Category Archives: Sunday School Lesson

Basic Reformed Theology 4

Leave a reply

Basic Reformed Theology 4

No part of Reformed Theology (RT) is as much rejected as the doctrine of Limited Atonement in TULIP (sometimes called “definite atonement” or “particular redemption”). Yet this biblical doctrine coheres well with the rest of RT and to deny it would put disharmony into the Trinity. Limited Atonement means that Christ died only for those whom the Father gave to Him (Jn. 10:28, 29). Jesus paid the full penalty for the sins of those chosen by God the Father. Remember, His name is Jesus “for he will save his people from their sins” (Mt.1:21).

The Nature of Atonement

In the OT, God provided animals to make atonement for the people’s sins. Since life is in the blood, they were forbidden to eat blood. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.” (Lev. 17:10) The shedding of blood meant death and without the shedding of blood there was no forgiveness of sin (Heb. 9:22). Yet the blood of “bulls and goats” could never “take away sins.” (Heb. 10:4) Those provisional sacrifices were always limited to God’s people and for specific offenses.  The priests never offered the atoning sacrifices for everyone without exception. For example, only God’s people benefited from the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:26-32). If a specific individual did not comply with the requirements of the atonement, he would be “cut off from his people” (v. 29). That provisional and definite atoning sacrifice washed away the sins for whom it was offered.

Design and Accomplishment

Those chosen by God the Father had to be redeemed by God the Son. Particular election requires a definite atonement. God gave a people to His Son and He was to raise them up on the last day: “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raiseit up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:39) God’s design was for the elect and Christ accomplished his redemption by dying for them.

If Christ died for everyone without exception then Christ labored in vain for those who would perish. The Son always pleases the Father (Jn. 8:29) and the Father is well pleased with Him (Mt. 3:17). Jesus said He accomplished the work given to Him (Jn. 17:4; cf. 5:36). If Jesus paid the penalty for everyone, then why doesn’t the Father forgive everyone? Isn’t the Father pleased with the Son’s work given to Him? The Father is pleased with the Son and will lose none for whom the Son gave eternal life (Jn. 10:28-30). No discord exists between the Father and the Son. For that reason, Jesus only prays for the ones the Father gave Him: “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” (Jn. 17:9)

Limited

All theories of atonement limit either their effectiveness or extent. Universal atonement limits its effectiveness because it secures no one’s redemption. It makes all men “salvable” and technically Christ’s death could have secured no one’s salvation (only made salvation “possible” for all upon the condition of faith). It is like a very wide bridge that never makes it across the river though everyone could go on it. Limited atonement limits the extent. Christ’s atoning sacrifice fully atoned the sins of God’s elect and it is effective for them alone. Using the same bridge analogy, this narrow bridge goes fully across to the other side but only for the numerous elect of God. The Son came to seek and save (Lk. 19:10; 1Tim. 1:15), to deliver us (Gal. 1:3, 4). Jesus “gave himself for us to redeem us… to purify for himself a people” (Titus 2:14). He did not come to make sinners salvable, deliverable, redeemable, purifiable, etc. Jesus “loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20). He died to bring us to God (1 Pet. 3:18) and gave himself for the church (Eph. 5:25).

Christ’s death secured everything for the specified sinners (full atonement, full forgiveness, full work of the Spirit as a gift, full acceptance with the Father, etc.). The sinner does not “add” his faith to secure the benefits of Christ’s death but his own faith is the gift because Christ removed all the righteous legal barriers (his guilt, sin, judgment, etc.). He has secured all the spiritual blessings for the elect (Eph. 1:3, 4).

Implications

• We don’t know for whom Christ has died so we can’t say Christ died for you. It doesn’t matter. We can unreservedly declare that Christ died for sinners and that He will save all who believe in Him. God will draw the elect and enable them to believe.

• All and World? What about Jn. 3:16 and the other passages that refer to “all” (Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 3:9) and “world” (Jn. 1:9, 29; 4:42; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Jn. 2:1, 2; 4:14)? The word “world” in Jn. 3:16 refers to the wicked world of sinners — he loves them and whoever would believe will be saved. God’s general love for all does not mean He loves everyone the same way. We are all required to love everyone but we do not love them all the way we love our family, close friends, parents, etc. Usually the word “all” denotes all men without distinction but not all men without exception. God does desire the salvation of all people (1 Tim. 2:4) but it does not mean He will surely save all. Jesus’ ransom for all (“who gave himself as a ransom for all” 1 Tim. 2:6) perfectly illustrates all without distinction. If it was “all without exception”, that means all have been ransomed (not all have been “ransom-able”). If it was for everyone without exception then everyone has been truly ransomed, bought or purchased — that cannot be correct since not everyone is saved.

•Efficacious or efficient for the elect but sufficient for all! Some have carefully noted that Christ’s death was sufficient (of such worth and value) that it could have technically saved everyone without exception. Limited atonement no way diminishes the value of Christ’s work on the cross. The design or intent behind Christ’s death was only for His people. The benefits of His death would be applied only to God’s chosen people; it is efficacious to them alone.

•How do I know if he died for me? Remember, that is not the question you should be concerned about. He died for sinners and if you would repent and believe you will be forgiven, justified, and sanctified. Then you’ll be able to say that Jesus “loved me and gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20).

Basic Reformed Theology 3

Leave a reply

Basic Reformed Theology 3

Most people recognize this part of Reformed Theology (RT). In TULIP, the “U” (for ‘Unconditional Election’) stands out to many as the distinctive feature of RT. The Bible’s teaching on election should not be overlooked, understated, or denied. We would not say this doctrine is the “heart” of RT but it remains a very important part of it.

From Eternity

Paul says that God “chose (elected) us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). God’s people’s names were written in the Book of Life “before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). God “saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began” (2Tim. 1:9). God’s elect are “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (Rom. 9:23). We know that God works all things “according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11) and we can conclude from the context that part of His eternal counsel included the election of His people (v. 4). That means God chose certain individuals before He created the world and before individuals came into being. Though a mystery surrounds this mind blowing doctrine (which means we cannot understand everything about this doctrine) we can nonetheless conclude from Scripture God certainly elected some to eternal life before creation.

Unconditional

Most people assume God only elected those who would choose Christ. He saw from eternity if an individual chose Christ. On that basis or condition, God chose the individual. That means God reacted in response to our choice. He had to choose because we chose! This would make God’s choice dependent and conditional and therefore secondary and not primary. The word “unconditional” in unconditional election means that man’s actions and behavior did not condition or influence God’s choice. God did not choose His people because they chose Christ first or because they deserved it, were wiser, smarter, prettier, more promising, influential, powerful, etc. (1 Cor. 1:26-31).  He chose to love us because He loved us (Deut. 7:8). Jesus’ statement to his disciples applies to the Bible’s teaching on election, “You did not choose me, but I chose you…” (Jn. 15:16).

Regarding Jacob and Esau, the Bible says “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls…” (Rom. 9:11), that is, God’s electing purpose and not Jacob’s choice (before either of them did anything) determined the final destiny of the two individuals. God’s choice denotes God’s mercy: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Rom. 9:15). Man’s will does not determine God’s election: “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (Rom. 9:16) “Human will or exertion” simply means “man’s desire or effort” (NIV). Man’s desire or effort does not influence or control God’s mercy/election. We choose Christ because God chose us: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48)

Some Implications and Objections

That means that God’s children were chosen before the foundation of the world and that each person converted has been elected from eternity. We don’t know who or how many have been elected (a fixed number, cf. WCF 3.4) but God does. The doctrine is a source of consolation for God’s people; it should not be the concern of the unconverted because his duty is to repent and believe in Christ.

•Why evangelize? Because Christ commanded us to preach the gospel. Through the free offer of the gospel God gathers His sheep (cf. Jn. 10:16, 27). We preach to everyone without exception and those appointed to eternal life will believe (Acts 13:48).

•It’s not fair! If we want absolute fairness, then we would all receive what we all deserve, namely, eternal damnation. We rightly merited damnation. Eternal life is God’s gift of mercy and He can give it to whomever He wishes (Rom. 9:15, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy…”). He could give it to all; to none; or to some. God chose to give it to many.

•What about foreknowledge? Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:1, 2 speak of God’s foreknowledge. Doesn’t that mean God elected those whom He foreknew would choose him? Romans 8:29 says “whom he foreknew” — not “what he foreknew” (a masculine and not neuter relative pronoun) — a foreknowledge of persons. God knew them beforehand and predestined them — it does not say he knew what they would choose and then he chose them! 1 Peter 1:1, 2 speaks of the same personal foreknowledge, they are “those who are elect… according to God’s foreknowledge”. As the person Christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20) to redeem or ransom (vv. 18-19) so the elect were foreknown by God the Father whom the Son would redeem. It simply means God chose whom He loved beforehand (cf. Amos 3:2) because God foreknew everyone and everything. In these passages, God’s fore-knowledge connotes an intimate knowledge (like “fore-loved”).

•It doesn’t matter what I do! Paul takes on that exact question in Romans 9. After teaching that God can show mercy to anyone He wills, Paul answers the question that often arises from such a teaching: “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (Rom. 9:19) That is, “How can I be held guilty? I can’t resist or control whatever God does!” In short, Paul says God can do what He wishes with fallen man. Some will become vessels of mercy (v. 23) and other will receive what we all deserve, become “vessels of wrath” (v. 22). Man is still responsible for his actions and will be condemned because of their sin and for refusing to repent and believe!

•Why? So no one can boast! “For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:26-31) God gets all the glory!!

Basic Reformed Theology 2

Leave a reply

Basic Reformed Theology 2

The Bible teaches that man is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13) and therefore man is spiritually dead and resistant to the things of God. RT calls this “total depravity.” The origin of many theological errors can be found in one’s understanding of man’s fallen condition.  

Original Sin

Adam, who served as the representative (by God’s appointment our “federal head”) for all of humanity, sinned (Rom. 5:12-21).  Adam’s sin (the Fall) led to what we call “original sin” (the effects of the Fall in our nature). All of us have been affected by the Fall and we all inherited “original sin.” This sin brought death (Rom. 5:12) and pervaded our nature. 

None of us come into the world with a clean untainted nature; we are born in sin, “estranged from the womb” and we “go astray from birth” (Ps. 58:3). David says he was “brought forth in iniquity” (Ps. 51:5). That means babies are not born innocent but tainted with sin.  Everybody sins because everyone was born in sin: “for there is no man who does not sin” (2 Chron. 6:36) because “no man living is righteous before” God (Ps. 143:2). 

Pervasive Sinfulness

Man is not simply morally crippled but pervasively sinful. All his faculties have been affected by sin. Rom. 3:9-18 poignantly proves this. The passage simply states that we are “all under sin” (v. 9). Sin dominates man. Verse 10 teaches forthrightly that “none is righteous, no, not one.” Verse 11 states that “no one” really understands God. In fact, he does not seek Him (v. 11b). Man does not know God rightly and therefore does not understand Him (cf. 1:21, 22). Man has turned aside and refused to do good before God (v. 12; cf. 1:23, 25). 

Verses 13-18 depict man’s pervasive evil. It is a poetic way of saying that from head to toe, he is full of sin. Man uses his throat, tongue, lips, mouth, feet, and eyes against God’s way: “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (3:18). Paul did not go and show how every inch is covered with sin but has demonstrated by the language of the text that man is pervasively and resolutely “under sin.”

Ecc. 9:3 states that “the hearts of men are full of evil” while Jeremiah declares that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt” (Jer. 17:9). Early in man’s history, God saw “that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). 

We tend towards evil and not the good. There is a futility or vanity in our minds (Eph. 4:17) since we have a “darkened” understanding and a “hardness of heart” (Eph. 4:18). Man is “alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds” (Col. 1:21). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). In fact, we are slaves to sin: “every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn. 8:34). 

Opposed to God and the Gospel

Man suppresses the truth about God in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18ff.) and are in fact spiritually “dead in our trespasses” (Col. 2:13; Eph. 1:1, 5).  We are “by nature children of [God’s] wrath” (Eph. 2:3). Man actually follows “the prince of the power the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2; cf. Jn. 8:44; 2Tim. 2:26). We are “alienated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18) and our minds remain “hostile to God” (Rom. 8:7). 

That means when it comes to spiritual truth, we won’t accept it and are unable to: “The natural person does not acceptthe things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them…” (1 Cor. 2:14). Man, whose mind is set on the flesh, “does not submit to God’s law” and is unable to submit to it (Rom. 8:7).  The gospel is “folly” to the unbeliever (1 Cor. 1:18). 

The god of this world, the devil prevents people from understanding the gospel: “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2Cor. 4:4). He steals the Word from people’s hearts: “the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in the heart” (Mt. 13:19). 

Gospel preaching is to “open” the eyes of unbelievers “so that they many turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18). 

Some Implications

Everything that a man does is tainted by sin. Though we are not all equally sinful, all of us have been affected by sin in every aspect of our persons. Nothing we do escapes the taint of sin. We can never please God in and of ourselves. 

Man may perform some “civil” good and may be restrained from sinning as he would (like Abimelech in Gen. 20:6) but he cannot escape the fact he continues under the power of sin.

Man is spiritually dead. Dead people cannot respond to the gospel. Unless the Lord works in the heart, the unbeliever will reject the gospel every single time (100%).

Man is spiritually blind (Eph. 4:18; 1 Cor. 2:9,14). He cannot appreciate, love, believe, and accept the gospel. He sees nothing in it. The god of this world has blinded him.

Man’s will is not free. Man being enslaved to sin (Jn. 8:34) can freely act only according to his nature. His will expresses his nature and therefore, being dead in sin and hostile towards God, it will always oppose and refuse God: “being captured by him [the devil] to do his will” (2Tim. 2:26).

Man does not seek God (Rom. 3:11), is not able to submit to Him (Rom. 8:7), and is considered a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3)— man is a rebel. If a million years were added to us and a million opportunities offered to us to turn from our sins and to believe in Christ, we would never repent and believe because of our sinful condition.

Basic Reformed Theology 1

Leave a reply

Basic Reformed Theology I[1]

Doctrine simply means the setting forth of what the Bible teaches on a certain topic. Paul said to Titus, “But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.” (Titus 2:1) “Doctrine” here means teaching (e.g., 1Tim. 4:16 uses the same Grk word, “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching…”). A set of doctrines convey a particular “theology” that no one can evade or avoid. Reformed Theology simply refers to teachings or doctrines that have been taught by the Reformers (especially Calvin, Bullinger, Bucer, Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Luther, etc.) and by the various confessional denominations that profess a similar theology (like the Presbyterians). This theology faithfully presents the Bible’s teaching. The Reformers did not “invent” its theology but carefully and clearly set forth what the Bible teaches. Seven key ideas make up Reformed Theology (RT). Most evangelicals would generally embrace the first one but only RT gives a prominent place to the other six ideas.  

Word Centered

RT teaches that the Bible is inerrant (without error) and fully authoritative (1Tim. 3:16, 17). Since the Bible reveals what we are to believe concerning God as well as what duties He requires of us, its teaching takes precedence (when rightly interpreted and understood) over man’s reason, experience, and culture. Fallen sinful man cannot think of God correctly (Rom. 1:18ff.) and must depend entirely upon the Holy Spirit to enable him to understand the truths of the Bible savingly and correctly. 

God Centered

This is God’s world which He created and sustains for His own glory. The Bible starts off with “In the beginning God…” RT believes the Bible’s story is about God’s redemptive acts and purposes. God created, God speaks, reveals, promises, redeems, protects, etc. The Bible is God centered and man was created to know, worship, and have fellowship with Him. We were created for Him: “all things were created through him and for him” (Col. 1:16); “For from him and through him and to him are all things.” (Rom. 11:36) That means we exist for God’s purpose — that is why we were created.

The Sovereignty of God

RT unapologetically proclaims that God is absolutely sovereign. Not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from God (Mt. 10:29) and He has numbered the hairs of our head (Mt. 10:30). “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God…” (Rom. 8:28 NASB). No purpose of God can be thwarted (Job 42:2) and “he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”” (Dan. 4:35) That means God governs everything and nothing happens in creation without God’s will and purpose: “to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place” (Acts 4:28). That is why when we plan, we humbly say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” (James 4:15)

Covenant Theology

RT looks at the Bible in terms of “covenants.” God enters into covenants with His people in the Bible (Adam, Hos. 6:7; Noah, Gen. 9:9; Abraham, Gen. 15, 17; Moses & Israel, Ex. 6:4; 19:5; 24:7, etc.; David, 2 Sam. 7; New Covenant, Jer. 31; Mt. 26:28, etc.) and in Christ, we entered into the New Covenant. The covenant with Adam was considered a “Covenant of Works” in which God required perfect obedience (which he failed). After that, God established a Covenant of Grace expressed differently in redemptive history. Covenants help us to interpret God’s dealings with man since man can only have a relationship with Him by way of a covenant.

Doxological

Since RT is God centered, everything should be for God’s glory, to His praise. Our ambitions, our lives, all that we do, etc. should be for the glory of God: Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be glory!). “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1Cor. 10:31). We welcome one another “for the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7)! “To Him be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom. 11:36; cf. Gal. 1:5). Eph. 1 punctuates the rhythm of the long sentence with “to the praise of his glory.” RT gives all the glory to God in our salvation (He gets all the credit), in our worship (God centered worship), in our lives, and in our theology. In any discussion of theology (Evangelical, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Nazarene, Pentecostal, etc.), we should ask, “Who gets the glory?” Many theological formulations end up glorifying or crediting man (Arminian) or the church (Roman Catholicism) but God’s glory remains central in RT.

God’s Commandments

Though not under the law for our justification and life, we are not “outside the law of God but under the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). What counts is “keeping the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 7:19). RT recognizes the importance of the God’s law in the life of a believer not as a means of life but as a “rule of life informing” believers “of the will of God” (WCF 19.6). Believers have a duty to obey the Ten Commandments and the Spirit enables them to obey God’s Word (Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10; 1Jn. 2:3-4; Rev. 12:17; 14:12).

The Creeds and the Reformation

RT is Calvinistic in its doctrine of salvation (“soteriology”). But not all “Calvinists” are actually “Reformed” because their teaching is Reformed only in the area of “salvation” and not in other areas. RT is expressed in its various confessions and creeds. The well known ones include The Westminster Confession of Faith and its Catechisms (Larger and Shorter); the Heidelberg Catechism, The Canons of Dort, and The Belgic Confession. These more or less offer comprehensive statements regarding all the major doctrines of the Bible (Loci Theologici). 

[1] Much much more could be said than what we are about to cover in this study. This very brief overview seeks to introduce some of the basic points of Reformed Theology. Note: “We are living in a day in which practically all of the historic churches are being attacked from within by unbelief. Many of them have already succumbed. And almost invariably the line of descent has been from Calvinism to Arminianism, from Arminianism to Liberalism, and then to Unitarianism. And the history of Liberalism and Unitarianism shows that they deteriorate into a social gospel that is too weak to sustain itself. … Where the God centered principles of Calvinism have been abandoned, there has been a strong tendency downward into the depths of man centered naturalism or secularism.” (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Faith)

A Practical Guide to Prayer

Leave a reply

A Practical Guide to Prayer[1]

Before they call I will answer. Isaiah 65:24

Introduction: George Swinnock offers some very helpful and practical steps to praying. He presents several things we should meditate on before praying. It may be appropriate to take each topic separately and then pray in response. He lists six categories on which we can meditate.

—

Meditation prepares the heart for prayer. “Meditation is the best beginning of prayer, and prayer is the best conclusion of meditation. Prayer is a building which reaches up to heaven, meditation lays in all the costly materials which are requisite for this building.” (p. 112)[2]

1. Meditate on your sins, and hunt them out of their lurking holes; this helps in our confession.[3] “Your duty in prayer is to indict, arraign, and condemn and execute those malefactors and transgressors of the royal law, which can never be done till they are apprehended. If you want to kill those foxes that spoil the vine, those lusts which hinder your regenerate part from thriving, your care must be by meditation to hunt them out of their lurking holes and take them.” (p. 113) [Name the sins before God in your meditation and confess and repent of them.]

2. Meditate on your needs, for God is fully able to supply them. Consider what you need—pardoning mercy, strength for victory, power against sin—that you may entreat God to give them to you. “Consider…what sin you lately prevented, and are afraid it will recover again, that you may beg strength to pursue the victory; what lust lately got the better of you, that you may entreat pardon of it, and power against it… This consideration of your needs, with the weight of them, will make you more urgent and instant with God for supply; they that feel hunger, how hard will they beg for bread!” (p. 114) [Consider your spiritual needs more than your material needs.]

3. Meditate upon his mercies to you from birth. Look at the dangers you have been delivered from, the journeys you have been protected in, the seasonable help he has sent you, the suitable support he has afforded you in distress, the counsel he has given you in doubts, and the comforts he has provided you in sorrow and darkness. These are present with you by meditation. Every breath in your life is a gift of mercy. Do not forget the former favours bestowed on you and your family. An empty perfume bottle still smells when the perfume is gone. “These thoughts before prayer may stir you up to bless the giver. If you should bless men when they curse you, much more should you bless God, when he blesses you.” (pp. 115-116) [Look over all the specific mercies God has given you.]

4. Then meditate upon your present mercies. How many do you enjoy—your house, family, body, and soul, are all full of blessings! Think of them particularly. Spread them out like jewels to your view. Meditate on how freely they are bestowed, on their fullness and greatness. But O, your soul’s mercies—the image of God, the blood of Christ, eternal life, and seasons of grace! Your whole life is a bundle of mercies. These stir us up to bless the Giver.  [Consider both “body-mercies” (things that benefit your body, physical life, etc.) and especially “soul-mercies” (things that benefit your soul) you receive on a daily basis.]

5. Then meditate on God to whom we pray. O how we are ashamed of our drops when we stand by this ocean! “As God rises in our thoughts, self falls. That sun discovers all our dust… This serious apprehension of your distance will quicken you to reverence. God’s greatness and man’s vileness are both arguments to make man humble and serious in the worship of God.” (p. 116) [Go through His attributes in your mind and consider how infinitely higher He is than you. This helps us to maintain a proper perspective in prayer.]

6. Meditate on his mercy and goodness.[4] These like Moses’ strokes will fetch water out of a rock. God delights to be sought and found. He delights to see men joyful in the house of prayer. God will not send you away sad. When you have by mediation put the wood in order upon the altar, you may by prayer set fire to it and offer up a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour. “Believe before you pray, that your hand of prayer shall not knock at heaven’s gate in vain, that God will not send you away sad.” (p. 116) [As a believer, this is the one thing you must be convinced of in your prayer or your prayers will be drudgery, legal, burdensome, and something you will want to dispense with as soon as possible. “Believe before you pray!”]

[1] Enlarged from Nov. 11, Voices from the Past, Vol. 1 (George Swinnock, Works, 1:111-117). The editor extracted this reading from Swinnock’s The Christian Man’s Calling. In particular, it represents a portion from chapter 12 entitled, “How a Christian may exercise himself to godliness in prayer.” I added extra sentences from the original work to the selection from Voices from the Past.

[2] This along with the rest of the quotes will be modernized.

[3] Swinnock says three things relate to us, “thy sins, wants [needs], and mercies.”

[4] “…what promises He has made to prayer, how bountiful he is to those who call upon Him. He does more than they can ask or think; he gives liberally without upbraiding.” (p. 116)

Denominations: Is it wrong to be in a denomination?

Leave a reply

Being “non-denominational” always sounds better than being in a denomination. No one wants to be “labeled” or narrowly pigeonholed. Some even seem to believe that their non-denominational status is inherently superior to those stuck in an old man made denomination.

But is being in a denomination inherently bad? They seem to imply that a denomination needs a justification for its existence while being non-denominational requires no justification. I don’t know when or how this happened but that seems to be the state of affairs now.

In this study, I want to argue for the benefits of being in a denomination and argue that an independent non-denominational church creates more problems than they know.

What is so great about…?

I want to present a typical scenario to help us look into the supposed benefits of being non-denominational. Let’s say the non-denominational church in question called itself Community Church of Warminster (CCW). This church emphatically distances herself from being connected to a certain denomination. She sells this as her strong point. They remain adamant about this — they desperately seek to be THE community church for everyone in their neighborhood and city.  Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, non-denominational, etc. can all come. They exclude no one.

Furthermore, denominational churches, they argue, were started by men. Wesley (for Methodists and Wesleyans), Calvin (Presbyterians and Reformed churches), Luther (for Lutherans), etc. A non-denominational church depends only on the Bible and not on the fickle and peculiar personalities of men and fallible institutions. Her eyes behold only the Bible and nothing else!

Sounds great! She remains open to all and excludes no one. They also depend on the Bible and not on men and great personalities. These things appeal to every believer. Who can disagree with that? That surely makes a non-denominational church great! Right?

Hidden Assumptions

Under closer scrutiny, these things may not be as beneficial as they first appear to be. But what does CCW believe? Does CCW tell us anything about what she believes? Will she always believe it? Is that belief dependent on the pastor or her leaders? The simple affirmation, “We just believe in the Bible.” is both naïve and misleading.

No church exists without some doctrinal positions. She has to believe in something. To say they believe in the Bible doesn’t tell us much. The devil espouses the Bible. Jehovah’s Witness and even the Mormons appeal to the Bible. Roman Catholics do the same. The question remains, “What doctrines or teachings do you believe come from the Bible?” Once we frame the question that way, many churches part company from each other. Many churches that purport to believe in the Bible rarely read it from the pulpit.

Most non-denominational churches have a statement of faith or beliefs. Often they tend to express their beliefs in minimal terms. But even here they can mislead. Every church has a position on women preachers, baptism (paedo, credo, salvific, etc.), Lord’s Supper, Christ’s return, its view of the millennium, view of the OT (dispensational, covenantal, etc.), Ten Commandments (all say they believe them but most deny the second and fourth), God’s sovereignty, church discipline, church government, etc. but they rarely ever set forth where they stand on these important issues.

For example, Calvary Chapel[1] lists what they believe. It doesn’t tell us about their view of women’s ministry, Ten Commandments, church discipline, and God’s sovereignty. They believe in baptism by immersion but we know nothing else as to its meaning. They are clearly dispensational though they do not say so. Their Trinitarian formulation borders on being modalistic[2] and their view of Christian fellowship is faulty — the basis of Christian fellowship should not be “Christ’s agape love”[3] (does that clause mean Christ’s love for us or our love for others on account of Christ’s love)?

A lot more could be said. But who holds the pastor accountable? Can the entire church simply change all those views? Does each staff member have to hold to these doctrinal views? Is the pastor the final authority? Are there elders?[4] We don’t really know any of these things.

To Form a Perfect Union?

Individual non-denominational churches remain unconnected to any other church in any formal way. They can meet with other churches but nothing requires or encourages that. In their efforts to be open to everyone, they can only be that way if someone comes to that church. CCW remains unattached to any other church and technically, she could live and die without ever fellowshipping with other local churches!

Presbyterian churches have voluntarily joined themselves together by their mutual confession of faith. We have a “built-in” fellowship. We remain connected to other churches in our denomination and the leadership regularly meets with the leaders of other churches. Some of them meet together as churches on a regular basis while the rest of them have to meet together as elders (in Presbyteries).

Having said all of this, being in a denomination will not necessarily determine the church’s general attitude. She can be either charitable and catholic (in the generic and the true sense of the word) or be sectarian and parochial. Whereas being Presbyterian may help to foster a more generous charitable spirit, it does not necessarily always happen. Truly, if we are one in Christ, then we must love those whom Christ loves.

KEY THOUGHTS: Beyond the Local Church

Creeds and Confessions or What we Believe (Statement of Faith)

A non-denominational church list what they believe. Most are short and very simple. We would expect something like that in CCW.

Conservative Evangelical Bible believing Presbyterian churches hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and its Catechisms. Many godly and learned men met together to write this Confession (all of them well aware of the historic creeds and confessions) and it has stood the test of time since 1646. The WCF was something of a consensus statement by many of the great men of the seventeenth century. These men held to more distinct views on many other matters but these statements in the WCF were held by all of them.

However, “What we Believe” statements seek to be minimal. Therefore their broad statements create many more questions (because they are not as comprehensive). Also, because they were written by a few people and not necessarily by the most biblically and theologically equipped men, they tend to lack depth and insight (being unaware of the broad differences of opinions on certain matters). For example, many people do not know that the modern view of the “rapture” is less than 150 years old! Such a view was never ever considered before this. Yet, some believe if you don’t believe in the “rapture” then you are not a Christian![5]

To argue that nobody wants to follow “men” and instead follow the Bible overlooks a simple point. These “What we Believe” statements were composed by contemporary men and I can hardly believe they are godlier and more theological than the men who penned the WCF. They were all composed by men — which one is more biblical and more thoroughly theological and reflective of the Bible’s overall teaching?

We hold to these Confessions not by coercion but by conviction. After reading, studying and reflecting on the Bible’s teaching, we have come to believe that these statements in the Confession reflect what the Bible teaches as a whole. Yes, they were written by men ages ago but we believe the truth of Scripture has not changed. We embrace these doctrines because we believe they are in accordance with Scripture. The same can be said of the “What we Believe” statements. Both maintain their biblical basis. We affirm more and with greater precision; they affirm very little and some of their statements lack clarity.

KEY THOUGHTS: Minimal vs. Comprehensive; Credal by Conviction and not by Coercion

Church Government

Every church has some form of “leadership.” The question is not over its simplicity vs. complexity but its fidelity to the Bible. Is the church government in accordance with Scripture? Many non-denominational churches do not have “elders” or “deacons.” They have boards, committees, etc. All of them have a “pastor” and other leaders but the Bible clearly teaches that the church leaders are to be her elders who teach and oversee the flock of God.

The “pastor” is not superior to the other elders but they work as a body of elders. They hold each other accountable and are held accountable by the church and Presbytery. Here is where this is very important. We can be sure that everyone will voluntarily teach what the Confession teaches and that it will be (at least it should be!) the same in all the churches. Since all her elders believe the Confession faithfully reflects the Bible’s teaching, they require each individual elder to consistently teach what the Confession teaches.

In a non-denominational church, the pastor often has the highest authority. Sometimes, the ruling body (whatever they might call it, the board, etc.) has the highest authority and they hire and fire as they see fit. The doctrine that is being taught reflects the mind of the individual leader or the governing authority and no external doctrinal standard can hold him or them accountable. For example, in a non-denominational church, the pastor can say, “The Bible does not teach that Jesus is God.” The congregation may not like it but what can they do? Doesn’t it become a power struggle to see if the pastor stays or not? What if several people in the congregation have been convinced by the pastor? What happens now? In a Presbyterian church, we can say up front that we have already declared in our Confession and its Catechisms that the Bible teaches that Jesus is fully God! That doctrine continues to be what we believe the Bible teaches. So, the same pastor could be charged of heresy or formally disciplined and in the end, excommunicated. An appeal could be made to a larger body of elders beyond the congregation if it become messy in the local congregation. The same doctrinal standard will be used both in the local congregation as well as the local presbytery to try the heretic of his Arian Christology!

In a Presbyterian structure, the pastor will be held accountable either by the elders and/or the Presbytery. Her doctrinal distinctives regulate what can being taught! If the pastor no longer believes what he professed to believe when he joined the denomination, then he can leave or be deposed.

Because the Presbyterian church is a Confessional church, you don’t have to wonder what the pastor and the elders believe. Will this pastor teach such and such? You cannot be certain in a non-denominational church. However, in a confessional denominational church, though emphases may differ, each pastor will generally teach those basic doctrinal positions each pastor and elder voluntarily believes.

KEY THOUGHTS: Voluntary Association; Independent vs. Connectionalism (cf. Acts 15); Elders and not Boards, etc.

A Rose by any other name?

A non-denominational church may say they are free from the opinions of men and open to all people. Yet, their doctrinal distinctives, whether explicitly stated in a statement of belief or not, reveal their theological pedigree (whether they know it or not). Everyone is either an Arminian or a Calvinist; a paedobaptist or a credobaptist; covenantal or dispensational (though there may be moderating positions between these two); etc. That is, they are either Baptist or not — each church maintains a position on these and other theological issues.  A church may not want to be called Baptist and yet everything they believe in and everything they teach have been held by Baptists. That doesn’t per se make it right or wrong but not labeling oneself doesn’t mean the church can escape a label. A denominational label describes the kinds of beliefs held by the church — some are conscious of that while others are not. A rose by any other name is still a rose. A Baptist is a Baptist even if he disavows it. Avoiding a theological or denominational label does not enable a church to escape it.

If one has chicken pox, then one has it even if he or she does want to call it that. They could avoid the label entirely but call it what you will, it is still chicken pox. A church may avoid being denominational and being theologically labeled but what they believe still has a “label” perfectly describing them.

KEY THOUGHTS: Theological labels help us and do not limit us

CONCLUSION: There are several non-denominational independent churches that are healthy and powerful in their community (cf. John MacArthur’s church) but the church’s theological distinctives will disappear once the pastor retires. The same could be said about each denominational church but these churches are guaranteed certain theological positions after their pastor retires.

[1] http://www.ccphilly.org/what-we-believe/

[2] To say “who manifests Himself in three separate persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is classic modalism. The word “manifests” is not the word to use because that is the word Sabellius and other modalists used to describe the Trinity. Our LC says,  “There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one …God” (LC, #9).

[3] This phrase literally means Christ’s love love — there isn’t anything unique about the word “agape” per se no matter how many times ministers argue that it is a unique kind of love (it just means “love”).  Our fellowship is based on our union with Christ and in having the same Holy Spirit dwelling in all of us.

[4] Calvary Chapel’s statement talks about the church government being simplistic — “church government should be simplistic rather than complex and bureaucratic.” It should read “simple” and not “simplistic.” This is a very unfortunate formulation. It states what they avoid but does not set forth what they affirm.

[5] Our view of the “end times” (eschatology) is very basic and held by almost all Christians.

Larger Catechism, #100-101, pt. 2

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

101 Q. What is the preface to the ten commandments?

A. The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.[436] Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God;[437] having his being in and of himself,[438] and giving being to all his words[439] and works:[440] and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people;[441] who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom;[442] and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.[443]

Sovereign God

In this preface, we learn three basic truths about God. First of all, it reveals something of God’s sovereign nature. “Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works:…” The phrase “I am the LORD your God…” reveals the name of God as YHWH, his covenant name (Ex. 6:3). God makes Himself known to His people. The names of God always revealed something of His character and YHWH means He is who He is: “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” (Ex. 3:14) YHWH is later (in Is. 44:6) revealed as “the King of Israel” (“Thus saith the LORD [YHWH] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [YHWH] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”). As His name reveals, He is sufficient, needing nothing and depending on no one: “having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works” (cf. Acts 17:24, 28).

His name reveals His unique nature and manifests His character. We serve, worship, and obey a God whom we know. This God who revealed Himself as YHWH is by virtue of His name sovereign. Vos put it this way:

No creature may question the righteousness of any act of God: to do so is the height of impiety and irreverence. The sovereignty of God also implies that God is ultimate: there is no principle or law above or beyond God to which God himself is responsible. God is responsible only to himself; his own nature is his only law. There is nothing above or beyond him. God’s sovereignty is manifested in a special way in his work of redemption. Redemption from sin is wholly God’s work, and its benefits are bestowed wholly according to God’s sovereign good pleasure. He saves exactly whom he purposes to save, and does so by his absolute, almighty power.

We can only know and understand God because of His revelation. In giving us the commandments, He first reveals Himself to us. By saying “I am YHWH…” much is implied in the name (as enumerated in the catechism). Surely we should remember this as we study the Ten Commandments. They are God’s commandments and God has revealed Himself to us — we must know and understand whom we obey; we obey His commandments and not just abstract moral principles or laws.

 

Covenant God

The second thing we learn is that God is our covenant God: “I am the LORD your God…” The LC says, “that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people…” A believer serves his God. A husband loves his wife and not just any wife. The essence of the covenant is that God is our God and that we are His people. We find this in all the expressions of the covenant. It is found in the Abrahamic (Gen. 17:7), the Mosaic (Ex. 6:6, 7; 19:4, 5; Lev. 11:45; Deut. 4:20; 29:13), the Davidic (2K. 11:17; 2Chron. 23:16), and the New Covenant (Jer. 24:7; 31:33; 32:37f.). The God who revealed Himself as the great “I AM” is also our God.

Is this God (as expressed in Exodus 20) our God? Can we say that the God who revealed Himself to Israel and gave the Ten Commandments is the Christian’s God as well? Has He entered into a covenant with us? If He is our God, then His Word ought to binds us. To say this God is our God but these commandments do not pertain to us would demand some sort of an explanation.[1] At least for now, we need to affirm that this same God is in a covenant with us, His New Covenant people. The phrase “and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people” means that as God related to Israel through the covenant so He is “a God in covenant” with us as well.

The phrase therefore teaches two things. One is that God enters into a relationship with His people by means of the covenant.[2] As He did so with Israel, so He did so with us. Secondly, as already implied, we, as New Covenant people, are in a covenant relationship with the same God. The God who gave the Ten Commandments is also our covenant God. Romans 3:29 says, “Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.” It is the same God in both the Old and New Testaments.

God is not polygamous. His covenant is with His people, one people in Christ; we are all one (Jews and Gentiles) in Christ. It is the one people who through history included both Jews and Gentiles; God does not have a separate covenant with the Jews and a different covenant with Gentiles — He only has one wife prepared for Himself (cf. Rev. 21-22).

 

Redeeming God

The preface reveals a wonderful third truth about God. God is a redeeming God. His grace precedes our obedience: “who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom…” As the God in covenant delivered Israel from their bondage in Egypt so He delivered us from our spiritual bondage to sin and under the devil’s power.

The divines used a very powerful and pregnant passage to support this theological statement. They cite Luke 1:74-75: “that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.” Using OT language and imagery, Zechariah prophesied that God had “redeemed his people” (v. 68). This redemption is the salvation envisioned and promised in the OT: “has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies…” (vv. 70-71). This is OT language used to explain the role of John the Baptist preparing the way of the Lord. The Messiah’s coming brings about deliverance from our enemies: “to show mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.” That deliverance was in keeping with his “holy covenant” he made with Abraham.

The statement clearly teaches that the coming of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant and that His coming is also described in terms of deliverance. That deliverance, we learn in the NT, is ultimately more powerful than any deliverance from foreign political powers. That deliverance is “from our spiritual thralldom/bondage.” That is how the NT explains Zechariah’s prophecy in Colossians 1:13-14, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Zechariah foresaw their/our deliverance and we clearly understand that deliverance in terms of deliverance from spiritual bondage (and the full redemption of all things to follow).

We have been delivered from a greater bondage and therefore our obligations are greater and not lesser. Vos put it like this:

Every child of God has been redeemed from a “house of bondage” vastly more powerful, cruel, and tyrannical than the physical bondage of ancient Egypt. This statement in the preface to the Ten Commandments causes us to realizes (a) that as Christians, we have been delivered from bitter slavery; and (b) that this deliverance was not our own achievement, but was accomplished by the sovereign, almighty power of God. (Vos)

As Israel received the Ten Commandments with their redemption behind them so we stand before His law with our redemption accomplished. We are in a parallel position. We are the redeemed people before a gracious God who calls us to obey His commandments. As the NIV translated it, “Therefore… in view of God’s mercy…” (Rom. 12:1). We obey in view of His mercies! “For the grace of God has appeared, bring salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness…” (Titus 2:11-12).

  1. Always remember that redemption precedes obedience.

It is because we are redeemed by Christ, we seek to obey His Word. We do not obey to save ourselves but obey in view of His mercies. We believe and are justified and therefore we are saved; in that estate of salvation, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

  1. If we forget this order, we fall into legalism.

Once we confuse this order (redemption precedes obedience), we will fall into “legalism.” That is, we will tend to believe that our obedience somehow merits God’s favor, pardon, acceptance, etc. We may never explicitly state that our works saves us but our slavish spirit will act as if that were the case.

  1. This preface must always accompany our study of the Ten Commandments.

Without it, a Muslim could practically agree with everything. Without it, the “Law” stands on its own with a God commanding obedience. There are no grace and mercy in view and we will stand condemned each time. We must look at the Ten Commandments through the lens of redemptive grace or we will fall prey to works righteousness.

 

Our God and His Commandments

The preface to the Ten Commandments leads us to this point: “and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.” As Israel had God as their God, that He was their God by means of the covenant, and that He redeemed them, so we are in the same position or condition. We stand as a covenant people redeemed by grace called upon to obey all his commandments.

To put it more plainly, can we truly accept this God as our covenant God and refuse to accept his commandments? What about all the Ten Commandments? Do we get to pick and choose which of the Ten Commandments should bind us? Has God’s moral law for Israel changed?

Hebrews 1:1ff. teach that God continually revealed Himself to his people. But in the final stage of redemptive history, “he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” If Israel had to obey in terms of the Old Covenant (OC) revelation, then how much for us in terms of the New Covenant: “For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (Heb. 2:2-3) In the OC, Israel was to obey because God was their God: “Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.” (Lev. 18:30) “Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.” (Lev. 19:37) If that holds true in terms of what they received, how much more for us?

The “lesser to the greater argument” applies here (or an a fortiori argument, an argument from yet a stronger reason). We have a greater and stronger reason to obey His commandments. Somehow we have drawn the opposite conclusion. We reason that since we are in the NC, we are less bound. But God has not become less holy and what He has done for us is far greater than what He did for Israel (in redemptive historical terms). As Peter said (1Pet. 1:15, 16), “But as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”” The verse he cited comes from Lev. 19:2. The same rule and principle used in the OT applies to us, and even more so. Peter goes on to add this inducement (1Pet. 1:17-19):

And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

Because he cited Leviticus 19:2 to challenge NC believers, we learn something important here. In fact, the casual way with which Peter appeals to the Old Testament should challenge us all. Since he mentioned how the prophets were serving us (1 Pet. 1:12) in the beginning of the chapter, therefore he cites Lev. 19:2 because God’s Word pertains to all of His people.

Peter assumes that the OT writings are authoritative and normative for his Christian readers, regardless of their previous ethnic origin. He makes no distinction between the Jewish and the Gentile Christian in his application, nor does the span of time between Leviticus and his letter mitigate the relevance of God’s ancient revelation of himself. By quoting from Leviticus, Peter establishes the principle that the holiness to which the Christian is called in Christ is consistent with God’s character as revealed in the ancient covenant with Israel. However, Peter does not enjoin on his Christian readers the specifics of the Levitical religion of ancient Israel. In terms of moral transformation, the goal of both the old and the new covenants is the same—to create a people who morally conform to God’s character.[3]

God’s moral character is spelled out in His law. Those laws in the OC and especially the Ten Commandments were not “incidental.” They revealed something of His holy character. For example, the “speed limit” is arbitrary. Its only moral force comes from the Bible’s teaching concerning obedience to civil magistrates. However, there is nothing intrinsically binding in the speed limit since it is arbitrary. God’s law, on the other hand, reveals His character and we are called to be conformed to His character. So the preface reveals “a declaration of God’s authority to enforce, and of his mercy to oblige us to the obedience of, those laws, which he delivers.”[4]

[1] I well understand the dispensational arguments regarding this but we cannot enter into that debate at this time.

[2] An interesting debate within the Reformed camp has recently garnered some attention. Did Adam ever exist outside of the covenant and was the covenant an extra layer placed (graciously) on Adam? See Jeffrey C. Waddington, “Sic et Non. Views in Review: Westminster Seminary California Distinctives? Part III. II. The Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” The Confessional Presbyterian 10, (2014): 189-204 (esp. 193-194).

[3] Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, vol. 17 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 113.

[4] Ezekiel Hopkins, The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins, 3 vols. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997), 1:271.

 

Larger Catechism, #100-101, pt. 1

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Questions 100-101

100 Q. What special things are we to consider in the ten commandments?

A. We are to consider in the ten commandments, the preface, the substance of the commandments themselves, and several reasons annexed to some of them, the more to enforce them.

Question 100[1]

This question serves as a brief introduction to what is to come. First, it tells us what is the biggest “division”[2] in the Ten Commandments, namely, the preface and the “substance of the commandments.” How we understand the two parts and how they relate serve as important keys to rightly understanding the purpose of God’s law. The second point reminds us that some of the commandments offer “reasons” for the commandment (e.g., second and fifth commandments). These reasons compel us to obey them that much more. For example, a mother can declare she is your mother and that should be reason enough to obey her. She could also add more details of her relationship to you (I sacrificed for you, gave up many opportunities to be with you, prayed for you, live as an example before you, etc.). This would make the son’s obedience that much more compelling.

 

101 Q. What is the preface to the ten commandments?

A. The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.[436] Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God;[437] having his being in and of himself,[438] and giving being to all his words[439] and works:[440] and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people;[441] who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom;[442] and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.[443]

[436] Exodus 20:2. I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [437] Isaiah 44:6. Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. [438] Exodus 3:14. And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. [439] Exodus 6:3. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. [440] Acts 17:24, 28. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands…. For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. [441] Genesis 17:7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Romans 3:29. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. [442] Luke 1:74-75. That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. [443] 1 Peter 1:15, 17-18. But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation…. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers. Leviticus 18:30. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19:37. Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.

 

Introduction

The important role of the preface to the ten commandments must be carefully understood. If we do not take it seriously or we relativize it, then the ten commandments will merely stand out as external laws from God having no real and personal relationship to us. The preface helps us to see that we obey a redemptive God and not some sovereign arbitrary deity who wields absolute authority as our creator (cf. like Allah). The preface sets the right context for the commandments.

Furthermore, people debate over the binding nature of this or that commandment (especially the fourth). That may be all well and good (though it is not) but those concerns cannot be rightly answered if the believer does not accurately grasp the role of the preface. In fact, unless one can affirm the preface for himself, the ten commandments will elude him. It is in the preface we learn of our specific relationship to the Law maker.

Unfortunately, some have used the preface to disregard the ten commandments. They argue that the preface automatically limits itself to the Israelites: “This law was given to Israel exclusively, which is seen in the opening word.”[3] The law should have been rejected, they argue.

It was a fatal thing, which all the people did when they answered together, “all that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” It was a presumptuous declaration, which sprung from self-confidence and showed clearly that they had no appreciation for that Grace, which had visited them in Egypt and brought them hitherto. They had received grace, they needed grace. With the vow they had made, they had put themselves under the law. The legal covenant had its beginning with the rejection of the Covenant of Grace, and the legal covenant ends with the acceptance of Grace.[4]

This sort of argument borders on being ridiculous because God’s redeemed people were not allowed to “choose” or reject God’s covenant of grace with them. God’s redemption bound them to Himself.[5] They did not stand before God at Mt. Sinai to “negotiate” the terms of their relationship with their Redeemer (who brought them out of Egypt). The sovereign God did not bring through the Red Sea and the desert to solicit their feedback and then broker a covenant relationship. Furthermore, this implies that God had less than perfect intentions. Did God give the law to “trap” them, to make it worse for Israel after He redeemed them? Gaebelein’s reasoning makes God look like a diabolical jinni who offered Israel something that would ultimately harm them.

We cannot see how this truncated view of biblical history does justice to the Bible’s overall redemptive teaching. It assumes what God commanded was only for the Jews. Rather, we should look at it in a way similar to Michael Horton. “The Old Testament is not merely the part of our Bibles that predicted a coming Messiah and was rendered irrelevant when that Messiah arrived; it is part of one full, complete, running drama of redemption, and beginning with Matthew’s Gospel is like walking into a movie halfway into the story. It is like thinking you are telling a good joke when all you can remember is the punch line.”[6]

Israel’s redemption from Egypt was not just for them but a “down payment on the great redemption to be accomplished” by Christ.[7] That is, it is just one act of redemption in the history of redemption signifying the ultimate redemption to come. Their “exodus” was our exodus and in their experience of God’s deliverance from Egypt, they began to experience the ultimate deliverance to come in Christ. The OT pointed to Christ and to what He would do (Lk. 24:25ff.) and the exodus pointed to Christ’s redemption.

The OT moved beyond the great deliverance from Egypt. Jeremiah announced that another deliverance would come: “Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when it shall no longer be said, ‘As the LORD lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,’ but ‘As the LORD lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.’ For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their fathers.” (Jer. 16:14, 15) But that deliverance gave way to the ultimate deliverance, namely, their deliverance from their sin. Zechariah, John the Baptist’s father, blessed the Lord because “he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David…” (Lk. 1:68ff.) Each deliverance gave way to this final deliverance in Christ.

But the great deliverance accomplished through Jesus Christ would surpass every other deliverance. The old Passover is replaced by the new one, for which Christ Himself has become the sacrificed Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7). The deliverance from Egypt became our deliverance from the power of darkness, from the slavery of sin, so that we might receive a place in the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13; 1 Peter 2:9).[8]

The interpretation we offered works on the fundamental assumption of God’s overall redemptive purpose in Scripture — the same God working out His covenant of grace in history in the OT culminates it in Christ. It is the same covenant of grace administered differently in the various covenants but the substance is the same in all. To discount the preface and the Decalogue chops off the redemptive flow of biblical history. We should be able to personally embrace Ex. 20:2, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”

If this preface was sufficient to compel the Israelites to obey God then the reasons for our obedience are that much stronger. That is, if political and national liberation sufficed to bind Israel to God (though the liberation was much more than political and national), then our liberation from sin and our eternal redemption should bind us to Him that much more. The least we could do, as it were, is to obey the Ten Commandments. Greater redemption should not bind us to something less (which seems to be the general thrust of many who reject the Ten Commandments).

[1] Both Vos and Ridgley chose not to comment on this question. They listed the question and answer but neither one gave any explanation. This is not the most helpful question and the LC would have remained intact without it. Also, this question needs no “proof text” since it merely observes what is already plain in the ten commandments. It could say, “We find the ten commandments in these commandments of God.” This statement merely notes what appears to be evident.

[2] Division is not the best word because the ten commandments work as a whole.

[3] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Book of Exodus: A Complete Analysis of Exodus with Annotations (New York: “Our Hope” Publication Office, 1912), 49.

[4] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Book of Exodus, 48.

[5] Sadly, even a Reformed NT scholar said something similar in his essay. See T. David Gordon, “Abraham and Sinai Contrasted in Galatians 3:6-14,” in The Law is not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, ed. Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David Van Drunen (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009), 251.

[6] Michael Horton, The Law of Perfect Freedom (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1993), 28.

[7] Horton, The Law of Perfect Freedom, 28.

[8] Jochem Douma, The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1996), 6.

Facing Grief by John Flavel

Leave a reply

Facing Grief: Counsel for Mourners[1]

by John Flavel (1627-91)

This book was written by a Presbyterian minister in 1674. He witnessed the death of his only child and three wives. He was survived by his fourth wife. After the death of his second wife and the death of his first and only child (mom and child died at childbirth), John Flavel wrote this work to help us sorrow correctly.

Though this small book deals primarily with the death of loved ones, these timeless truths apply to all forms of afflictions. That is how I read this book. It relates to those who are afflicted with health issues, sudden turn of events, loss of employment, a broken relationship, financial hardships, etc.

Flavel works with the assumption (a biblical assumption) that God orders all things. That serves as the foundation for his discourse . Our losses, afflictions, etc. come to us by the hand of God. That being the case, how do we respond to Him? He does not deny that we must mourn or grieve but denies that we should murmur or grumble

 

Text and Theme

 “And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not.” (Lk. 7:13) Having lost her son, our Lord compassionately said “Weep not.” From this, Flavel argues that Christ’s encounter with her is providential and his counsel comes from compassion. His counsel to not weep means, “Yet the words are not an absolute prohibition of tears and sorrow; he does not condemn all mourning as sinful, or all expressions of grief for dead relations as uncomely… he only prohibits the excesses and extravagancies of our sorrows for the dead…” (pp. 6-7) He counseled her this way because he intended to quickly remove the cause of her tears by restoring her son to life (7).

Though this is an extraordinary case, yet all believers can also moderate their sorrows with the death of their believing loved ones since Christ will raise them as well.

 

Overview

The book has eight chapters. The second chapter explains the difference between moderate and immoderate sorrow. Fourth explains when sorrow actually becomes sinful. The longest chapter is the sixth chapter: “Godly Mourners Comforted.” In it, he gives twenty considerations. The seventh chapter tackles the arguments people often use to justify their sorrow: “Pleas for Immoderate Grief Answered.” The last chapter offers several ways to prepare ourselves so that our sorrows would not overwhelm us.

The fifth chapter is unusual. In it, he offers counsel to unbelievers. The general thrust is that they can ultimately find their relief only in Christ. Here is one of the counsels:

This affliction for which you mourn may be the greatest mercy to you that ever yet befell you in this world. God has now made your heart soft by trouble, showed you the vanity of this world, and what a poor trifle it is which you made your happiness. There is now a dark cloud spread over all your worldly comforts. Now, oh, now! if the Lord would but strike in with this affliction, and by it open your eyes to see your deplorable state, and take off your heart for ever from the vain world, which you now see has nothing in it; and cause you to choose Christ, the only abiding good for your portion… (39)

We will focus only on a few things from the book. I recommend that you read the entire book, whatever your circumstances. Some weighty thoughts can be found in this precious little volume.

 

When Sorrow is Sinful

Perhaps we think that each individual should grieve in his own way? After all, we are all different. We dare not gently challenge them because we are not in their shoes! Sorrow is just a response, an emotion over which they have no control and for which they remain immune from any challenge. Flavel, on the other hand, not being insensitive, offers seven circumstances in which sorrow has become sinful.

 

EXTRACTS

First, It causes us to slight and despise all our other mercies and enjoyments as small things, in comparison with what we have lost.

Besides, what vile ingratitude is in this! What, are all your remaining mercies worth nothing? You have buried a child, a friend; well, but still you have a husband, a wife, other children; or if not, you have comfortable accommodations for yourselves, with health to enjoy them; or if not, yet have you the ordinances of God, it may be, an interest in Christ and in the covenant, pardon of sin, and hopes of glory. What, and yet sink at this rate, as if all your mercies, comforts, and hopes, even in both worlds, were buried in one grave! Must Ichabod be written upon your best mercies because mortality is written upon one? (22)

 

Thirdly, Our sorrows then become sinful and exorbitant when they divert us from, or distract us in our duties, so that our intercourse with heaven is stopped and interrupted by them.

Or if you dare not wholly neglect your duty, yet your affliction spoils the success and comfort of it; your heart is wandering, dead, distracted in prayer and meditation, so that you have no relief or comfort from it. (26)

 

Fifthly, When affliction sours the spirit with discontent, and makes it inwardly grudge against the hand of God, then our trouble is full of sin, and we ought to be humbled for it before the Lord.

…how many have their hearts embittered by discontent and secret risings against the Lord? Which, if ever the Lord open their eyes to see, will cost them more trouble, than ever that affliction did which gave the occasion of it. (30)

 

Sixthly, Our sorrows exceed due bounds when we continually excite and provoke them by willing irritations.

Grief, like a lion, loves to play with us before it destroys us. And strange it is that we should find some kind of pleasure in rousing our sorrows. (31)

 

Comfort in Times of Affliction

Flavel considers twenty ways to find comfort in times of sorrow. He says that believer does not want to provoke or grieve his heavenly father so he gives these comforts to settle their hearts. Though these considerations focus on being bereaved of a loved one, still many of these have general principles that apply to all our afflictions.

 

EXTRACTS & THOUGHTS

Consideration 1. Consider, in this day of sorrow, who is the framer and author of this rod by which you now smart; is it not the Lord? And if the Lord has done it, it becomes you meekly to submit. ‘Be still, and know that I am God’ (Psa. 46:10).

Remember, our Sovereign God has clearly acted in this event. We must believe that His purpose is good and that He acted for my ultimate good.

 

Consideration 6. A parting time must needs come; and why is not this as good as another? You knew before-hand your child or friend was mortal, and the thread which linked you together must be cut.

Most things have their time limit. Our health, relationships, present prosperity, etc. have never been promised to us to be forever. A parting time was bound to come. In this, we acknowledge that God has determined that exact time and bow in thanksgiving and submission.

 

Consideration 14. Be careful you exceed not in your grief for the loss of earthly things, considering that Satan takes the advantage of all extremes.

Sometimes he injects desponding thoughts into the afflicted soul. ‘For I said in my haste, I am cut off from before your eyes’ (Psa. 31:22); ‘My hope is perished from the LORD: remembering my affliction and my misery, the wormwood and the gall’ (Lam. 3:18–19).

Sometimes he suggests hard thoughts of God: ‘The Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me’ (Ruth 1:20). Yea, that he has dealt more severely with us than any other; ‘Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the LORD has afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger’ (Lam. 1:12).

And sometimes he suggests murmuring and repining thoughts against the Lord. The soul is displeased at the hand of God upon it. Jonah was angry at the hand of God, and said, ‘I do well to be angry, even unto death’ (Jon. 4:9). What dismal thoughts are these! And how much more afflictive to a gracious soul than the loss of any outward enjoyment in this world.

And sometimes he suggests very irreligious and atheistical thoughts, as if there were no privilege to be had by religion, and all our pains, zeal, and care about duty, were little better than lost labour: ‘Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency; for all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning’ (Psa. 73:13–14).

By these things Satan gets no small advantage upon the afflicted Christian; for albeit these thoughts are his burden, and God will not impute them to the condemnation of his people, yet they rob the soul of peace, hinder it from duty, and make it act uncomely under affliction, to the stumbling and hardening of others in their sin. Beware, therefore, lest by your excess of sorrow you give place to the devil. ‘We are not ignorant of his devices.’ (81-82)

 

Consideration 15. Give not way to excessive sorrows on account of affliction, if you have any regard to the honour of God and religion, which will hereby be exposed to reproach.

If you slight your own honour, do not slight the honour of God and religion too; take heed how you carry it in a day of trouble; many eyes are upon you. It is a true observation that a late worthy author has made upon this case:

What will the Atheist, and what will the profane scoffer say, when they shall see this? So sottish and malicious they are, that if they do but see you in affliction, they are straightway scornfully demanding, Where is your God?

But what would they say, if they should hear you yourselves unbelievingly cry out, Where is our God? Will they not be ready to cry, this is the religion they make such boast of, which you see how little it does for them in a day of extremity: they talk of promises, rich and precious promises; but where are they now? Or to what purpose do they serve? They said they had a treasure in heaven; what ails them to mourn so then, if their riches are there? (82)

 

Consideration 16. Be quiet and hold your peace; you little know how many mercies lie in the womb of this affliction.

And what if by this stroke the Lord will awaken your drowsy soul, and recover you out of that pleasant but dangerous spiritual slumber you were fallen into, whilst you had pillowed your head upon this pleasant, sensible creature-enjoyment? Is not this really better for you than if he should say, Sleep on: he is joined to idols, let him alone; he is departing from me, the fountain, to a broken cistern; let him go.

And what if by this rod your wandering, gadding heart shall be whipped home to God, your neglected duties revived, your decayed communion with God restored, a spiritual, heavenly frame of heart recovered? What will you say then? Surely you will bless that merciful hand which removed the obstructions and adore the divine wisdom and goodness that, by such a device as this, recovered you to himself. Now you can pray more constantly, more spiritually, more affectionately than before. O blessed rod, which buds and blossoms with such fruits as these! Let this be written among your best mercies, for you will have cause to adore and bless God eternally for this beneficial affliction. (85-86)

 

Consideration 13. Consider, though he should deny you any more comforts of this kind, yet he has far better to bestow upon you, such as these deserve not to be named with.

Poor heart, you are now dejected by this affliction that lies upon you, as if all joy and comfort were now cut off from you in this world.

A cloud dwells upon all other comforts; this affliction has so embittered your soul that you taste no more in any other earthly comforts than in the white of an egg. Oh that you did but consider the consolations that are with God for such as answer his ends in affliction, and patiently wait on him for their comfort!

Flavel cites a very moving account from Robert Fleming’s The Fulfilling of the Scripture:

One Patrick Mackewrath, who lived in the west parts of Scotland, whose heart in a remarkable way the Lord touched, and after his conversion (as he showed to many Christian friends) was in such a frame, so affected with a new world wherein he was entered, the discoveries of God and of a life to come, that for some months together he did seldom sleep but was still taken up in wondering. His life was very remarkable for tenderness and near converse with God in his walk; and, which was worthy to be noted, one day, after a sharp trial, having his only son suddenly taken away by death, he retired alone for several hours, and when he came forth, did look so cheerfully that to those who asked him the reason thereof, and wondered at the same in such a time, he told them, He had got that in his retirement with the Lord that, to have it afterwards renewed, he would be content to lose a son every day. …

Oh, what a sweet exchange had he made! Surely he had gold for brass, a pearl for a pebble, a treasure for a trifle; for so great, yea, and far greater is the disproportion between the sweet light of God’s countenance, and the faint dim light of the best creature-enjoyment. (76-78)

 

[1] John Flavel, The Whole Works of the Reverend John Flavel, vol. 5 (London; Edinburgh; Dublin: W. Baynes and Son; Waugh and Innes; M. Keene, 1820), 604ff. The original title was published in 1674 as “A TOKEN FOR MOURNERS: or the advice of Christ to a distressed mother, bewailing the death of her dear and only son: Wherein the Boundaries of Sorrow are duly fixed, Excesses restrained, the common Pleas answered, and divers Rules for the support of God’s afflicted Ones prescribed.” The version I read is Facing Grief: Counsel For Mourners, Puritan Paperbacks (Banner of Truth, 2010). It is only 122 pages!

 

The Fear of God

Leave a reply

The Fear of God[1]

John Murray said, “The fear of God is the soul of godliness.”[2] In fact, the “most prevalent use of fear in the Bible is the fear of God.”[3] Rarely do we ever speak of someone as “fearing God.” Fear connotes something negative to most people, even to Christians. Yet no believer can exist without a genuine fear of God. Paul says, “Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others.” (2Cor. 5:11) In v. 10, Paul points out that everyone will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Verse 11 is the proper response to this truth. One commentator explained the verse this way, “The “fear of the Lord” here is not personal piety nor the terror that the omnipotent Lord arouses in human hearts (e.g., Ge 35:5), but the reverential awe Paul had for Christ as his divine assessor and future judge (v. 10). Aware of his personal accountability, Paul strove to persuade people.”[4] Jesus is our “divine assessor and future judge” and therefore we must rightly fear him.

Another commentator adds this: “He knows that he is accountable to God and stands in reverential awe of God’s final judgment. It is said that whatever it is that one fears the most that is what one will serve the most. Paul is steeped in the Old Testament tradition that understands fear of the Lord as the beginning of wisdom (Prov 1:7), but he understands it be the basis of faithful service as well.”[5] Remember, we are taught in the OT that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; it is the bedrock upon which our wisdom grows and on which our piety thrives. Without it, we cannot be genuine believers. It is as Murray said, the “soul of godliness.”

Below is William Jay’s reflection on 1 Peter 1:17. Again, the fear has in view the judgment awaiting us. That knowledge awakens our sluggish indifference and arrests our cavalier approach to our Christian walk. “And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” (1:17-19, ESV) As exiles or as sojourners, we must conduct our life here with godly fear. What does that mean? William Jay gives us a helpful guide to this question.

 

“Pass the time of your sojourning here in fear.”  1 Peter 1:17 (KJV) by William Jay

From these words, I might consider the nature of the Christian life — which is a sojourning here: and also — the time appointed for it.  But let me rather reflect upon the manner in which I am to pass the one, in accomplishing the other — “Pass the time of your sojourning here in fear.”  This cannot intend every kind of fear, without making the Scripture inconsistent with itself: for how often does it forbid fear!

 

Not the Fear of Man

We must not, therefore, give way to apprehensions of any thing we may suffer from our fellow creatures, in following the path of duty.  Here we should boldly say, “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear what man can do unto me.”  “Fear not,” says the Savior — mentioning the extremest case, “Fear not them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.”  And this Paul exemplified:  “None of these things move me: neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.”

When Peter and John were threatened if they spake any more in the name of Jesus, they replied, We have nothing to do with consequences: we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard: we ought to obey God rather than man: and he has commanded us to preach the Gospel to every creature.  So should it be with us.

We are not, indeed, to run into sufferings for our religion; but we can never go on well in divine things till we are delivered from the fear of man that bring a snare. What is it but this that produces so many concealments, and defections, and inconsistencies in those who know what is right, and are excited by their convictions; but have not courage enough to resolve and proceed?  Perfect love casteth out this fear.

 

Not Fearing that God will be Unfaithful to His Word

We are equally to shun a distrustfulness of God’s word.  This fear is at once the most dishonorable to God, and injurious to our own souls.  It robs us of comfort, and lays open the mind to temptation; as we see in Abraham, who, in a moment of unbelief, prevaricated, and debased and exposed himself in Gerar.

Having the assurance of God in any case, we should feel no uncertainty as to the result; it must be accomplished; we have something firmer than the earth and the heavens to rely upon.  But we may fear, not whether we shall perish in the way everlasting; but whether we are in it.  Not — whether the promise will fail; but whether we are the heirs of promise.  This the Apostle even admonishes — “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of us should seem to come short of it.”  This is a case too important to be taken for granted.  The consequences of mistake are remediless; and the possibility, yea, the probability of it is great.  It will, therefore, be better to err rather on the side of solicitude, than of security.

 

Not Servile Fear

A servile fear, too, is not to be cherished.  This may, indeed, precede something better: but if our fear of God begins with the judge, it must end with the father.  It argues a very low degree of religion when a man can only be held to duty, like the slave, by the dread of the lash.  We have not, says the Apostle, received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of adoption.  The slave is converted into the child: and God spares him as a man spares his own son that serves him.

 

Proper and All-Important Fear: Fear of Respect, Esteem, and Gratitude

But there is a proper and all-important fear, which God has engaged to put into the hearts of his people, that they may not depart from him — It is a fear of respect, and esteem and gratitude.  It regards not only God’s greatness, but his goodness.  There is, therefore, nothing irksome in it.  It is compatible with consolation and joy; and the first Christians walked in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost.  It is, in reality, the same with affection:  it is the love which an inferior bears to a superior; the love of a dutiful child to a parent; or of a good servant to a master; or of a thankful dependent to a benefactor.

This shows itself much in a way of reverence, and obedience, and attention.  Hence, the more I love God, the more I shall fear him; the more I shall dread to offend him; the more I shall study to please him; the more I shall ask, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?  the more I shall pray, “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.”

 

The Fear of Caution or the Fear of Sinning

There is, also, a fear of caution, in which it becomes us to live.  This regards sin. Sin is the greatest evil to which we can be exposed.  And we may see enough in the case of David to make even a good man stand in dread of it.  For though God put away his sin, as to its future penalty, yet it was ever before him in the sufferings it occasioned.  The sword never departed from his house.  He was filled with dread of divine abandonment.  He was deprived of his peace and joy.  His bones were broken and his tongue was struck dumb.

And a holy God will always cause the backsliding even of his own people to reprove them, and make them know that it is an evil and a bitter thing to sin against him.  He will becloud their hope, and destroy their comfort and perhaps quarter troubles upon them for life.  Reputation, which is the produce of years, may be ruined in a moment; and the effect of a thousand good actions may be lost by one evil deed.  He who has befriended religion may cause the way of truth to be evil spoken of, and become a judgment on the whole neighborhood in which he dwells.

 

Be not High-Minded, but Fear

And are we in no danger of this?  Read the Scriptures.  See the falls of good men and men eminently good.  Have not we a subtle and active enemy always at hand?  Have we not a wicked world without us?  Have we not an evil heart within us?  Owing to our remaining depravity, are we not liable to be ensnared by every thing we come in contact with, however harmless in itself?  If we think caution unnecessary, we have the greatest need of it; for “pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”  Be not high-minded, but fear.

 

Fear Rising in the World

If we would maintain this frame of mind, let us walk circumspectly; not as fools, but as wise. Let us not be anxious to rise in the world, and gain the affluence which will require a moral miracle to preserve us. ‘He that makes haste to be rich, shall not be innocent.’ ‘They that will be rich fall into temptation, and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil; which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.’

 

Let us Fear

—Let us keep our mouth with a bridle. In a multitude of words there wanteth not sin. —Let us not run into perils, uncalled of God — We are only authorized to look for his protection when we are brought into them in the discharge of duty. And, while we watch, let us also constantly pray — ‘Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe.’ ‘Blessed is the man that feareth always.’

 

John Murray’s Summary[6]

It is symptomatic of the extent to which the concept of the fear of God and the attitude of heart and mind which it represents have suffered eclipse that we have become reluctant to distinguish the earnest and consistent believer as ‘God-fearing’. Perhaps our reluctance arises from the fact that believers manifest so little of the fear of God that we scarcely dare to characterize them as God-fearing; we may even be hesitant to call them godly.

But whatever reason, the eclipse of the fear of God, whether viewed as doctrine or as attitude, evidences the deterioration of faith in the living God. Biblical faith means the fear of God, because the only God is ‘glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders’ (Exodus 15:11) and his name is glorious and fearful (cf. Deuteronomy 28:58). If we know God we must know him in the matchless glory of his transcendent majesty, and the only appropriate posture for us is prostration before him in awe and reverence.

To think otherwise is to deny the transcendent greatness of God, and that is infidelity. The pervasive emphasis of Scripture upon the fear of God as the determinative attitude of heart in both religion and ethics and as the characteristic mark of God’s people is exactly what must have been if the Bible is consistent with itself. The doctrine of God could know nothing else. To discount this emphasis and have any other is proof that the faith of the Bible is not ours. Our consciousness is not biblical unless it is conditioned by the fear of God.

[1] This study will principally work through William Jay’s Morning Exercises (Aug. 20th).

[2] John Murray, Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 229. He gives a whole chapter on “The Fear of God,” 229-242.

[3] See “FEAR,” in ZPEB.

[4] Murray J. Harris, “2 Corinthians,” in Romans–Galatians (vol. 11 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 477.

[5] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians (NAC 29; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 268.

[6] Principles of Conduct, 241.