances are committed, to see to it, as faithful guardians of so sacred a trust, that these regulations be faithfully observed, according the will of the Master, by all who are members, and by all who desire to become members with them.

Prop. 6.—The pastor, as “the chief executive officer “ of the Church, acts as its representative under instructions in his sphere of service. But it is not his prerogative to determine who shall be baptized into its fellowship, or who shall enjoy its privileges, including a right to the Supper. The right and responsibility of deciding those questions belong to the Church itself, and not to its officers.

Prop. 7.—The pastor, in the exercise of his Christian liberty, is not under obligation to baptize any, the though the Church may approve, unless he believes they are fit and suitable subjects. Nor can he baptize any into the fellowship of the Church without its consent.

Reformed Forum on the 400th Anniversary of the KJV

2011-12-16T08:59:00.000-05:00

I am a fan of the Reformed Forum broadcast. In late November, they did an episode with Carl Trueman on the 400th anniversary of the KJV. It covers a lot of the same ground as Trueman's Westminster Library talk on this topic, but it is still worth hearing.

I do question the repeated charge that James was a "homosexual." This seems to be anachronistic. I am not claiming that James was a saint, but I am guessing there has probably been a "modern" misreading of signs of friendship and affection between James and his courtiers. My guess is that this has been gleefully promoted by those who have wanted to take the shine off the KJV. I would like to see a historian trace the roots of this charge, including when it first surfaced. My guess is that it is relatively recent. As Trueman acknowledges, James was, after all, quite happily married.

I appreciate Trueman's appreciation of the KJV, but he also exhibits some of the annoying schizophrenic tendencies of contemporary evangelicals when discussing this classic Reformation translation (cf. Leland Ryken's The Legacy of the KJB). On one hand, he praises its unequalled majesty, but on the other he claims it is outdated and archaic. Why is the KJV so appropriate to read at weddings, funerals, and formal occasions, but not as a regular part of Lord's Day worship or in private devotion? Is there an occasion where reverence is more vital than in ordinary Lord's Day worship? For those who celebrate Christmas liturgically, for example, I feel sorry for churches that will abandon the KJV rendering of Luke 2 which describes the shepherds as being "sore afraid" (KJV v. 9) for the pedestrian renderings of modern versions which describe those same shepherds as being "filled with fear" (ESV v. 9). The examples, of course, could be multiplied.

The discussion also failed to touch on the central issue of text. The KJV (like all the vernacular translations of the Reformation era) is based on the traditional text (MT of OT and TR of NT), while the modern translations (except for the NKJV) follow the modern critical text. I'd love to see this overlooked topic addressed on the Reformed Forum.

JTR

The Vision (12/15/11): For what end is all this?

2011-12-15T20:57:00.001-05:00

Henry Scougal (1650-1678) was one of those men whose star did not burn long, but it did burn brightly. Scougal was a Scottish minister and theology professor at Aberdeen when he died before reaching his 28th birthday. He left behind a book on practical holiness in the form of a letter to a friend with the title The Life of God in the Soul of Man which became a spiritual classic.

Here is an excerpt in which Scougal encourages consideration of the aim and purpose of our lives:

Amidst all our pursuits and designs, let us stop and ask ourselves, For what end is all this? At what do I aim? Can the gross and muddy pleasures of sense, or a heap of white and yellow earth, or the esteem and affection of silly creatures, like myself, satisfy a rational and immortal soul? Have I not tried these things already? Will they have a higher relish and yield me more contentment to-morrow than yesterday, or the next year than they did the last? There may be some little difference betwixt that which I am now pursuing, and that which I enjoyed before; but sure, my former enjoyments did show as pleasant, and promised as fair, before I attained them; like the rainbow, they looked very glorious at a distance, but when I approached, I found nothing but emptiness and vapor. Oh! What a poor thing would the life of man be, if it were capable of no higher enjoyments!

Scougal’s point, of course, is that man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. Augustine said that our hearts are restless until they find rest in God. In our midweek meeting this week, we pondered Christ’s words to those who came to arrest him: “Whom seek ye?” (John 18:4). He still asks that of men today. In the midst of all the fullness of this season, let us find our chief end in seeking and savoring the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

National Geographic on the King James Bible

2011-12-14T23:13:00.001-05:00

As 2011 comes to a close, so does the year long celebration of the 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible. The December 2011 issue of National Geographic features a cover article by Adam Nicolson, author of God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. It is interesting again to note that the 400th anniversary milestone of the KJV has been acknowledged more in secular circles than in evangelical ones. In the article, Nicholson observes:

You don't have to be a Christian to hear the power of those words—simple in vocabulary, cosmic in scale, stately in their rhythms, deeply emotional in their impact. Most of us might think we have forgotten its words, but the King James Bible has sewn itself into the fabric of the language. If a child is ever the apple of her parents' eye or an idea seems as old as the hills, if we are at death's door or at our wits' end, if we have gone through a baptism of fire or are about to bite the dust, if it seems at times that the blind are leading the blind or we are casting pearls before swine, if you are either buttering someone up or casting the first stone, the King James Bible, whether we know it or not, is speaking through us. The haves and have-nots, heads on plates, thieves in the night, scum of the earth, best until last, sackcloth and ashes, streets paved in gold, and the skin of one's teeth: All of them have been transmitted to us by the translators who did their magnificent work 400 years ago.

Ordinances: Observations on Participation in the Lord's Supper

2011-12-14T11:19:00.000-05:00

Here are some continuing thoughts on the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Question: Who should participate in the Lord's Supper?

Eleven Observations:

1. The Scriptural witness is that when someone become a Christian he should be baptized (for the clearest model, see the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch after confessing his faith in Christ in Acts 8:36-38).

2. The Scriptural witness to the early church is that when people were converted under the apostles’ preaching they were baptized and then “added” or joined to a local, visible church.

Compare:

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 5:14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.

3. Scripture assumes that believers will be part of local churches.

To be a Christian is to be a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12). To be a Christian means being part of a church that assembles for worship and fellowship (1 Cor 16:1-2; Heb 10:24-25) under the leadership of church officers (1 Thess 5:12; Heb 13:17).

4. The Lord’s Supper is a perpetual ordinance commanded by the Lord to be observed by the church until Christ comes (1 Cor 11:23-26).

5. The Lord’s Supper is to be hosted by the local church.

It was hosted by the church at Jerusalem (Acts 2:42) and by the church at Troas (Acts 20:7). When Paul wrote to “the church of God” at Corinth (1 Cor 1:2) concerning the Lord’s Supper, he begins, “when ye come together into one place” (1 Cor 11:20). He tells them, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you…” (v. 23). Paul assumes the Lord’s Supper is being celebrated in a local church by the members of the local church under the leadership of local church officers.

6. Given the Scriptural context in which the Lord’s Supper was observed, we can assume those who participated were (1) believers; (2) baptized; and (3) members of local churches.

7. This does not mean, however, that only the members of the particular local church which is hosting the Lord’s Supper were permitted to partake of the ordinance.

Paul, a member of the church at Antioch, broke bread with the church at Troas when he visited them (Acts 20:7), and Paul’s letters indicate that there was mobility among his apostolic associates who visited various churches (e.g., 2 Cor 7:13; Gal 2:1; Phil 2:25; 2 Tim 4:11; etc.). Undoubtedly, this would have included participation in Lord’s Day worship and the Lord’s Supper.

Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg (1794-1884) refers to this as “transient communion” in his Manual of Church Order:

In primitive times, the members of different local churches associated with each other, as members of the great fraternity. Paul was doubtless welcomed at the Lord’s table, by the disciples at Troas. This transient communion is now practiced. The Lord’s supper is properly a church ordinance; but an individual, duly qualified to be admitted to membership in a church, may be admitted for the time as a member, and received to transient communion, without any departure from the design of the institution (pp. 213-214).

Note that Dagg assumes that these “transient” guests in other churches are local church members.

8. The Lord’s Supper not only involves fellowship or communion with Christ, but also communion or fellowship among believers.

In 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul sums up this twofold dimension of the Lord’s Supper when he writes, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” He continues in v. 17 to stress what we could call the “social” aspect of the Lord’s Supper: “For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.”

9. The church is charged with overseeing the Lord’s Supper and warning partakers of the spiritual dangers of improper participation (see 1 Cor 11:27-32).

It is reasonable to assume that the way this oversight was best exercised was if the church officers were familiar with those who attended the table, because they were members of the local church. When members of other local churches were present, they came with the recommendation of their home churches. In fact, it was apparently common practice to send “epistles of commendation” from one church (or apostle during the apostolic age) to another to vouch for the standing of a person (cf. Acts 28:21; 1 Cor 16:3; 2 Cor 3:1; 8:23; etc.). This also meant that those under proper discipline could be excluded from the table (see 1 Cor 5:4-8).

10. Historic Baptist theologians made a distinction between baptism, as an ordinance of Christ, and the Lord’s Supper, as an ordinance of the church.

Here is how John Gill (1697-1771) describes baptism and admission to church “communion” (or fellowship, which would include participation in the Lord’s Supper) in his A Body of Practical Divinity (emphasis added):

As the first covenant, or testament, had ordinances of divine service, which are shaken, removed, and abolished; so the New Testament, or gospel dispensation, has ordinances of divine worship, which cannot be shaken, but will remain until the second coming of Christ: these, as Austin [Augusine] says, are few; and easy to be observed, and of a very expressive signification. Among which, baptism must be reckoned one, and is proper to be treated of in the first place; for though it is not a church ordinance, it is an ordinance of God, and a part and branch of public worship. When I say it is not a church ordinance, I mean it is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it. Admission to baptism lies solely in the breast of the administrator, who is the only judge of qualifications for it, and has the sole power of receiving to it, and of rejecting from it; if nor satisfied, he may reject a person thought fit by a church, and admit a person to baptism not thought fit by a church; but a disagreement is not desirable nor advisable: the orderly, regular, scriptural rule of proceeding seems to be this: a person inclined to submit to baptism, and to join in communion with a church, should first apply to an administrator; and upon giving him satisfaction, be baptized by him; and then should propose to the church for communion; when he would be able to answer all proper questions: if asked, to give a reason of the hope that is in him, he is ready to do it; if a testimony of his life and conversation is required, if none present can give it, he can direct where it is to be had; and if the question is put to him, whether he is a baptized person or not, he can answer in the affirmative, and give proof of it, and so the way is clear for his admission into church fellowship. So Saul, when converted, was immediately baptized by Ananias, without any previous knowledge and consent of the church; and, it was many days after this that he proposed to join himself to the disciples, and was received (Acts 9:18, 19, 23, 26-28)….

Dagg, likewise, notes that when the church admits a person into membership it “authorizes his participation of the communion. The church, as an organized body, with power to receive and exclude members according to rules which Christ has laid down, is responsible for the exercise of this power” (Manual of Church Order, p. 221).

The proper Biblical order, then, would then be: (1) belief; (2) baptism; (3) admission to church membership; (4) admission to church privileges, including the Lord’s Table.

11. The assumption of church membership as a prerequisite for participation in the Lord’s Supper is reflected in the Baptist Catechism and Spurgeon’s Catechism.

In Spurgeon’s Catechism, for example, note the intentional order in which the questions are composed:

Baptism (Questions 75-78)

Church Membership (Question 79)

The Lord’s Supper (Questions 80-82)

Question 79 asks, “What is the duty of such as are rightly baptized?” and answers, “It is the duty of such as are rightly baptized, to give up themselves, to some particular and orderly Church of Jesus Christ, that they may walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (proofs: Acts 2:47; 9:26; 1 Pet 2:5; Luke 1:6).

JTR

Necromancy in 1 Samuel 28: Of God or the Evil One?

2011-12-13T08:03:00.002-05:00

I preached Sunday on Saul: A Picture of Failure (1 Samuel 28). The most notorous aspect of this chapter is Saul's interview with the medium of En-Dor. Here's an excerpt from my notes:

Now, here is the strange thing about this passage, and there is nothing else like it in all of Scripture. What is described is essentially a séance. But notice there is no detailed description of how she did her conjuring. The writer of Scripture wants to excite no prurient interest in pagan activities. Nevertheless, when the woman calls for Samuel, v. 12 reports that she does, in fact, see him. In fact, it say she screamed when she saw him. Some have suggested that she was a charlatan or faker and had hoped merely to take money from these rubes, but she cried out with surprise and fear when she actually saw someone standing there. Under this scenario, no one is more surprised than this woman! Others suggest the cry is because it was revealed to her (either by her familiar spirit or by the Samuel figure) that the man who has hired her to practice this necromancy is, in fact, King Saul: “Why hast thou deceived me? For thou art Saul” (v. 12).

Now, let me introduce perhaps the biggest debate about this passage. This is the question of what exactly is happening here. Is this really Samuel brought back from the dead? Can the spirits or ghosts of men return to earth? Was this an extraordinary event permitted by the Lord? This seems to be the understanding of many modern interpreters (cf. Dale Ralph Davis: "How then does one explain this piece of necromancy? I suppose by the power and permission of God.... Yahweh's word was spoken even if it came via an illegitimate method." [1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart, p. 291]). When you look at the old interpreters among the Protestant and Reformed fathers, however, it is a different story. I looked at Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, and John Gill and all three agreed that this was a deceptive work of Satan. This was not really Samuel but a false experience manufactured by the deceiver who, as Paul says, can transform himself into “an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14).

Matthew Poole's very first argument that this “was not Samuel, but the devil representing Samuel” is the fact that it had just been stated that the Lord would not respond to Saul’s enquiries (v. 6). Why now would the Lord allow himself to be manipulated by such pagan means?

We might add, referring to the account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, that Abraham tells the rich man of a “great gulf fixed” so that no one can pass from the afterlife to the land of the living (Luke 16:26).

Some, like the Church Father Gregory of Nazianzus, simply take an agnostic position saying we cannot and will never know for sure whether this was actually Samuel or not (see R. Youngblood in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 3, pp. 779-780).

When Saul asks what the woman sees, she says, “I saw gods ascending out of the earth” (v. 13; NKJV: “a spirit”; but the original Hebrew word here is elohim which in addition to God or gods can mean “exalted personages” or an “exalted person”).

When Saul asks about his form, she says he is an “old man” and “he is covered with a mantle” (v. 14). This mantle would have been the prophetic dress that Samuel would have worn (cf. 15:27). “And Saul perceived that is was Samuel….” (v. 14).

When this Samuel figure asks, “Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?” Saul bears his soul (v. 15). The upshot is that he is desperate to know the will and direction of the Lord.

The strongest argument in favor of this truly being Samuel permitted by the Lord to appear to Saul is the fact that this is what the text directly states (e. g., "the woman saw Samuel" [v. 12], "And Samuel said to Saul" [v. 15]). Another is the fact that this figure's prophecy appears to be accurate (see vv. 16-17). But Poole points out there are notes of ambiguity as well. Notice particularly in v. 19 as Samuel says, “and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me.” Did that mean in the bosom of Abraham? In the land of death? It has the feel of one of the ambiguous Delphic oracles. Poole says “the devil’s design might be to flatter Saul into an opinion of his own future happiness, and to take him off from all serious cares and thoughts about it.”

Whether the true Samuel or a Satanic apparition, God had permitted this to happen. Luther said that even the devil is God’s devil.

Ordinances: Baptism in Acts

2011-12-10T08:09:00.001-05:00

I have recently been thinking again about the doctrine of the ordinances (sacraments), baptism and the Lord's Supper, as we tighten and clarify our church's belief and practice. Here is the first of several posts on this topic, regarding baptism in Acts:

On baptism: Should new believers be baptized immediately after they profess faith in Christ as seems to be the pattern in Acts or should there be a time of discipleship and discernment before baptism is administered?

Eight observations:

1. In the book of Acts the normal pattern is for baptism to follow very closely upon conversion. Examples in Acts: Jerusalem converts at Pentecost (2:37-41); Ethiopian Eunuch (8:36-38); Saul/Paul (9:18); Cornelius and his household (10:44-48); Lydia and her household (16:14-15); the Philippian jailer and his household (16:30-33).

2. The question is whether this pattern in Acts is prescriptive (given as the norm for the church to follow in all ages) or descriptive of the unique power manifested through the apostolic era to launch the church. Is the Acts pattern ordinary or extraordinary? Those in the charismatic tradition have tended to take Acts as wholly prescriptive (ordinary) while those in the Reformed tradition have tended to be more circumspect, recognizing both some elements that are prescriptive (ordinary) and others that are merely descriptive of the apostolic age (extraordinary).

3. Though there are descriptions of baptism taking place “straightway” after conversion (see the Philippian Jailer and his household in 16:33), other mentions of baptism are less precise in giving a definite time signature (e.g., the Samaritan converts in 8:12 where the focus is not on immediacy but on the fact that “both men and women” were baptized after believing). In the case of Sergius Paulus, Luke tells us he heard the word (13:7) and believed (13:12), but there is no description given us of his baptism (whether immediate or delayed).

4. There are also some examples of what we might call “irregular” baptisms in Acts. Simon the Samaritan Sorcerer is baptized by Philip, but Peter later rebukes him for his simony (8:9, 13, 18-24). Apollos “was instructed in the way of the Lord” but knew “only the baptism of John” (see 18:24-28). I think we can assume that among the things Aquila and Priscilla explained to him “more perfectly” was his need for Christian baptism. The Ephesian twelve, likewise, seem to be disciples who knew only the baptism of John till Paul instructed them in the faith and administered Christian baptism to them (19:1-7). These might be examples of those who at the first touch of Jesus “see men as trees, walking” but at a second touch see “every man clearly” (see Mark 8:22-26).

5. In the Gospels Jesus teaches that disciples must first sit down and “count the costs” before committing to be his disciples (see Luke 14:25-33). Anyone who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is not fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62). We are to remember Lot’s wife (Luke 17:32). Our “yes” must be “yes” and our “no,” “no” (Matt 5:37). Solomon warns that we are “not to give the sacrifice of fools” by being rash with our mouths and uttering things hastily before the Lord, so that if we make a promise we are sure to keep it promptly (see Ecc 5:1-5). These Scriptures would add indirect evidence to the appropriateness of some period of discernment and discipleship before baptism is administered.

6. Since salvation is by grace through faith and not by works (Eph 2:8-9), including the work of baptism, we do not need to rush baptism in the way that those who affirm baptismal regeneration suggest (whether Roman Catholics or Campbellites).

7. The key focus of the witness of Acts regarding baptism is less on the immediacy of baptism after conversion, but on the fact that belief always precedes baptism. One must be a believer before he is baptized. Acts affirms credo-baptism.

8. Another key focus in baptism in Acts is that Christian baptism is administered by proper officers (e.g., in Acts 8 by Philip one of the Jerusalem seven [deacons?] or in Acts 19 by the apostle Paul). In his A Body of Practical Divinity, Baptist theologian John Gill thus observes, “Admission to baptism lies solely in the breast of the administrator, who is the only judge of qualification for it, and has the sole power of receiving it, and of rejecting from it.” The administrator would be a gospel minister, as a church officer. In some cases he might deem that baptism be administered “straightway” as in the days of Acts, but in other cases he might deem that further instruction and discipleship be given.

JTR

The Vision (12/8/11): Assurance when tempted to despair

2011-12-08T20:46:00.001-05:00

Image: CRBC ladies fellowship after a recent Lord's Day worship service.

In last Sunday morning’s message on David’s Despair (1 Samuel 26-27), I shared this anecdote from the Puritan John Flavel, as shared by Dale Ralph Davis in 1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart (pp. 273-274):

Sometimes the Lord’s encouragements can be quite dramatic, at other times rather mundane. John Flavel wrote of a certain Mrs. Honeywood, an earnest Christian woman who nevertheless felt God had cast her off and that she was without saving hope. One day a minister was meeting with her and marshalling reasons against “her desperate conclusions.” It was then she took a Venice-glass from the table and said, “Sir, I am as sure to be damned as this glass is to be broken,” and with that she threw it mightily to the ground. To the astonishment of both, the glass remained intact and unbroken. Obviously, the minister did not fail to apply the assuring sign.

In 1 Samuel 27, David had reached a “glass breaking moment” of despair, as he said in his heart, “I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul…” (v. 1). But the Lord would not abandon David. He remained with him, protecting and preserving him, till he came into his kingdom. So is the Lord with all his saints. May we remember this when we are tempted to despair.

“For the LORD will forsake his people for his great name’s sake…” (1 Samuel 12:22).

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Sermon of the Week: Joel Beeke's Family Life Series

2011-12-08T09:16:00.000-05:00

This week I've been listening to Joel Beeke's recent Family Life Series at Heritage Netherlands Reformed Church. I would particularly commend the following:

Building Your Children's Library: Excellent instruction and ideas from a convinced bibliophile on how to disciple your children by placing good books (not just electronic versions) in their hands. A good message to listen to if you are thinking of profitable gifts (rather than games or clothes) to give your children for the holiday.

Honoring Authority: A wonderful message on the broader implications of the fifth commandment. How can we expect our children to honor us if we speak disparingly of or rebel against our bosses, ministers, or civil government leadership?

Exercising Authority: A follow up to the previous message which stresses the responsibilties of those in positions of authority, including parents.

JTR

Exposition of Jude: Part 25 of 25

2011-12-07T13:16:00.000-05:00

Note: This is the last in an occasional verse by verse commentary through the book of Jude. Past commentaries may be read under the “Jude Exposition” label below.

Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Now in this final verse Jude makes explicit the name “God” but he quickly adds in apposition “our Saviour.” This essentially affirms the deity of Christ as God. The all-wise Father is praised alongside the Saving Son.

Four things are attributed to the Lord:

1. Glory (doxa). In OT Hebrew word is chabod, weightiness. God is heavy. He is not to be handled lightly. His name is not to be thrown about on the wind. We are not to take his person or his nature casually.

2. Majesty (megalosune). He is a king. How would you enter the presence of a king? Would you come in open collar and torn jeans? Would you sit on a stool or bow on your knees?

3. Dominion (kratos). Do you acknowledge his lordship? Is he ruling and reigning over your life? Is there evidence of his dominion over your life? Ships bear the colors of the nations whose dominion they are under. Does the banner of Christ hang over your life?

4. Power (exousia). This word might also be rendered as authority. When you’ve a decision to make who is your authority? Your nation? Culture? Your parents alone? What of God’s authority over you?

Jude ascribes all these things in this benediction to our Lord. But each has implication for his subjects. They are praise to him and lessons for us.

Finally, there is the duration signature: “both now and forever. Amen.” This praise goes on and on and on….

Reflections:

• How does Jude 25 affirm the deity of Christ?

• Meditate on each of the four qualities attributed to God: glory, majesty, dominion, and power.

• Consider that praise to God will never end. Will you praise him both now and forever?

Spurgeon on the comfort of Psalm 91:9-10

2011-12-06T08:18:00.000-05:00

Here's another Spurgeon anecdote, which I made use of in Sunday's sermon on David's Despair (1 Samuel 26-27):

In the Treasury of David, C. H. Spurgeon tells of an incident that happened in 1854 when he had only been serving his church in London for about twelve months. There was a cholera epidemic and multiple people in the church died. He writes:

Family after family summoned me to the bedside of the smitten, and almost every day I was called to visit the grave. I gave myself up with youthful ardour to the visitation of the sick, and was sent for from all corners of the district by persons of all ranks and religions. I became weary in body and sick at heart. My friends seemed falling one by one, and I felt or fancied that I was sickening like those around me. A little more work and weeping would have laid me low among the rest; I felt that my burden was heavier than I could bear, and I was ready to sink under it.

Then, one day as he was walking home, on Dover Street, he saw a placard that a shoemaker had put in his window, written in bold handwriting. It wasn’t a trade announcement but the words of Psalm 91:9-10:

Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

Spurgeon then writes:

The effect upon my heart was immediate. Faith appropriated the passage as her own. I felt secure, refreshed, girt with immortality. I went on with my visitation of the dying in a calm and peaceful spirit; I felt no fear of evil, and I suffered no harm.

JTR

Spurgeon on "The Minister's Fainting Fits"

2011-12-05T22:02:00.000-05:00

I opened yesterday's sermon on David's Despair (1 Samuel 26-27) by citing the opening lines of Charles Spurgeon's classic article in his Lectures to My Students on "The Minister's Fainting Fits":

As it is recorded that David, in the heat of battle, waxed faint, so may it be written of all the servants of the Lord. Fits of depression come over the most of us. Usually cheerful as we may be, we must at intervals be cast down. The strong are not always vigorous, the wise not always ready, the brave not always courageous, and the joyous not always happy. There maybe here and there men of iron, to whom wear and tear work no perceptible detriment, but surely the rust frets even these; and as for ordinary men, the Lord knows, and makes them to know, that they are but dust.

JTR

CRBC Worship December 2011

2011-12-03T08:37:00.000-05:00

Note: Lord willing, we will continue and conclude our Sunday morning sermon series on the life of David in 1 Samuel. In our Sunday afternoon worship, we will continue our series through Spurgeon’s Catechism.

December 4

Opening psalm: Psalm 69

Message: David’s Despair (1 Samuel 26-27)

No. 145 Come, thou long expected Jesus

Psalm 119:1-8 (SWEET HOUR)

No. 457 O thou from whom all goodness flows

Opening psalm: Psalm 70

Message: How many persons are there in the Godhead? (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)

Psalm 104:1-12 (LYONS)

No. 715 Jesus, I Come

Psalm 44:1-8 (JOANNA)

December 11

Opening psalm: Psalm 71

Message: Saul: A Picture of Failure (1 Samuel 28)

No. 60 God, the Lord, a King Remaineth

Psalm 119:9-16 (SWEET HOUR)

No. 147 O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

Opening psalm: Psalm 72

Message: Reformed worship, holy days, and holidays (1 Kings 12:25-33)

Psalm 104:13-23 (LYONS)

No. 644 Jesus is All the World to Me

Psalm 21 (ELLACOMBE)

December 18

Opening psalm: Psalm 73

Message: David: A Picture of Leadership (1 Samuel 29-30)

No. 155 All praise to thee, eternal Lord

Psalm 23 (CRIMOND)

No. 149 Joy to the world!

Opening psalm: Psalm 74

Message: What are the decrees of God? (Ephesians 1:11-12)

Psalm 104:24-35 (LYONS)

No. 154 As with gladness men of old

No. 127 Let us love, and sing, and wonder

December 25

Opening psalm: Psalm 75

Message: The death of Saul (1 Samuel 31)

No. 151 O Come, All Ye Faithful

Psalm 52 (AZMON)

No. 168 Hark! The Herald Angels Sing

Opening psalm: Psalm 76

Message: How does God execute his decrees? (Daniel 4:35; Revelation 4:11)

Psalm 40:1-9 (I NEED THEE)

Psalm 40:10-17 (I NEED THEE)

Psalm 117 (LASST UNS ERFREUEN)

Video: All Things Are Better in Koine

2011-12-02T23:55:00.000-05:00

My friend Mike B. (who is also taking an online NT Greek class through Puritan Seminary) sent me a link to this video:

The Vision (12/1/11): A Nabal (Foolish) Response to Christ

2011-12-01T20:47:00.000-05:00

Image: Two young CRBC men after worship on a recent Sunday.

Note: In last Sunday’s message from 1 Samuel 25, we contrasted the foolish response of Nabal and the wise response of Abigail to David, seeing this as an anticipation of two ways that men might respond to Christ. Here are some of the message notes:

As David sent messengers to Nabal demanding that he give over to him what was rightfully his (1 Samuel 25:5-9), so the Lord Jesus Christ today sends forth his messengers. We are his ambassadors (2 Cor 5:20), and we bring orders from our Prince demanding that men humble themselves before our King and give over not just pieces or portions but all their lives to him.

Notice the folly of Nabal’s response to David. He ask, “Who is David? And who is the son of Jesse?” (v. 10). So today foolish men ask, Who is Jesus Christ? Who is this one from the stem of Jesse who claims to be the Son of God? Who is this one who died on a cursed tree and claims to have risen again from the dead? Who is this one who dared to make himself equal to God? The truth is, they ask the questions but they really don’t want to receive the answers. In 2 Timothy 3:7 Paul spoke of those “ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Notice also that Nabal did not want to acknowledge David, because he feared what he would have to give up (v. 11: “Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh…”). I have heard men make the excuse that they did not want to profess faith in Christ because this would mean that they would have to join a church and then folk would be asking them to give to support the church. Listen, they don’t know the half of it! Does the Lord want your money? Yes. You cannot serve God and mammon. But he also wants your time, your energy, your family, and even your body: “I beseech ye therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (Rom 12:1).

And what did Nabal do when David’s messengers withdrew? He held a feast in his house and he tried to substitute the joy and satisfaction that only Christ can give with the drunkenness (v. 36). He thought he was living a like a king, but he was a spiritual pauper. There is, no doubt, an argument in this description against the dangers of drunkenness. Proverbs 20:1: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” He is a Nabal. Banner of Truth has recently published a series of little books that can fit in your pocket. One is titled “Binge Drinking” and it has excerpts from a book by the Puritan John Flavel warning seamen against the sin of drunkenness. Therein, Flavel writes, “Take heed, and beware of the detestable sin of drunkenness, which is a beastly sin, a voluntary madness, a sin that unmans you, and makes you like the beasts that perish; yea which sets you below the beasts, which will not drink to excess….” Of course we might say that there are Nabals who are not drunk merely with strong drink but with the world. The world is too much with them and they seek pleasure in it rather than in Christ alone.

And finally, what is the end for Nabal (see v. 38: “And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died.”). He was born a fool; he lived a fool; and, finally, he died a fool. The Lord struck him down. The end of the man who rejects Christ is death. Not just physical death but spiritual death.

May we not have a “Nabal response” to Christ, but let us look to him and live.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Exposition of Jude: Part 24 of 25

2011-11-30T23:08:00.000-05:00

Note: This is part of an occassional verse by verse exposition through the book of Jude. For an archive of past commentaries, see the label "Jude Exposition" below.

Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

And so it all ends with praise. After all the polemics of Jude, after the call for earnest contending for the faith (v. 3), after the almost clinical analysis of the errors of the false teacher, and the encouragement to believers, Jude ends with a stirring benediction or doxology of praise to God.

And so this book reflects what will be the end for every saint and the end of this age. After a season of warfare and struggle and defending the faith, there comes praise.

Jude ends, “Now unto him that is able….” Praise is only properly directed to the right object. Jude’s praise begins with addressing God as the one who is able. Indeed, the God of the Bible is the only one who is able.

When Jesus told his disciples that is was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go into heaven, his disciples ask, “Who then can be saved?” (Matt 19:25), Jesus replied, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (v. 26).

Paul addresses this prayer to God: Ephesians 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, 21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

Think of what God is able to do:

He is able to create this world and all that is in it in the space of six days and all very good.

He is able to continue the work of creation by sustaining all that is by the word of his power.

He is able to heal the sick and open blinded eyes.

He is able to still storms.

He is able to melt hearts of stone and replace them with hearts of flesh.

He is able to raise the dead to life.

So, Jude ends his letter with this God-centered prayer addressed, “unto him that is able…”

Next, Jude focuses on two things in particular that God is able to do related to the needs of the recipients of this letter:

1. He is able to keep you from falling.

This is a particularly reassuring prayer given the subject matter, the dangers of false teaching and apostasy. Will the recipients of this letter be ensnared in these false teachings?

The verb for “to keep” is phylasso. It means to guard, to keep under guard, to protect, to defend, to keep safe.

The phrase for “from falling” here is simply one word, an adjective aptaistos, “free from stumbling” (the first of two alpha privatives in this verse).

This is a prayer to God thanking him for his persevering grace. God not only saves sinners by grace but he keeps them saved by grace.

This benediction also illustrates the very nature of a public prayer which is both vertical (God-directed) but also horizontal (man-encouraging).

2. And to present you faultless.

Here Jude moves from praising God for perseverance to praising from for glorification.

He is able to present his saints “faultless” (amomos; without blemish; note the second alpha privative). Are they faultless? Can they live a perfect and sinless life? No. But—and this is the miracle—God is able to present them as faultless, because of Christ. Sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stain.

Where are they presented? “Before the presence of his glory.” Who can stand in his presence? Certainly not sinful man without the shield of Christ. A welder has to wear a mask to protect his eyes from the blinding light of the welding torch. So if we were to look upon God in his glory without a mediating filter we would be blinded and undone. We are unable. But God is able to this for us because of Christ.

Thus, rightly we do so “with exceeding joy.” Would a man be filled with joy if seconds before he was to be condemned to death he discovered the sentence had been lifted, the prison door was open, and he had been set free? Would a sick man suffering with cancer be filled with joy if the sickness left his body and he was fully healed? This then too is the spirit of those guilty and sin-sick sinners upon whom Christ has poured out his forgiving and healing mercy.

Video of the Week: Sunday Morning

2011-11-29T14:19:00.001-05:00

My daughter sent me a link to this video and signed it, "love from your dutifully brainwashed daughter":

Flavel on "Binge Drinking" and fearing God's displeasure more than men's

2011-11-28T23:29:00.000-05:00

At the last Society for the Preservation of Baptist Principles and Practices meeting in Roanoke, Lloyd Sprinkle gave out a free selection from the "Pocket Puritans" series from Banner of Truth books and I picked up several.

Last week I read the title "Binge Drinking" with selections from John Flavel and C. H. Spurgeon on the spiritual dangers of drunkenness. I was able to use a Flavel quote in Sunday's message on Nabal from 1 Samuel 25.

The Flavel selections are taken from "A Caution to Seamen: A Dissuasive against Several Horrid and Detestable Sins" from volume 5 of his Collected Works. When I read through Beeke's "Building on the Rock Series," which primarily features devotional stories from the 17th-19th centuries, in our family devotions, my children picked up on the fact that many of the conversion stories were about young men who went to sea and fell into the sins of swearing and drunkenness before coming to Christ. It was a reminder that military men, even today, are probably especially vulnerable to this temptation.

Flavel also introduces his denunciation of drinking with this interesting explanation of the dangers that minister run of offending men when they speak the truth:

"First, that if this close and plain dealing be necessary, in order to your cure, and you will be offended by it, it is better you should be offended than God. Ministers are often put upon lamentable straits, they sail between Scylla and Charybdis--the wrath of God upon one side, if we do not speak plain and home, as the necessity of the case requires, and man's wrath if we do. What shall we do in this strait? Either God or you, it seems, must be offended; and it cannot be avoided, I shall rather hazard your anger than God's, and think it more tolerable" (p. 7).

JTR

Poole on Nabal's sudden death

2011-11-27T23:40:00.001-05:00

I preached today on Nabal's Folly from 1 Samuel 25. Matthew Poole makes the following comment on the record of Nabal's death in v. 37 ["But it came to pass in the morning, when the wine was gone out of Nabal, and his wife had told him these things, that his heart died within him, and he became as a stone."]:

He was oppressed with grief, and fainted away through the fear and horror of so great a mischief, though it was past. As one who, having in the night galloped over a narrow plank, laid upon a broken bridge, over a deep river, when in the morning he came to review it, was struck dead with the horror of the danger he was in.

JTR

Exposition of Jude: Part 23 of 25

2011-11-25T16:46:00.000-05:00

Note: This is another in the occasional verse by verse series through the book of Jude. For past expositions, see the “Jude Exposition” label below.

Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

In v. 23 we have another imperative. The main verb is “save” (sozete).

As an aside, we see here another significant textual issue in this verse. Modern translations do not have one main verb ("save") but two, adding again “have mercy.” So:

NIV Jude 1:23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear-- hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

NASB Jude 1:23 save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

The choice of translation is by no means insignificant! Again, we will prefer the traditional rendering where the main (and only) finite verb is “save.”

We acknowledge from the start that Jude did not think it was in man’s power to save, in the sense of ultimate spiritual salvation. “Salvations is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9). Jude either is encouraging the saints to be the instrument through which God saves others. Or, he is speaking temporally, encouraging believers to be involved in rescuing or salvaging those who are in dire spiritual and physical danger. The end, of course, would also be for the spiritual good of that person.

The call is modified by the prepositional phrase “with fear” [en phobo; with reverence, with awe].

Then there are two supporting participles.

First, “pulling them out of the fire.” This accentuate the danger of their predicament and the urgency that is called for. This is not something that can wait for a few months, weeks, days , or even hours. It cannot wait minutes or seconds. Sinners are like men who are camping and who have rolled over in their sleep into the fire. They must be awakened before they are consumed and it is too late.

There is likely an allusion here to the prophet Zechariah:

Zechariah 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? 3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. 4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

We are to see unconverted sinners as like men caught in a burning house and they must be pulled out to safety.

When John Wesley, the founder of Methodism was five years old, his family’s home burned down and he was rescued from the burning building. Looking back on that event Wesley often called himself “a brand plucked from the burning” when he reflected on God’s providential sparing of his physical life. No doubt, he also understood how God had plucked him out of a danger in a spiritual sense.

Second, “hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” A person might be pulled from the fire but his clothing might still be blackened and reeking of smoke from that fire. The point: We are to have compassion on the lost without in any way approving of their ungodly lifestyle. Jude would have been wary of those who claim that we need to accommodate the Christian message to the culture by taking up worldly ways. No, we are to hate the garment spotted by the flesh.

We need to be very careful as well of a simplistic “God hates the sin and loves the sinner” mentality. For one thing, the Bible teaches that God not only hates sin but he also hates sinners (see, for example, Psalm 5:5: “thou hatest all workers of iniquity”). Jude exhorts believers to minister to and to rescue those sinking down in the sin.

Jude closes this little epistle with a call for discerning compassion. It is a call for believers to see themselves as instruments of God’s peace, as means of his deliverance. We are to be God’s fire-fighters, entering burning buildings and pulling out victims.

Reflections:

• How can a believer be used as a means of saving sinners?

• How is evangelism like pulling victims from a fire?

• How can we do evangelism with those most trapped by sin without approving of their wicked lifestyles?

The Vision (11/24/11): A Prayer based on Psalm 107

2011-11-24T11:33:00.000-05:00

A Prayer based on Psalm 107

O Lord of mercy, and full of all benignity, who chastiseth men in diverse sorts to make them return unto thee, suffer not, O Father, that we, through our unthankfulness, forget thine inestimable benefits, and the most singular deliverances which thou hast bestowed on us from day to day; but grant, that we may continually be careful and mindful to consider all the days of our lives thy gifts incomparable, which thou ever givest to us, through Jesus Christ. Amen.

From Prayers of the Psalms: From the Scottish Psalter of 1595 (Banner of Truth, 2010): p. 116.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Common Infections in Family Integrated Churches

2011-11-23T20:11:00.000-05:00

Scott Brown's sermon "Common Infections in Family Integrated Churches" has been featured this week on sermonaudio.com. It's a solid message pointing out some of the common problems that arise among churches that seek to be family integrated and with families that seek out family integrated churches. Well worth a listen.

Mbewe: Are all elders "pastors"?

2011-11-22T22:35:00.001-05:00

Conrad Mbewe did a post on his blog last week titled, Are all elders "pastors"?" in which he argues for a distinction in the one office of elder between pastors and (ruling) elders over against the "parity" view of elders.

Exposition of Jude: Part 22 of 25

2011-11-22T20:36:00.001-05:00

Note: This is an occasional, verse by verse series of expositions through the book of Jude that started in May 2007! You can read previous commentaries under the label “Jude Exposition” below. You can also listen to my sermon series through Jude here.

Jude 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

Jude had the last to say about the false teachers in v. 19. With v. 20 he turned with final exhortations to address believers. Those exhortations continue in v. 22.

The heart of this verse is a command: “have compassion” or “have mercy.”

One thing we might point out in this verse is the fact that modern translations tend to render it a little differently than do translation based on the traditional text. Compare:

NIV Jude 1:22 Be merciful to those who doubt;

NASB Jude 1:22 And have mercy on some, who are doubting;

The issue is both the translation and the case of the participle. The verb from which the participle (diakrino) comes can mean “to discern,” “to make a difference,” or “to doubt.” Is it nominative (as in the traditional text): have compassion/mercy making a difference? Or is it accusative (modern text): have compassion/mercy on those who doubt?

It might not surprise the reader to find out that I prefer the traditional rendering. Jude is calling for the believers to be compassionate. As Christians, we are to be merciful. We are to be moved by the plight of sinners. We are not to be cold and indifferent to the plight of our fellow human beings.

Nevertheless—and I think this is very consistent with what we have read throughout Jude—we are also to be discerning. Some will take compassion and mercy as a license for taking advantage of our good will. They will take the offer of divine mercy from Christ’s ambassadors as license to presume upon the grace of God.

A few years ago the evangelical blogger Tim Challies Challies defined discernment (making a difference) as “the skill of understanding and applying God’s Word with the purpose of separating truth from error and right from wrong.”

He then added:

“When we practice discernment, we are applying the truths of the Bible to our lives. We are attempting to understand the words of the Bible and trusting God’s Word to give clarity so we might see things as God sees them. Our goal in discernment is to do just this: to see things through God’s eyes through the Bible and thus to see things as they really are. Like wiping the steam from a mirror, we seek to remove what is opaque so we might see with God-given clarity.”

Jude exhorts his hearers to be large-hearted in extending compassion, but also to exercise discernment.

Reflections:

• How does a believer extend mercy or compassion?

• How has mercy been extended to us in Christ?

• What areas of the Christian life particularly call for discernment?

• How would one exercise discernment in considering marriage, in choosing a career, in choosing a church, in establishing doctrinal convictions?

Bunyan: Objections from Jerusalem Sinners

2011-11-21T07:29:00.002-05:00

Here is the closing illustration from yesterday's sermon David Spares Saul (1 Samuel 23-24), that reflected on David's sparing of Saul as an anticipation of Christ's sparing of great sinners:

One of John Bunyan’s lesser known little booklets is titled The Jerusalem Sinner Saved. It is a meditation on Luke 24:47 where Jesus tells his disciples before his ascension that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Bunyan’s question is, Why Jerusalem? That is where Christ was rejected. That is where Christ was crucified. But it was the place Christ chose for the gospel first to be preached at Pentecost. Bunyan says Jesus did this because he delights to save those who are “the greatest sinners.” At one point he imagines the objections that were given to Peter as he preached the gospel in Jerusalem:

Object. ‘But I was one of them that plotted to take away his life. May I be saved by him?’

Peter. Every one of you.

Object. ‘But I was one of them that bare false witness against him. Is there grace for me?’

Peter. For every one of you.

Object. ‘But I was one of them that cried out, Crucify him, crucify him; and desired that Barabbas the murderer might live, rather than he. What will become of me, think you?’

Peter. I am to preach repentance and remission of sins to every one of you, says Peter.

Object. ‘But I was one of them that did spit in his face when he stood before his accusers. I also was one of them that mocked him, when in anguish he hung bleeding on the tree. Is there room for me?’

Peter. For every one of you, says Peter.

Object. ‘But I was one of them that in his extremity said, Give him gall and vinegar to drink. Why may I not expect the same when anguish and guilt are upon me?’

Peter. Repent of these your wickednesses, and here is remission of sins for every one of you.

Object. ‘But I railed on him, I reviled him, I hated him, I rejoiced to see him mocked by others. Can there be hope for me?

Peter. There is for every one of you. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Bunyan adds, “Oh! What a blessed ‘every one of you,’ is here!” (pp. 19-20).

The Vision (11/17/11): "I could spill it all for the sake of the Lord Jesus"

2011-11-17T08:57:00.000-05:00

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me (Galatians 2:20).

In Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, as Christian and Hopeful make their pilgrimage, Hopeful shares with his traveling companion his testimony of salvation. Christian then asks, “but tell me particularly what effect this had upon your spirit?” Hopeful answers:

It made me see that all the world, notwithstanding all the righteousness thereof, is in a state of condemnation. It made me see that God the Father, though he be just, can justly justify the coming sinner. It made me greatly ashamed of my former life, and confounded me with the sense of my own ignorance; for there never came thought into mine heart before now, that showed me so the beauty of Jesus Christ. It made me love a holy life, and long to do something for the honour and glory of the name of the Lord Jesus. Yea, I thought, that had I now a thousand gallons of blood in my body, I could spill it all for the sake of the Lord Jesus.

What has been the effect of knowing Christ upon your spirit? Has it made you see the world for what it truly is? Has it humbled you to know of God’s grace in saving sinners? Has it made you love a holy life? Has it made you long to do something for Christ? Has it made you worry less about your own comfort and more about the glory of Christ? Has it made you willing to pour out your life for the sake of Christ?

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

J. L. Dagg on the Covenant of Works

2011-11-16T22:19:00.001-05:00

I’ve been making my way through Greg Nichols’ Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God’s Covenants (Solid Ground, 2011). One interesting mark of the book is that Nichols does not have a chapter on “The Covenant of Works” in the body of the text but includes this topic in an appendix as “The Adamic Covenant” (pp. 321-358). This got me thinking about how other Baptist theologians have handled this subject. Here is J. L. Dagg’s take:

As the term covenant is sometimes applied to a free promise, in which no condition is stipulated; it is proper to characterize that which was made with Adam as a covenant of works. It was a law, with a penalty affixed. “Of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die” (Gen 2:16-17). No promise was given, that Adam would continue to enjoy the divine favor if he continued obedient; but this may be understood to be clearly implied. Whether higher favor than he then enjoyed, would have been granted on condition of his persevering in obedience through prescribed term of probation, we are not informed. We have reason to conclude, that a continuance in well-doing, would have received stronger marks of divine approbation according to its progress; and, from what we know of the power of habit, as tending to establish man in virtue or vice, (a tendency which it has, because God has so willed it) the conjecture is not improbable, that, had Adam preserved in his obedience, he would, after a time, have been confirmed in holiness. But, where the Scriptures are silent, we should not frame conjectures to make them articles of faith.

Manual of Theology (The Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1857): p. 145

Poh Boon Sing on "The Reformed Baptist Dilemma"

2011-11-15T07:46:00.001-05:00

I just ran across Pastor Poh Boon Sing's article, The Reformed Baptist Dilemma, on the "Gospel Highway" magazine website.

The "dilemma" which Pastor Poh identifies among Reformed Baptist is a lack of clarity and unity in the area of ecclesiology. My own views on church government have been influenced by Poh's writings, especially his Keys of the Kingdom. Here is the introduction to "The Reformed Baptist Dilemma" article:

The revival of interest in Reformed teaching since the early 1960s has brought about the recovery of many important biblical doctrines. Some of these are the sovereignty of God, the sole authority of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, the centrality and uniqueness of the local church, and the primacy of preaching. These doctrines have either been neglected or distorted among evangelicals at large. Nevertheless, these were the truths mightily owned by God in the past and loved by earlier generations of Christians.

The re-emphasis of these doctrines has brought a new lease of life for the older Calvinistic churches, and has led to the founding of newer fellowships. Numerically speaking, Presbyterians and Baptists have benefited most from this recovery of Reformed teaching. Most of the latter have not hesitated to be known as "Reformed Baptists", holding to the 1689 Particular Baptist Confession of Faith as the doctrinal basis of their churches. Reformed Baptists may claim justly that they are true heirs of the Reformation of the 16th century and the lineal descendants of the Particular Baptists of the I7th century Puritan era. After all, lineage in terms of belief is what matters, and not ecclesiastical pedigree or historical succession.

Amidst apparent growth and unity among the Reformed Baptists there have arisen differences in ecclesiology (that is, the doctrine of the church). There are also differences in other doctrines. For example, in eschatology (the doctrine of the last things), there are differences about premillennialism, postmillennialism, amillennialism, or dispensationalism. Then there are the issues of whether the moral law is still relevant for the Christian, whether the Lord's supper and church membership should be open to all. There is also the debate as to whether Reformed Baptists arose during the 17th century or were descendants of an unbroken line of "Baptists" stemming from the Anabaptists, the Waldensians, the Donatists, and all the way from the time of the apostles. Even the title "Reformed Baptist" has been called in question.

Some of these differences are relatively minor, and should not be enough to agitate or disrupt the unity of the Reformed Baptist constituency. Other matters are of greater importance. Failure to adhere to them would lead to the church concerned being frowned upon rightly not only by other Reformed Baptists but also by the wider conservative circles of churches. It is to be noted that one can hold to too little or to too much to qualify as a "Reformed Baptist". The two boundaries are not necessarily co-extensive. Where one boundary begins and the other ends is, of course, a matter of debate.

It is probable that Reformed Baptists are generally clear about soteriology (that is, the doctrine of salvation). To a man they are Calvinists, holding to the well-known "Five Points" of Calvinism, often known as the doctrines of grace. Few would hedge as a "Four-pointer" or a "Four-and-a-half-pointer".1 Nevertheless, while being clear on soteriology, there is, unhappily, no equal clarity in the realm of ecclesiology. A general acceptance of believer's baptism and the autonomy of the local church is about all that may be said with certainty about Reformed Baptist churchmanship.

Poh proceeds to present four models for church government: prelacy, presbyterianism, independency, and congregationalism. He is an advocate for the idependency model as championed by John Owen and laid out in Owen's "The True Nature of a Gospel Church." Here is how Poh summarizes his article:

Summary

1. Reformed Baptists are today faced with the problem of not being clear on ecclesiology. Instead of recovering the church polity of the early Particular Baptists, Reformed Baptists have allowed themselves to be influenced by Presbytenanism and other factors.

2. Traditionally, Independency and Congregationalism have been confounded as one and the same entity. This is unfortunate. The two systems are quite different and their confusion has generated problems for not a few. Instead of thinking about three forms of church government, we should reckon upon four: Prelacy, Presbyterianism, Independency and Congregationalism.

3. Originally, the word "Congregational" meant that the visible church of Jesus Christ on earth is made up of congregations of called-out people. The word "Independent" was a derogatory term directed against those who embraced a Congregational church order. The purpose was to imply that the Congregationalists inclined to anarchy in their churches. In time a difference meaning occurred between the two words, so that "Congregational" came to mean the congregation ruling the church, while "Independent" came to indicate that the congregation is autonomous.

4. Independency arose in the separatist movements of the sixteenth century and was refined by Independents from within the ranks of Puritanism in the seventeenth century. John Owen's book, "The True Nature of a Gospel Church", was both definitive and influential for a long period.

5. The Particular Baptists practised a more consistent Independency by rejecting infant baptism and refining the principles of the system. They were in the earliest stage of their history seen to be separate from the paedobaptist Independents.

6. We need a contemporary, up-to-date, exposition of Independent principles. Until a better work is produced, the present contribution would try to meet the need of the hour. The Bible, the two confessions of the Particular Baptists, and John Owen's book, "The True Nature of a Gospel Church", will be referred to in that order of importance.

JTR

Owen on false assurance

2011-11-14T07:43:00.000-05:00

Yet another gem from John Owen, Communion with God (Banner ed.):

If they have false assurance of God’s care and promises to them, and in this false assurance they comfort themselves, then their comfort is like the dreams of a hungry man who thinks he is eating or drinking, but when he awakes, he is still hungry and thirsty. So, many will awaken in the last day and see all things clearly. In that day, they will then find that God is their enemy. They will see him laugh at their calamity. They will hear him mocking when their judgment comes on them to the full (p. 208).

Contrasting Old and New Commentators on 1 Samuel 20

2011-11-11T10:51:00.000-05:00

When doing some reading to prepare to preach on 1 Samuel 20, I was struck by different perspectives expressed by the commentators regarding the character of David (and Jonathan). David tells Jonathan to report to Saul that he has gone to Bethlehem for a yearly sacrifice, rather than to the new moon festival, while, in fact, he is hiding in the field (vv. 5-6). Jonathan follows through on the plan and, as David hides in the field (v. 24), Jonathan reports to Saul that David asked leave to go to Bethlehem (vv. 27-29). The question is whether or not David and Jonathan are guilty of outright deception in dealing with Saul.

Dale Ralph Davis, a modern interpreter, concludes that the reader might be bothered by Jonathan and David’s ruse. He writes,

Some readers may be disturbed to see that the Bible records Jonathan’s apparent “storying” for David. That is all the text is doing: reporting what Jonathan did. It does not recommend what he did. The Bible, as so often in such cases, ignores the rub the modern reader may feel. It is important, however, to distinguish between what the Bible reports and what it recommends. It tells you that Jonathan prevaricated for David; it does not say, “Go, and do thou likewise.” The Bible is telling a story, not teaching ethics here (1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart [Christian Focus, 1996]: p. 211, n. 9).

Contrast this, however, with the way one of the old path men deals with the same situation. Matthew Poole offers the following commentary on David hiding in the field in v. 24:

David hid himself, to wit, at the time appointed; for it seems probable that he went first to Beth-lehem, as he bade Jonathan tell his father, ver. 6, and thence returned to the field, when the occasion required; else we must charge him with a downright lie, which ought not to be imagined (without any apparent cause) concerning so good a man, especially in so distressed and dangerous a condition. And why should he hide himself there so long before the time when Jonathan was to come thither to inform him? Nor were there any need of appointing a certain time to meet, if David were there all the while.

The contrast reminded me of Peter Master’s comments concerning the description of the judges in Not Like Any Other Book: Interpreting the Bible (Wakeman Trust, 2004). Masters claims that many of the judges (like Samson and Jephthah) “have been horribly maligned and discredited” by modern interpreters (p. 109; see chapter 13, “Sticking Up for the Judges: A glorious range of heroes denigrated,” pp. 109-127). Would Masters say the same about the assumptions regarding the character of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20?

JTR

Gurnall (1617-1679) laments the decline of psalm singing

2011-11-11T08:20:00.001-05:00

The Puritan William Gurnall laments the decline of psalm singing in his day (though the context indicates the issue was not merely the singing of inspired psalms per se, over against uninspired compositions, but whether singing itself is a regulated element in NT worship):

Believers sometimes slide away from cherished old principles of Scripture during unsettled times. Consider the singing of Psalms, for instance. So many have laid down this practice that I must ask if they ever enjoyed precious communion with God in the first place. Have their hearts ever danced up to God with heavenly love as they sang with their lips? How strange to hear a godly person deny this! If you ever met with God at this door of the tabernacle, Christian, did your heart grow cold before you threw away the duty of singing praises to Him?

The Christian in Complete Armour, Vol. 2 (Banner ed.): p. 32.

The Vision (11/10/11): Jonathan and David

2011-11-10T18:11:00.002-05:00

Last Sunday morning our sermon text was 1 Samuel chapter 20 which focuses on the relationship between Jonathan and David. In the spiritual application I traced six places in 1 Samuel 20 where the relationship between Jonathan and David anticipates the relationship between the believer and the Son of David, the Lord Jesus Christ. Here’s a review of those six points:

1. Jonathan promised David to do whatever he desired (v. 4).

The believer promises Christ to do all the he desires and asks of us. We must be completely submitted to the will of Christ.

2. Jonathan asked of David to be shown the kindness of the Lord (vv. 14-15).

The believer seeks “the kindness of the LORD” in and through Christ.

3. Jonathan loved David (v. 17).

Believers love Christ. It is not a chore, a sacrifice, or an inconvenience to be with and serve those whom we love.

4. Jonathan’s friendship with David resulted in anger from Saul (vv. 30, 33).

The believer’s friendship with Christ will often result in misunderstanding, anger, and hostility from the world (cf. Matthew 10:34-39; John 15:18-25).

5. Saul threatened Jonathan that he would have to lose his kingdom if David gained his kingdom (v. 31)

The believer must lose “his kingdom” (authority, rule, mastery, autonomy) over his own life, so that Christ might build his own kingdom in that man’s heart (cf. Luke 9:23; Galatians 2:20).

6. Jonathan asked David for an everlasting covenant (v. 42; cf. v. 23).

The believer trusts in Christ and is given eternal life (John 3:16).

May we cultivate a Jonathan-like love for the Son of David, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Spurgeon on Psalm 42:4: "We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it"

2011-11-10T07:24:00.000-05:00

OK, let me continue the flow of Spurgeon and the simplicity of congregational singing in NT worship. Here is part of Spurgeon's exposition of Psalm 42:4 in The Treasury of David:

David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettinesses of a quartette, the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it.

JTR

Spurgeon on Psalm 33:2: "No instrument like the human voice"

2011-11-09T15:01:00.000-05:00

Here are even more thoughts from Spurgeon on singing and New Testament worship from his exposition of Psalm 33:2 in the The Treasury of David:

Praise the Lord with harp. Men need all the help they can get to stir them up to praise. This is the lesson to be gathered from the use of musical instruments under the old dispensation. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days, when Jesus gives us spiritual manhood, we can make melody without strings and pipes. We who do not believe these things to be expedient in worship, lest they should mar its simplicity, do not affirm them to be unlawful, and if any George Herbert or Martin Luther can worship God better by the aid of well tuned instruments, who shall gainsay their right? We do not need them, they would hinder than help our praise, but if others are otherwise minded, are they not living in gospel liberty? Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best of music. No instrument like the human voice. As a help to singing the instrument is alone to be tolerated, for keys and strings do not praise the Lord. With the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. The Lord must have a full octave, for all notes are his, and all music belongs to him. Where several pieces of music are mentioned, we are taught to praise God with all the powers which we possess.

Under the “Explanatory Notes and Quaint Sayings” section on Psalm 33:2, Spurgeon adds the following:

Verse 2. Praise the Lord with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. Here we have the first mention of musical instruments in the Psalms. It is to be observed that the early fathers almost with one accord protest against their use in churches; as they are forbidden in the Eastern church to this day, where yet, by the consent of all, the singing is infinitely superior to anything that can be heard in the West. J. M. Neale.

Verse 2. Harp; Psaltery, etc. Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaise. Thomas Aquinas. It was only permitted to the Jews, as sacrifice was, for the heaviness and grossness of their souls. God condescended to their weakness, because they were lately drawn off from idols; but now instead of organs, we may use our own bodies to praise him withal. Chrysostom. The use of singing with instrumental music was not received in the Christian churches as it was among the Jews in their infant state, but only the use of plain song. Justin Martyr.

Verse 2. (last clause). It is said that David praised God upon an instrument of ten strings; and he would never have told how many strings there were, but that without doubt he made use of them all. God hath given all of us bodies, as it were, instruments of many strings; and can we think it music good enough to strike but one string, to call upon him with our tongues only? No, no; when the still sound of the heart by holy thoughts, and the shrill sound of the tongue by holy words, and the loud sound of the hands by pious works, do all join together, that is God's concert, and the only music wherewith he is affected. Sir Richard Baker.

JTR

Spurgeon on Organs

2011-11-09T11:07:00.000-05:00

I had coffee this AM with my friend Greg C. and we got to talking about music and singing in worship. I told him I would re-post this intro and excerpt from Spurgeon on organs:

We are not the first generation to deal with “worship wars.” In Spurgeon’s day the newest thing was not the guitar or drum set but the organ. In the Metropolitan Tabernacle the singing of psalms and hymns was done without instrumental accompaniment. In Spurgeon’s Autobiography (the titled is a bit of a misnomer since the book was prepared by his wife and secretary after this death) we read the following comments:

When William Cuff was minister at Providence Chapel, Hackney, one of the College Conference meetings was held there. The President presided, and in the course of his speech, he pointed to the organ and said, ‘I look upon that as an innovation; and if I were here, I should want it to be an outovation, and then we would have an ovation over its departure. I was once asked to open an organ—I suppose the people wanted me to preach in connection with the introduction of the new instrument. I said that I was quite willing to open it as Simple Simon opened his mother’s bellows, to see where the wind came from, but I could not take any other part in the ceremony.’

Preaching at a chapel in the country, Mr. Spurgeon gave out Isaac Watts’ version of the 91st Psalm—

He that hath made his refuge God,

Shall find a most secure abode;--

And then added, ‘We’ll sing it to the tune “Refuge”’. The organist leaned over from the gallery, and whispered to the preacher, “It is not in our tune book, sir.’ ‘Then it ought to be,’ answered Spurgeon; ‘no tune book is complete unless “Refuge” is in it;’ and, turning to the congregation, he said, ‘The last time I was here, you people praised God for yourselves, but now you have a machine to do the praising for you. If I can’t play “Refuge”, we’ll have it all the same, and I’ll start it myself.’

C. H. Spurgeon: Autobiography: Volume 2 (Banner, 1973): p. 441.

Owen on the Holy Spirit and the promises of Christ

2011-11-08T07:06:00.000-05:00

Another gem from John Owen, Communion with God (Banner ed.):

A believer may be in the saddest and darkest condition imaginable. Even so, the Holy Spirit is able to break through all this and bring to mind the promises of Christ. By this work, the Holy Spirit enables Christians to sit in dungeons, rejoice in flames and glory in troubles. If he brings to mind the promises of the Christ for our comfort, neither Satan nor man, neither sin nor the world, nor even death itself shall take away our comfort. Saints who have communion with the Holy Spirit know this only too well. Sometimes the heavens are black over them, and the earth trembles under them. Disasters and distresses appear which are so full of horror and darkness that they are tempted to give up in despair. So how greatly are their spirits revived when the Holy Spirit brings the words of Christ to their minds for their comfort and joy. Thus, believers are not dependent on outward circumstances for their happiness, for they have the inward and powerfully effective work of the Holy Spirit, to whom they give themselves up by faith (p. 179).

Video of the Week: How to be a Biblical Scholar

2011-11-07T19:39:00.000-05:00

I got this link from someone on the RB list. Pretty funny...and true.

Thomas Vincent on the Apographa

2011-11-07T07:58:00.000-05:00

I have started a new sermon series on Sunday afternoons through Spurgeon’s Catechism (an edited version of the Westminster Shorter Catechism). In preparation I am reading Thomas Vincent’s The Shorter Catechism Explained and Proved from Scripture (first published 1674; Banner ed., 1980).

In his comments on the second question, “What rule hath God given us to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?” Vincent lists ten ways the Scriptures can be proved to be the Word of God. The eighth of those reasons in the following (emphasis added):

Because the Scriptures were confirmed by miracles. We read of many miracles in the Scriptures, especially those which were wrought by Jesus Christ and his disciples, to confirm their doctrine, that it was from God; such as curing some who were born blind, raising the dead, calming the sea with a word, and many more. Now, these and like miracles were from the immediate hand of God; and the relation we have faithfully handed down unto us, as appeareth by the writings still amongst us, of several holy men upon them and concerning them, as also by the several copies of them (which could not be forged, and not be found out) agreeing in the same relation. And as surely as God did effect those miracles, so surely is God the author of the Scriptures, which are confirmed by them.

The thing I am struck by here is Vincent’s implied understanding of the transmission of the Scriptures. With regard to the Scripture’s “relation” of miracles which come “from the immediate hand of God” (cf. Vincent’s description of the source of miracles with the confession’s language concerning the immediate inspiration of Scripture), by the autographic hand of “several holy men” but “also by the several copies of them (which could not be forged, and not be found out)”. Note the high view of the preservation of the Word of God through the apographa and not merely the autographa. Again, contrast his view with that of modern inerrancy:

Vincent: Autographa→ faithfully preserved in apographa

Modern Inerrancy: Autographa→ corruption of apographa in transmission→ restoration of autographa by modern text critics

CRBC Worship November 2011

2011-11-04T22:41:00.006-04:00

Note: In Lord’s Day morning worship we will continue our series on the Life of David in 1 Samuel. In afternoon worship, we will continue our series through Spurgeon’s Catechism.

November 6

Opening Psalm Psalm 61

Message: Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 20)

Psalm 115 (DIX)

No. 256 Break Thou the Bread of Life

No. 69 Lord, with glowing heart

Opening Psalm Psalm 62

Message: The Only Rule: The Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16)

Psalm 108:1-6 (FESTAL SONG)

Psalm 108:7-13 (FESTAL SONG)

No. 713 I Am Thine, O Lord

November 13

Opening Psalm Psalm 63

Message: The Massacre of God’s Ministers (1 Samuel 21-22)

No. 502 Rejoice, ye pure in heart

No. 706 Take Time to be Holy

Psalm 142 (Note tune: DUKE STREET)

Opening Psalm Psalm 64

Message: What do the Scriptures principally teach? (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

Psalm 65:1-5 (WEBB)

No. 454 My Faith Looks Up to Thee

Psalm 65:6-13 (WEBB)

November 20

Opening Psalm Psalm 65

Message: David Spares Saul (1 Samuel 23-24)
No. 86 Now thank we all our God

Psalm 29 (KREMSER)

No. 705 Marvelous Grace of our Loving Lord

Opening Psalm Psalm 66

Message: What is God? (Exodus 3:14; John 4:24)

No. 420 Blessed Lord, in thee is refuge

Psalm 85 (ST. GEORGE’S WINDSOR)

No. 204 Alleluia! Alleluia!

November 27

Opening Psalm Psalm 67

Message: Nabal’s Folly (1 Samuel 25)
No. 615 Come, Ye Thankful People, Come

Psalm 143 (ST. ELIZABETH)

No. 731 And can it be

Opening Psalm Psalm 68

Message: The Trinity: God in Three Persons (Matthew 28:19-20)
No. 87 Holy, Holy, Holy

No. 421 Rock of Ages (TOPLADY)

Psalm 97 (ST. ANNE)

The Vision (11/3/11): Consider the privileges of that house

2011-11-03T21:17:00.000-04:00

I’ve been reading through John Owen’s Communion with God (Banner of Truth ed.). In this classic work, Owen describes the fellowship that believers have with the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

In one section, Owen reflects on the privileges believers have as members of the family of God. Here are a few excerpts:

The church is the ‘house of God’ (1 Tim 3:15; Heb 3:6). In the church, Christ keeps and maintains his whole family, ruling them according to his mind and will. Now who shall have any right in the house of God except his own children? We will not allow a right to any but our own children in our houses. Will God then allow any right in his house to any but his children?....

Consider the nature of God’s house. It is made up of ‘living stones’ (1 Pet 2:5). All those in this house are a ‘chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, his own special people’ (1 Pet 2:9). They are ‘saints and faithful brethren’ (Col 1:2). Every one of them is righteous (Isa 60:21). The whole fabric of the house is glorious (Isa 54:11-14)…..

Consider the privileges of that house. These privileges will not suit any others but the children of God. Is food given to a dead man? Will he grow strong by it? Will he thrive on it? The things of the family and house of God are food for living souls, and only God’s children are alive. All others are dead in trespasses and sins. Look at any of the things which saints enjoy in the family of God and you will find that not one of them are suited to unbelievers….

Only the children of God have the right and title to the things of God. They have fellowship with one another and with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. They set forth the Lord’s death till he comes again. They are entrusted with the ordinances of God’s house. And who shall deny them the enjoyment of this right, or keep them from what Christ has bought for them? And the Lord will give them hearts to make use of this privilege and not wander on the mountains, forgetting their resting place (pp. 162-163).

This week, let us consider what a blessing it is be part of God’s family, his household. Let us consider and treasure the spiritual privileges and benefits have been given to those made alive in Christ.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Zaspel, Warfield, Owen, Inerrancy and the 2LBCF (1689)

2011-11-02T22:25:00.001-04:00

Another follow up to the question of “inerrancy” and the WCF and the 2LBCF (1689):

I’ve been reading through Fred Zaspel’s The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway, 2010) and ran across the section on “Autographs Only” (p. 118) in which Zaspel writes:

It should be noted that Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration necessarily concerns the autographs specifically, and the copied texts only by implication and only insofar as they are accurately copied. As did the Westminster Confession of Faith, Warfield argues that while translations of Scripture may faithfully convey the Word of God, and while the text of Scripture has in God’s providence been substantially preserved in its purity, it is the original text alone that was immediately inspired of God. The human biblical authors and their writings are the focus of concern in this discussion.

The thing to be challenged here is Zaspel’s assumption that Warfield’s views were consistent with the WCF. Though the confession does indeed affirm that the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek were “immediately inspired,” it proceeds to affirm that these texts “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic” (N.B.: this is quite different from Zaspel’s assertion that the confession affirms that the Word of God has been only “substantially preserved in its purity”). There is no mention in the confession of inerrant autographs that were corrupted in transmission and that now must be restored through modern critical text scholarship. No, the assumption is that the immediately inspired autographs have been providentially preserved in the apographs. The confession then proceeds to affirm that translations be made from these texts (the preserved apographs) into “the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come.”

As I’ve noted before, I think we can get a good impression of how the framers of the WCF and the 2LBCF looked at the issue of the text of Scripture by examining the writings of John Owen on Scripture in Volume 16 of his Collected Works. In “The Divine Original,” for example, Owen writes:

“It is true, we have not the autographa of Moses and the prophets, of the apostles and evangelists; but the apographa or ‘copies” which we have contain every iota in them” (pp. 300-301).

And in “Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture” he writes:

“…We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining…. In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are all to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves” (p. 357).

And:

“Let it be remembered that the vulgar copy we use was the public possession of many generations,--that upon the invention of printing it was in actual authority throughout the world with them that used and understood that language, as far as anything appears to the contrary; let that, then, pass for the standard, which is confessedly its right and due, and we shall, God assisting, quickly see how little reason there is to pretend such varieties of readings as we are now surprised withal;” (p. 366).

We can assume that the view of the framers of the WCF and 2LBCF (1689) on Scripture was closer to Owen and, therefore, quite different from that of Warfield. Here is a summary of the contrast:

Owen/Puritan/Early Particular Baptist view:

Immediate inspiration of autographa → pure preservation in apographa

Warfield/Modern Text Critical/Chicago Statement view:

Inerrant autographa → corrupted apographa → reconstructed autographa

JTR

Inerrancy and the 2LBCF (1689)

2011-11-01T22:50:00.002-04:00

Bob Gonzales of the Reformed Baptist Seminary recently wrote a post suggesting that chapter one in the 2LBCF (1689) might be updated to include a reference to “inerrancy.” Reformed theologian-pastor Richard Barcellos offered several responses in the comments suggesting that the confession should not be altered. RB, in particular, calls attention to the fact that though several WCF affirming pastors championed the inerrancy movement of the 70s (e.g., J. M. Boice) they did not suggest altering their historic confession, the WCF. RB implies we should do the same. That is, affirm inerrancy but not alter the confession.

Here are some thoughts on this debate:

1. I agree with RB that the 2LBCF (1689) should not be altered to include the term “inerrancy,” but differ from him regarding the reason.

2. I believe the confession already affirms the concept of “inerrancy,” when that term is taken to mean an affirmation of the complete and total trustworthiness of the Scriptures and their freedom from error in all matters they address (including in the fields of history and science and not just in doctrinal or spiritual issues). This, in my view, is fully encompassed in the confession’s current use of the term “infallibility.”

3. In my view, however, the confession does not affirm “inerrancy” in the modern sense in which it is defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This statement, following the lead of B. B. Warfield, affirms the inerrancy of the original autographs of Scripture and does not address the providential preservation of the apographs, as in the confession. For a critique of Warfield’s construal of the inerrant autographs, see Theodore P. Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text (The Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1997). For a guide to how the framers of the WCF and the 2LBCF likely saw the nature of Scripture, see John Owen’s “Of the Divine Original of the Scripture” and “Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text” in vol. 16 of his Collected Works.

4. In addition, one might well argue that the neo-evangelical emphasis on the inerrancy of the original autographs, a la the Chicago Statement, has been a failure. For illustrations of this, see wrangling in recent years in the scholarly Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), which uses “inerrancy” as a limit test for membership, over Clark Pinnock and Openness Theology (i.e., Pinnock claimed to affirm “inerrancy” while denying an orthodox doctrine of God and survived an attempt to remove him from ETS membership). Along these lines, Francis Beckwith was elected to the Presidency of ETS but had to abdicate after he announced he had decided to convert to Roman Catholicism. In his memoir, he stated, “I did not believe that the ETS doctrinal statement was inconsistent with my Catholic beliefs” (Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic [Brazos Press, 2009]: p. 118). We might add a note here about the more recent row over Peter Enns of Westiminster Seminary who could belong to ETS and affirm its inerrancy statement while, at the same time, denying the historical reliability of the OT (see Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the OT [Baker Academic, 2005] and the response by Greg Beale in The Erosion of Innerancy in Evangelicalism [Crossway, 2008]). Given the failure of “innerancy” to safeguard orthodoxy in evangelicalism (as illustrated by the ETS), why should this term be added to a reformed confession that is more than adequate as it is?

JTR

Bunyan: "Saints' fellowship" a cure for spiritual lethargy

2011-11-01T06:20:00.001-04:00

When Hopeful and Christian come to the Enchanted Ground in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Hopeful tells his companion, “I do now begin to grow so drowsy that I can scarcely hold up mine eyes; let us lie down here and take one nap.”

But Christian responds, “By no means … lest sleeping we never awake more.” He then asks, “Do you not remember that one of the Shepherds bid us beware of the Enchanted Ground?”

So, the pilgrims avoid disaster. Christian closes the “Enchanted Ground” scene by singing,

“When saints do sleepy grow, let them come hither,

And hear how these two pilgrims talk together;

Yea, let them learn of them, in any wise,

Thus to keep ope their drowsy slumb’ring eyes.

Saints’ fellowship, if it be managed well,

Keeps them awake, and that in spite of hell.”

Indeed, how we need the “Saints’ fellowship” to keep us awake and alert as we make the pilgrimage through this life.

JTR

John Gill's "Of Singing Psalms" (Trumpet Books)

2011-10-31T06:21:00.001-04:00

I have had an interest for some time in putting together some Reformed and Baptistic reprints. I recently completed my first project, a newly edited and formated version of John Gill's Of Singing Psalms, As a Part of Public Worship, under the imprint of "Trumpet Books." This first effort was a bit of an experiment. The booklet is short (only 28 pages) and (unfortunately) the cost needed to be high. I hope future projects will be both more substantial (and, correspondingly, more affordable).

Gill's discussion of the Biblical argument for psalm singing in public worship is very valuable, and the booklet makes this material available for those who don't have access to his Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity.

Here's the blurb on the back of booklet:

What should the church sing in its worship services? Contemporary Christian music? Traditional hymns? Today's churches have been torn apart by the so-called "worship wars." In this booklet one finds a fresh, Biblical response to the question of what is appropriate for believers to sing in worship--namely, it calls for the singing of Biblical psalms. In Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, God commands the singing of "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." In many circles, there has been a return to the Biblical and Calvinistic views on the doctrines of salvation. Will there also be a hunger for Biblical and Reformed worship that includes the singing of inspired Psalms?

The Gill booklet on psalm singing can be ordered (first preference) through my createspace.com site.

It is also available here on amazon.

Eventually I hope to have some copies on hand at an even lower price (maybe c. $5.00 per booklet). You can let me know directly if interested. I also have a second project in the works that I hope to complete soon.

JTR

William Rushton, Jr. reflects on the Lord's dealings with him

2011-10-29T10:17:00.000-04:00

William Ruston, Jr. (1796-1838) was a Particular Baptist of the “high Calvinist” persuasion from Liverpool, England. In his journal on Saturday, December 6, 1828 he wrote the following, reflecting on his conversion in childhood and his pilgrimage since:

This day twenty-two years ago, the Lord first savingly impressed my heart with the conviction of sin, and my need of Christ. And when I look back at His dealing with me, in bearing with my manners in the wilderness, I am astonished at His longsuffering and forbearance. I find that I am at this hour nothing but a miserable sinner; all my righteousnesses are as filthy rags, and nothing have I to plead before God but the infinitely meritorious blood and righteousness of Jesus, and nothing else do I desire. My grief is, that I know so little of it, lived so little upon it, and publish it so feebly and so seldom to others. I want to know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and to show forth His glory in heart, lip, and life, forever and ever.

JTR

Scenes from CRBC Midweek Meeting

2011-10-28T12:30:00.002-04:00

Given that our members and attendees are spread out over Central Virginia, we have been trying to have one of our CRBC midweek meetings per month in a member family home. We enjoyed fellowship last Wednesday (10/26/11) with the McG. family in Waynesboro. Here are some fellowship scenes:

Singing Psalms with "Worthy to be Praised'

2011-10-27T20:46:00.000-04:00

When I get emails from Sherman Isbell and Malcolm Watts within the same day recommending the same resource, I sit up and take notice.

The resource is a series of of CDs titled Worthy to be Praised, which comes from the Psalmody Committee of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing). The lyrics are from the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter. For those new to or interested in learning more about psalm singing, this, indeed, looks like it could be a wonderful aid.

JTR

The Vision (10.27.11): Where is Christ in 1 Samuel?

2011-10-27T20:16:00.000-04:00

Image: Reading John 14-15 at CRBC midweek Bible Study and Prayer meeting (10/26/11).

I began last Lord’s Day morning’s sermon on 1 Samuel 17 (the David and Goliath narrative) by noting that this kind of passage is perhaps the most difficult to preach. I would much rather preach a text that is less familiar to most people than one that is overly familiar. The problem with such passages is that we have a hard time listening to them, because we think we understand them or that we don’t have anything new or fresh to learn from them. My hope in preaching such a passage is to make the familiar seem strange and the strange familiar.

I also suggested that one of the dangers of preaching a passage like 1 Samuel 17 is our tendency to fall back on a “moralizing” interpretation. As Dale Ralph Davis notes:

If we don’t listen to this text, then we’ll end up bringing in all the junk about being courageous in the face of “your Goliaths,” whether the bully down the street (for primary Sunday School kids) or—everyone’s preoccupation—one’s poor self-image. We must protect ourselves from such deafness to the text (1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart, p. 179).

I further suggested that one of our ongoing tasks in listening to 1 Samuel (as well as the rest of the Old Testament) is looking for Christ and the gospel. Christ does not appear in the Scriptures only at the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem and forward. The Son was there with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the one true God from the very beginning. He is in both testaments.

Here are my notes from the conclusion of the message on 1 Samuel 17:

There is much to meditate upon in this great chapter. In the end, I hope you’ll agree that the center of this passage is not some moralizing point about how you can overcome your “Goliaths.” It is about God’s own zeal for his glory and how he sees fit to raise up men like David who want God’s glory more than their own, men who rest in their weakness rather than in their strength.

And where is Christ? I see him in the question of David in 1 Samuel 17:26: “What shall be done to the man that … taketh away the reproach from Israel?” Christ is the one who took away the reproach of spiritual Israel not by killing but by being killed on the cross. David trusted the Father to win a victory over Goliath; Christ trusted the Father to lose his life and then to take it up again.

Did you see any of those horrific images of Libya’s dictator Kaddafi this week? Many rejoiced to see this man getting what they believe he deserved. But when we look at Christ, we see an innocent man, a righteous man, suffering and dying for what he did not deserve. He took on our sin to take away our reproach.

Christ showed God’s power most perfectly in his weakness. The Goliath of sin and death, all the weight of sin and death fell defeated, never to rise again, as Christ arose victorious.

I look forward to looking for Christ with you as we continue listening to 1 Samuel in the days ahead.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Note: We will begin a new series in afternoon worship this Sunday (10/30/11) through the questions, answers, and scriptural proofs in Spurgeon’s Baptist Catechism.

Meeting Pastor Bala

2011-10-27T07:42:00.000-04:00

I had the opportunity meet Pastor Bala of Sovereign Grace Church, Auckland, New Zealand on Tuesday at the RB pastors' fraternal in Verona. This brother shared his testimony of growing up in Sri Lanka in a high caste Hindu family and coming to know the Lord. He serves his church in New Zealand and also publishes a widely read magazine in Tamil called The Bible Lamp and has translated over 20 Reformed and Calvinistic books into Tamil. It was very encouraging to hear of how the Lord is raising up solid, Reformed Baptist churches among Tamil speaking people in India.

JTR

Speaking on the Ending of Mark on November 14th in Roanoke

2011-10-25T08:17:00.000-04:00

I will be speaking again at the Society of Baptist Principles and Practices meeting at Plantation Road Baptist Church in Roanoke, VA on Monday, November 14, 2011 at 10:30 am. I hope to continue the theme I began in September on the traditional text of Scripture, by dealing specfically with the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20).

JTR

Text Note on 1 Samuel 17

2011-10-24T09:04:00.000-04:00

I preached yesterday on the David and Goliath narrative in 1 Samuel 17. Dale Ralph Davis makes the following remarks on the text of 1 Samuel 17:

"There is a major debate about the text of 1 Samuel 17 (-18). The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, ca. 200 B. C.) does not have verses 12-31, 41, 50, 55-58 as in most English versions, which follow the traditional Hebrew text (called the Masoretic text). (LXX also omits 18:1-5.) If one reads the story as LXX has it one finds a flowing, consistent account free from the tension and apparent inconsistencies of the MT. That is why I suspect the LXX here; it is too neat…." (1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart, p. 180, n. 1).

Comment: Davis’ note here indicates that in 1 Samuel 17, at least, the tendency of the LXX is to harmonize what it takes as difficulties in the MT. He even insists: “My own preference for MT in chapter 17 is no symptom of conservative paranoia” (Ibid). Indeed, Davis does not always support the traditional (i.e., MT) text of the Hebrew Bible. Despite this disclaimer, Davis’ point should raise questions about the reliability of the LXX in other places and the modern text critical tendency to prefer reconstructions based on the authority of the LXX (e.g., as in Psalm 145:13).

JTR

Sermon of the Week: Carl Trueman on the 400th Anniversary of the KJV

2011-10-21T12:01:00.001-04:00

Daniel H. sent me a link to the October 19, 2011 lecture by Dr.Carl Trueman at the Westminster Seminary Library on the 400th anniversay of the KJV. The lecture is titled, Throwing the Book at his Enemies: King James I and his Bible. You can listen to the message here.

Trueman gives a vivid overview of the historical circumstances leading to the KJV. He praises, in particular, the literary majesty of the KJV Bible, though he also makes clear that his preference is for modern translations in pulpit use. He does not address issues related to the traditional text upon which the KJV was based. In his sketch of James he relays an interesting physical description of the king from Charles Dickens and also passes on as likely the common modern (anachronistic?) suggestion that James was a homosexual. I hope to address this in a later post. Anyway, the lecture is worth a listen. Good to see the 400th anniversary milestone marked in some way in a Reformed, evangelical seminary.

JTR

The Vision (10/20/11): David's ministry of consolation to Saul

2011-10-20T07:17:00.000-04:00

We returned to the book of 1 Samuel last Lord’s Day morning at CRBC. Over the next several weeks we will be working our way through the narrative of the life of David (1 Samuel 16-31).

In 1 Samuel 16 we read of David’s anointing by the prophet Samuel. The last scene in the chapter describes how Saul, troubled by an evil spirit, is comforted by the harp playing of David.

In his commentary on this chapter, theologian Dale Ralph Davis suggests that the followers of Christ have much to ponder in “David’s ministry of consolation to Saul” (1 Samuel: Loooking on the Heart, p. 176). For the time being, Saul loves David. Saul “loved him greatly; and he became his armor-bearer” (v. 21). Before long, however Saul will hate David, see him as a rival, and attempt to kill him.

Here’s the spiritual analogy Davis draws for Christians: “As Saul will hate David, and as he is rejected by God yet sustained by David’s service, so the world hates Christ’s people (John 15:18-21) yet, in its doomed state, is only benefited by them.” We are the salt of the earth, and the light of the world. Christians in the society and culture around us keep it from “rotting into complete decay,” but we are hated (p. 176). As David played the harp for Saul, so we conduct a ministry of consolation to the world around us.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Text Note on 1 Samuel 16:7 (with thoughts on the LXX from Owen)

2011-10-18T08:31:00.000-04:00

Last Lord’s Day morning we shifted from our Romans sermon series back to 1 Samuel. In reading through 1 Samuel 16, I came across textual/translation issues with v. 7, which is the doctrinal heart of this passage.

Comparison of translations:

KJV 1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

NIV 1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

NASB 1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

The issue:

At first glance, the difference in these renderings may not be readily apparent. They seem to follow the same text. This is one of those places where the AV’s use of italic, however, is significant. The phrase in question is: “for the LORD seeth not as man seeth.” The AV italicizes words that are added to the text, since the Hebrew literally reads, “for not as man seeth [ki lo asher yireh ha-adam].” We do notice a difference in the NASB which reads, “for God sees not as man sees,” using “God” rather than “LORD” and placing the supplied verb “sees” in italic.

The textual notes of the NKJV give light as to the textual issue here. It reads: “LXX For God does not see as man sees; Tg. It is not by the appearance of a man; Vg. Nor do I judge according to the looks of a man”. Now it become more evident that the NASB perhaps favors the LXX and that the other modern translation may or may not also be influenced by the LXX, but, without the use of italic, it is harder to judge this.

Conclusions:

In his commentary on this verse, Dale Ralph Davis adds this note: “I have translated verse 7 following the Hebrew text as we have it. I know the arguments but am not yet convinced that the text needs correcting on the basis of LXX which includes “as God sees.” However, most English versions follow LXX here….” (1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart [Christian Focus, 1996: pp. 169-170]). He adds here that a Dead Sea Scroll fragment (4 QSamb) supports the LXX reading.

As with some other passages we have previously noted (cf. e. g., 1 Samuel 13:1; Psalm 145:13, etc.), there is a distinct tendency in contemporary translations to reconstruct the OT text, by abandoning the traditional Hebrew text and embracing a reconstruction based on the LXX. I think 1 Samuel 16:7 will likely be a useful verse to check in forthcoming translations to see how it is rendered/handled.

Reading some of the older men reminds us that the preference for the LXX is nothing new. John Owen in “The Divine Original of Scripture” (Collected Works, Vol. 16; p. 301) offers a critique of one of his contemporaries (Capellus) who, Owen says, made “an unhappy attempt” to depart from the traditional Hebrew text, by relying “upon uncertain conjectures and the credit of corrupt translations.” He adds, “The translation especially insisted on by him is that of the LXX.” Owen laments: “Strange that so corrupt a stream should be judged a fit means to cleanse the fountain.” It is unlikely that Owen would have budged from this assessment, even in light of the Dead Sea discoveries.

JTR

Carl Trueman on T. D. Jakes and "The Elephant Room"

2011-10-17T09:09:00.000-04:00

Just listened to this podcast that came as a link on the RB Pastors discussion list. In it Carl Trueman addresses the recent controversy (see this post, among many) swirling in YRR circles regarding James MacDonald's invitation of one-ness Pentecostal T. D. Jakes to appear in his “Elephant Room” discussion group. Mark Dever was apparently also supposed to appear in the discussion but backed out when the controversy started to bubble. Trueman makes some typically sagacious comments. Sidenote: I find it interesting that the SBC’s LifeWay bookstores also sell T. D. Jakes’ books (look here), but this does not yet seem to have grabbed the attention of Calvinistic SBCers.

JTR

Watts on Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration

2011-10-17T08:48:00.001-04:00

I’d been meaning to do a post on Malcolm Watt’s sermon on the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9) when he was with us. In particular, I was intrigued by Watts’ interpretation of the appearance of Moses and Elijah (v. 3). Not only did he point out that they represented the law and prophets, but he also meditated on the fact that Moses would have been there in spirit and Elijah in body (as one who was taken from the earth before death). So, in this way, they represent the believers in the intermediate state (present with the Lord in spirit) and the final state (spirit and body).

JTR

The Vision (10.13.11): Some Ideas on How to Deepen Your Enjoyment of the Lord's Day

2011-10-13T15:30:00.004-04:00

Here are four practical ideas on how to make the Lord’s Day a blessing:

1. Understand the spiritual significance of the Fourth Commandment.

Of the top ten principles that God has given to mankind, one of the ten is that we remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy (Exod 20:8-11). The Christian Sabbath is now the Lord’s Day, the day that Jesus rose from the dead (John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2; Heb 4:9; Rev 1:10). What better time is there to come together to worship him!

To understand the doctrine of the Lord’s Day even better, study Chapter 22 “Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day” in the Second London Baptist Confession and questions 49-51 of Spurgeon’s Catechism, along with the Scriptural proofs.

2. Set apart this day as special.

This is not a call to legalism but holiness. Sabbath keeping is not a “work” that saves! Your conscience will need to lead you in the observance of the Lord’s Day. We do not want to be like the Pharisees who followed “the tradition of the elders” rather than Scripture (see Mark 7:2). We have not been appointed as spies over each other. The Holy Spirit must be our guide.

The Bible allows for acts of mercy (e.g., helping people or animals), necessity (e.g., eating), and piety (e.g., driving to church) on the Lord’s Day (read carefully Matthew 12:1-13; Mark 2:23—3:5; Luke 6:1-10).

We make this day special by intentionally laying aside the things we normally do (and that are not wrong, like our ordinary work) and giving special attention to things that might otherwise get crowded out the rest of the week (e.g., worship, devotion, prayer, spiritual conversations, ministry, rest, and reflection).

For encouragement in this area, consider reading Walter Chantry’s book Call the Sabbath a Delight (Banner of Truth, 1991) or Bruce A. Ray’s Finding Rest in a Restless World (P & R, 2000).

3. Make worship a priority.

In the Old Testament, the Lord instructed his people to set apart the Sabbath for “an holy convocation” (see Leviticus 23:1-3). As noted above, the Scriptural witness is that the New Covenant believers gathered on the first day of the week for worship of the risen Jesus.

On the most practical level, this means making a commitment regularly to be present for the public exercises of the worship of God. In our church, this means, unless providentially hindered, being present for morning worship, the fellowship meal, and the afternoon service in which we share in the Lord’s Supper, the spiritual meal that gives us nourishment for the week ahead. It also means making time for private and family worship on this day.

4. Be intentional in preparation and planning for the Lord’s Day.

It has been said that a good Sunday begins on Saturday evening. Your enjoyment of the Lord’s Day might be helped by going to bed at a reasonable hour on Saturday night. It might also be helped by taking care of “ordinary” matters on Saturday so that Sunday can be set apart. This might include setting out clothing, preparing meals, doing shopping, getting gas for the car, etc.

Sundays may be a good time to visit with extended family, friends, and neighbors. It is a wonderful day to drop by and visit in a nursing or retirement home. These activities can be made part of the spiritual observance of the day. They can also usually be scheduled around the gatherings of the church for worship without being in conflict with them.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Gill: "I neither thought it, bought it, nor sought it."

2011-10-13T08:31:00.000-04:00

I've been reading John Rippon's A Brief Memoir of the Life and Writings of the Late Rev. John Gill, D. D. (Sprinkle reprint, 2006). Rippon reports Gill's surprise when he was unexpectedly awarded the Doctor of Divinity degree by Marischal College and University of Aberdeen in 1748:

"Hence, when his deacons, in London, congratulated him on the respect which had been shewn him, he thanked them, pleasantly adding, I neither thought it, bought it, nor sought it" (p. 59).

Word Magazine: Interviews with Malcolm Watts

2011-10-12T09:35:00.000-04:00

Image: Pastor and Mrs. Watts at the Dulles Airport.

I finally got around to posting two new editions of Word Magazine to sermonaudio yesterday. Both include interviews with Pastor Malcolm Watts.

The first interview covers issues related to worship and the regulative principle. We did this one after worship on October 2nd.

The second interview covers various issues related to church government (elders, deacons, gifted brethren, and call to ministry). It ends with Pastor Watts describing a visit to his church in the 1970s by Martyn Lloyd-Jones. We did this interview while riding to Dulles Airport early on Monday morning October 3rd. Sadly, I fouled up the recording of the first half of the conversation on Elders, but got the second half. The sound quality is a little rough (car noise) but the content is good for those who can overlook that.

Here are the links:

Interview 1 with Malcolm Watts: Worship

Interview 2 with Malcolm Watts: Church Government, etc.

2011 Keach Conference Audio Online

2011-10-11T19:44:00.002-04:00

Image: Dr. Joel Beeke (l) and Malcolm Watts (r), 2011 Keach Conference Speakers

The audio recordings of the messages from the 2011 Keach Conference has been posted online at Covenant RBC's sermonaudio site. The messages:

Friday, September 30:

Dr. Joel Beeke, How to Respond Christianly to Providential Afflictions

Pastor Malcolm Watts, The Providential Preservation of the Ancient Scriptures

Saturday, October 1:

Pastor Malcolm Watts, Providence in the Translation of the English Bible

Dr. Joel Beeke, Job's Submission to Providence

Speakers, Question and Answer Session

Carroll on Romans

2011-10-11T08:12:00.000-04:00

B. H. Carroll (1843-1914) on the book of Romans (from An Interpretation of the Engish Bible, Vol. XIV, p. 79):

It is the most fundamental, vital, logical, profound, and systematic discussion of the whole plan of salvation in all the literature of the world. It touches all men; it is universal in in application; its roots, not only in man's creation and fall, but also in the timeless purposes and decrees of God before the world was, and fruits in the eternity after this world's purgation.

180

2011-10-10T16:29:00.000-04:00

Someone recently sent me a link to Ray Comfort's "180" video in which the street evangelist begins by talking about Hitler and leads to a conversation about abortion. Most interesting to see the bubble of relativism burst. Best illustration: When one interviewee says she does not know whether a fetus is a life or not, Comfort asks if a person was going to demolish a building and he was told there may or may not be a person inside whether or not he should proceed.

Murray on Romans 11:33-36: A Response of Adoring Amazement

2011-10-10T08:26:00.001-04:00

I completed a series through Romans chapters 9-11 on Sunday morning with a message on Paul's doxology (11:33-36). Here is an insight from John Murray's Romans commentary on this passage:

If we are sensitive to the depths of the design here stated, we must sense the unfathomable, and we are constrained to say: God’s way is in the sea and his paths in the great waters: his footsteps are not known (cf. Psalm 77:19). This was the reaction of Paul himself. Hence the exclamations: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (vs. 33). It is not the reaction of painful bewilderment but the response of adoring amazement, redolent of joy and praise. When our faith and understanding peer to the horizons of revelation, it is then our hearts and minds are overwhelmed with the incomprehensible mystery of God’s works and ways (Romans, Vol. 2, p. 103).

The Vision (10/6/11): Reflections on the death of a famous person

2011-10-06T21:14:00.004-04:00

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (Heb 9:27).

The story dominating the news today has been the death of Apple CEO Steve Jobs. The public praise for Jobs has been effusive. He has been called the Edison of our generation. Jobs died in only his 56th year, having survived a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer by about seven years. I do not know what spiritual beliefs Jobs held. Several reports on his life noted that as a young man he traveled to India seeking spiritual enlightenment. At a Stanford graduation speech, given after the diagnosis of his cancer, he semi-mockingly noted that even those who believe in heaven were in no hurry to go there. Jobs has now passed from this life to the next, and the Lord is his Judge.

Here are a few further spiritual thoughts that came to mind on Jobs’ death:

First, Jobs has been praised for his creativity, industry, and aesthetic sensitivity. Apple products not only worked well, but they also looked good. But where did Jobs and other designers get the raw materials with which they worked? Who created the metal, the fiber, the pigments that gave to every artist, architects, and engineer the building blocks with which they created? What is more, who gave them their bodies, their hands, and their minds? All came from a much greater Designer and Creator.

Second, I was struck by one reporter who noted that Jobs did his best work after he learned he was dying man. Jobs, no doubt, was living with urgency and passion. This reminds me of the Puritan Pastor Richard Baxter who was fond of saying that he preached “as a dying man to dying men.” In truth we are all dying men. One day we too will go the way of all flesh. The apostle Paul reminds us that “we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out” (1 Tim 6:7). Jobs lived with urgency for his business and technology. Are we living with urgency for something much greater? Are we giving all for Christ?

Today I happened to open a book titled An Exposition of Titus (first published in 1612) by the Puritan minister Thomas Taylor (1576-1632). In a brief memoir of Taylor in the book’s preface I read that Taylor also died in his 56th year after contracting “pleurisy.” He is described as “a man full of meekness, love, and charity, which most liberally he would extend, where necessity required, without sounding the trumpet, his left hand not knowing what his right hand bestowed.” On his death bed, he was said to have expressed an abundance of joy. “In Christ,” said he, “I am more than a conqueror. Oh! I serve a good God who covers all imperfections, and gives great wages for little and in mercy he has provided for me some of the greatest.” His biographer relays that he continued praying and praising God until by degrees his voice failed him. On the following Lord’s Day “he departed out of this troublesome world to enjoy a perpetual Sabbath in a better, and to be forever with Christ his Redeemer, at whose right hand is crowned all fullness of delight, and pleasures for evermore.”

When we read of the deaths of famous men, we should consider the course of our own lives.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The cost of a Bible: From a farm, to a cow, to a gallon of milk.

2011-10-06T07:31:00.002-04:00

We gave away C. P. Hallihan's The Authorized Version: A Wonderful and Unfinished History (TBS, 2010) as a free gift to attendees at this year's Keach Conference.

I love this anecdote from one of the endnotes in this booklet which describes how changes in technology led to cheaper and more universally available copies of Scripture:

"It has been estimated that an early handwritten Bible on vellum might have cost the price of a farm, a 16^th century printed Bible the price of a cow, and the price of a modern printed Bible the cost of a gallon of milk” (p. 37, n. 5).

JTR