The Vision (4/5/12): Am I really a Christian? Answering Eight Doubts

Note:  In his spiritual classic “Human Nature In Its Fourfold State,” the Scottish minister Thomas Boston (1676-1732) lists eight “cases” where a true Christian might have spiritual doubts about the authenticity of his faith.  Below is a simplification and abridgement of Boston’s first two doubts (with more to come, Lord willing): 

True Christians sometimes have serious doubts.  Here are eight different kinds of doubts they sometimes have:

First Doubt:  I doubt I am really born again, because I do not know the exact time of my conversion.  Neither can I trace the steps that led me to becoming a Christian.

Answer:  Though it is desirable to be able to describe the beginning of the Lord’s work in your life and the gradual growth you’ve enjoyed, this is not always necessary to prove that you truly are a Christian.  We must remember that the work of the Holy Spirit is a mystery.  In the Gospel of John, we read about Jesus healing a blind man.  This man simply said, “One thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25).  When we see a flame, we know there is a fire, even if we don’t know how it began.  Even so, we can know we are Christians, even if we do not know how or when it all happened.  Has there been a change in your soul?  Does your mind have light?   Do you want to obey God in everything for the sake of Jesus who died on the cross?  If you answer “yes” to such questions, then you do not need to trouble yourself with this doubt.

Second Doubt:  If I am really a Christian, a new creature in Christ, why do I  continue to struggle with sin?

Answer:  We certainly do not want to lay down pillows, so that hypocrites can rest easy with indulging their sin and making God’s grace a slave to their lusts.  On the other hand, we need to remember that “the just man falleth seven times a day” (Proverbs 24:16).  Sin may prevail at times even over the children of God.  Are you groaning under the weight of sin and the corruption of your nature?  Are you disgusted with yourself for the sins of your heart and life?  Are you striving to put your lusts to death, fleeing daily to the blood of Christ for pardon and looking to his Spirit for sanctification?  Though you might say with Psalm 65:3, “Iniquities prevail against me,” remember that this verse ends, “As for transgressions, thou shalt purge them away.”

The new creature in Christ is like a man who does not live in a house alone.  An ill tempered neighbor lives in the same house with him.  His name is “remaining corruption.”  These two constantly struggle with each other for control:  “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh” (Galatians 5:17).  Sometimes old “corruption” prevails and makes the child of God a captive to the law of sin (Romans 7:23).  Do not let his occasional victories make you conclude that you are not a child of God!  Instead, let it humble you.  Let it make you more watchful.  Let it make you thirst even more intensely for Jesus Christ, His blood and Spirit.  This attitude will become a principle of grace in you which seeks the destruction of the very sin that so often defeats you.         

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Horton: Does salvation require explicit faith in Christ in all cases?

Does salvation require an explicit, conscious expression of faith in Christ?

Michael Horton addresses this question in the final chapter of The Christian Faith (p. 983).  Though affirming that explicit faith in Christ is typically stressed in Scripture as necessary for salvation, Horton adds, "At the same time, I do not believe that we can conclude that no one can be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ."  He provides three arguments for this position:

1.  God is sovereign:  "First, it is precisely because God is sovereign and free in his grace that he can have mercy on whomever he chooses."

2. There are elect infants.  Horton speaks here as a paedobaptist:  "Second, since the children of believers are comprehended with their parents in the covenant of grace, in the word of the Canons of Dort, 'godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 7:14)."

3.  There are extraordinary cases.   Horton:  "Third, we are not told what God does in extraordinary cases:  e.g., those who are physically or mentally incapable of understanding God's Word."

He concludes:

"As in all theological questions, we must restrain our curiosity and refuse to speculate beyond God's own instruction.  Apart from God's self-disclosure in Scripture, we do not know what God has ordained from all eternity.  Whatever God might choose to do in any given case, he has promised to save all of those--and only those--who call on the name of his Son."

Christ as Our Song Leader

I preached Sunday from Romans 15:7-13 on Christ as A Minister of the Circumcision. Here are some notes reflecting on v. 9b:  "As it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name" (citing 2 Samuel 22:50//Psalm 18:49):

I want you to notice something else this verse tells us about worship.  Who is the one singing here?  It is Jesus himself!  The Son leads the praise of the saints (which now includes Gentiles) in lifting their voices to the Father.

When I read this I thought of a passage in a chapter written by Michael LeFebvre in the book Sing a New Song:  Recovering Psalm Signing for the Twenty-First Century (Reformation Heritage, 2010) where he cites this passage and others like Psalm 22:22 which is quoted in Hebrews 2:11-12 (v. 12:  “Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee”).  LeFebvre makes the point that when we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in worship, we are not merely singing about Jesus but we are singing with Jesus.  He is “the song leader” who leads us in singing praises (p. 108)!

In part of his conclusion LeFebvre writes this:

Often congregations in the church today see themselves as the choir (the “performers”) singing praise to God (the “audience”).  The Psalter calls us to refine this outlook:  it teaches us to view ourselves as “a backup ensemble” singing with a great Soloist who is the primary “Performer.”  It is the Son of David who stands as “the sweet psalmist” beloved by the Father.  We, who enter into the Father’s delight in Christ, are privileged to join with Jesus in His songs as we sing the Psalms….  We need to learn, again, to sing the Psalms with Christ (pp. 109-110).

How would our view of sung praise in worship change if we saw Christ as our lead singer?

JTR

Karl Barth on the Enlightenment

In my ongoing efforts better to understand how Enlightenment thinking affected Biblical and textual studies in the 19th century, I have been reading Karl Barth's From Rousseau to Ritschl (SCM Press, 1959).  Karl Adams famously described Barth's 1922 Romans Commentary and its critique of Enlightenment-influenced German Protestant liberalism as like "a bombshell on the playground of the theologians."  Though the conclusions Barth eventually reached in his neo-orthodox theology are far from orthodoxy, he does offer a compelling analysis and critique of how the Enlightenment undermined the traditional, Biblical, Christian worldview.  Michael Horton also spends a considerable amount of time in The Christian Faith, surveying and interacting with Barth.

Here are a couple clips of the precisely elocuting Barth from an old documentary for those who want to brush up on their theological German and see the man in action:

Vincent: Six Internal and Spiritual Miseries

Our current Sunday afternoon series at CRBC has been through Spurgeon’s Baptist Catechism.  I have been reading alongside this study Thomas Vincent’s classic The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture (1674; Banner 1980).  LastSunday’s message was on question #18 (“What is the misery of that state whereinto man fell?”).  Here is my summary and expansion of Vincent’s description of six “internal and spiritual miseries which men are liable unto in this life by the fall":

1.      “To the thralldom of the devil to be led about by him at his will.”  It is as if men are dogs on a leash led about by the devil.  Paul says fallen man is in “the snare of the devil” and “taken captive to his will” (2 Tim 2:26).

2.     “To judiciary blindness of mind, and reprobate sense.” Fallen sinners have eyes, but they do not see, ears, but they do not hear.  In Romans 1:8 Paul speaks of those whom God has given over “to a reprobate mind.”

3.     “To judiciary hardness of heart, and searedness and benumbedness of conscience.”  God allows the hearts of sinners to become hardened (Rom 9:18).  The conscience is seared “as with a hot iron” (1 Tim 4:2).  Such men are, Paul says, “past feeling” (Eph 4:19).

4.     “To vile actions.”  Pick up the paper or go to any internet news site for an endless list of illustrations.

5.     “To strong delusions and belief of damnable errors.”  Think of it.  There would be no heresies had man not fallen.

6.     “To distress and perplexity of mind, dread and horror of spirit, and despairful agonies, through the apprehension of certain future wrath.”

Unbelieving man does not know it, but the nagging dread he feels as he ages is not just an aversion to his impending death but also to his certain judgment.

We’ve noted again and again in this exposition of the early questions in the catechism that it does not tire of describing man’s state in sin.  It does this not to wallow in man’s depravity but to pave the way for the announcement of God’s response to man’s sin in Christ, “the only Redeemer of God’s elect” (from the answer to question #20).

The Vision (3/29/12): With one mind and one mouth

Note:  Here are some of my notes from last Sunday’s sermon Edification and Unity (Romans 15:1-7):

“(5) Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus.  (6) That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:5-6).

     Note that v. 5 is both a prayer and an exhortation. Paul refers to the God of the Scriptures as “the God of patience and consolation” (exactly the same words used in v. 4 to describe the “patience and comfort” he gives through the Scriptures).  Paul asks for this God to grant to the saints a likeminded-ness toward one another.  The word “likeminded” here is a verbal phrase that means to think the same thoughts (to auto phronein; cf. Phil 2:1-2).

     This request is noteworthy, because Paul has just allowed in Romans 14 for the believers to take different stands on various non-essential matters.  But here he is saying that there must be an irreducible minimum that is not negotiable.  We can have tolerance one for another in non-essential matters, as long as we have unity in essential matters.

     In v. 6 this unity and likemindedness is made even more specific:  “that ye may with one mind (the adverb is homothumadon; this same word is used in Acts 15:2 where it says that in the Jerusalem Council the believers acted “with one accord”) and one mouth glorify God….”

     Paul is urging here both doctrinal unity and doxological unity.  The church is to think with one mind and to worship with one mouth.  You will hear some today in liberal and even in broadly evangelical churches complain that we should not press to attain clarity in what the church is to believe and how the church is to worship.  This will break up our unity, they claim.  But Paul says something here that is quite the opposite.  We don’t have real unity, unless we think with one mind and worship with one mouth.  Right theology glorifies God.  Right worship glorifies God.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

When does the Christian Sabbath begin and end?

There was an interesting discussion recently on the RB Yahoo list concering the proper timing of the Christian Sabbath.  Is it from sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday or is it from sunup Sunday to sunup Monday?  One post included this link to a blog article by Old School Presbyterian Andrew Webb arguing for the sunup Sunday to sunup Monday view (borrowing from the Puritan Thomas Vincent).  I'm still thinking about the arguments.

JTR

Video Review: "Courageous"

My family (well, those of us over age 13) watched “Courageous,” the latest film from the Kendrick brothers and Sherwood Baptist Church, on video the other night.  Just as “Facing the Giants” had a high school football theme, and “Fireproof” had a firefighter theme, “Courageous” has a policeman theme.  Most importantly, it focuses on the topic of fatherhood.  The Kendrick brothers have proven that Christians can make commercially appealing films with fairly high production values on a shoe string budget with mainly amateur actors that put Hollywood to shame.    

Though there were plenty of things in the film to applaud, it seemed to me to be the weakest of the Kendrick brothers’ films thus far (I have not yet seen their first film “Flywheel”).  Maybe that’s what happens when you make a number of these types of productions—it gets formulaic.  “Facing the Giants” has the coach writing down his life principles and sharing them with the team; “Fireproof” has the fireman following a written guideline on how to love his wife; and “Courageous” has the policeman writing down his resolutions on fatherhood and sharing them with his police buddies.  There were some emotionally powerful moments.  If you’ve seen it, then you know it has some sequences involving policemen fighting crime and a gut-wrenching loss that are a bit more intense than in their previous films.  I agree with some other reviews I read, however, which note that the storyline gets a little convoluted with lots of sub-stories spun out but not fully developed.  The main plot is about fatherhood, but it also throws in grieving the death of a child, gang violence, drug abuse, dating, immigrants pursuing the American dream, police corruption, business ethics, marriage, multiculturalism, etc.  Again, so many sub-stories make it come off a bit disjointed and lacking focus.

The main issues I have with the film, however, are with some of the practical theological and spiritual messages (surprise!).  For one thing it seems to me that the Kendrick view on fatherhood has been influenced by the patriarchal outlook of Vision Forum, et al.  I have noticed that the Kendricks have recently been involved in Doug Philip’s annual film festival in San Antonio, Texas, and my guess is that some Vision Forum influence has rubbed off.  Though I agree with the distinct Biblical role of men in the family, the patriarchal outlook sometimes emphasizes the role of the father to the exclusion of other significant Biblical emphases, like the role of the mother and the partnership between both father and mother in parenting, the role of the church and her officers in spiritual formation, and most importantly the subordination of all family relationships to the supremacy of Christ himself.  Fatherhood or the family can become a golden calf just like everything else.

It is in the area of ecclesiology, however, that “Courageous” may come up shortest.  Though the film ends with the main character giving an impassioned (lay) testimony on fatherhood during a special Father’s Day worship service, the role of the church and her officers in evangelism and discipleship are largely lacking in the film.  There is one scene where a pastor offers grief counseling, but spiritual growth for the fictional characters comes primarily through the unofficial men’s “small group” that develops among the officers and their Hispanic friend.  Evangelism happens when an older Christian policeman shares his beliefs privately with a younger non-Christian policeman, rather than through the preaching of the gospel in the gathered church.  All this has a very contemporary broad-evangelical feel to it.

The film also suggests several non-Biblical ceremonies.  A father takes his daughter out to dinner and gives her a ring betokening her promise of purity till given to her father-approved husband in marriage.  This hints at both the influence of Vision Forum and the Southern Baptist “True Love Waits” campaign.  The men also have a special ceremony to read and affirm the fatherhood resolution.  Added to these ceremonies is the not so subtle suggestion that spiritual advancement must be accompanied by emotionalism.  From a Biblically regulated perspective on the Christian life, the main question we must ask is, “Why do we need to add non-biblical ordinances and ceremonies to what Scripture already supplies?”  If a man becomes a Christian he should confess his faith in public baptism.  If he fails and falters in some spiritual aspect of his life (and he will), like fatherhood (or anything else), then he may examine his life and renew his baptismal vows in the regular partaking of the Lord’s Supper.  There is no depiction of the Biblically ordained dramas of baptism and the Lord’s Supper in “Courageous.”

OK, I can hear some of you saying what my family sometimes does, “Jeff (or, Dad), can’t we just enjoy the wholesome entertainment and recreational values of this film, without going all Reformed-regulative principle-theological on it?”  Sure.  This film is so much better than the regular Hollywood fare.  Enjoy it.  But, on the other hand, don’t forget about those subtle and not so subtle spiritual issues.  “Christian” films are no more neutral than are Hollywood ones.

JTR  

Christmas in March

It can be kind of scary when a church member says, "Come out to the car, there's something I want to give you, Pastor."  In the rural church I served in Warsaw, Virgina it might have been a bag of tomatoes or string beans.  In other churches where I have been it might have been a piece of someone's mind! But last Sunday, when I heard that line, I got a really wonderful surprise:  a set of John Owen's seven volume Hebrews commentary, along with William Gouge's two volume commentary on Hebrews. Christmas in March! 

The NKJV and the Song of Solomon

In our Scripture reading in Lord's Day worship services at CRBC we have been making our way through the wisdom literature of the Old Testament and got to the Song of Solomon over the last couple of Sundays.  One member was asking me about some differences he'd caught between the NKJV and KJV translations, and I pointed him to this Trinitarian Bible Society article on The New King James Version and the Song of Solomon by G. Hamstra.  Hamstra's main objection to the NKJV translation is its use of editorial headings to identify its interpretation of the speakers.  He also takes issue with this as a reflection of modern attempts to see the Song of Songs as primarily about human love relationships, a kind of Hebrew erotica, over against the traditional interpretation of the book which sees it as pointing to Christ's love for the church.

JTR     

Stylos blog milestone

The Stylos blog passed the 100,000 page view milestone over the weekend.  The blog now has c. 2-300 page views per day.  It's nice to know someone is out there reading.  Thanks to faithful Stylos readers and followers for their encouragement.

JTR 

Von Harnack, 19th century liberal scholarship, and implications for the text of Scripture

Image:  Adolph von Harnack (1851-1930)

Adolph von Harnack (1851-1930) was a leading, liberal German church historian and New Testament scholar.  I have been reading his The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (German original 1902; Harper Torchbook, 1962).

I am struck by von Harnack's declarations of the historical-critical scholarly stance of the day which sought to distance the historical Jesus and his teaching from "later" church development.  So, for von Harnack, Jesus did not envision a mission to the Gentiles, but this mission was created by the apostles and post-apostolic figures.  Thus, he writes, regarding "syncretism" in early Christianity:  "Christianity was not originally syncretistic itself, for Jesus Christ did not belong to this cirles of ideas, and it was his disciples who were responsible for the primitive shaping of Christianity" (p. 35).  The "universalism" of the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20) is "neither genuine, nor a part of the primitive tradition" (p. 37).  Thus:  "The conclusion must be that Jesus never issued such a command at all, but that this version of his life was due to the historical developments of a later age, the words being appropriately put into the mouth of the risen Lord" (p. 41).  Von Harnack expresses admiration for "the primitive apostles" who took on a mission that Jesus "had never taught them" (p. 61).

In this work, von Harnack expresses his noted skepticism regarding the historical value of the Gospel of John in particular, attributing authorship of the Johannine corpus not to the son of Zebedee but to the post-apostolic "John the Presbyter" (pp. 81-82). John's writings would reflect much too developed and orthodox a Christology to be primitive, in von Harnack's view. He likewise dismisses the traditional ending of Mark (16:9-20) as an "unauthentic appendix" (p. 38).

Why am I reading this?  For one thing, I am trying to get a better feel for the scholarly environment in which the traditional text of Scripture came to challenged and overthrown in both Germany and Britain (and then America).  It is certain that the drive to achive a modern critical text was not an "orphan" movement, without father or mother.  The thesis:  The desire to reach a more "primitive" Biblical text reflected a desire to reach a more primitive Jesus, free from the pious barnacles of orthodoxy.  So, the God of nineteenth century liberal scholarship is more unitarian, its Jesus more Arian, and its prefered Bible, based on "the most ancient and reliable manuscripts," reflected these convictions.

JTR

  

The Vision (3/22/12): Top Ten Reasons Not to Attend or Join a Reformed Baptist Church

Update:  This post also appeared on the Reformed Baptist Fellowship blog and the Aquila Report.

A tongue-in-cheek list of the reasons you should not attend or join a Reformed Baptist Church:

1. The doctrine is too defined.

Come on….  I mean the Second London Baptist Confession (1689) is 40 pages long!   It does not define crucial doctrines like election and depravity so ambiguously that even an Arminian could affirm them.  If you define your doctrine too clearly that will exclude a lot of people, and isn’t our main goal to get larger in number?

2.  The worship is too “regulated.”

There’s no children’s church, no children’s sermon, no skits, no choir specials, no praise team, no choir cantatas, no testimonies.  In fact, all they sing are psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to tunes that are too square to ever be covered on the local pop station.

3.  The expectations are too high.

If you miss a service, someone is likely to call and ask how you’re doing.  The church is so small that everyone has to pitch in and do something.  You can’t just fade into the woodwork.  The membership covenant is taken too seriously.

4.  The sermons are too long and complicated.

The focus is always on the text and not on random contemporary topics.  There’s no power point outline or fill in the blank bulletin inserts.  I can’t just zone out, but I have to think about and follow what is being said.

5.  There’s too much emphasis on Sunday as the Lord’s Day.

If you go to this church you’ll probably end up spending nearly your whole Sunday (that’s one of your two weekend days) in the public worship of God.  It’s like they don’t even take the college athletic or professional sports schedules into consideration when planning the church calendar.

6.  There’s not enough “freedom” in the Spirit.

There are no people speaking in tongues, raising their hands while singing praise choruses, giving prophecies or “words of knowledge.”  It’s almost as if they believe that the extraordinary offices and gifts ceased after the time of the apostles, and now all they talk about is how the Spirit speaks through the Scriptures!

7.  The leaders are too strong and have too much authority.

Sure the Bible talks about how elders are supposed to lead and feed the flock, but what about our American democracy?  I mean, isn’t every member a minister?  Anybody should be able to preach.  I don’t think anyone ought to be able to tell me what to do or how to live.  If ministers cross the line, we need to put them in their place.

8.  There are not enough programs.

I mean basically all these folk do is meet on Sunday for worship and at mid-week for Bible study and prayer.  Where are the children’s choirs, the youth groups, the senior member outings, AWANA, etc.  Why, they don’t even do Sunday School or small groups!  It’s no wonder they don’t grow.

9.  They don’t do altar calls.

The service ends with the benediction rather than an altar call.  There are no multiple verses of “Just as I am.”  They talk about the preaching of the gospel as the preferred means of evangelism.  They don’t teach any neatly packaged evangelism programs, and they do not rush to announce professions of faith or to baptize persons prematurely.

10.  They teach that commitment to Christ is more important even than commitment to family.

Sure, they emphasize strong marriages, family discipleship, and family worship, but they have the nerve to suggest that if anyone loves his family more than Christ he is not worthy of Christ.

I think you will agree with me that for all the reasons above, you should be very careful about attending or joining with a Reformed Baptist Church.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Horton on ministers as God's covenant attorneys

Here are more gleanings from Michael Horton's The Christian Faith on ecclesiology.  He makes the typical Reformed emphasis on the importance of church officers and distinguishes between ministers, ruling elders, and deacons, noting, "The Spirit meditates Christ's threefold office as prophet, priest, and king in this age through these three offices of pastor-teacher, deacon, and elder" (p. 858).  Thus, "Pastors preach and teach, elders rule, and deacons serve" (p. 859).  Or, as he later puts it, "Pastors feed, elders rule, and deacons service the saints in their temporal welfare" (p. 897).

Here is a paragraph in which Horton explains the role of the minister in the congregation and especially as a worship leader and pronouncer of the benediction upon God's people:

A minister is not a master.  Yet it is also true that a minister is not a facilitator, coach, or team leader.  Ministers do not serve at the pleasure of the people, but at the pleasure of the King.  It is not their church or their ministry, but Christ's; and it is in their office, not in their person, that they represent the heavenly authority.  Not only in the sermon, but throughout the service, they are God's covenant attorneys.  Many Christian liturgies include at some point the Aaronic blessing:  "The LORD bless and keep you....  The LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace" (Nu 6:24-26).  These words are not mere well-wishing, but are God's act of blessing his people.  Ministering as diplomats of Yahweh, the priests actually placed God's benediction on the people.  It was a legal, convenantal action, a performative utterance that placed the people under the blessings rather than the curses of the covenant:  "So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them" (v. 27 emphasis added).  And in the mouths of ministers of the Word today, it has the same performative nature (p. 892).

Blog recommendation: Answering Muslims

Yesterday morning I noticed while listening to NPR and the BBC on the radio that they were suggesting that the shooting this week in the Jewish school in Toulouse, France might have been the act of a Neo-Nazi or a racist, anti-immigrant nationalist.  They were even suggesting that the shooting might have been encouraged by right-wing rhetoric in France's current Presidential election campaign. The one possibility they did not suggest was that it might have been the work of an Islamic terrorist.  Today, however, the French police have cornered the presumed terrorist who is Mohammed Merah, a French citizen of Algerian descent, claiming to be part of al-Quaeda.  For an interesting blog that often makes plain the kinds of obvious conclusions that media like NPR and BBC fear to mention, check out Answering Muslims, the Islamoblog of Acts 17 Apologetics.

Horton: Christ is our most decisive location.

I'm now in the ecclesiology sections of Horton's The Christian Faith.  Horton is well known for his critique of pragmatic church growth methods in contemporary evangelicalism.  After a reference to Paul's exhortation to the church at Corinth (1 Cor 11:20-22) regarding internal divisions over the Lord's Supper, Horton draws this comparison:

Today Paul might say, "Don't you have your own homes, cars, workplaces, and circle of friends with whom you can listen to your favorite music, display your distinctive styles, and enjoy the peculiarities of your own niche demographic?"  However, the church of God is the place where the young, the old, the middle-aged, men and women of all races, the sick and the healthy, those with disabilities and without, the unemployed and the wealthy gather to become one in Christ.  Our churches should exhibit the kind of community that is formed by God's choice rather than our own.  Christ is our most decisive location (p. 861).

Boston: "Your corrupt heart is like an ant's nest...."

When preaching Sunday in our catechism series on The Sinfulness of Man's State, I used this quote from Thomas Boston in Human Nature in Its Fourfold State:

Your corrupt heart is like an ant's nest, on which, while the stone lies, none of them appear; but take off that stone, and stir them up but with the point of a straw, you will see what a swarm is there, and how lively they be.  Just such a sight would your heart afford you, did the Lord but withdraw the restraint He has upon it, and suffer Satan to stir it up by temptation (p. 145). 

Text Note: Doxology at the end of Romans 14:23?

The issue:

There is a major text critical issue with the ending of Romans that begins to rear its head at the close of Romans 14.  The question revolves around the proper place for the doxology (appearing at Romans 16:25-27 but inserted in some manuscripts, and most notably in the Majority Text tradition, after Romans 14:23).  The discussion also involves the integrity of Romans 16:24 (which I hope to discuss later when we reach chapter 16).

External Evidence:

In his Textual Commentary, Metzger notes six major text variations [Greek mss witnesses in brackets] (p. 534):

1.      1:1—16:23 plus doxology [p61 (vid), Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, D, 81, 1739]

2.     1:1—14:23 plus doxology plus 15:1—16:23 plus doxology [A, P, 5, 33, 104]

3.     1:1—14:23 plus doxology plus 15:1-16:24 [L, Psi, 0209 (vid), 181, 326, 330, 614, 1175, and the Byzantine (Majority) tradition]

4.     1:1—16:24 [F, G, 629]

5.     1:1—15:33 plus doxology plus 16:1-23 [p46]

6.     1:1—14:23 plus 16:24 plus doxology [a few Vulgate mss]

Here is a place where the Textus Receptus is closer to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (though the TR includes 16:24) rather than the Majority reading.  Both modern editions of the Greek Majority Text (Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont include the doxology after 14:23 and end Romans at 16:24).

Internal Evidence:

According to Origen’s Commentary on Romans, the early heretic Marcion eliminated chapters 15-16 from his edition of Romans (see Metzger, p. 533).  This early meddling with the text likely led to the confusing textual tradition.  The question in the widest tradition became not whether to include the doxology (16:25-27) but where to include it.  Some included it at the end of chapter 16, others at the end of chapter 14, some both at the end of chapter 14 and at the end of chapter 16, and one at the end of chapter 15.

This textual variation has also led to speculation among modern commentators as to the possibility that two version of Romans circulated in early Christianity, one that ended at chapter 15 (supposedly sent to Rome) and another that ended at chapter 16 (supposedly sent to Ephesus).

Conclusion:

This issue demonstrates how the text of Scripture was affected by theological conflict early in the Christian movement.  While affirming the modern critical text’s decision to include the doxology at Romans 16:25-27, Metzger explains, “Some of the other sequences may have arisen from the influence of the Marcionite text upon the dominant form(s) of the text of the epistle in orthodox circles” (p. 536).  In the ecclesiastical text tradition there is no question of whether Romans 16:24 and Romans 16:25-27 should be included in the legitimate text of Scripture.  The only question is where they should appear. The Textus Receptus demonstrates the text critical consensus of Reformation era interpreters both that Romans 16:24 should be included as part of the Word of God (more on this later, DV) and that the proper place for Romans 16:25-27 to appear is not at the end of Romans 14 but at the end of Romans 16. 

The Vision (3/15/12): For even Christ pleased not himself

Note:  We concluded our exposition of Romans 14 last Sunday.  This great chapter addresses the important issues of Christian liberty, conscience, and unity.  Paul sums up his argument in Romans 15:3 by pointing believers to the model of Christ.  Here are my notes from the conclusion of last Sunday’s sermon:

Romans 15:3:  “For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.”

Paul roots the attitude that the strong are to have toward their weak brothers in the example of Christ on the cross.  Paul’s spirit reminds me of how Charles Spurgeon described his approach to preaching.  He said, “I take my text and I make a beeline to the cross.”  Paul never strays far from the cross.

Paul challenges the strong and weak brothers by calling the saints at Rome to take on the mind of Christ.  So he begins, “For even Christ pleased not himself….”  That is a point that needs to sink in.  Do you think Christ wanted to go the cross?  Did he want to be  abandoned by his closest friends?  Did he want to scourged?  Did he want to be mocked?  Did he want to have the crown of thorns pressed upon his brow?  Did he want to be crucified among thieves?  Did he want to go through the spiritual agony of being God-forsaken?  Remember his prayer in the garden?  “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt 26:39).  Christ, according to his humanity, did not go to the cross to please himself.

“But,” Paul adds, “as it is written….”  Notice that Scripture is always the cinch for Paul’s arguments:  “The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.”  The citation is from Psalm 69:9.  Psalm 69, along with passages like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, provides us with an Old Testament passion narrative.  The crucified Messiah is talking to the Father.  Who did Christ want to please?  He wanted to please the Father.  Just before this citation in Psalm 69:9 the Messiah says, “For the zeal of thine house has eaten me up.”

Both the weak brother and the strong brother have the tendency to say or think, This church would be perfect if everyone had the same convictions and had made the same choices I have made in following non-essential practices.

Instead, Paul says, we ought to have the spirit of Christ who did not insist on his own way, who did not live to please himself, but who took up the interest of sinners and suffered the shame of the cross in fulfillment of the Father’s will.

Christ has done so much for us; can we do so little for each other?  Murray asks, “Shall we, the strong, insist on pleasing ourselves in the matter of food and drink to the detriment of God’s saints and the edification of Christ’s body?” (p. 199).   

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Bunyan on the Lord's Day in "The Life and Death of Mr. Badman"

I’ve been reading John Bunyan’s The Life and Death of Mr. Badman of late.  This is one of Bunyan’s lesser known spiritual allegories.  The story is set as a dialogue between Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Attentive, reflecting on the death of their unconverted neighbor, Mr. Badman.

In this dialogue Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Attentive review the life of Mr. Badman and his various sinful shortcomings.  These include his unwillingness to honor the fourth commandment.  Even as a child, says Mr. Wiseman, “he could not endure the Lord’s Day because of the Holiness that did attend it….”

Later, the two men discuss the importance of the Lord’s Day in the Christian’s life:

Mr. Attentive:  Doth not God by the instituting of a day unto holy Duties, make great proof how the hearts and inclinations of poor people do stand to Holiness of heart, and a Conversation in holy duties?

Mr. Wiseman:  Yes, doubtless; and a man shall shew his Heart and his Life what they are, more by one Lord’s-day, than by all the days of the week besides: And the reason is, because on the Lord’s-day there is a special restraint laid upon men as to Thought and Life, more than upon other days of the week besides.  Also, men are enjoined on that day to a stricter performance of holy Duties, and restraint of worldly business, than upon other days they are; wherefore, if their hearts incline not naturally to good, now they will shew it, now they will appear what they are.  The Lord’s day is a kind of an Emblem of the heavenly Sabbath above, and it makes manifest how the heart stands to the perpetuity of Holiness, more than to be found in transient Duty, does.

On other days a man may be in and out of holy Duties, and all in a quarter of an hour; but now, the Lord’s Day is, as it were, a day that enjoins to one perpetual Duty of Holiness:  Remember that thou keep the holy Sabbath day (which by Christ is not abrogated, but changed, into the First of the week,) not as it was given in particular to the Jews, but as it was sanctified by him from the Beginning of the world; and therefore is a greater proof of the frame and temper of a man’s heart, and does more make manifest to what he is inclined, than doth his other performances of Duties:  Therefore God puts great difference between them that truly call (and walk in) this day as holy, and count it Honourable, upon the account that now they have an opportunity to shew how they delight to honour him; in that they have, not only an Hour, but a whole Day to shew it in:  I say, he puts great differences between these, and that other sort that say, When will the Sabbath be gone, that we may be at our worldly business.  The first he called a Blessed man, that brandeth the other for an unsanctified worldling.  And, indeed, a delight to ourselves in God’s service upon his Holy days, gives a better proof of a sanctified Nature, than to grudge at the coming, and to be weary of the holy duties of such days, as Mr. Badman did.

Bunyan’s obvious high view of the continuing relevance of the fourth commandment in the moral law, evident in the diaologue, is striking, especially given the fact that “New Covenant” theologians sometimes appeal to Bunyan as an advocate for their views.

JTR