Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘John Murray’


Do you have questions about baptism? Most new converts do. People raiseBaptism: Answers to Common Questionsd in faith often have questions about why other parts of Christ’s church practice baptism differently than they do. Questions are a good thing. A bad thing is ignoring those questions and yet being dogmatic you are right.

I grew up Catholic and was converted when I was 20. I began to attend a Baptist church. I survived seminary at a  Reformed seminary as a Baptist. I had struggled with some of the questions. I would later discover that what tripped me up was differing definitions. I had defined some things erroneously and that kept me as a Baptist. All the while I was convinced I was right. My conviction now is different. I think I understand the biblical data better and have delved into those pesky questions.

Baptism: Answers to Common Questions by Guy Richard is a book for those who are still wrestling with questions. They either know they haven’t figured it out, or don’t know why others haven’t. It is not a very long book. His goal is to succinctly get to the heart of those questions. He is honest about the times we can’t be sure, and how that is a problem for both sides of the discussion.

He’s grappling with questions that persist between the Reformed and most Baptistic groups. You won’t find him engaging Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or Lutheran views. He mentions them at times but isn’t addressing the questions that separate them from the Reformed heritage. In a sense, this is more of an in-house book. Those bodies have very different vocabulary that drive some of their views. People don’t usually move freely between those churches. But many Reformed churches have people holding baptistic views in them. This seems to be the audience, not a Lutheran brother with whom I have disagreements on baptism.

Guy Richard writes as a conservative Presbyterian pastor who teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary (thank you, RTS, for the gift of this book at General Assembly). This book is born of the questions he regularly receives from people wrestling with these issues.

In his introduction he mentions Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, which is a mind that prefers action over complex thinking. People tend to want to proof-text issues rather than think through sometimes complicated arguments. We struggle to love God, whose thoughts are far more complex than ours, with our minds. We reject the advice of Paul to Timothy to “think on these things and God will give you understanding” (2 Tim. 2:7). God gives understanding as we think on difficult things. Baptism is no different.

“We need to search the Scriptures and to do our best, using all the tools at our disposal, to understand what the Bible teaches regarding the proper recipients of baptism.”

Richards points to Jesus’ debates with the Sadducees to show that important doctrines like the resurrection should have been known to and believed in by them based on the implicit teaching of the Old Testament. We are fools to only rely on explicit arguments. Especially in the questions of baptism.

“It is not that one side in the baptism debate is appealing to explicit passages of Scripture to support it views while the other is appealing only to its implications. Both sides are appealing to the implicit teaching of Scripture, because, as we have indicated, the Bible is not explicit on many of the common questions that we have about baptism.”

The first question is “What is Baptism?“. Often there is a different understanding of baptism itself that drives the other differences we have about baptism. The New Testament understanding of baptism seems to be familiar in some ways to Matthew’s Jewish audience. It is built on the OT use of baptism, but not identical with it. Jesus does not explain what He means by baptism (until He does so thru Paul and Peter to largely Gentile audiences). In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) we see baptism used in a variety of contexts. These inform our meaning and practice as we take them together. He looks to the account of Naaman “baptizing” himself in the Jordan 7 times. It is used in parallel with “wash”. He washed or baptized himself. It was a ritual bath or washing. Sometimes it was only the hands and sometimes the whole body.

In the Great Commission, Jesus uses baptism to mark His disciples. It functions in a way similar to circumcision. Paul speaks of circumcision as a sign and seal of righteousness by faith (Rom. 4). Abraham had that faith when he was circumcised, and his sons we called to that faith after being circumcised.

I was tripped up by “seal” for quite some time. I took it subjectively, that God was sealing my faith instead of authenticating His promise. This changed everything for me. Baptism points us to God’s promise of righteousness by faith in Christ, and is the seal of God’s promise because God initiated it. Baptism is primarily (not exclusively) about what God does, not what I do. As we look at the biblical data most passages are about what God does, and only a few  (one) about our pledge of a good conscience.

The next question is “Does Baptism Mean Immersion?” The fact of the matter is that there are times in the OT and NT when it cannot mean immersion, and one of those is the baptism of the Holy Spirit predicted by Jesus in Acts 1 and described in Acts 2 as the Spirit being poured out. He points out other examples like Leviticus 14. This means that mode of baptism is not as important as some would believe based on how the Bible (you know, that sola Scriptura thing) uses the term. Our emphasis, therefore, should not be on mode to decide if a baptism is “legitimate” or proper. Richard also looks at some other texts frequently used to defend immersion, like Acts 8:38, to show how they are not properly understood as applying to mode of baptism but place of baptism.

“If this prepositional phrase is indicative of immersion, then, in this case, both Philip and the eunuch were immersed, because we are told that both went down into the water.”

The next question he addresses seems very similar to the first, “What Does Baptism Mean?” He identifies 4 main things signified by baptism: “washing or cleansing from sin”, “Spirit baptism”, “union with Christ” and lastly “union with other believers.” He spends this chapter explaining these. He briefly discusses which of these is dominant. John Murray, he notes, thought union with Christ to be the primary meaning. While this is a dominant theme in Paul’s letters, it doesn’t seem to be the emphasis in baptism (though it shows up in places like Romans 6). Richard believes the primary meaning is washing or cleansing. I can’t decide if it is that or Spirit baptism.

Next he moves on to “Why Do We Baptize, and How Should We Do It?” He focuses on the command to baptize as part of the Great Commission. This moves us into a separate but related question of whether it is necessary for salvation.

When I was converted, the Boston Church of Christ (a cult that arose from the Church of Christ) was big on campus. As a young Christian I began to attend one of their studies unaware. I later met some people who refused to be baptized because the BCC required it for salvation. They went from one error to another. It is not necessary for salvation, but neither should it be neglected because Jesus did command it.

Who Should be Baptized?” is the next main question. Here he drills down deeper into infant baptism. The earlier chapters have brought us to this, laying a biblical foundation for answering this question. He notes that “household baptisms” don’t really answer the question for us either way. The argument from silence cuts both ways. He includes Jesus’ covenantal attitude toward children. To understand them both he brings us back to Genesis 17 and the institution of the sign and seal of circumcision. He explains that this was much more than a “national covenant” or “ethnic sign”. It was about salvation; a spiritual covenant with spiritual blessings! To show this he goes to Hebrews 11:8-10. Abraham was looking for the city whose builder and architect was God, not simply an earthly city. Later we see he was looking for a better country. Richard also brings us to Romans 4 again to see that Abraham, specifically in the relationship between faith and circumcision, is connected to the New Covenant. Abraham was justified by faith just like us, and he was circumcised and also circumcised his sons on the basis of God’s command. A sign & seal of righteousness placed on people who didn’t yet believe by God’s command. Later, in Galatians, Paul explores how the covenant with Abraham is about spiritual offspring and faith in Christ makes us children of Abraham.

Circumcision in the flesh pointed to circumcision of the heart, that which is not done by human hands. Richard brings us to Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6 and Jeremiah 9:25-26 to see this connection. This helps us to see that there is in fact a connection between circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2. Baptism, pointing to Spirit baptism, functions in a way similar to how circumcision points to circumcision of the heart. Paul essentially tells them they don’t need to be circumcised because they’ve been baptized (just don’t confuse the sign with the reality).

This shifts us back to household baptisms with “What Do the ‘Household’ Baptisms Teach Us?“. We do see that only one person, explicitly, believed and yet households were baptized. The head of the household believed (like Abram) and the whole household was baptized (like Abram’s). They received the sign on the basis of the head’s faith and not their own, though they are also called to believe to receive the spiritual benefits promised. Guy brings us back to Noah as another example of this. We see language reflecting Genesis 17 in Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:38).

The next question is “Why Do Our Baptist Brothers and Sisters Disagree?“. He spells out the areas of disagreement. He references David Kingdon’s book Children of Abraham for many of these. This was the standard “covenantal” defense of believer’s baptism, and one I kept returning to while in seminary. Kingdon stresses discontinuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant. His main text for this is Jeremiah 31. This passage is the one many Baptists return to in debate and discussion. They also see a discontinuity between circumcision and baptism, seeing the former as an ethnic or national covenant instead of a spiritual one. They also note the presence of conversion baptisms in the NT, which makes sense since these were all conversions. The other main objection is the doctrine of the church that has only believers as members in keeping with their understanding or interpretation of Jeremiah 31 (and the texts in Hebrews that depend upon it).

He doesn’t respond to these challenges in that chapter, but the next: “How Do We Respond to the Baptist Arguments?“. There is a fundamental flaw to Kingdon’s argument. This flaw is exposed in the context of Genesis 12 and 15 as well as Galatians. God offered spiritual promises to spiritual offspring. The Abrahamic covenant is not about a nation but about salvation. It is part of the covenant of grace and Matthew 1:1 notes Jesus fulfills this covenant for our salvation.

Kingdon seems to argue about circumcision from how Jews would later practice it than what we see in Scripture. Paul was frequently correcting that erroneous view put forth by the Judaizers. We shouldn’t confuse their view with God’s instruction to Abraham, and subsequently to Israel as Moses conveyed it to them in Scripture. In terms of the church we need to understand that while Paul upholds election and the idea of the invisible and imperishable church, he also uphold a visible church of professing believers and their children as we see with Israel. This dynamic remains as we see teaching about the impurity of the church alongside with Paul calling them all saints and instructing children as part of the church w/out differentiating them from unbelieving or not yet believing children who may be present.

Richard then gets to the heart of the matter with “What About Jeremiah 31?“. Keep in mind, our Baptist brothers and sisters see discontinuity between this promised New Covenant and the previous covenants. Yet, as Richard presses in we see continuity in many ways. Both indicate “I will be their God and they shall be my people.” This is the same promise as in Genesis 17:7. This language is also used for Israel in Exodus 6:7, which obviously refers to a “mixed” community or the external, visible, covenant community. We see essential, not incidental, continuity!

There are apparent differences. One is where the law is written. This is a contrast, not with the Abrahamic covenant, but the Mosaic covenant. The law is no longer on tablets of stone but on people’s hearts. That is a difference of form, not in substance. The same is true for all the points of “discontinuity”. We don’t have a different or better gospel than they did. We have the same gospel because all God’s promises are “yes” in Christ Jesus. We have a clearer one to be sure. We no longer bring sacrifices for forgiveness but now have it in Christ’s once for all time sacrifice (see Hebrews). We still have teachers to help us understand the Word, but we no longer have teachers who reveal God’s will to us apart from the Word. We see an expansion of God’s promises in Jeremiah 31, not a contraction of them. This expansion should inform our practice of baptism. We include women. We don’t remove our children.

Guy Richards then expresses the contrary question: “What Objections Do We Have to Baptizing Believers Only?“. As mentioned before, the silence cuts both ways. One area of silence it that these early Jewish believers didn’t object to a shift to believers only baptism. There was clear debate about the role circumcision would or wouldn’t play. Surely if there had been a shift in the place or attitude of covenant children. For the children of Jewish believers to be removed from the covenant community would have been a big shift in thinking and practice that would prompted some response. We have none.

Believers only baptism is a complete contradiction to how God was working through the entirety of the Old Testament. We see expansion in the NT, in many places. Richard notes Revelation 5:9. Believers only baptism is contrary to this “you and your seed” principle.

In “What Can We Take Away from All This?” he addresses some of the practical issues that arise. One is when parents refuse to baptize their children when they belong to a church that practices infant baptism. This is a thorny issue because of what God said in Genesis 17 and how it was applied in Exodus 4. The child who did not receive the sign was to be cut off. In Exodus 4, because Moses was heading to Egypt as God’s mediator, the Angel of the Lord came to put Gershom to death because he was not circumcised. Moses’ previous neglect had to end. We aren’t sure how to handle the epochal shift in terms of application. Some argue for church discipline, others don’t.

RNo photo description available.ichard brings up how baptism “establishes the family as he primary community for Christian discipleship.” It begins with baptism and we treat our kids as disciples. We call them to faith and obedience. We speak to them “as if” instead of calling them to obey if and when they believe.

Infant baptism points us to the fact that “salvation if from the Lord” and not of ourselves. It rests on God’s choice and God’s work. Our choices are secondary and dependent on His. Baptism, likewise, does not necessarily rest upon our choice but God’s work. We see the covenant at work more clearly in the case of infant baptism.

While kids may not remember their baptism, that doesn’t mean it has “no effect”. We remind our kids they have been baptized. I frequently remind the baptized children (and adults) that they are to believe to receive the benefits put forth in the baptism they received.

Guy Richards has put together a good book addressing these issues in a concise fashion. He engages Scripture building arguments. He keeps it as simple as possible. This is a helpful pastoral resource for people who are working through these issues.

Read Full Post »


A Christian's Pocket Guide to Growing in Holiness: Understanding SanctificationThis year at GA I went to the RTS Alumni and Friends luncheon. They gave those who attended a gift box that included some books by professors at the various campuses. One book was by J.V. Fesko, Growing in Holiness: Understanding Sanctification, which is part of the Christian’s Pocket Guide series by Christian Focus.

This is the first installment of the series I’ve read, and I’m encouraged to read more. This is a succinct volume on the subject of sanctification that should appeal to those in our congregations who aren’t big readers. It is a mere 3 chapters and 64 small pages. I read it in 3 sittings of less than an hour each.

Fesko does a good job in laying out the material. The 3 chapters are Sanctification Defined, Sanctification Applied and Sanctification Undermined. At the beginning of each chapter he charts the course for the chapter. He interacts with Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The one thing lacking is the use of illustrations from everyday life. This results in a more abstract book than some may be comfortable reading.

But what he does is provide a theologically rich summary of the Reformed understanding of sanctification.

Fesko begins with, and often returns to, union with Christ. This is the distinctive view of Reformed Theology. This is rooted in Paul’s theology, not just Calvin. He does explain the “double grace” of justification and sanctification that we receive in union with Christ. We actually receive all spiritual blessings in union with Christ, but these two in particular complement each other and were the focus on the dispute of the Reformation.

Fesko defines each and distinguishes them from one another. But we can’t one without the other. Logically, justification comes first and is the foundation for our sanctification (wherein He make those He has declared positionally righteous personally righteous as well).

Image result for justification and sanctification

(chart source)

Union with Christ is the ultimate basis of sanctification as Christ works in us by the Spirit to make us like He is. This means that like justification, sanctification is by grace alone through faith alone. In Christ we have a new identity that we begin to live out.

In living out that new identity, Fesko discusses the two parts of sanctification: mortification and vivification. Big terms he defines. We put to death that which is associated with Adam our old covenant head because it is corrupt. Sanctification is more than putting sin to death, it is also giving life to virtues or godly character. Both putting the old man to death and bringing then new man to life done in the power of the Spirit. It is a work of God’s free grace, not man’s ceaseless effort.

In Sanctification Applied he goes more fully into the “nuts and bolts” of how this happens. He lays out the means of grace, and therefore the centrality of the body of Christ. Prominence is given to God’s Word: read, preached and in the sacraments. In other words, the church offers us the Word spoken and sacramental. He discusses how we are to pray for God to work so we will understand, believe and obey the Word as revealed in the worship of the church.

In temptation we flee to Jesus in prayer, recalling the Word in its promises and warnings pertaining to our particular need. We are active, not passive, in sanctification. But it is always God who works first: for us and then in us.

In Sanctification Undermined, Fesko identifies the predominant false views of sanctification. He does this briefly, indicating how each of them leads us in the wrong direction. He begins with self-renewal which is rooted in Pelagianism but popularized by Charles Finney as one of his many errors. Sins are habits and we can just stop through the power of our will. It is rooted in self, not grace through faith and our union with Christ. Sanctification without Christ is no sanctification at all.

He then highlights imitation of Christ, particularly the mystical form of Thomas a Kempis. This looks in, not out to Christ. Meditation seems to be separated from the Word of God. (I’m not sure he’s entirely fair to a Kempis, but it has been a number of years since I’ve read him.)

He then outlines Roman Catholicism which has a very different understanding of grace and how that grace is received in the sacraments. Grace is mystical and magical, received through the simple receiving of the sacraments rather than the Reformed understanding of received by faith in the promises of the sacraments.

He then moves to legalism which rightly sees a place for the law, but wrongly depends on the law. This is his opportunity to begin introducing the proper place of the law. But he also shows the weakness of the law. While it reveals, it contains no power in itself. It reveals my sinfulness but cannot change it. I need to be united to Christ!

It’s evil twin is antinomianism which in its various forms indicates that the law has no significant place in our lives after conversion. It is a neglect of the law’s role in revealing righteousness to God’s children. It provides guard rails for us as we grow in Christ. How we lives does matter. The Holy One is making us holy ones.

He includes some book recommendations for further reading. He’s includes some important ones including Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Walter Marshall The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification and Edward Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity. I also recommend these great books for better understanding how the gospel is at work in our sanctification.

Fesko provides us with a clear, succinct volume to help us understand sanctification. This could be a useful book to share with new(er) Christians and to aid conversation about this great work of God in us.

Read Full Post »


I’ve said it before, I’m glad Sinclair Ferguson retired.

I miss listening to his sermons, so I wish he hadn’t retired too. But his retirement has meant a steadier stream of great books. One of those books is From the Mouth of God: Trusting, Reading and Applying the Bible.

“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Matthew 4

This is not a new book such much as a revised and expanded version of Handle with Care! which was released in 1982. It was written to fulfill a commitment he’d made to provide a book on the Trinity. Unable to prepare that manuscript, they were willing to receive Handle with Care! Hopefully we will see that book on the Trinity some day.

In some ways, From the Mouth of God reminds me of Kevin DeYoung’s Taking God at His Word. They cover much of the same territory. Their styles are different due, in part, to differences in age and cultural background. Both are very good books and worth reading. Both are relatively short and accessible to lay people. I intend you use both in the teacher training, and officer training, that I am in the process creating and revising respectively.

As you might realize from the subtitle, the book is divided into three sections: trusting the Bible, reading the Bible and applying the Bible. The middle section is the longest. Unfortunately the section on application is the shortest. As one who can struggle with this aspect of sermon preparation, I would have liked this to be explored more thoroughly.

His opening chapter It Is Written covers the Bible as God’s self-revelation. He brings our depravity as expressed in a darkened understanding into the equation. Ferguson uses passages like Hebrews 1 to affirm that the Bible is historical, verbal, progressive and cumulative, and Christ-centered. He discusses the dual authorship of Scripture as an expression of the doctrine of concurrence. He also covers the doctrine of accommodation, that God speaks in such a way that we can understand. The second chapter, Getting It Together, focuses on questions of the canon. This includes the OT canon and Jesus’ view of that canon. He addresses inerrancy and infallibility, as well as finality. Inerrancy is often misunderstood. For instance, it includes the lies of men. It accurately reports those lies in some historical accounts. Faithfully communicating those falsehoods and errors does not mean the Bible itself errs.

He wraps up the first section with Is It God’s Word?, which evaluates the claims of Scripture to be God’s word. The Spirit who inspired the Scriptures also illumines the Scriptures for us. We see the depth of our dependence upon the work of the Spirit in knowing God.

Ferguson opens the section on reading the Bible with an example of how not to read it: allegory. Christians have struggled with how to read, and therefore understand, the Bible. The priest of my youth told us “Don’t read the Bible, you’ll get it wrong.” And many do. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t Do-It-Yourself. We have a responsibility, and need, to read the Bible for ourselves. We aren’t saved by implicit belief in what the priest or pastor knows & believes. We must explicitly believe saving truths, and we know them through the Scriptures.

Explaining Paul’s statements, Ferguson discusses rightly handling the Word of God, thinking in the hopes the God grants understanding (2 Tim. 2:7). He then turns to the Westminster Confession of Faith to explain some principles for interpretation. He contrasts this with the medieval church’s 5-fold interpretation.

In Keys, he notes the 5 keys to interpreting Scripture: context, Christ, the unfolding drama, and gospel grammar. These keys help us by helping us grasp the historical and literary context, the redemptive-historical context, its connection with Christ and reminding us that the indicatives (facts) of the gospel precede the imperatives (commands) so we live by grace. In Prose, Poetry, Wisdom, and Prophecy focuses on the different literary genres in the Old Testament. He briefly provides the basics needed to understand each of these genres. He includes brief examples of how to interpret each. Similarly in Gospels, Epistles, and Visions Ferguson looks at the genres in the New Testament. In For Example, he interprets the book of Ruth. He repeats one of the keys he noted earlier: “in reading Old Testament narrative we must always have in mind the way in which the promise of Genesis 3:15 unfolds in terms of God’s covenant promise working out through deep conflict to establish his kingdom in Christ.”

Ferguson moves to application with What’s the Use?. Here he returns to 2 Timothy 3 to help us understand the use of the Scriptures in making us wise for salvation. This chapter will find its way into my officer training.

In Seed Needs Soil he addresses the condition of hearts that hear the gospel. This is one of the few places I disagree with Ferguson. It is a minor disagreement. I believe the parable is told to explain the different reactions to the ministry of the Word for the disciples. I don’t think it is meant for us to be self-reflective as if we could prepare our hearts. Still, he does a good job explaining the nature of those hearts.

He concludes with Speaking Practically, which is about how to implement the material you have read. He discusses the role of discipline to develop a routine, and a method for reading the Bible. We have to actually read the Bible, consistently and repeatedly, to bear great fruit. Each of the first 5 years or so that I was a Christian (until I went to seminary) I read the Bible through once a year. I gained a good working knowledge of the Bible as a result. Unfortunately it was the NIV, and many key phrases in my head don’t match up with the ESV. Even after 20 years in ministry, while reading the Bible for my own devotion I continue to see new connections points (I just read Exodus 22:28, noting its connection to NT texts about honoring the king).

Though Ferguson is done, the book isn’t. He includes two brief appendices. The first is John Murray on The Guidance of the Holy Spirit, and John Newton’s letter on Divine Guidance.

This is a good book that leaves you wanting more. I recommend it for all those interested in teaching others, and people interested in why they should trust the Scriptures and how to read them.

Read Full Post »


Today I was working on Romans 3:21-26.  It is a fascinating text with all kinds of “glorious grammar.”  If I remember correctly, we did translate this in seminary, but that was some time ago.  So I was in awe of what Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, put down there.  Lots of parallelism, and many of my questions about key genitives were answered in the text.  But there are some difficult phrases. There is alot on the line, so to speak, as this passage is central to many a theological controversy.

The specifics are not important at the moment.  What is I want to focus on is my response to these difficult questions about the meaning of the text while I weigh legitimate options.  I took a walk to pray about it.  And there I wrestled with both humility and confidence.

(more…)

Read Full Post »


Earlier, I had noted that the fear of God is not an Old Testament deal.  It is meant to characterize us in the New Covenant.  But I didn’t get into the source of true fear, which is the gospel.  Some of you might be scratching your head in confusion.  Some might be yelling at the screen in anger, debating with me.  Hold on a moment and let me explain.

Let’s start with a definition of the fear of God.  It is not, as many godly men have said, slavish fear.  It is not the fear of punishment and displeasure that drives people away.  When my son is guilty, he often wants to run and hide (usually covering his bottom just in case).  This is not the fear that is given to us in the gospel.  This the fear that perfect love casts out (1 John 4:18).

“The goodness as well as the greatness of God begets in the heart of His elect an awful reverence of His majesty. … Godly fear flows from a sense of the love and kindness of God to the soul.” John Bunyan

The fear I’m talking about is often called filial fear, or the fear of a son.  It is like a stew comprised of love, trust, awe, reverence and delight.  In various places obedience is attributed to love (John 14) and faith (Hebrews 11).  In my text this Sunday it is the fear of God.  Godly fear includes that love and faith or trust which are necessary for any true, God-honoring & God-pleasing obedience.  Without faith it is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 10), so true fear must include faith.  But the idea of awe and reverence point us to delight.

(more…)

Read Full Post »


The Fear of God is one of those topics that is greatly neglected, much to our own hurt.  My sermon text this week includes God’s great test of Abraham to see if he feared God.  Though we hate to think of such a thing, I suppose God tests us often to see if we fear/revere Him or if we’ve given ourselves to an idol of some sort.

“There flows from this fear of God a readiness and willingness, at God’s call, to give up our best enjoyments to His disposal.”  John Bunyan

Additionally:

20 Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”  Exodus 20

They were afraid that God was going to stomp on them.  After all, they were sinners.  But Moses tells them not to fear, but to fear God.  Sounds strange doesn’t it.  We rob God of glory when we fear anyone or anything instead of Him (like when we love anyone or anything instead of or beside Him).  The fear, or reverence, of God is what was to keep them (and us from sinning).

“Moses draws a contrast between being afraid of God and fearing God. … Simply being afraid of God will lead to distrust and disobedience of Him.  But fearing God will keep us from sinning.”  Jerry Bridges

(more…)

Read Full Post »


I just finished Proclaiming a Cross-Centered Theology after laboring over it far too long.  I just haven’t had as much time to read as I like (this may shock some of you who think I read too much).  It is a collection of messages from one the Together for the Gospel conferences (sample pages).

I found it to be a very uneven book.  There was a great disparity in the length of the chapters, as though some speakers were given far more time than others.  Some of the shortest chapters were from those I most wanted to hear.  Yet, some of those (while good) sounded an awful lot like other messages they’ve done.  Since I don’t preach on the conference circuit, I am probably expecting too much for them to come up with a new message to fit the occasion.  When I was ‘only’ doing pulpit supply during my transition, I would preach the same text a few times, tweaking it depending on the congregation.  But no one travels hundreds, or thousands, of miles to hear me speak.  This was a tad disappointing.

The book kicks off with a rather long chapter on Sound Theology by Ligon Duncan.  He defends systematic theology as necessary for the life of the church.  It is popular today (and most days) to decry systems, but we should be able to summarize doctrine to promote understanding of the whole.  Preaching and teaching should be both expositional and theological, and Duncan notes.   This is, in part, because our theology must be biblical.  Yet, you don’t build a doctrine on only one text.  That is a HOV line to heresy.

“Systematic theology is tied to exegesis.”  John Murray

Duncan notes some problematic views that have popped up.  His charity is on display in that he doesn’t name names.  His goal is not to stigmatize anyone, but point out flaws in certain positions which tend to be anti-theological.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »