My favorite John Flavel anecdote

My favorite anecdote on the life of John Flavel is the story of how a fifteen year old lad named Luke Short heard Flavel preach in Dartmouth, England before immigrating to America and was converted by the message many years later:

Luke Short was a farmer in New England who attained his hundredth year in exceptional vigour though without having sought peace with God.  One day as he sat in the fields reflecting upon his long life, he recalled a sermon he had heard in Dartmouth as a boy before he sailed to America.  The horror of dying under the curse of God was impressed upon him as he meditated on the words he had heard so long ago and he was converted to Christ—eighty-five years after hearing John Flavel preach (Michael Bolond in the Publisher’s Introduction to John Flavel, The Mystery of Providence, p. 11).

Not only does this anecdote remind us of the potency of Flavel’s preaching but, more importantly, it demonstrates that God’s word never returns to him void (Isaiah 55:11).  Flavel never knew on this side of the kingdom how God would make the sermon he preached effectual to Short’s conversion.  It is also a reminder to preachers to labor faithfully, even when we do not see immediate, visible results.

JTR

More from Horton on preaching: Teaching, inspiration, or word from God?

Here are a few more thoughts from Horton on preaching from The Christian Faith.   He notes that evangelicals are guilty of the same downgrade in preaching as liberal Protestants and Catholics, namely reducing the sermon to an "expression of the personal piety of the speaker" or a "high level of instruction in religion and morals."  In contrast, Biblical preaching is an announcment from God himself.  Horton then adds the following:

To the extent that in more conservative circles preaching has been reduced to its didactic function or to inspiration and moral uplift, it is not surprising that younger believers look for alternative means of grace.  Typically, we prefer what we can see to what we can hear:  "A picture tells a thousand words."  Our new images may be not statues that we venerate, but there is a real danger in Protestant churches of once again silencing God's living and active speech (i.e., the exposition of Scripture) in a sea of our own insights, visual drama, and the blue luminosity of our computer screens.  Yet the Lord chose not only the content but the medium.  We do not find God; he finds us.  Faith comes not by feeling, thinking, seeing, or striving, but by hearing (pp. 762-63).

This is an insightful diagnosis of much that is happening in the contemporary worship scene among evangelicals, where many are seeking "alternative means of grace" (in music, drama, candles, etc.).  The parallel he draws between old images (medieval statuary) and new images (video projections) is also striking.  God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to spread the gospel and to build his church!

JTR 

Horton on the apostles' preaching and "ordinary" preaching

I'm still working my way through Michael Horton's The Christian Faith.  As one might expect in a Reformed systematic theology, Horton presents a high view of preaching as a means of grace.  In chapter 23 on "Word and Sacrament" he notes how the "ordinary" preaching of men today compares to the "extraordinary" preaching of the apostles:

Only the written canon occupies constitutional status in the church, but the subsequent preaching of ministers after the apostles communicates exactly the same Word (i.e., Christ and all his benefits) in the power of the same Spirit....  The difference between Peter's Pentecost sermon and that of an ordinary minister today  is that the former is part of the canon that norms our preaching.  However, when preaching today is faithful to that canon, it conveys exactly the same content and therefore is the same Word as that spoken by the prophets and apostles (p. 754).

Dan Wallace's recent manuscripts discoveries

Image:  A photo from the CSNTM website of Dan Wallace with "Father" Justin, Librarian of St. Catherine's Monastary, Mt. Sinai

Back on February 1, 2012 evangelical NT scholar Dan Wallace perked up ears when in his third “debate” (dialogue) with Bart Ehrman he made mention of having recently discovered a fragment from Mark’s Gospel that may date to the first century, which, if true, would make it the earliest record of Mark in existence.

On February 10, 2012 Wallace made a post to his The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscript Studies website titled, “Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?”  In that post he explained that “seven New Testament papyri have been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first.”  Wallace adds that “the first century fragment” has been dated “by one of the world’s leading paleographers,” who “said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century.”  He then states that this fragment is from the Gospel of Mark, and, if the dating is accurate, it would make this the earliest manuscript of Mark, predating p45 “by 100 to 150 years.”  Wallace also states that these manuscripts will be published in about a year.

There are a few things curious about the announcement.  Most notably, why the mystery?  Where were the manuscripts discovered?  Who discovered them?  Did Wallace’s CNTMS have a hand in their discovery?  How extensive is the Mark fragment and what verses does it include? What six books are the other manuscripts from and how extensive are they?  How have they been tentatively dated to the second century?  Who is the paleographer who has dated the Mark fragment to the first century?  How can he be “certain” of his dating?  What would be the purpose of keeping his identity secret?

Adding to the intrigue, Baptist Press did an article on Wallace’s manuscript find on February 16^th titled “Q & A:  A First Century Manuscript of Mark Found?” which includes an interview with Southeastern Seminary NT scholar Andreas Kostenberger.  Kostenberger states that “scholarly caution” should be maintained, noting that there have been other claims to the discovery of early manuscripts that have later fizzled (e.g., the notorious “Secret Gospel of Mark” that ended up being a hoax).   He also suggests that the reasons for discretion might be connected to a publishing agreement with Brill.  Baptist Press did a follow up article on February 28^th titled “1^st Century N. T. fragment:  more details emerge.”  This article cites further information shared by Wallace in a February 23^rd radio interview with Hugh Hewitt.  Among the new details:  The manuscripts were discovered in Egypt.  In addition to the Mark fragment, there is a sermon from Hebrews and “second century fragments from Luke and from Paul’s letters.”  Wallace is cited as saying that four of these Pauline manuscripts would predate p46 (c. 200 AD),  the earliest known papyri from Paul.  He is also cited as saying that the significance of this find “would be on par with the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls.”  That is quite a claim given that the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1948, contained a library of over 800 volumes (mostly in fragments) and provided manuscripts of the Old Testament that were in some cases more than a thousand years older than previously known documents!

Over on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, there seems to be more than a little skepticism over Wallace’s find (and some initial misunderstanding about Wallace’s report) in a February 10^th post.  In the comments, for example, Peter Head makes the following observation:

It doesn't make sense to me that a leading palaeographer would express themselves as "certain" on such a matter. Dating scribal hands on the basis of palaeography does not generally lead to certainty but to probabilities and to date ranges and one would expect a leading palaeographer to know that.  Now if the fragments have been found bundled together with a bunch of dated documents all from the first century, that would be interesting. But it doesn't sound like anyone has done this work yet.

So we are left with a couple of options: a) this is not a leading palaeographer; b) he has been misquoted/misunderstood; c) he is wrong; or d) (less likely) he is right and there is some peculiar feature of this manuscript that leads to the peculiar confidence expressed.

There is also a post on that blog from February 6^th on Walllace’s “debate”with Ehrman, which includes a link to Andreas Kostenberger’s analysis in which he critiques Wallace’s approach.

So, what’s the big deal about Wallace’s claim about finding the earliest fragment of Mark?  There is obviously a place for the collection and historical study of Biblical manuscripts, including fragmentary texts.  These documents, if authentic, might indeed give further historical proof for the first century origins of the New Testament writings (and, yes, there are radical scholars who want to late date much of the NT).  The problem comes with the attempt to sensationalize such discoveries by perhaps claiming greater significance for them than is warranted, or making such claims prematurely.  There is also the scent of academic elbowing and self-promotion of the next book.  You sometimes get the sense that Wallace is a big fan of the “Indiana Jones” films and that there just might be a rumpled fedora and a bull whip in his closet.  Of course, for Wallace and others who adopt the modern eclectic approach, such finds could potentially alter their construal of the “original” text of Scripture, depending on the find.  The modern critical text is necessarily and inherently unstable and might be radically altered by the newest “discovery.”  This is why I prefer the stability of adopting the traditional text.  

CRBC Worship March 2012

Note: Lord willing, we will continue our Romans sermon series on Sunday mornings and our Spurgeon Catechism series on Sunday afternoons in March at CRBC. We will hold our afternoon worship service at Our Lady of Peace Retirement Center at 2 pm on March 11. Dr. Gary Crampton will preach on Sunday morning March 18.

March 4

AM

Opening Psalm: Psalm 95


Message: What is a stumbling block? (Romans 14:13-18)


No. 1 (CCH) Come Christians Join to Sing

Psalm 25:1-7 (TRENTHAM)

No. 262 God, in the gospel of his Son

PM

Opening Psalm: Psalm 96

Message: Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first transgression? (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22)

Psalm 25:8-15 (TRENTHAM)

Psalm 139:1-12 (MARYTON)

No. 731 And can it be

March 11

AM

Opening Psalm: Psalm 97

Message: The things which make for peace (Romans 14:19-23)

No. 1 Psalm 100

No. 621 Great King of nations, hear my prayer

No. 17 (CCH) Come Ye Sinners

PM

Opening Psalm: Psalm 98


Message: TBA


(Note: Meeting time will be 2 pm at Our Lady of Peace)

March 18

AM

Opening Psalm: Psalm 99


Message: Psalm 119 (Guest speaker: Dr. Gary Crampton)

Psalm 145:1-10 (DUKE STREET)

Psalm 18:27-37 (SWEET HOUR)

No. 6 (CCH) How Firm a Foundation

PM

Opening Psalm: Psalm 100


Message: The sinfulness of man’s state (Psalm 51:5)

Psalm 145:11-21 (DUKE STREET)

Psalm 139:13-24 (MARYTON)

No. 392 Return, ye ransomed sinners home

March 25

AM

Opening Psalm: Psalm 101


Message: Edification and Unity (Romans 15:1-6)

No. 7 (CCH) To God all praise and glory

Psalm 18:38-50 (SWEET HOUR)

No. 62 Before Jehovah’s awful throne

PM

Opening Psalm: Psalm 102


Message: The misery of man’s state (Romans 6:23)


Psalm 25:16-22 (TRENTHAM)

No. 192 Stricken, Smitten, and Afflicted

No. 582 My hope is built

Tebow bill spiked in Virginia Senate

Image:  These students from Varina High School happened to show up at the committee meeting discussing the Tebow bill yesterday in Richmond to register their opposition to allowing homeschoolers to participate in public sponsored sports programs.  Their posture says it all.

Sadly, the "Tebow" bill was killed in the Virginia Senate's Health and Education Committee yesterday on an 8-7 vote.  According to the comments quoted in this article, I'm not sure which were worse, the statements against the bill or the ones that were for it.  It is amazing that the public education lobby will bend over backwards to acomodate the education of students with special physical needs, but they will fight tooth and nail to block homeschoolers from any access to public services and programs.  So, those who homeschool will continue to pay taxes in Virginia for services and facilities that they are not allowed to use.   

The Vision (3/1/12): Flavel: Sanctified afflictions are cleansers

Would you indulge me with one more quotation from John Flavel’s The Mystery of Providence? Here are some of Flavel’s comments on how “afflicting providences” work toward our sanctification:

It is a sure sign that afflicting providences are sanctified when they purge the heart from sin, and leave both heart and life more pure, heavenly, mortified, and humble than they found them. Sanctified afflictions are cleansers; they pull down the pride, refine earthliness, and purge out the vanity of the spirit…. How many Christians can bear witness to this truth! After some sharp affliction has been upon them, how is the earthliness of their hearts purged! They see no beauty, taste no more relish in the world than in the white of an egg. O how serious, humble and heavenly are they, till the impressions made upon them by afflictions are worn off, and their deceitful lusts have again entangled them! And this is the reason why we are so often under the discipline of the rod. Let a Christian, says a later writer, be but two or three years without an affliction, and he is almost good for nothing. He cannot pray, nor meditate, nor discourse at that rate he was wont to do; but when a new affliction comes, now he can find his tongue, and come to his knees again, and live at another rate (pp. 201-202).

Has God given you an “afflicting providence”? How has it made you grow stronger in your faith?

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Text note on Romans 14:10: Bema seat of Christ or of God?

The issue:

Is it “the judgment seat of Christ [christou]” (as in the traditional text) or “the judgment seat of God [theou]” (as in the modern critical text)?

Translations which follow the traditional text read, "the judgment seat of Christ" (Geneva, KJV, NKJV).

Translations which follow the modern critical text read, "the judgment seat of God" (NASB, RSV/ESV).

External evidence:

The traditional reading (“of Christ”) is supported by codices Psi, 048, 0209, 33, 1881, and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. It is also attested in a number of early writers, including Marcion (2nd c.), Polycarp ( 2nd c.), Tertullian (3rd c.), Origen (3rd c.), and Ambrosisaster (4th c.). This is the earliest attested reading.

The modern critical reading (“of God”) is supported by codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus (4th-5th c.).

Internal evidence:

Metzger’s comment on this variant in his Textual Commentary is revealing:

“At an early date (Marcion Polycarp Tertullian Origen) the reading theou which is supported by the best witnesses (Sinaiticus* A B C* D G 1739 al) was supplanted by christou, probably because of influence from 2 Cor 5.10 (emprosthen tou bematos tou christou)” (p. 531).

Here are a few things I find interesting in these remarks:

1. Metzger assumes that the “of Christ “ reading is “probably” a harmonization with 2 Corinthians 5:10.

2. Metzger assumes that the “best” witnesses are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Therefore, he assumes that their reading, “of God,” is the earliest and best reading. Why is it that modern text criticism is not accused of circular reasoning, when it reaches such conclusions?

3. Notice how Metzger deals with the fact that the earliest attested reading in various writings supports the traditional text, an obviously embarrassing fact for this position. Clearly, Metzger tells us, this indicates that theou was “supplanted” by christou “at an early date”!!!  How is this logical?  Would not the obvious conclusion be that christou was the original reading, supplanted by theou in a few traditions c. 4th-5th century, but reaffirmed as the orginal reading in the formation of the standardized ecclesiastical text?

4.  Finally, a glaring omission from Metzger’s discussion is the question as to whether or not the text might have been intentionally altered due to Christological controversy. Is it not possible that those holding Arian or semi-Arian viewpoints would have preferred to speak of “the judgment seat of God,” rather than “the judgment seat of Christ"? Could this be an indication that texts supporting the “of God” reading reflect a low Christology?

Conclusion:

This is one of those variants where the traditional reading is clearly to be preferred. The “judgment seat of Christ” is an authentic Pauline usage (cf. 2 Cor 5:10). The traditional reading has the oldest attestation, dating to the second century. The reading adopted by the modern critical text might well reflect an intentional attempt to alter the text by those who held to a low Christology. The reasonable conclusion is to support the traditional reading, "the judgment seat of Christ."

John Murray on believers before the "bema" seat of Christ

I preached Sunday on We are the Lord’s (Romans 14:7-12) and was struck in particular by Paul’s statement in v. 10: “for we shall all stand before the judgment seat [bema] of Christ” (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:20: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat [bema] of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”).

In his Romans commentary, John Murray stresses the fact that Paul teaches that believers (and not just unbelievers) will have their actions judged by Christ:

These two texts [Rom 14:10; 1 Cor 5:20] therefore place beyond all dispute the certainty of future judgment for believers. It is only by deflection from biblical patterns of thought that doubt could be entertained or the consciousness of the believer fail to be conditioned by it. Furthermore, this judgment is not merely of persons. It is of the behaviour of believers Paul is speaking here and it is for the correction of wrong behavior that the fact of God’s future judgment is adduced. Conduct is to be judged…. The judgment embraces not only all persons but also all deeds (p. 184).

He later continues:

Reluctance to entertain the reality of this universal and all-inclusive judgment springs from preoccupation with what is conceived to be the comfort and joy of believers at the coming of Christ rather than with the interests and demands of God’s justice (p. 185).

But he then adds:

And it should not be forgotten that, although God will bring evil as well as good into judgment, there will be no abatement of the believer’s joy, because it is in the perspective of this full disclosure that the vindication of God’s glory in his salvation will be fully manifest. It is only in the light of this manifestation that the believer’s joy could be complete (p. 185).

JTR

Text Note: Romans 14:9

The issue:

One can easily see the difference between the traditional and modern texts of Romans 14:9 by comparing translations of the verse based on each respective text:

Translations from Traditional text:

KJV Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

NKJV Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

Translations from Modern text:

NIV Romans 14:9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

NASB Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

In the traditional text Christ is said to have done three things: died, rose, and revived [kai apethane kai aneste kai anezesen]; in the modern critical text, only two: died and returned to life [apethanen kai ezesen]. The traditional text links these three verbs with a threefold use of the conjunction kai. The modern text has only one kai linking the two verbs. There are other minor variations, like whether the final verb should be from anazao (traditional) or simply zao (modern).

External evidence:

Support for the traditional text includes Psi, 0209, and 33, in addition to the vast majority of extant manuscripts. It is also attested in the Latin of Irenaeus.

Support for the modern text includes the original hand of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus.

Internal evidence:

Metzger assumes that the traditional reading came about through assimilation to 1 Thessalonians 4:14 which reads, “Jesus died and rose again” (Textual Commentary, p. 531). This is, of course, a speculation and rests on no hard evidence. If the three-fold kai is original in the verse, one might just as well speculate that the kai aneste could have dropped out due to parablepsis. One might also add that the traditional text provides a more difficult reading since it offers a unique description of Christ’s accomplishments (died, rose, revived [lived again]), without parallel in the NT. If it was not original, why would it have been inserted to expand the verse?

Conclusion:

I see no compelling reason to abandon the traditional reading, affirmed by the vast majority of manuscripts and gaining the widest use among churches in the history of the Christian movement.

Two are better than one

Note:  Llewelyn and I had the privilege attending the "Sweethearts' Banquet" at Emmanuel Baptist Church of Verona last Friday evening, where I gave the devotional on "Two are better than one" (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12).  Here are my notes:

The book of Ecclesiastes comes from the pen of Solomon, who calls himself “the Preacher” (Hebrew Qoheleth; see 1:1).

The passage we look at tonight begins, “Two are better than one….” It is often applied to the marriage relationship. We might first ask if this is what Solomon is addressing in context. Could he be speaking about national life, telling the people that there is strength in numbers? The appropriateness of applying this passage to home life, however, is supported by context, particularly by 4:6: “Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.”

Solomon first describes what we might call the economic benefits of marriage: “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour” (v. 9).Two people can generally complete a task faster than one working alone, whether it is painting a room, preparing a meal, or raking a yard. Contemporary sociologists confirm this truth by telling us that persons who are married generally are more financially stable and prosperous than those who are unmarried.

Next, Solomon describes the social benefits of marriage. If one falls down, he has his partner to pick him up: “For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up” (v. 10). So, marriage adds to our security and health.

It even insures that we have heat. Think of the weight of this verse in a culture without central heating: “Again, if two lie down together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?” (v. 11).

Next, Solomon suggests that marriage is good for defense: “And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him” (v. 12a).

Finally Solomon adds, “And a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (v. 12b). I think Solomon is describing the way a marriage relationship is strengthened when the Lord blesses the union with children. The two become three. The familial bond is strengthened, the marriage enriched.

As I reflected on this passage I thought of at least seven practical benefits and blessings of marriage:

1. Those who are married can share in the managing of the home and in the division of labor. We do not have to do everything ourselves. This is particularly true in the area of raising children. We have someone to help us.

2. If you are married you have someone to care for you when you are sick.

3. If you are married you have someone to give you practical help. Example: If you have to drop your car off at the mechanic you have someone to pick you up.

4. If you are married you have someone with whom you can share good news.

5. If you are married you have someone with whom you can share bad news. You have someone to console you.

6. If you are married you have someone to counsel you. A wife, for example, is a tremendous blessing to a man if she is willing to hold up a mirror to him and let him see himself as he is.

7. The married have someone to be with. You have someone to share a meal with, to converse with, to sit by on the pew in worship.

These sorts of things are implied in Solomon’s simple declaration that two are better than one.

As a side note, we might mention that this meditation should also remind us as believers of our duties to the widows and widowers. We here tonight are married. We have our spouses. But one day, many of us will lose these partners to death and we will be alone. Consider how our widows and widowers might be suffering who have already experienced this loss. Consider also our other single people in the church, who might be yearning to find a marriage partner. Contemplation of our blessing should also motivate us to minister to the widows and to the single.

I want to close by meditating on one final blessing of marriage, one other way in which two are better than one. A godly spouse is a providential provision of the Lord for our discipleship. You probably did not know how selfish you really were until you got married and had to begin living not only for yourself but also for another. Then, if God blesses you with children, you experience dying to self 2.0. You cannot reason with the infant who wakes you crying at midnight to let you sleep a few more hours. No, you have to get up and serve that child. Marriage and family is a workshop of discipleship. In marriage and family, we learn to die to ourselves. One of the greatest benefits of marriage is that it helps us to learn how to die to ourselves so that we can lives to Christ. We are learning to deny ourselves and to take up our cross daily and follow Him (Luke 9:23).

Did you ever consider that if God allows your marriage to last long enough, your spouse will probably have the biggest spiritual impact on you than anyone else. My wife and I have been married for 24 years. We were married when we were both 22. We now have been married for a longer period of time than we were single. I spent 18 years in my parent’s household, but I have now spent more time than that in a household with my wife. She will probably have a deeper formative influence on my spiritual life even than my parents. God has provided her for my spiritual good.

The Puritan John Flavel acknowledges how God directs our marriages for our spiritual good in his book The Mystery of Providence:

“There is very much of Providence seen in appointing the parties for each other. In this the Lord often goes beyond our thoughts and plans; yea, and often crosses men’s desires and designs to their great advantage. Not what they expect, but what His infinite wisdom judges best and most beneficial for them takes place. Hence it is that probabilities are so often dashed, and things remote and utterly improbable are brought about, in very strange and unaccountable methods of Providence” (p. 82).

Indeed, consider how God has given you the wife or husband that you have in ordr to work toward your spiritual good.  Consider how he has given you your life partner to more nearly conform you to the image of Christ.  Two are better than one.

John Owen on the church's duty of evangelism

The ordinary means of conversion is left unto the church, and its duty is to attend unto it; yea, one of the principle ends of the institution and preservation of churches is the conversion of souls, and when there are no more to be converted, there shall be no more church on the earth. To enlarge the kingdom of Christ, to diffuse the light and savour of the gospel, to be subservient unto the calling of the elect, or gathering all the sheep of Christ into his fold, are things that God designs by his churches in this world.

From John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church and Its Government

The Vision (2/23/12): Consider how near you are to the change of your condition

I have been blessed of late by reading John Flavel’s classic The Mystery of Providence (Banner; first published 1678; Banner ed.1963). In good Puritan fashion the book is an extended meditation on a single verse: “I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me” (Psalm 57:2).

At one point, Flavel reminds his fellow saints that all the circumstances of this present life must be viewed through the lens of the life that is yet to come:

Consider how near you are to the change of your condition. Have but a little patience, and all will be as well with you as your hearts can desire. It is no small comfort to the saints that the world is the worst place that they shall ever be in; things will get better every day with them. If the traveler has spent all his money, yet it does not much trouble him if he knows himself to be within a few miles of his own home. If there are no candles in the house, we do not much trouble over it if we are sure it is almost break of day; for then there will be no use for them. This is the case with us; ‘for now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed’ (Rom 13:11) (p. 138).

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Barcellos reviews Malcolm Watts' "What is a Reformed Church?"

California RB church planter Richard Barcellos has written an insightful review of Malcolm Watts' What is a Reformed Church? (Reformation Heritage, 2011).

He has also posted one correction from Pastor Watts.

JTR

Flavel: "O, it is no common mercy to descend from pious parents."

I have been greatly blessed in reading John Flavel’s The Mystery of Providence. It’s one of those books that as you read you think, “Why didn’t I discover and read this book before now?” The "Paperback Puritan" version from Banner is very easy to read (more like reading Thomas Watson than John Owen). I highly commend it. Here’s another nugget as Flavel reflects on the blessing of Providence toward those born to Christian parents:

O, it is no common mercy to descend from pious parents (p. 54).

And was it not a special favour to us to have parents that went before us as patterns of holiness, and beat the path to heaven for us by their examples? They could say to us: ‘those things ye have heard and seen in me, do’ (Phil 4:9); and ‘be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ’ (1 Cor 11:1). The parents’ life is the child’s copy. O, it is no common mercy to have a fair copy set before us, especially in the moulding age; we saw what they did, as well as heard what they said. It was Abraham’s commendation, ‘that he commanded his children, and his household after him, to keep the way of the Lord.’ And such mercies some of us have also had (p. 55).

The sinful tendencies of the strong and the weak in Romans 14:3: "the smile of disdainful contempt" and "the frown of condemnatory judgment"

In preaching last Sunday on Romans 14:1-6, I was struck by Paul's exhortation to both "the strong" and "the weak" in v. 3:

"Let not him that eateth [the strong] despise him that eateth not [the weak]; and let not him which eateth not [the weak] judge him that eateth [the strong]...."

Paul points here to two different sinful tendencies for the strong and the weak:

First, the sinful tendency of the strong toward to weak is one of despising (exoutheneo: to treat with contempt or to look down upon). The strong tend to say or think about their weaker brethren: "Can you believe how uptight, narrow, or legalistic that weak brother is?"

Second, the sinful tendency of the weak toward the strong is one of judging (krino). The weak tend to say or think about their stronger brethren: "Can you believe how liberal, slack, lacking conviction that strong brother is?"

Murray notes: “Both are condemned with equal vigor.” He continues, “In actual practice these vices appear respectively in the smile of disdainful contempt and in the frown of condemnatory judgment" (Romans, Vol. 2, p. 175).

Does Romans 14:5 have to do with Christian Sabbath observance?

I preached yesterday on Avoiding Doubtful Disputations, beginning an extended exposition of Romans 14:1—15:13 on the subject of Christian liberty and conscience.

I noted that Paul begins with a thematic statement (v. 1), followed by two examples: eating meat (vv. 2-4) and esteeming days (vv. 5-6). One question of interpretation is what Paul means by esteeming days. Does this refer to particular aspects of observance of the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath? Or does it refer to the esteeming of other Jewish holy days, particularly by some Jewish Christians (cf. Gal 4:9-11; Col 2:16-17)?

In his exposition of Romans 14:5-6 titled “Holy Days or Holy People?” (Romans, Vol. 4, pp. 1739-45), James M. Boice rejects the Westminster Confession position on the fourth commandment, citing this passage to justify his stance. He notes that his position had brought him into conflict with others in his PCA denomination where, he says, “there are people who would like to get pastors like me excluded, because we think this is a nonessential matter on which the Westminster Confession of Faith simply has gone beyond what ought to be required of anyone” (p. 1741). Boice claims that his position is more in line with Calvin than the Puritans. He adds that “an emphasis on Sabbath-keeping leads easily to legalism” and concludes, “Even today, people who insist on a strict Sabbath tend to be legalistic in other matters also” (p. 1742). Nevertheless, he also admits that “observing the Lord’s Day freely can lead to libertinism” (p. 1743).

Sadly, Boice’s exposition of the passage is lacking in close exegesis of the verses. It is also noteworthy that in this section, Boice makes no reference to John Murray’s commentary, which in other sections he typically freely cites with approval. Boice clearly avoids Murray, because Murray’s careful exegesis upends Boice’s position.

Murray devotes an Appendix to the topic in his commentary titled “Romans 14:5 and the Weekly Sabbath” (Romans, Vol. 2, pp. 257-259). Here is Murray’s succinct conclusion:

“To place the Lord’s day and the weekly Sabbath in the same category [i.e., as the ceremonial holy days of the Levitical institution clearly abrogated in the NT] is not only beyond the warrant of exegetical requirements but brings us into conflict with principles that are embedded in the total witness of Scripture. An interpretation that involves such contradiction cannot be adopted. Thus the abiding sanctity of each recurring seventh day as the memorial of God’s rest in creation and of Christ’s exaltation in his resurrection is not to be regarded as in any way impaired by Romans 14:5” (p. 259).

My exposition agreed with Murray.

JTR

Malcolm Watts on Reformed Church Evangelism

The church must never lose its sense of calling. As the Lord’s people, we are not to remain within the walls of our buildings, comforting ourselves with the Scriptures and glorying in the doctrines of grace. We must always be mindful of the fact that outside, there are thousands of Christless and hopeless souls. Surely, we have a responsibility to tell them of God’s salvation. What could we do? We could hold open-air services. We could distribute Christian tracts. We could gather children for Christian instruction. We could use all lawful means to save the lost. A church that ceases to evangelize in not obedient to God’s Word, and it is certainly not Reformed.

From Malcolm Watts, What is a Reformed Church?

Dr. Gary Crampton Preaching at CRBC on March 18, 2012

Dr. Gary Crampton, an Elder at The Reformed Baptist Church of Richmond, will be preaching in the 10:30 AM worship service at CRBC on Sunday, March 18^th.  Dr. Crampton is a gifted Reformed pastor and scholar who has authored a number of books including, What the Puritans Taught (Soli Deo Gloria, 2003), Meet Jonathan Edwards (Soli Deo Gloria, 2004), and From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism (RBAC 2010).  This last work on baptism is noteworthy, since Dr. Crampton served as a Presbyterian minister before coming to Baptist convictions (look here for an audio review).

The Vision (2/16/12): Christian Liberty and Romans 14

This Sunday morning at CRBC we will be turning the corner in our current Romans series into chapter 14. Some have rightly called Romans the “Constitution” of the Christian faith. Romans 14 addresses the important issues of Christian liberty and Christian conscience. What am I free to believe and to practice as Christian? What if I disagree with the convictions of others? How can I have firm convictions without being compromised, judgmental, or legalistic? What responsibility do I have toward those who are “weak in the faith”? Why should I avoid placing a “stumbling block” in my brother’s way? What is a “stumbling block” anyway? We will be asking and seeking answers for these questions and others in the weeks to come.

I look forward to listening with you to God’s Word this Sunday.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle