Author: Rich Leino

Categories
Worship

Why the Regulative Principle of Worship?

The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) simply defined is this: Whatever God has not specifically commanded in worship is forbidden.

The Old Testament is full of either implicit or explicit condemnation of Judah and the Israelites on the basis of false worship. It is the fundamental reason for their downfall. In fact, if you read the 1st Chapter of Romans you can see that man either worships God as He is and is thankful to Him as Creator or he turns to idolatry. Idolatry leads to a “giving over” to folly, which, in turn, leads to depraved actions – a downward spiral of unrighteousness. But it all begins with false worship.

To ask “Where has God told us not to worship Him except as He has commanded?” Try Exodus and Leviticus for starters. Implicit in the details is a reflection of the fact that God expects to be approached a certain way and that sacrifices before Him will be conducted a certain way.

Why not simply broad brush the whole thing and specify that animals are to be killed, Priests appointed, etc? For one thing, it ties back to the nature of man as outlined in Romans 1. The idolatry of man is such that, even with such detailed commands, man invents ways to even goon up specific commands.

Read 1st and 2nd Kings. What is the sin of Jeroboam? For political pragmatism, he sets the nation of Israel on a course of idolatry that they never turn from.

Read Jeremiah. It’s filled with references that state: “…which I had not commanded nor did it come into my mind….” Idolatry is not simply something God has forbidden but is referred to as something which He has not commanded.

Read the whole book of Amos. Understanding how they are worshipping (after reading 1st and 2nd Kings) sheds light on why they’re being condemned. It’s like Romans 1 being lived out in the Northern Kingdom. Idolatry and social injustice are simply two sides of the same coin. People were actually stricter in their religious observances than the Law required. The only problem is that they weren’t at the Temple.

In fact, as I was teaching Amos recently I realized that two men looking at the Southern and Northern Kingdoms and watching two worshippers from North and South would have been hard pressed to tell the difference. If I’m Joe the Ephraimite and grew up worshipping at Bethel, my worship externally looked precisely the same as Harold the Benjamite who’s bringing his sacrifice to the Temple in Jerusalem. Perhaps the same Words were being spoken as they place my hands on the sacrifice. Perhaps they were both scrupulous about the Sabbath. The only thing that separated them was geography. Post-modern man would scoff at any notion that they’re any different on such a basis.

But God commanded worship at His sanctuary and not at the high places.

It’s pretty hard, in the end, to separate God’s prescriptions for worship from His prohibitions against the way man commits idolatry.

Why?

Because of the sinfulness of the human heart. If we’re not getting our ideas on how to worship God from Him in His Word then Romans 1 declares that our natural inclination is to invent idolatrous ways to do so.

Categories
FV and NPP

On Douglas Wilson and Covenant Children

In a discussion about Covenant Children, Rev. Winzer wrote:

Believing parents are given a prime opportunity to be the means of their children’s conversion. Children of believers are more culpable for their unbelief because they have sinned against means. Believing parents become culpable for their children’s unbelief if they do not provide the means for their children’s repentance.

Concise and elegant as usual.

As critical as I’ve been of Wilson, it is not because I am unfamiliar with his work on the Christian family. I have read a number of his works, even used portions for studies on marriage and child-rearing. It is not all bad and there is some practical wisdom found therein.

Even before I thought Wilson was going in the wrong direction theologically, I would have warned a person to read him with a grain of salt and not completely drink the Koolaid in his writings. When he teaches, it is nigh impossible to distinguish between when he is exegeting a didactic principle from the Scriptures from when he is stating a “seems to me” opinion (however well founded in his own experience). In fact his opinions become the basis for further reflection so the text of Scripture is left even further behind. Because Wilson has no small degree of charisma, not all are able to separate where their consciences ought to be bound and where they shouldn’t.

I honestly don’t believe enough work has been done to link this issue of the family as the real genesis of the whole Federal Vision controversy. It really is the issue of Covenant Children that drives this issue. As has been noted, some of the criticisms of the laxity of Presbyterians regarding their covenant responsiblities is to blame. I would attend the OPC Junior and Senior High retreats a few years ago and only 1-2 out of a crowd of 300 young men and women could fill in the blank on catechism answers. Memorization is not a guarantor of regeneration but it does indicate a lack of family worship and instruction in the home.

Thus, you have Ministers and Elders with many apostate children and Churches that take no action because, after all, “…the children are not elect…”, so what can these men do about it? That attitude is completely contrary to the Word regarding the subject of apostasy. God never blames Himself for unbelief. As Rev Winzer pointed out, He blames the unbeliever and He blames the parents. To say He ordained the reprobation of a child is rather like Adam reminding God that, after all, You gave me this woman. Read Psalm 78, which describes the cycle of apostasy as children are not taught the things of the Lord and then forget Him.

Now, as much as I agree with Wilson that the state of affairs in the Presbyterian Churches is lamentable (and not Reformed in their understanding of parental responsibility) his solution is not the correct one. As with most errors, the course correction is usually tacked too hard. It is my belief that they wanted to link the issue of parental responsibility too much to the nature of salvation as if the nature of God’s election does not include such things as means and our responsibility to obey His Word. In the end, even the best parent will find ample failures on their part that, if weighed in the balance of perfection, would be reason for them to conclude that God does not “owe” them a redeemed child.

It needs to be enough for us to live according to the commands of the Scriptures to train our children (and to enjoin them to obey) without presuming upon the hidden counsel of God and change our Sacramentology and Soteriology to give us more assurance that our efforts will lead to the salvation of our child. In the process, in fact, as they have left the Confessional understanding of such things they have undermined the very Gospel that they should be pointing their children to!

Thus, be wary of Douglas Wilson’s works. Because he has some good things to say in criticism of the modern Reformed Church, his work is very alluring. But because He prefers personal interpretation, converts Proverbs to didactic literature, and his opinions are indistinguishable from his exegesis, he leads his devotees down a path which ultimately abandons our Confessions. We need no more assurance than the true Gospel will provide and creating a category of faithfulness to make us feel better about those intervening years of a child’s development, while we have to wait in faith, is drinking a poisonous Koolaid indeed!

Categories
Polity The Church

Presbytery 2007

Mrs. Sulzmann and I had the pleasure of attending the annual stated meeting and family conference of the presbytery of the Presbyterian Reformed Church. The event was held from Tuesday June 5 through Sunday June 10.

Our congregation hosted Presbytery this year at Ridgecrest, NC near Asheville. Every congregation was represented, and we were able to reconnect with brothers and sisters from Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, Ontario and England.

It was good to see everyone who came. New people showed up every day. Most of the "locals" (our congregation) turned out for the weekend to take in some of the activities plus the nightly family-worship, Psalm singing and the Friday night talent show.

On our way up Tuesday we stopped at Chimney Rock and enjoyed the breathtaking view from 2240 ft. I hiked as far as "Exclamation Point" and decided against going to the falls when I found out how long the hike would take. I had had to leave Mrs. Sulzmann to rest back at the rock area due to her condition.

A hammer-dulcimer player from Shelby, NC stationed near the gift shop entertained passers-by. We loved his music so much we bought one of his CD's. We'd love to have spent more time at Chimney Rock but we wanted to arrive at the conference center in plenty of time to unpack, settle, eat, and attend the evening corporate worship.

Rev. Mohon, the outgoing moderator, preached the sermon Tuesday night. We sang Psalm 2 and Psalm 45:1-7. That service, and most of the week it was a very humbling experience to be the host precentor for the praise with all these brothers and sisters from our various congregations singing Psalms. The singing was awesome and I felt very encouraged because everyone was so supportive.

Mrs. Sulzmann and I attended those deliberations of the presbytery that are open to the public. For the opening on the morning of the 6th, the praise was to be from Psalm 84. The resident precentor for these presbytery meetings is an elder from our Des Moines, IA congregation who was unable to attend. After I few seconds pause I started humming the tune University because that is the tune to which our congregation sings Psalm 84. This was agreeable to the presbyters and we sang the praise. I got to do the precenting again on Thursday from Psalm 48 for the session that would wrap up the business of presbytery. These two incidents of leading praise were a very, very special privilege to me because I am not even an elder.

The fellowship at these events is very unique because we reunite with friends from the other congregations and there are always new people to meet and get to know.

The nightly family-worship was always a special time. We heard from the ministers of the various congregations. The presbyters decided on a series from Paul's epistle to the Colossians 3 and part of 4. This culminated in the Sabbath Christian education hour, the morning service and the afternoon service.

In the family-worship we heard from Rev. Douglas Gebbie of the Chesley, ON congregation, Rev. Steven Dilday from Northern VA, and Rev. Mohon from England. We sang and opening Psalm and a closing Psalm, then it was opened up for people to request 2-3 favorites. I found myself with a couple of challenges with tunes that I hadn't practiced in a long time. I also had to make some adjustments here and there because the Psalm book has certain beloved tunes that have to be transposed down a half step or even a full step to avoid hitting E or E-flat which challenges some people.

There were some planned side trips, and others happened. We went with the group to the state Arboretum near Asheville and enjoyed a hike to view the flora that are native to the area. After the hike we ate our box lunches under some shade trees. It got very hot that afternoon so we pretty much bagged it after lunch and returned to the conference center.

Friday's planned trip was really awesome: whitewater rafting. We had to sign up for that way ahead of time like when we were sending in our registrations to attend the conference. This included a carefully-worded release form! It took Yours Truly like three days to decide whether to do it or not. My wife had an easy decision because she cannot do those things any more. I finally figured, hey, who knows, this might be the only time I ever get to go whitewater rafting. Well, I ended up with the honor of being the oldest person on the trip. And I had a ball!

One thing that was kind of frustrating was the meals. The food itself was great, and there was plenty of it. Except for one meal when they had 500 people they weren't expecting and they ran out of food. I think Mrs. Sulzmann and I got maybe like five meals in all the whole time where we got to sit with people from our group. I mean, our timing seemed to be off. Plus there were so many others in the dining hall at the same time from all the other conferences that it was hard to spot our people among them.

Friday night we learned many of our people had natural talents we never knew they had. There were some good songs, instrumental pieces and a skit. Most memorable to this writer was Miss Sarah Marshall's recital of the Mozart K 265, 12 Variations in C major on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman", played from memory.

We did some hiking on our own Saturday morning and then chilled that afternoon. I think that helped us with the Sabbath preparation.

We had some other special times like one night we went out with another couple from our congregation to a restaurant instead of eating in the mess hall and then some other special extended times with people we wanted to get to know better.

It was neat to see our children, teenagers and college age people spending a lot of time with one another and enjoying it. And our resident "presbytery historian" always brings the scrapbooks of the photos from past Presbyteries with the artwork and captions so beautfully done. It's nice to be able to review these and see what people did and how everybody's changed from year to year.

I mentioned the Lord's Day services above. They were wonderful. One thing that is always a challenge to me as a precentor is to be able to lead the praise and worship at the same time. In general the singing at those services was so exceptional that I felt like I didn't have to do anything. I will never forget the last Psalm on Sunday morning, 112:1-6 to the tune Gräfenberg. I had a special sense of being free. I was worshipping and the only difference was that I was up in front of the congregation facing the rest of them, Rev. Ericson from Des Moines behind me in the pulpit. We were in union with Christ, in communion with one another, and we worshipped. To me that is the ultimate fellowship, short of heaven.

Our own minister Rev. Worrell of the Charlotte, NC congregation preached in the afternoon. He is the moderator of the Presbytery for this year now. It was a grand service ending appropriately with our missionary Psalm 67 to the tune Zenka.

Sunday evening we had the ultimate Psalm sing. All of us who are precentors in the various congregations had to select Psalms that we know to be special in our respective local bodies and then take turns up front precenting. In many cases we found ourselves learning new tunes or singing familiar tunes to a different musical arrangement due to variances among Psalm books that are currently in use. I ended up "pinch hitting" for Northern VA as well as doing Charlotte. I am grateful especially for those who worked hard to learn to sing Psalm 145:1-7 to the tune Doversdale. That tune is in The Scottish Psalmody but not in The Psalms in Metre. It is a lovely tune, but I think I underestimated the inherent challenges a bit!

The Stockton-on-Tees (England) congregation sent goodies over with the Mohon's to treat us Sunday night for our last fellowship gathering. There's something special about those English candies, like the Cadbury chocolate for example. We all made short work of what was provided. As is typical we are always wanting to prolong these visits, so reluctant to break fellowship as we know that many of use will not see one another in person for at least a year.

I hung out but I finally had to crash. Mrs. Sulzmann was already in bed by the time I got up to the room. We left around 5:45 in the morning, stopped for breakfast on the way, stopped at my office in uptown Charlotte to grab the work laptop because my first day back is an offsite training meeting and then finally picked up the dog at the kennel.

We got home and of course it hadn't rained all week. My favorite pineapple sage was in shock for lack of water. Mrs. Sulzmann did the unloading while I started hauling buckets to the garden and hand-watering the thirsty plants. That being done we ended up recuperating for the rest of the day.

And that was a presbytery. 

Categories
Sacraments

The Gospel and the Sacraments Direct our Faith to the Same Object

I do so appreciate the opportunity to interact with Rev. Winzer on the Puritanboard. I learned long ago not to bristle when he challenges me on a statment I make. He challenged me today on my use of some sloppy terminology with respect to the sacraments and caused me to delve back into the Confession and the Heidelberg to determine the meaning of the Sacraments.

From Rev. Winzer:

Rich, thus far we have the gospel indiscriminately preached to all, whilst sacraments are administered to those in the visible church. We also have faith in the gospel essential to salvation whilst sacramental participation is not essential to salvation. The third and final point I am fairly sure you will concur with is that the gospel offers salvation as a present need, whereas sacraments are administered on the basis that salvation is a reality. Hence, the gospel is really and fundamentally a promise, whilst sacraments point to the fulfilment of the promise. Given these three qualifications, I would say the idea that sacraments are gospel is an unhelpful one, and it is best to distinguish Word (gospel) and Sacraments. Blessings!

When I think of promise in the Sacraments, I’m thinking along these lines:

WCF Chapter XXVII

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Heidelberg:

Question 66. What are the sacraments?

Answer: The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross.

Especially in Question 67, the Heidelberg underlines that both word and sacrament ar meant to point us to Christ. I realize that, after reading this, the Heidelberg distinguishes as you do from the teaching of the Gospel and assurance by the Sacraments. I need to be cleaner in my terminology. I won’t say they are Gospel but I will say they direct our faith to the same object that the Word does.

Question 67. Are both word and sacraments, then, ordained and appointed for this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation? (a)

Answer: Yes, indeed: for the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.

In Question 69, I love the way the Heidelberg links the sacrament as a visible sign that can be used to help us remember what was done for us by the sacrifice of Christ for us who have faith:

Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?

Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (a) adding thereto this promise, (b) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (c) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.

And to anticipate the objections of those who believe too much is being promised here:

Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism?

Answer: In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”, Matt.28:19. And “he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.”, Mark 16:16. This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism “the washing of regenerations” and the washing away of sins. Tit.3:5, Acts 22:16. (a)

or from those who think that the water is somehow magical…

Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?

Answer: Not at all: (a) for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin. (b)

But yet there is still something fundamentally spiritual going on in the Sacrament.

Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism “the washing of regeneration,” and “the washing away of sins”?

Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; (a) but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water. (b)

Categories
Thanksgiving

Let it Be Known

Let it be known that I love my church, Texarkana Reformed Baptist Church, and that I am committed to her cause as being salt and light here in Texarkana, Arkansas/Texas. I am most thankful for the Elders under which I freely, gladly, and under no compulsion serve. These men and their teachings have been invaluable to me and words cannot express the gratitude I hold for them and their work.

I have commented before on how thankful I am for my Church home here. That same sentiment stands. Woe be it unto me to ever publish anything that could be seen as seeking to undermine the things which my church holds dear, under the collective leadership of the Elders. There are some things I’ve published previously which I asked questions concerning, but having reconsidered them I deleted those particular posts and comments. I didn’t do that because I’m two-faced. Rather, I thought to myself, “Such a public display could be misconstrued as a possible attempt to undermine the teaching of the Church which I hold covenant with.”

And so, some time back, I removed the posts in question. Anyway, I’m thankful to our God for sovereignly and providentially putting me where I’m at, and want it to be known that I never want to give the appearance of publicly rebuking the beliefs of the consciences of the Elders at Texarkana Reformed Baptist Church, as I can’t say, in an ultimate and final sense, that I disagree with them. I hold them in high regard, with utmost respect and humility, knowing that they are indeed more learned men than myself.

So…let it be known.

Categories
Gospels and Acts

The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus

Originally presented to the Men’s Bible Study at my Church, I present this study on the conversion of the Apostle Paul.  These are my notes and are arranged to help me present the material.

Stephen’s Death

Acts 7:54-8:4

54Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. 55But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together[a] at him. 58Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Acts 8

1And Saul approved of his execution.

And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him. 3But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

4Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

  • Note the power of the Gospel preached by Stephen.
  • They were cut to the heart. The Word of God has an effect. May God grant us hearts that are converted and do not rebel against its power. Some of you will be challenged by me in ways you might have never been challenged by God’s Word. His Gospel cuts a man to pieces and some rebel.
  • Saul of Tarsus is given tribute in this passage. He is the ring leader and he approves of the killing of this godly man Stephen who is acting as God’s prophet.
  • There arises a great persecution of the Church, led by Saul himself. He literally drags people from their houses, and “ravages” the Church. He throws men and women into prison and subjects them to indignities.
  • Other passages indicate that Saul not only committed men and women to prison but he actually tortured them, separated mother from child, and even killed believers.
  • God used this persecution to spread the Word and cause the Gospel to go out from Judea into Samaria and into the world (just as He proclaimed it would at the beginning of Acts).

The Career of the Murderer Paul

In 1 Tim 1:15 Paul wrote to his son in the Lord:

15The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

  • Some people see this as hyperbole or perhaps Paul is just being humble.  I believe Paul is being completely honest here.  He realizes what he was saved from.  He has real regrets for his career as a Pharisee and knows the sins he was forgiven.
  • Time and distance have a way for us to read the account in Acts and remove a sense of the terrible atrocities that Paul committed against the Christians.
  • It is really not an exaggeration to think of Saul the Pharisee in the same light as Nazi Soldier or a Terrorist.  You really need to try and think of the many men and women, brothers and sisters in the Lord, that Paul persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and killed.
  • Like many of the most brutal murderers, Paul was a well educated man.
  • Protégé of Gamaliel and extremely well studied.
  • Rabbis were known for their memorization of the Scriptures and the Talmud.
  • He was a Pharisee of Pharisees and one of the most educated man in Palestine.
  • He would not be content until he eradicated this heretical sect of Judaism.
  • His persecution matched his zeal.
  • Hatreds and distrusts can stay with a people for their entire lifetime.

Saul’s Conversion 

Acts 9

1But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

10Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, 12and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” 13But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. 14And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.” 15But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. 16For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” 17So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; 19and taking food, he was strengthened.

Verse 1,2 – Paul is continuing in his murderous ways.  He’s not content for the leadership to come to him to continue this campaign.  He went to the high priest with letters to give him authority so he could go to Damascus and continue his campaign there.  Great was his zeal!

Verse 3 shows the power of God.  If ever there was a passage that shows the power of God’s grace upon a man it is Paul.  Paul is not on a journey to Damascus to seek the Truth.  He is not a seeker who is looking for God.  He is going to imprison and carry off Christians.  He is going on an errand of the devil to persecute Christ’s own.

BUT the God who revealed Himself to Isaiah suddenly reveals Himself to Paul.  The Power of the light of Christ’s refulgent glory KNOCKS SAUL OFF his feet and onto the ground!

Verse 4

– “Saul, Saul”.  The repetition of a person’s name is a Hebraism.  It only occurs about 15 times in Scripture and is always used in a way that denotes intimacy and love.  God calls His servants this way.  While Saul was busy hating God, God had already set His unmerited favor upon Saul.  While Saul was killing men and women that Christ loved and had died for, Christ had set Saul apart and had determined to save Him.  He doesn’t say:  Saul!.  He says:  Saul, Saul.  Beautiful!

“Why do you persecute Me?” – Christ so identifies with His Bride, the Church that He asks Paul:  Why are you persecuting Me?

Verse 5

– “Who are you Lord” – Saul is blown away.  He knows enough to call such holy terror by the name of Lord

–  “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, it must be hard to kick against the goads” – Some translations leave out the second part.  Saul – you are incredibly STUPID.  Do you think you can raise your hand against Me?!

Verse 6

– Trembling and Astonished “What do you want me to do” – Words simply cannot capture the shock and utter terror that Paul was experiencing.  We discussed the effect that Christ’s revelation had on Isaiah in Chapter 6.  Saul has just had the Holy One of Israel reveal Himself in all his terrible splendor.  And Saul has just realized that he has been putting to death Jesus’ people!  Jesus, God, who will judge all men one day, had every right to destroy Saul.  Saul does the only thing a Creature can do before its Creator:  Trembling, he asks “What do you want me to do?”

Verses 7-9

Nobody around him sees what happens but they hear a voice.  Saul, this mighty man with vile threats and the power of the Sanhedrin behind him, is now reduced to a blind man being led into the city.  He’s undone, reduced to a man who sits alone for three days without food and water.

Verses 10-12

Ananias is praying and Jesus speaks to him.  He answers “…Lord…” – he knows who is addressing him.

Christ commands him to find Saul and restore his sight.  He tells him exactly how to get there and that Saul has seen a vision that he will be coming.

Verse 13-14

Remember, Ananias knows he’s talking to God.  You just have to understand how extraordinary this request is.  Saul of Tarsus?  Are you serious?  He kills Christians – Collaborator!  Nazi!  Terrorist!

Verse 15-16

“Go,…” – A very clear command from Christ.

“He is my chosen vessel…” – He is MY choice.  He will herald my Gospel.  He will suffer for my name.  The man that does not deserve forgiveness is forgiven.  His sins I HAVE PAID FOR.  Beautiful.

Verses 17-19

“Brother Saul…” – Did you catch that Ananias calls him Brother Saul?  That is the glory of the Gospel.  He’s not a murdering Pharisee anymore.  That was NAILED TO THE CROSS.  Christ to me that you are His and that’s good enough for me!  Brother Saul.  That we would believe the Gospel like Ananias did!

Conclusion

Do you ever wonder how it is that Paul could be stoned to near death and then walk right back into the city that almost killed him?

Did you ever wonder why he could endure shipwreck, imprisonment, persecution, hatred, maligning, and all sorts of maltreatment?

Did you ever wonder what drove a man like that?

The man encountered the Son of God and saw His Holinesss.  He saw the One who had the power of Saul’s eternal soul in the palm of His hand.  He saw and understood how Christ had paid the debt for his pursuing men and women.  For putting them to death, for torturing them, for separating mother from child.  Nobody like Saul deserves to live!  He knew that.

BUT Christ, the Holy One, knocked him off his feet and saved him.

That’s the man who’s Gospel we’re going to be reading about in Romans.  That’s a man who is not ashamed of the Gospel FOR IT IS THE POWER OF SALVATION FOR EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES!

The Gospel that says:  You are unworthy.  You are a beggar.  You have NOTHING that God needs.  The only thing you can do is reach out with your hand and cry out:  I believe in Christ the Son of God.  Save me!

I want you to encounter Christ this year and get a passion in your bloodstream that understands and learns about the Gospel.  This will not be about easy steps to holiness.  This will be about putting you in contact with the God who has every right to destroy you and hasn’t.  It will show you the power of the Gospel and the Grace of God in Redemptive History.  We will encounter Christ and it is my hope that is the kind of encounter that causes you to understand Him so that you are impelled by a desire to serve Him out of gratitude and lead your households in Holiness.

Categories
FV and NPP

Barlow Responds to my Post – My Response

Mr. Barlow was kind enough to respond to my article. His response was on his comment section of his blog but I wanted to include it here for full disclosure:

Rich,

Thanks for taking the time to interact with the discussion. Sorry for the rude remarks directed your way by some here. You characterized my critique this way:

“Pastor Phillips wants to try and convict Pastor Wilkins for not being a strict subscriptionist to only ONE confessional use of the terms election and perseverance. Pastor Wilkins does not deny election or perseverance in the way that the WCF use them and wholeheartedly agrees with them BUT merely denotes that the terms are used in a broader sense.”

That’s close, but not exactly what I hoped to have said in my paper. Something more like this (rephrasing your paragraph):

“Pastor Phillips wants to convict Pastor Wilkins by questioning the sincerity of his subscription. Phillips does this by saying that Wilkins cannot simultaneously confess to believe the confession’s formulation of doctrine X and say what he does about the scriptures.”

My response was to note that the confession is theology, and thus it can say “The Doctrine of Election is _____” while not meaning to imply that every time the word “election” is used in scripture it carries all the freight of that doctrine (a doctrine derived from the full counsel of scripture). It seems to me that Phillips misses what Wilkins says when Wilkins talks about the scripture’s “broader” use of terms. Phillips argument seems much clearer to you, evidently, than it does to me because I find him stretching quite a bit to classify Wilkins’s exegetical observations as confessional deviations.

I’m not saying the substance of Phillips’s critique is over terms. I’m saying that the substance of his error lies in his approach to terms. Your summary of Phillips’s critique is illustrative of this:

First, “Neither the scriptures nor the confession admit to a doctrine of conditional election.”

Wilkins would respond ““ “You’re right, I can’t support a doctrine of conditional election from scripture, and obviously the confession does not contain it.”

Secondly, “Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary perseverance.”

Wilkins would respond “The scriptures and the confession teach that the elect will persevere. The confession, however, does not talk much about the experience of the non-elect in the covenant of grace. There is evidence about the plight of the non-elect in the scriptures and not much is said about them in the confession.”

Thirdly, “Neither the scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary union with Christ”

Wilkins would respond, “It depends upon what you mean by “˜union with Christ’. In general, the confession talks about the elect and the kind of union they have which is permanent. But the scriptures use metaphors of branches being broken off, remaining in the vine, being spit out of the mouth of the Lord, etc. And so I must conclude that there is more to the situation than the confession discusses ““ perhaps the non-elect have a kind of union with Christ for a time from which they will inevitably apostatize.”

Does that help? I wish that Phillips had stated his critique in the way you summarized it. Instead, he clouded the issue by focusing on Wilkins’s approach to the word “˜election’ in individual scripture passages and trying to tie those exegetical insights to a denial of the confession’s “doctrine of election.”

Hope this helps; perhaps we still disagree over what the “substance” of Phillips’s critique was, but hopefully you can trust that my goal is not to misrepresent him; that’s why I tried so hard to be excruciatingly clear in the paper, even risking being pedantic.

My response to Mr. Barlow:

Thanks for the response. I still believe that the substance of Pastor Phillips critique is levelled against the doctrinal conclusions drawn by Pastor Wilkins from passages that teach some *benefit* but not the way that Pastor Wilkins implies. The critique is that his conclusions about an *additional* meaning lead to a contradiction of the *first* meaning.

Rev Winzer cautioned me on the PB in a very edifying way:

Friends, when did the reformed church insist that the exact terms must be found in Scripture? The idea of conditional election to temporary benefits is clearly revealed in holy writ. Our Lord has provided a parable which specifically teaches that the reprobate are partakers in the kingdom of God temporarily — the parable of the wheat and tares. At the judgement, “the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather OUT OF HIS KINGDOM all things that offend, and them which do iniquity,” Matt. 13:41. The visible church enjoys special “privileges” bestowed by God, which the world does not receive, Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 63. To be in the visible church is to enjoy these benefits. If any are made partakers of these benefits it is because God chose them to it (temporary election).

The term “temporary election” is used in reformed theology in the same way as “common grace.” Although Scripture uses “election” and “grace” only in relation to the members of the invisible church, there is a theological analogy which makes it appropriate to apply the terms to the members of the visible church in a common way, in virtue of the fact that the visible church is the temporal manifestation of the invisible church.

Consider the words of John Owen (Works, 4:430):

Thus God chooseth some men unto some office in the church, or unto some work in the world. As this includeth a preferring them before or above others, or the using them when others are not used, we call it election; and in itself it is their fitting for and separation unto their office or work. And this temporary election is the cause and rule of the dispensation of gifts. So he chose Saul to be king over his people, and gave him thereon ‘another heart,’ or gifts fitting him for rule and government. So our Lord Jesus Christ chose and called at the first twelve to be his apostles, and gave unto them all alike miraculous gifts. His temporary choice of them was the ground of his communication of gifts unto them. By virtue hereof no saving graces were communicated unto them, for one of them never arrived unto a participation of them.

As Owen goes on to note, the term election finds specific support in connection with the choice of Judas to the apostleship, John 6:70. That this was temporary is indicated by the fact that our Lord specifically says in chap. 13:18, I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen.” Now if this is true of Judas, who was given an extraordinary office in the church, and equipped with miraculous gifts, it must also be true of ordinary officers and members of the church, who are given the ordinary gifts to administer and receive the Word and sacraments.

The problem with the FV formulation of the teaching is that it supposes “saving graces” are communicated by virtue of this temporal election, contrary to what John Owen teaches above. It is at this point that justified criticism can be levelled at the FV. By denying the traditional reformed teaching of temporal election in order to oppose the FV, you make yourself equally chargeable with a departure from the reformed faith.

I believe that the substance of the critique of Wilkins is in the final paragraph.

Reformed writers have, for centuries, been able to speak of the temporary benefits of Covenant participation without making the error of confusing the idea that some saving grace is imparted.

I’m left wondering, sometimes, who this really benefits if we have to talk in such fine points all the time to explain ourselves properly. I fancy myself somewhat articulate and intelligent and men like Phillips and Winzer much more than I. If, in the final analysis, a small cliche can only understand the language your using and it’s causing the Church to reject you then maybe you can just use the same language we always have if you subscribe to the same idea.

Categories
FV and NPP

Critics of the Critics of the Federal Vision are So Unfair!

I recently read a blog entry at Barlow Farms: A Response to Richard Phillips’s Comments, Part One.

In the words of Mubatu from Zoolander: “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”

If we ever hope to understand each other then I want to make sure I break down what I believe Pastor Phillips clearly articulated because it is my estimation that this “response” doesn’t even enter into the same neighborhood as the criticism. I ask those who have read both to make sure I’m not stating this improperly.

Here is the substance of the response from Barlow (I’m summarizing):

Pastor Phillips wants to try and convict Pastor Wilkins for not being a strict subscriptionist to only ONE confessional use of the terms election and perseverance. Pastor Wilkins does not deny election or perseverance in the way that the WCF use them and wholeheartedly agrees with them BUT merely denotes that the terms are used in a broader sense.

He goes on to use an analogy of using the word trinity in another way (i.e. “Shadrach, Meschach, and Abegnego made up a trinity of dissent in the empire.”) and then being accused of denying the Trinity.

Thus, according to Barlow, the substance of Pastor Phillips critique is over the use of terms: you cannot use the word election or predestination in any other way than the Confession uses or we’re going to put you up on a pole.

Now, I ask the critics of the critics of the FV: Does this accurately represent Pastor Phillips critique? I thought Pastor Phillips was very cogent in his analysis. I’m constantly told that men are not dealing honestly with each other’s views. If there is going to be a response to Pastor Phillips’ critique then let it be on the substance of the critique.

The substance of Pastor Phillips’ critique is this:

*BEGIN*

Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a doctrine of conditional election.

Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary perseverance.

Neither the Scirptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary union with Christ.

*BREAK*

You see, it one thing to admit that the Scriptures use a term to address a larger body that includes both elect and non-elect. It is quite another to form a doctrine based on this syllogism:

1. Paul calls a Church body “elect” in some passages
2. Paul knew it consisted of both the regenerate and unregenerate
3. Therefore, Paul must mean that everyone there is elect in some way…

Barlow seems to completely miss the fact that Pastor Phillips convincingly demonstrates that the Reformed completely reject this in their confession. They do NOT conclude 3 in the way that Wilkins and others do and, on the contrary, reject the idea.

Would they admit to points 1 and 2 above? Certainly, they would believe it is Pastoral language. This is why there is the idea of presumptive regeneration where you treat and talk of people as if they are regnerate not knowing either way. Jesus still treated Judas as if he were a disciple when He knew from the beginning who truly believed even before He called Judas.

Thus, I find Barlow’s response to utterly obfuscate the critique. I thought Pastor Phillips critique was a scholarly and clear examination of the issue and am shocked that Barlow so utterly misrepresents the substance of the critique.

Are there any responses out there that do a better job of answering the actual charges?

Categories
FV and NPP

An Open Letter to the Federal Vision

I’ve decided to post this here to formulate more clearly a thought that has been slowly developing over time given the controversy.

I readily admit that I have dear friends who are sympathetic to the Federal Vision and take great umbrage, at times, that I have criticized those who are most visible in the movement.

I was reading the comments on Dr. Clarks blog post here.

The consistent refrain from Pastor Wilson and others who defend him is this: Critics of the FV are slanderous. The FV believes in all the right Reformed stuff, we’re told. I have to admit that I become concerned that some might be guilty of mischaracterization. I wonder, after almost 5 years, why nobody can get it right!

Let’s all pretend, for the moment, that the Federal Vision is correct in their insistence that they are orthodox and Reformed. Let’s assume that all scrutiny suddenly disappears and all are found orthodox. Let’s go further and turn the tables for a bit and pretend that the FV is in the mainstream and it is the rest of us who are the true quasi-Reformed and we must defend our position.

Here’s the question: What do we believe that is out of accord with Reformed or Biblical orthodoxy?

Surely this whole debate isn’t about us all being the same and all you’re arguing for is the right to use different words to believe the same thing. You’re not simply arguing for the right to quit being misrepresented are you? You haven’t divided Church against Church and disrupted every Conservative Reformed denomination simply to have us agree that you are Reformed just like we are, are you? Surely you must be arguing AGAINST something that we believe in. I shudder to think that so much division has been caused over semantics and your unwillingness just to use the same terms as we.

Perhaps it would clarify what you are FOR by criticizing the rest of us and telling us what you are against. Please, please, somebody in the FV camp step forward and write an article that accurately describes what we quasi-Reformed believe and then critique it. I’m sure you would understand our sensitivity to being accurately represented after all.

I think if we could determine where you believe that we are unorthodox it might help us to understand what you’re for and why you believe this fight is worthy of so much disruption within the Body of Christ.

I’m a Glutton…but at least I’m not a Drunkard!

Prov 23:20-21

Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty:
and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

I’ve been reflecting lately on the hypocrisy that many Evangelicals have toward alchohol consumption compared to overindulgence in eating. Manmade doctrine in many evangelical circles condemns any and all alchohol consumption while virtually ignoring or revelling in the sin of gluttony. The Scriptures link drunkenness and gluttony together as virtually identical sins.

What is sad about this issue is that those who preach complete abstinence are missing the whole point of the Scriptures concerning these things. They complete ignore Paul in Collosians 2:

20Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

21(Touch not; taste not; handle not;

22Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

They turn alchohol into something that ought not to be touched where the Scriptures would only condemn its wanton overindulgence.

At the same time, however, about 30-40% (or more) of the American Church are gluttons reflecting the general population. It’s virtually a maxim of Churches to say that “…we sure know how to eat in this Church….” I’ve heard that statement from Independents, Presbyterians, and Baptists – all from the pastors of the Churches.

Like most things these days, everything is turned on its head. The majority of “Evangelicals” get bent out of shape if man consumes alchohol in moderation (something that God has given to man to bless him) but then revel in a sin that God has equated with drunkeness.

The blindspot on this issue is simply baffling.