I was thrilled to see a brand new (and attractively produced) version of what I blurbed on the back as "one of the most important texts of all time" - The Marrow of Modern Divinity, confidently ascribed to Edward Fisher - the original simply had "E.F." (Christian Focus). To cite Luther, he who understands the relationship between law and gospel is a theologian, and reading the Marrow will help us all to become better theologians.
Monergism Books are selling The Marrow at an amazing price. And there's time to get it before Christmas.
Scott Clark explains the problem and how it was addressed:
Everyone knows the acronym TULIP, but not everyone knows where this acronym comes from. The Canons of Dordt are among the most famous but unread deliverances of any Reformed Synod. The canons are more than five letters. The canons teach a pastoral doctrine of grace and provide a model for the stewardship of the Gospel.
The Canons (rules) of the Synod of Dordt were written after years of controversy within the Reformed churches in Europe and Britain. In the late sixteenth century the Reformed doctrines of sin, grace, faith, justification, atonement, perseverance, and assurance faced a growing resistance.
When we doubt God’s love for us because we think there is something about us that makes us unloveable in his sight, we do God a disservice. God does not love us because of what we’re like, he loves us in spite of what we’re like, and he gives us his Son as proof.
Charles Hodge
The greatest sorrow and burden you can lay on the Father, the greatest unkindness you can do to him is not to believe that he loves you.
John Owen
You can read more from Hodge, and get some reflections from Jim here.
As I perused Tim Challies list of his favourite books from 2009 it made me realise that most of the books that have impacted me this year have been by older authors. Reading Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Turretin, Bavinck, John Owen, Stephen Charnock, George Smeaton, to name some of them, has been wonderfully enriching.
A few things stand out about these authors and their books. Their age speaks to us of their proven worth. In so many cases they give a testimony to us today about what really matters. They served the church in their own day and by God's grace served the generations that followed. None of the authors mentioned above ministered in days marked by an abeyance of error. They believed that truth mattered and was worth contending for.
C.S. Lewis wrote the following wise words in his introduction to Athanasius' work On the Incarnation:
There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books...Now this seems to me topsy-turvy.
Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old.
It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.
Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.
Who knows what contemporary books will continue to be in print fifty, a hundred, or four hundred years from now?
You understand of course that this is a very, very serious theological blog. But for four minutes and forty seven seconds we will suspend that serious tone. Enjoy.
And here are some extracts from Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry:
The gospel is not just that we are forgiven, but that believers are reckoned as law keepers for the sake of Christ's law keeping credited to them (Rom. 4:3; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Gal 3:6). Whoever trusts in Jesus and rests in his finished work alone is righteous before God. It is as if the Christian has performed all that the law requires.
R. Scott Clark, "Do This and Live," in CJPM, p. 265
By becoming incarnate, the Son of God became the representative and substitute for sinners, in his life keeping the law of God in all its demands and in his death bearing the full punishment that sin merits in the estimate of God. This provision of righteousness coram deo [before God] is the supreme expression of the grace of God--not just something undeserved but the opposite of what is deserved.
Hywel R. Jones, "Preaching Sola Fide Better," in CJPM, p. 321
Only a fraction of the present body of confessing Christians are solidly appropriating the justifying work of Christ in their lives. Many have so light an apprehension of God's holiness and of the extent and guilt for their sin that consciously they see little need for justification, although below the surface they are deeply guilt ridden and insecure. Many others have a theoretical commitment to this doctrine, but in their day to day existence they rely on their sanctification for justification drawing their assurance of acceptance with God from their sincerity, their past experience of conversion, their recent religious performance or the relative infrequency of their conscious, willful disobedience.
Few know enough to start each day with a thoroughgoing stand on Luther's platform; you are accepted, looking outward in faith and claiming the wholly alien righteousness of Christ as the only ground for acceptance, relaxing in the quality of trust which will produce increasing sanctification as faith is active in love and gratitude.
Richard Lovelace, cited in CJPM, p. 310-11
And in the statements of the Heidelberg Catechism:
60. How are you righteous before God?
Only by true faith in Jesus Christ:1 that is, although my conscience accuses me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them,2 and am still prone always to all evil;3 yet God, without any merit of mine,4 of mere grace,5 grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction,6 righteousness, and holiness of Christ,7 as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me;8 if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.9
1 Rom 3:21-28; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; Php 3:8-11; 2 Rom 3:9-10; 3 Rom 7:23; 4 Dt 9:6; Ezek 36:22; Tit 3:4-5; 5 Rom 3:24; Eph 2:8; 6 1 Jn 2:2; 7 Rom 4:3-5; 2 Cor 5:17-19; 1 Jn 2:1; 8 Rom 4:24-25; 2 Cor 5:21; 9 Jn 3:18; Acts 16:30-31; Rom 3:22, 28, 10:10
61. Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only?
Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God;1 and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only.2
1 1 Cor 1:30-31, 2:2; 2 Isa 53:5; Rom 4:16, 10:10; Gal 3:22; 1 Jn 5:10-12
The following article of mine was recently published in The Evangelical Magazine.
Here's the intro...
You don’t usually need a TV guide to know what films are on over Christmas. Every year, without fail, there are some classic films that return to our screens. It just wouldn’t be Christmas without The Wizard of Oz, The Sound of Music, or It’s a Wonderful Life.
There are two seasonally shown films that strike a chord with the events recorded in the second chapter of Matthew’s gospel. They are The Great Escape and The Italian Job. The latter is that classic British movie with Michael Caine and Noel Coward, but starring three Mini Coopers. More recently another film with the same name, loosely based on the original, was released.
But a remake rarely lives up to the original. That observation, however, does not hold true for Matthew chapter two. In fact we will miss Matthew’s point unless we see that the events surrounding the birth of Jesus are in fact a remake of Old Testament events that surpass the originals.
I have always found Richard Baxter's The Reformed Pastor to be a deeply convicting read, the kind of book that not only gets under the skin, but in sentence after sentence stabs the conscience wide awake.
One thing that Baxter does well is to underline the need for integrity in pastoral ministry. He does so by asking a series of probing questions along the following lines:
What good is it to warn of the danger of sins from the pulpit if we then indulge in and tolerate sins in our thinking, affections, and behaviour when out of the pulpit?
What are we really telling people when we cut the throat of a sermon with the use of careless words during the week?
Do we not have good reason to feel ashamed when we reflect on these matters? Are we not tempted men who at times have caved in to the pressure of temptation? Are there not words that we regret using?
One latter day Reformed pastor (in Baxter's and the confessional sense of the word) has made the following helpful comments about our speech:
How we use our tongues provides clear evidence of where we are spiritually...What comes out of our mouths is usually an accurate index of the health of our hearts.
Teachers should be conscious of the weight and potential influence of what they say because words lie at the heart of the teaching ministry. To have an unreliable tongue is likely to provide a destructive model for those who are taught. The potential for multiplication of influence requires a canon of judgment that takes the measure of both responsibility and opportunity into account.
Dr. Guy Waters (associate professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi) was recently interviewed on the Iron Sharpens Iron radio program. The program's host Chris Arnzen discusses Dr. Waters' chapter in Risking the Truth and his books on the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. You can download the interview here (the notices and ads are fairly long so you may want to skip them).
In his work, On the Incarnation, Athanasius wrote:
"It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die."
How then could man be saved from death, the penalty justly imposed by God for disobedience, except by the death in his place of the sinless Saviour? Without penal substitution the truthfulness of God, his fidelity to his word, is left in tatters. Was God not bound by his own nature to fulfill his word? It was His life for ours.
"You have three priorities: teach, teach, and teach. Evangelical churches are weaker than we realize because we don't teach the confessions and doctrine. Set new standards in teaching. Understand the word catechesis, and practice that art."
You can read the recent World Magazine article on Packer here
This looks interesting. Contributors include Joel Beeke, Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey, James White, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Derek Thomas, and Ray Lanning.
Here's the blurb:
Sola Scriptura, the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation, is essential to genuine Christianity. Yet this doctrine is under assault today as never before, both from outside and and inside the church. In manifold ways, the idea is put forth that the Bible is inadequate for the needs of modern man. Such suggestions represent an attack on the very foundations of the Christian faith.
In this book, several leading Reformed pastors and scholars unpack the meaning of the doctrine of sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone"). They also explain where the attacks on the Bible are coming from and show how those who accept the Bible as God's inspired Word should respond. In building a new case for the Bible as divine revelation, they show what a treasure the Scriptures are and call believers to a new commitment to the reading and studying of its contents.
Here's the next installment from an old series of posts: Heresies would not get very far without being plausible and attractive. There must be some advantage in embracing heresy, something appealing to the mind, the heart, the will, that makes them worth believing.
I suspect that each particular form of heresy and false teaching contains elements that supply the motives for embracing them and rejecting orthodoxy. It is part of our pastoral and theological task to figure out what these elements are in each particular case. Sometimes the appeal is crass, as in the health and wealth gospel, at other times it is more sophisticated.
Back in 1998 I read The Cruelty of Heresy by Fitzsimons Allison. Strangely enough it was in the reduced section of a health and wealth bookstore, glinting away like a jewel in a dung heap. It has been by far the most stimulating book that I have read on the subject. Here's what he has to say:
We are susceptible to heretical teachings because, in one form or another, they nurture and reflect the way we would have it be rather then the way God has provided...heresies pander to the most unworthy tendencies of the human heart. It is astonishing how little attention has been given to these two aspects of heresy: its cruelty and its pandering to sin. (p. 17)
Fitzsimons Allison applies this insight to adoptionism and docetism. Adoptionism imagines a Christ who is like us, only much more successful. This "Jesus" is top of the class and graduates to become the Son of God. This of course panders to our self-righteousness, to our thirst to achieve our own salvation. It reduces Jesus to the level of what can be reached by our guided efforts. Either that or, if we have some sense and measure of our own sinfulness, this "Jesus" crushes us by his unattainable achievements.
The docetic Christ, on the other hand, was not truly a man but only appeared to be. This is theological escapism at its worst. This version of Jesus corresponds our desire to flee from the trappings, reality, earthiness, and nitty gritty of life. Our humanity is simply too sinful for this spiritual Christ to partake of. Not only is this a bogus Christology, it is also a damning verdict on the very goodness of creation.This insight can help us understand why heresies spread.
There is a saying that "heresies are the unpaid debts of the church." In other words, the explanation for the existence of heresies should be laid at the door of the church. The church has failed to do its job properly. Perhaps some significant aspect of the whole counsel of God was omitted, or there was a perceived harshness and lovelessness on the part of the orthodox that has driven people into the arms of error.
In some cases this may have a measure of truth to it. But it does not work when, for example, we consider the rapid defection of the Galatian churches to another gospel, even though before their eyes Jesus had been clearly portrayed as crucified (Gal. 1:6-7; 3:1). It was not due to a defect in Paul's proclamation that error made inroads in Galatia. Perhaps in some cases the "unpaid debts" theory holds true as a contributing factor. However, as a sole or total explanation it should be discarded.
There is no logical reason why a reaction against a narrow or harsh orthodoxy automatically leads to the embracing of heterodox views (just as there is no justification for ungodly reactions if we are treated in ungodly ways). This is a false move.
Heresies give us what we want. The attraction of the psuedo-spirituality of the Colossian heretics and the legalism of the Judaizers in Galatia were not to be laid at Paul's feet as if his preaching (or that of Epaphras) was to blame. In Colosse the heady brew of legalism and mysticism that offered genuine fullness had "an appearance of wisdom" but was of "no value" (Col. 2:23).
Mystical and ascetic channels to communion with God fitted better with the aspirations of the fallen human heart. Paul offered union with Christ and his finshed work instead. The Judaizers offered the road to self-righteousness and the escape route from persecution (Gal. 6:11).
After all, what is Pelagianism (full fat or semi-skimmed) if not an outward theological justification for an inner spiritual drive?
Review some major theological errors and see if this explanation holds true.
Over at the Church Matters blog there is a helpful summary of what Lady Catherwood recently said about her father's preaching:
1. The man deeply felt his conversion. Dr. Lloyd-Jones never got over the Lord’s mercy to him in saving him and this was clear in his preaching.
2. The underlining issue behind his preaching was the glory of God. Behind all of his preaching the main point and main issue was always that God be glorified and exalted. He never treated the Lord casually.
3. He had the presence of a man who dwelt with the Lord in prayer. When he preached, he sincerely preached as a man that had consistently lingered truly humbly before the Lord and had dwelt on the Truth of God in Scripture. He brought those meditations and that posture to the people.
Heresy is dishonouring to God and cruel to people.
The theology, morality, and pastoral effects of heresy have been a long term research interest of mine. This blog is not as negative as you might think.
You will find plenty of posts devoted to sound teaching and sound Christian living.
Martin Downes. Minister, Christ Church Deeside (North Wales), writer, and Welsh rugby fanatic.
