Random Selections

by

The Defect of Preachers Reproved

 

“The Defects of Preachers Reproved”images
by Solomon Stoddard

“The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.”
Matthew 23:2–3

In these words is a direction given by Christ unto the people, where we have:

First, the foundation of the rule: “the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” Some take this as spoken of the Sanhedrim, who were the successors of Moses and the seventy elders of Israel. Possibly that may be a mistake, for several of the Sanhedrim were not Pharisees (Acts 23:3). For the chief priests belonged to that society (Acts 4:6), and they are said to be Sadducees; but by Scribes and Pharisees I understand the principal teachers among the Jews. The priests and Levites were more especially devoted to the study of the law. Deuteronomy 33:10: “They shall teach Jacob Thy judgments, and Israel Thy law.” Yet others who were learned in the law were made use of to instruct the people, and were chosen to be rulers of the Synagogues. The Pharisees were of any tribe. Paul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin, was a Pharisee by education, as he tells in Acts 23:6: “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.”
Second, here is the rule given: “what they bid you observe, that observe and do.” This must be understood with the limitation: when they teach according to the mind of God. Sometimes they taught for doctrines the commandments of men and then it was sinful and dangerous to observe their directions. “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14).


DOCTRINE: There may be a great deal of good preaching in a country, and yet a great want of good preaching.

It is a felicity to a people when there is good preaching in the land, yet there may in the same land be great want of good teaching. Some things that are very useful may be plainly and fully taught, and other things that might be as useful may be neglected. Many sound principles in religion may be taught, and other things that are of great concern unto souls may be omitted. Ministers don’t sufficiently do their duty if they preach many sound truths, and do it convincingly and with good affection, if they do it with great clearness and evidence, provided they neglect other things that are needful to salvation. And so it falls out sometimes that men who make many good sermons are very defective in preaching some other things that they ought to preach.

I shall clear this in three instances.

1. The Scribes and Pharisees in Israel taught the people that there was only one God, the Maker of all things, and were great enemies to the idolatry that their fathers were guilty of before the Babylonian captivity. As the Scribe said to Christ in Mark 12:32, “Well, Master, Thou hast said the truth: for there is one God, and there is none other but He.” They taught many moral duties: that men must love God and believe His Word, that they must be just and chaste and men of truth, and were very strict in the observation of the sabbath. They limited men how far they might go on the sabbath (Acts 1:12). We read of “a sabbath day’s journey.” They taught truly the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:7–8). The Pharisees dissented from the Sadducees. The Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees confessed both. They taught that the Messiah was to come; the Samaritans themselves received that doctrine (Job 4:25). They were very punctual in teaching circumcision and the ceremonies of the Law of Moses, about sacrifices, tithes, and legal uncleanness. But they were very faulty in preaching in other particulars. They were ignorant of the doctrine of regeneration, so Nicodemus (John 3:4) says, “How can a man be born when he is old?” They taught that the first motions of lust, if the will did not consent, were not sins. As we may gather from Romans 7:7, Paul says, “I had not known lust, except the law had said, ‘Thou shall not covet.’ ” And from Matthew 5:27–28, “It was said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ But I say whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart.”


They taught also that dangerous doctrine of justification by works (Romans 10:3). They went about to establish their own righteousness (Romans 9:2–3), They sought it, as it were, by the works of the law. They taught the people that in case they devoted their estates to the temple, they need not relieve their fathers or mothers (Matthew 15:4–6). And above all they taught that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah and brought many objections against Him. They said that He came out of Galilee, was a gluttonous man and a winebibber (Matthew 11:19), a friend of publicans and sinners. They reproached Him that by the devil He cast out devils, and they were very dull in their preaching (Matthew 7:29).


2. The papists they teach the doctrine of the trinity truly, and the attributes of God, so also the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ, and that He died for our redemption and is at the right hand of God. They teach the doctrine of the day of Judgment, of heaven and of hell, and many moral rules. But they preach a multitude of false doctrines with these doctrines that are pernicious to the souls of men. They teach men to seek the pardon of their sin by afflicting their bodies, by pilgrimage and paying a sum of money. They teach many horrible things with respect to their Pope, that he has power to forgive sin, to dispense with incestuous marriages; that he has power over all the churches and may dispense with the laws of God; that he is infallible. They teach the doctrine of image worship, abolishing the second commandment. They teach prayer to saints departed, the unlawfulness of priests’ marriages, the doctrine of purgatory, justification by works, a conditional election, the power of free will, falling from grace, and hundreds of other erroneous doctrines. They indeed subvert the faith of Christ.

3. Many Arminians preach very profitably about God and the person of Christ, about justification by faith and universal obedience, about the day of judgment and of eternal rewards and punishments. But there is a great deal of want of good preaching among them. They decry all absolute decrees of election and reprobation, making the decrees of God to depend on the foresight of repentance or impenitence. They assert universal redemption, as if Christ died to make all man saveable. They deny the propagation of sin, saying men become sinners by imitation. They hold a power in man to withstand the grace of God; that after God has done His work it is in the power of man to refuse to be converted. They don’t acknowledge the servitude of man to sin, but have power with that assistance that God affords to convert himself. They deny the doctrine of perseverance. These things draw a great train of errors after them.

The reason of the doctrine is because some preachers are men of learning and moral men, and they have drunk in some errors and lack experience. Learning and morality will qualify men to make many good and profitable sermons, much for the edification of the hearers. Learning qualifies men to clear up many principles of religion, and a moral disposition may fit men zealously to reprove vicious practices. But men may be learned men, yet drink in very corrupt doctrines.

Learning is no security against erroneous principles. The Pharisees and Sadducees were men of liberal education, yet leavened with many false principles. Matthew 16:6: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” And verse 12: “Then understood they that He bid them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” Learning will not cure those distempers of the heart that expose men to false opinions. Learning will not cure the pride and conceitedness of men’s hearts. Men of learning may lean too much to their own understanding. Men of learning may be led aside by reading erroneous books. A learned education will not deliver men from carnal reason. Men of corrupt affections are very inclined to imbibe bad principles. Men of learning may be blind men. Christ says of the Pharisees, “They be blind, leaders of the blind” (Matthew 15:14).

Most of the errors in the world in matters of religion have been hatched by men of learning. Arius, Socinus, Arminius, and Pelagius were learned men. Errors in religion have been generally the offspring of great scholars, and have been propagated by them. And men may be moral men who have no experience of the work of God upon their hearts. Men may be zealous men against drunkenness and whoredom who have no saving knowledge of Christ. Many moral men have no communion with God, no experience of a saving change in their own souls. Men may be very moral and have no experience of a work of humiliation or being brought off from their own righteousness, or a work of faith; of the difference that is between the common and special work of the Spirit; of the difference between saving and common illumination; of the working of the heart under temptation; of the way wherein godly men are wont to find relief.

Every learned and moral man is not a sincere convert, and so not able to speak exactly and experimentally to such things as souls want to be instructed in. It is as with a man who has seen a map of a country, or has read a great deal about it: he can’t tell the way between town and town, and hundreds of particular circumstances, as a man who has traveled or lived there is able to do. Experience fits men to teach others. A man who has himself had only a common work of the Spirit, and judges it saving, is very unfit to judge the state of other men. Men would not put their lives into the hands of an unskillful physician, or trust their ship with an unskillful pilot, or an intricate case depending on the law with an unskillful lawyer.

USE 1. Of examination whether it is not thus in this country.

It is notoriously known by those who are acquainted with the state of the Christian world that though there are many eminent truths taught, yet there is a great want of good preaching. Whence it comes to pass that among professors a spirit of piety runs exceedingly low. But it is proper for us to take notice how it is among ourselves; and though it is very evident that there is a great deal of good preaching in the land, that the way of salvation is preached with a great deal of plainness and power, and many men are very faithful to declare all the counsel of God, yet there may be cause of lamentation that there is a great deal wanting in some places. Some may be very much to blame in preaching as they ought to do.

If any are taught that frequently men are ignorant of the time of their conversion, that is not good preaching. Some are of that opinion, and it is likely they may drink it in from their ministers. This is a delusion, and it may do them a great deal of hurt; it hardens men in their natural condition. Paul knew the time of his conversion: “At midday, O King, I saw a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun” (Acts 26:13).

Men are frequently at a loss whether their conversion was true or not; but surely men who are converted must take some notice of the time when God made a change in them. Conversion is a great change, from darkness to light, from death to life, from the borders of despair to a spirit of faith in Christ. As for the outward conversation, there is sometimes little difference. Men might carry very well before, but, as to the frame of men’s hearts, there is a very great difference. Formerly they were under the reigning power of objections against the gospel; when converted they receive it as a divine truth. Before they were converted they were under a sentence of condemnation; now they have peace with God through Jesus Christ. Men are generally a long time seeking conversion, laboring to get an interest in Christ; and it would be much if when God reveals Christ to them they should not take notice of it when the change is made. Ten to one but conscience will take notice of it.

When a seaman comes into the harbor, when a prisoner is pardoned, when a victory is obtained, when a disease is broken, it would be much if men should take no notice of them. Conversion is the greatest change that men undergo in this world; surely it falls under observation! The prodigal knew well enough the time of his return to his father’s house. The children of Israel knew the time of their passing over Jordan.

If any are taught that humiliation is not necessary before faith, that is not good preaching. Such doctrine has been taught privately and publicly, and is a means to make some men mistake their condition and think themselves happy when they are miserable. For men must be brought off from their own righteousness before they are brought to Christ. Men who think they have anything to appease the wrath of God and ingratiate themselves will not accept the calls of the gospel in sincerity. While people have a foundation to build upon, they will not build upon Christ. A self-righteous spirit is quite contrary to the gospel. If men are self-righteous men, they will not judge it fair for God to cast them off. Men who depend upon the justice of God will not depend upon the mere mercy of God. Men who lay claim to heaven from their own works will not depend on the plea that Christ has given His life a ransom for many, and has redeemed us from the curse, being made a curse for us.

Multitudes of men are ruined by building upon a sandy foundation. Men must see their malady before they see their remedy. Men must be led into understanding of the badness of their hearts and the strictness of the law before they will be convinced of the preciousness of Christ. Men who can heal their own consciences will not come to Christ for healing. Men must be driven by necessity indeed before they come to Christ. Though men feel great terrors and live a tormented life, yet they will not come to Christ until driven out of themselves. Men must feel themselves dead in sin in order to their believing. Romans 7:9: “Sin revived, and I died.” Men must see themselves poor and miserable, wretched and blind and naked, before they receive that counsel of buying of Christ gold tried in the fire, and white raiment (Revelation 3:17).

When men don’t preach much about the danger of damnation, there is a want of good preaching. Some ministers preach much about moral duties and the blessed estate of godly men, but don’t seek to awaken sinners and make them sensible of their danger; they cry for reformation. These things are very needful in their places to be spoken unto, but if sinners don’t hear often of judgment and damnation, few will be converted. Many men are in a deep sleep and flatter themselves as if there was no hell, or at least that God will not deal so harshly with them as to damn them. Psalm 36:2: “He flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful.”

Men need to be told of the terrors of the Lord so that they may flee from wrath to come. A little matter will not scare men. Their hearts are as hard as a stone, as hard as a piece of nether millstone, and they will be ready to laugh at the shaking of the spear. Ministers must give them no rest in such a condition. They must pull themselves as brands out of the burnings. It is well if thunder and lightning will awaken them. They need to fear that they may work out their salvation with fear and trembling. Ministers are faulty when they speak to them with gentleness, as Eli rebuked his sons. Christ Jesus often warned them of the danger of damnation. Matthew 5:29–30: “It is better that one of thy members should perish, and not that the whole body should be cast into hell.” Matthew 7:13: “Broad is the gate and wide is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat.” Matthew 13:42: “The angels shall cast them into a furnace of fire, there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (See also Matthew 22:13 and 25:41, 46) This is for our imitation.

Christ knew how to deal with souls, and Paul followed His example. Men need to be terrified and have the arrows of the Almighty in them that they may be converted. Ministers should be sons of thunder. Men need to have storms in their hearts before they will betake themselves to Christ for refuge. When they are pricked at the heart, then they will say, “What must we do to be saved?” Men must be fired out of their worldliness and sloth. Men must be driven as Lot was out of Sodom. Reason will govern men in other things, but it is fear that must make them diligently seek salvation. If they are but thoroughly convinced of their danger, that will make them go to God and take pains.

If they give a wrong account of the nature of justifying faith, that is not good preaching. Justifying faith is set forth in the Scripture by many figurative expressions: coming to Christ, opening to Him, fitting under His shadow, flying to Him for refuge, building on Him as on a foundation, feeding on Him. These expressions imply not only an act of the understanding, but also and act of the will, accepting Him, depending on Him. This doctrine is despised by some, and faith in Christ is said to be only a persuasion of the truth of the Christian religion. This is the way to make multitudes of carnal men secure, and to flatter themselves as if they were in a good condition. They say they are not heathens, Turks, Papists, or Jews. Since they believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, they hope they are believers; but multitudes of people have such a faith that will fall short of eternal life. John 2:23–24: “Many believed in His name, when they saw the miracles that He did; but Jesus did not commit Himself unto them.” John 14:42–43: “Among the chief rulers many believed on Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him.”

The faith of some men is only a persuasion from their education. As heathens receive the religion of their forefathers by tradition, so these receive the Christian religion from hearsay. But justifying faith is wrought in men by the mighty power of God.


2 Thessalonians 1:11: “That He would work in you the work of faith with power.” Ephesians 1:19–20: “And what is the exceeding greatness of His power to usward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power; which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead.” By justifying faith, men answer the calls of God, relinquishing their own righteousness; they place their dependence only on the mediation of Christ (Hebrews 6:18). They flee for refuge, to lay hold on the hope that is set before them. Justifying faith is a living principle that sanctifies men. Acts 15:9: “Purifying their hearts by faith.” Many men have a common persuasion of the truth of the gospel who are utterly destitute of holiness. But true justifying faith is always accompanied with a holy life. Where there is faith, there is every other grace. Acts 26:18: “Sanctified by faith that is in me.”

If any give false signs of godliness, that is not good preaching. Signs of grace are of two sorts. Some are probable, and they must be spoken of only as probable; a score of them may make the thing more probable, but don’t make it certain. Probabilities make no demonstration. Probable signs are not conclusive. There are two errors in laying down signs. One is when those things that may flow from common principles—such as natural temper, natural conscience, fear of hell, or false imaginations—are given as sure signs of grace. But those things that may flow from common principles don’t truly distinguish between saints and hypocrites, things such as a good conversation savory discourse, zeal against sin, strong religious affections, sorrow for sin, quietness under afflictions, delight in ordinances, or suffering for religion. From such loose signs people are in danger of taking up a false persuasion of their godliness.

Such signs are full of delusion, and many men bless themselves who are in a miserable condition. Such probable signs may be where there are certain signs of the contrary. Men are apt to flatter themselves, and when they hear such signs they are strengthened in their carnal confidence. There is no infallible sign of grace but grace. Grace is known only by intuition; all the external effects of grace may flow from other causes. Another error is when men are too strict in their signs, as when they give that as a sign that there is a constant care to glorify God, a continual living upon Jesus Christ, and a constant watchfulness against the workings of corruption. There is no godly man but has at times ill frames of spirit. David and Jonah and Peter had such. When David committed adultery, he had not a due care to glorify God; nor Jonah when he was in a fret, nor the Psalmist when he was as a beast before God, nor Paul when he was led into captivity by the law of sin that was in his members. There is no godly man who can comfort himself with such signs as these. It is well if godly men see now and then the workings of a spirit of grace. Grace is many times under hatches and is invisible.

If any teach men to build their faith about the divine authority of the Scripture upon probable signs, that is not good preaching. There are many probable arguments for the authority of the sacred scriptures: the eminency of the penmen, and they have had a mighty efficacy to make a change in the hearts of men. It is said there were many miracles wrought for the confirmation of the doctrine of them; there has been an accomplishment of many of the predictions in them. These arguments are preponderating and outweigh all objections that are brought against the authority of them. These considerations may well strengthen the faith of the people of God, but these things cannot be the foundation of our faith. It is only the certain knowledge of their authority that can be the foundation of faith or any other grace. Men cannot believe them to be infallibly true upon probable arguments. Probable arguments must be looked on but as probable and not convincing. Men must have infallible arguments for loving God and believing His Word. The foundation of believing the divine authority of the Scripture is the manifestation of the divine glory in them. There is a self evidencing light in the works of God. The creation of the world shows God’s power and the Godhead (Romans 1:20). It is impossible that the world should be made by any but an infinite God. So there is a self-evidencing light in the word of God; there are such things revealed there as can be made known by none but God. 1 Corinthians 2:9: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive what God hath prepared for them that love Him.” Those eternal rewards that are spoken of in the Scripture , those perfect rules that are laid down there, those accounts that are given of the mercy of God and the justice of God, manifested in the way of our salvation, would never have entered into the heart of man to conceive if it had not been revealed by God. Men would never have thought of such a way of salvation if it had not been declared by God.

If men preach for such liberties as God does not allow, that is not good preaching. There are many licentious liberties that are taken by men in their apparel, in their drinking, in their dancing and other recreations, in their discourses upon the sabbath, and in their dealings with one another. And if ministers either vindicate or connive at them, they don’t preach as they ought to do. Some men are lax casuists, and they take too great a liberty themselves, as do their wives and children, and they are afraid to anger men by reproving some particular evils that men are addicted to who prevail in the land. The Pharisees were such casuists. Matthew 5:43: “Ye have heard it hath been said of old, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.’ ” Men should be solemnly warned against all evil carriages; and if this is omitted it gives great increase to sin in the land. God complains of ill against teachers for not reproving sinners. Isaiah 56:10: “They are ignorant and blind, dumb dogs that cannot bark.” If men were duly reproved for their extravagancies, that would be a means to reclaim them. Jeremiah 23:22: “If they had stood in My counsel and had caused My people to hear My words; then they should have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings.”

Faithful preaching would be beneficial two ways: one way is it would cut off occasions of anger and prevent those sins that bring down the wrath of God on the land; we should then enjoy much more public prosperity. The other is, that it would deliver men from those vicious practices that are a great hindrance to conversion. As long as men live in ways of intemperance, injustice, and unsuitable carriages on the sabbath, it will be a great impediment to a thorough work of conversion. There may be conversion though men are not broken off from sins of ignorance, but as long as they tolerate themselves in immoralities that will be a mighty bar in the way of their conversion.

If men preach for such ceremonies in worship as God does not allow, that is not good preaching. There are those who plead for human inventions in worship, who would if they could defend the ceremonies of the church of England, who would retain some Jewish ceremonies that are abolished, and practice other human appointments. Jeroboam was condemned not only for worshipping the calves of Dan and Bethel, but for appointing a time of worship in his own heart (1 Kings 12:32–33). So it is noted as an imperfection in the reformation of Asa, Jehoshaphat and Manasseh that the high places were not taken away. This is spoken of as a great sign of hypocrisy. Isaiah 29:13: “This people draw near Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips; but have removed their heart far from Me: and their fear towards Me is taught by the precept of men.” When men impose such ceremonies, they usurp a power that God has not given them. It is God’s prerogative to appoint in what ways we shall worship Him; and men therein go quite beyond the bounds of their authority. Men therein impute imperfection and defect to the ordinances of God, as if they could teach him how it is fit that He should be worshipped, and they presume on a blessing without a promise. Matthew 15:9: “In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” This is a way to make men formal in their worship; the multiplying of ceremonies eats out the heart of religion and makes a people degenerate. Men who multiply ceremonies are apt to content themselves with the form without the life.

QUESTION. Is the late practice of some ministers in reading their sermons commendable?

ANSWER. There are some cases wherein it may be tolerable. Persons through age may loose the strength of their memories, and be under a necessity to make use of their notes—but ordinarily it is not to be allowed.

Consideration 1. It was not the manner of the prophets or apostles. Baruch read the roll that was written from the mouth of Jeremiah; but Jeremiah was not wont to read his prophesies. It was the manner of the Jews to read the scriptures in the synagogues; but after that it was their way to instruct and exhort men, not from any written copy. Acts 13:15: “After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, ‘Men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.’ ” This was according to the example of Christ (Luke 4:17, 20). It was ordered in England in the days of King Edward the Sixth that ministers should read printed homilies in public. And there was great necessity of it, for there was not one in ten who were able to make sermons. But it has been the manner of worthy men both here and in other places to deliver their sermons without their notes.

Consideration 2. The reading of sermons is a dull way of preaching. Sermons when read are not delivered with authority and in an affecting way. It is prophesied of Christ (Micah 5:4): “He shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.” When sermons are delivered without notes, the looks and gesture of the minister is a great means to command attention and stir up affection. Men are apt to be drowsy in hearing the Word, and the liveliness of the preacher is a means to stir up the attention of the hearers and beget suitable affection in them. Sermons that are read are not delivered with authority; they favor the sermons of the scribes, (Matthew 7:29). Experience shows that sermons read are not so profitable as others. It may be argued that it is harder to remember rhetorical sermons than mere rational discourses; but it may be answered that it is far more profitable to preach in the demonstrations of the Spirit than with the enticing words of man’s wisdom.

USE 2. See the reason why there is so little effect of preaching. There is much good preaching, and yet there is want of good preaching. There is very good preaching in old England, yet there is great want of good preaching, especially among the conformists. And there is very good preaching in New England, and yet there is some want of good preaching, especially in some places: and this is one reason that there is no more good done. There is a great fault in hearers: they are not studious of the mind of God; they are enemies to the gospel. And when Christ Himself preached among them many did not profit by it. Yet some preachers are much to blame, and though they preach profitably many times, yet they have great cause to be humbled for their defects.

For hence it is that there is so little conversion. There is great complaint in one country and in another that there are few converted. It is apparent by men’s unsanctified lives and their unsavory discourses. This is one reason, there is a great deal of preaching that does not much promote it, but is a hindrance to it. To tell men that they may be converted though they don’t know the time; to teach that there is no need of a work of humiliation to prepare them for Christ; and that faith is nothing else but a persuasion that the gospel is true, is the very way to make many carnal men hope that they are converted. It makes other preaching very ineffectual; it makes them think that it is needless to strive for conversion. Such preaching hardens men in their sins. The want of dealing plainly with men is the reason why there is seldom a noise among the dry bones.

In some towns there is no such thing to be observed for twenty years together. And men continue in a senseless condition, come to meetings and hear preaching, but are never the better for it. In some towns godly men are very thinly sown. Most of the people are in as bad a condition as if they had never heard the gospel. They go on in a still way, following their worldly designs, carry on somewhat of the form of godliness, but mind little but the world and the pleasures of this life. The scribes did not preach with authority. Matthew 7:29: “And they entered not into the kingdom of God themselves, and they that were entering in they hindered.” Such preaching is not mighty to the pulling down of strongholds. Conversion work will fail very much where there is not sound preaching.

Hence many men who make a high profession lead unsanctified lives. They are not dealt plainly with; and so, though they profess high, they live very low. They are not dealt roundly with, and they believe they are in a good estate, and conscience suffers them to live after a corrupt manner. Some of them live a proud and voluptuous life, and they are not searched as they should be. If they were told their own, that would keep them from saying that they were rich and increased in goods, and had need of nothing. If they were rebuked sharply, that might be a means to make them sound in the faith (Titus 1:13). It might make them not only to reform, but lay a better foundation for eternal life than ever yet was laid. Paul was very thorough in his work, and wherever he came he had the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ, (Romans 15:29).me preachers are much to blame, and though they preach profitably many times, yet they have great cause to be humbled for their defects.

For hence it is that there is so little conversion. There is great complaint in one country and in another that there are few converted. It is apparent by men’s unsanctified lives and their unsavory discourses. This is one reason, there is a great deal of preaching that does not much promote it, but is a hindrance to it. To tell men that they may be converted though they don’t know the time; to teach that there is no need of a work of humiliation to prepare them for Christ; and that faith is nothing else but a persuasion that the gospel is true, is the very way to make many carnal men hope that they are converted. It makes other preaching very ineffectual; it makes them think that it is needless to strive for conversion. Such preaching hardens men in their sins. The want of dealing plainly with men is the reason why there is seldom a noise among the dry bones.

In some towns there is no such thing to be observed for twenty years together. And men continue in a senseless condition, come to meetings and hear preaching, but are never the better for it. In some towns godly men are very thinly sown. Most of the people are in as bad a condition as if they had never heard the gospel. They go on in a still way, following their worldly designs, carry on somewhat of the form of godliness, but mind little but the world and the pleasures of this life. The scribes did not preach with authority. Matthew 7:29: “And they entered not into the kingdom of God themselves, and they that were entering in they hindered.” Such preaching is not mighty to the pulling down of strongholds. Conversion work will fail very much where there is not sound preaching.

Hence many men who make a high profession lead unsanctified lives. They are not dealt plainly with; and so, though they profess high, they live very low. They are not dealt roundly with, and they believe they are in a good estate, and conscience suffers them to live after a corrupt manner. Some of them live a proud and voluptuous life, and they are not searched as they should be. If they were told their own, that would keep them from saying that they were rich and increased in goods, and had need of nothing. If they were rebuked sharply, that might be a means to make them sound in the faith (Titus 1:13). It might make them not only to reform, but lay a better foundation for eternal life than ever yet was laid. Paul was very thorough in his work, and wherever he came he had the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ, (Romans 15:29).

 

 

by

Whatever My God Ordains is Right!

Whatever My God Ordains Is Right

from Hiding Place by Matthew Smith

Listen to this song here: http://matthewsmith.bandcamp.com/track/whatever-my-god-ordains-is-right

lyricssovereign

What e’re my God ordains is right,
holy His will abideth
I will be still what e’re He does
and follow where He guideth
He is my God,
though dark my road,
He holds me that I shall not fall
Wherefore to Him I leave it allWhat e’re my God ordains is right,

He never will deceive me

He leads me by the proper path,

I know He will not leave me
I take content,

what He hath sent,

His hand can turn my griefs away
And patiently I wait His day

What e’re my God ordains is right,

though now this cup in drinking
May bitter seem to my faint heart,

I take it all unshrinking
My God is true,

each morn’ a new,

sweet comfort yet,

shall fill my heart
And pain and sorrow shall depart

What e’re my God ordains is right,

here shall my stand be taken
Though sorrow,

need, or death be mine,

Yet I am not forsaken
My Father’s care is ’round me there,

He holds me that I shall not fall
And so to Him I leave it all

Help my unbelief
May my faith abound
Let me seek you and know that you may be found

When this life is done
In the clearer light
I may see you with full and with endless sight

credits

from Hiding Place, released 11 March 2014
©2013 Detuned Radio Music. Written by Matthew S. Smith, based in part on texts by Samuel Rodigast and Henry Alford
by

Did the Lord’s Churches Baptize by Immersion Before the 17th Century?

Did the Lord’s Churches Baptize by Immersion Before the 17th Century?

By Thomas WilliamsonBaptism

http://thomaswilliamson.net/

All correspondence concerning this article should be directed to
Thomas Williamson, 3131 S. Archer Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60608.

The owner of the copyright on this article hereby waives all copyright protections for all English and Spanish articles posted on this site, and gives permission for them to be reprinted or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, including print media and Internet, as long as the wording is not changed and credit is given for authorship.

 

In most Protestant and denominational Baptist colleges and seminaries today, it is commonly taught in the Church History departments that there were no churches on earth that baptized by immersion prior to the 17th Century.

This is just another way of saying that there were no Baptist churches and no true New Testament churches prior to the 17th Century. Supposedly, at some point in the Middle Ages, all true churches vanished from the face of the earth. and the institution of the local church had to be restored later.

As BMA Baptists, we have never accepted such teaching. Point 17 of the 1950 BMA Doctrinal Statement affirmed belief in the “Perpetuity of Missionary Baptist Churches from Christ’s day on earth until His second coming.” This means that there have always been true churches on earth, baptizing by immersion, for the last 20 centuries.

Section 10. C. of the 1988 BMA Doctrinal Statement reads: “The Perpetuity of the Church Instituted by Jesus during His personal ministry on earth (Matt. 16:18, Mark 3:13-19; John 1:35-51), true churches have continued to the present and will continue until Jesus returns (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).”

However, in the last century, some church history scholars have come to the conclusion that the Anabaptists and other evangelical groups prior to the 17th Century baptized exclusively by pouring rather than by immersion, which would mean that those “churches” were not true churches. (Section 10. D. of our Doctrinal Statement requires baptism by immersion).

Some scholars have even pointed to the year 1641 as the date when Baptists recovered the apostolic practice of immersion, stating that Baptists and all other evangelical groups baptized only by pouring prior to that date.

If these scholars are correct, then our BMA Doctrinal Statement is mistaken, and our traditional belief in the perpetuity of the church is also mistaken.

So which is it?

To prove that no one, through the Middle Ages up to 1641, baptized by immersion, would be extremely difficult, requiring a degree of omniscience possessed only by God Himself. But if we can show that there were at least some evangelical groups that were immersing prior to 1641, then we will have successfully defended our conviction that there have always been true churches on earth, and that the gates of hell have not prevailed against the institution of the Lord’s Church.

The notion that there was no baptism by immersion before 1641 can be quickly disposed of. In 1614 (27 years earlier), Leonard Busher, a Baptist of London. in a petition to King James I, stated that Christ “commanded” those who “willingly and gladly” received “the word of salvation to be baptized in the water, that is, dipped for dead in the water.” (Armitage, History of the Baptists, p. 440).

In 1644. Dr. Featley, an opponent of the Baptists, complained that “They flock in great multitudes to their Jordans, and both sexes enter the river, and are dipt after their manner…. This venomous serpent … is the Anabaptist, who, in these latter times, first showed his shining head, and speckled skin, and thrust out his sting near the place of my residence, for more than 20 years.” (Armitage. p. 441), In other words. Baptists were immersing near Dr. Featley’s home prior to 1624. There is no hint that this was a totally new practice among Baptists, only that they started using a stream near Featley’s home around 1624.

In 1656, Henry Denne, a Baptist, defended the practice of immersion by reminding Anglicans that immersion was the ancient practice of their church: “Dipping of infants was not only commanded by the Church of England. but also generally practiced in the Church of England till the year 1606; yea, in some places it was practiced until the year 1641, until the fashion altered…” (Armitage, p. 443).

In the Roman Catholic Church, most baptisms were by immersion until the 14th Century: “Thomas Aquinas, the chief of the schoolmen, who flourished about the year 1250, says, in his theology, that while immersion is not essential to the validity of baptism, still, as the old and common usage, it is more commendable and safer than pouring.” (Everts, The Church in the Wilderness, p. 37).

The 19th Century German Catholic scholar Doellinger stated that “Baptism by immersion continued to be the prevailing practice of the Church as late as the 14th Century.” (Graves, John’s Baptism, p. 207). Baptism by pouring, while occasionally practiced, was not sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Ravenna in 1311. “Synods, as late as the synod of Tarragona, 1391, spoke of the submersion of children in baptism.” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, v. 5, p. 712).

“It is equally clear that the form of baptism was immersion. This was at the time, the practice of the whole Christian world. The great Roman Catholic writers affirm that immersion was the proper form of baptism. Peter the Lombard, who died A.D. 1164, declared without qualification for it as the proper act of baptism.” (Christian, History of the Baptists, vol. 1, p. 81).

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article on “Baptism,” says, “The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion. This is. . . evident from the writings of the Fathers and the early rituals of both the Latin and Oriental churches…. In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the 12th Century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the 16th Century.”

St. Jerome, early 5th Century, taught that “we are thrice dipped in the water” and Pope Leo the Great. in the 5th Century. wrote: “The trine immersion is an imitation of the 3 days’ burial” while Pope Gregory the Great in the following century stated that “The reason why we use 3 immersions at Rome is to signify the mystery of Christ’s 3 days’ burial.” (Cramp, Baptist History, p. 35).

Tertullian, in the 3rd Century. described the rite of baptism in detail, showing that it was done by immersion at that time. Martin Luther, 13 centuries later, taught that “baptism, in which the minister dips the child in the water, is a symbol of death and resurrection, and Luther therefore preferred total immersion.” (Latourette, History of Christianity, p. 713).

While Catholics, Episcopalians and other Protestants have, for the most part, abandoned the practice of immersion, the Eastern Orthodox Church has always baptized by immersion throughout its history, and still does so today.

St. John Chrysostom, Orthodox Bishop of Constantinople, baptized 3,000 new members by immersion on Easter Sunday, 404 AD. Chrysostom taught that “Baptism is an immersion, and then an emersion. When our heads enter the water as a tomb, the old man is buried, and plunging down is wholly concealed all at once.” (Graves. pp. 201. 203).

The 18th Century church historian Robert Robinson wrote about Baptists in the 5th Century. “At the beginning of the 5th Century, when infant baptism first came up, there were in Africa at least 400 hundred congregations of Anabaptists, called from Donatus, the name of 2 of their most eminent teachers, Donatists. . . . The Romans baptized by dipping on a profession of faith. The Donatists baptized by dipping on a proof of virtue accompanied with a general profession of Christianity; and as they thought the Romans had ceased to be Christian churches on account of their immorality, they did not hold their baptism valid, and they rebaptized every one that quitted the Roman communion to join theirs.” (Robinson, Ecclesiastical Researches, pp. 7-8). Note that according to Robinson, both the Donatists and the Roman Catholics were immersing at that time.

Through the Middle Ages, the Catholics and Orthodox were baptizing by immersion, yet we are expected to believe that there were no Baptists or evangelicals who baptized by immersion during this period! Where is the proof of this?

In 1590 the Italian Roman Catholic Cardinal and nephew of the Pope, Robert Bellarminc, wrote: “Ordinarily, baptism is performed by immersion, and that to represent the burial of Christ.” (Graves. p. 207). During the 16th Century, many Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican baptisms, and all Orthodox baptisms, were performed by immersion. It is very hard to believe that no Baptists or evangelicals were baptizing by immersion at that same time.

The Waldenses. who spread from their mountain strongholds of France and Italy into most regions of Europe, were Baptists who practiced immersion. “‘The Waldenses were Baptists in that they practiced only immersion. . . .,’ Mezeray says, ‘In the 12th Century they [Waldenses] plunged the candidate in the sacred font..'” (Jarrel, Baptist Perpetuity, pp. 162-163).

“The contemporary writers, Eberhard and Ermengard, in their work, ‘contra Waldenses’ written toward the close of the 12th Century, repeatedly refer to immersion as the form of baptism among the Waldenses.” (Christian, pp 81-82).

Concerning the 15th Century Bohemian Waldenses, Broadbent says. “One of the first things they (the Czech Brethren) did was to baptize those present, for the baptism of believers by immersion was common to the Waldenses and to most of the brethren in different parts, though it had been interrupted by pressure of persecution.” (Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, p. 130).

“No historian has ever charged the ancient Waldenses with the practice of sprinkling and pouring for baptism. We may consider it a point generally admitted that the ancient Waldenses possessed the Baptist peculiarity of holding the burial in baptism of those who are dead to sin.” (Ray, The Baptist Succession, p.331).

Prior to the 17th Century, the Baptist practice of immersion was not brought up against them by their persecutors, because the Catholics and other denominations were also immersing at that time, so the mode of baptism was not a point of controversy.

An unbiased look at the historical evidence shows that our BMA confession of faith is correct in teaching Baptist perpetuity. The practice of baptism by immersion is certainly an essential element of Baptist perpetuity.

The purpose of citing the practices of other denominations is not to hint that they were the mother churches of the Baptists – they were not. Rather, it is to show how absurd it is to believe that there were no immersionist Baptists prior to the 17th Century, at a time when most other religious societies were baptizing by immersion.

 

 

by

Jesus didn’t care about being nice or tolerant, and neither should you

These are some excellent thoughts by Matt Walsh that all who care about Biblical Christianity should read.

The Matt Walsh Blog's avatarThe Matt Walsh Blog

untitled (40)

There is no shortage of heresies these days.

If you want to adopt some blasphemous, perverted, fun house mirror reflection of Christianity, you will find a veritable buffet of options. You can sift through all the variants and build your own little pet version of the Faith. It’s Ice Cream Social Christianity: make your own sundae! (Or Sunday, as it were.)

And, of all the heretical choices, probably the most common — and possibly the most damaging — is what I’ve come to call the Nice Doctrine.

The propagators of the Nice Doctrine can be seen and heard from anytime any Christian takes any bold stance on any cultural issue, or uses harsh language of any kind, or condemns any sinful act, or fights against evil with any force or conviction at all. As soon as he or she stands and says ‘This is wrong, and I will not compromise,’…

View original post 1,642 more words

by

A True Believer in Christ – Part 3

Comes now the final chapter in this short series. I pray you have been convicted, encouraged, edified, reproofed, and True Believerdrawn closer to the Lord who shed His blood to redeem those the Father chose before time as His. As I noted in my remarks on part 2, when one is healed from spiritual death by the Holy Spirit, there will be signs of life just there are when a child is born of the flesh.

Part 3 is here.

by

A True Believer in Christ – Part 2

With so many professing Christians who, by their lives, deny the truth of the gospel, these messages are good for all!True Believer While no human is without sin until he dies or Christ returns, there is no basis for comforting a soul as being in Christ if there is NO mark of being a new creature in Christ.  There is no litmus test to prove one is redeemed, there will be signs of life in everyone who has been born of the Spirit of the Living God!

Part 2 is here. 

by

Declaration of the Faith and Practice of the Church of Christ

A Baptist perspective on how to do church, from the mid-1600s.Clipboard01

Declaration of the Faith and Practice of the Church of Christ,

in Carter-Lane, Southwark, under the Pastoral Care of Dr. John Gill, Read and assented to, at the Admission of Members.

HAVING been enabled, through divine grace, to give up ourselves to the Lord, and likewise to one another by the will of God, we account it a duty incumbent upon us, to make a declaration of our faith and practice, to the honour of Christ, and the glory of his name; knowing, that as with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, so with the mouth confession is made unto salvation; (Rom. 10:10) a which declaration is as follows, viz.,

I. We believe, That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, are (2 Tim. 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:21) the word of God, and the only (John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 2 Peter 1:19, 20) rule of faith and practice.

II. We believe, That there is but one (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jer. 10:10) only living and true God: that there are (1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19) three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are equal in nature, power, and glory; and that the Son ((John 10:30; Phil. 2:6; Rom. 9:5; 1 John 5:20) and the Holy Ghost (Acts 5:3, 4; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 3:17, 18) are as truly and properly God as the Father. These three divine persons are distinguished from each other, by peculiar relative properties: The distinguishing character and relative property of the first person is begetting; he has begotten a Son of the same nature with him, and who is the express image of his person; (Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:3) and therefore is with great propriety called the Father: The distinguishing character and relative property of the second person is that he is begotten; and he is called the only begotten of the Father, and his own proper Son; (John 1:14; Rom. 8:3, 32) not a Son by creation, as angels and men are, nor by adoption, as saints are, nor by office, as civil magistrates; but by nature, by the Father’s eternal generation (Ps. 2:7) of him in the divine nature; and therefore he is truly called the Son: The distinguishing character and relative property of the third person is to be breathed by the Father and the Son, and to proceed from both, (Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; John 15:26 and 20:26 and 20:22; Gal. 4:6) and is very Properly called the Spirit, or breath of both. These three distinct divine persons, we profess to reverence, serve, and worship as the one true God. (1 John 5:7; Matthew 4:10)

III. We believe, That before the world began God did elect (Eph. 1:4; 1 Thess. 1:4 and 5:9; 2 Thess. 2:13; Rom. 8:30; Eph. 1:5; 1 John 3:1; Gal. 4:4, 5; John 1:12) a certain number of men unto everlasting salvation whom he did predestinate to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ of his own free grace, and according to the good pleasure of his will; and that in pursuance of this gracious design, he did contrive and make a covenant (2 Sam. 23:5; Ps. 89:2, 28, 34; Isa. 42:6) of grace and peace with his son Jesus Christ, on the behalf of those persons; wherein a Saviour (Ps. 89:19; Isa. 49:6) was appointed, and all spiritual (2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:3; Eph. 1:3) blessings provided for them; as also that their (Deut. 33:3; John 6:37, 39 and 10:28, 29; Jude 1) persons, with all their grace (2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:3; Col. 3:3, 4) and glory, were put into the hands of Christ, and made his care and charge.

IV. We believe, That God created the first man, Adam, after his image, and in his likeness, an upright, holy, and innocent creature, capable of serving and glorifying him: (Gen. 1:26, 27; Eccl. 7:29; Ps. 8:5) but he sinning, all his posterity sinned in him, and came short of the glory of God; (Rom. 5:12 and 3:23) the guilt of whose sin is imputed; (Rom. 5:12, 14, 18, 19; 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 2:3) and a corrupt nature derived to all his offspring descending from him by ordinary and natural generation: (Job 14:4; Ps. 51:5; John 3:6; Ezek. 16:4-6) that they are by their first birth carnal and unclean; averse to all that is good, incapable of doing any, and prone to every (Rom. 8:7, 8 and 3:10-12; Gem 6:5) sin: and are also by nature children of wrath, and under a sentence of condemnation; (Eph. 2:3; Rom. 5:12, 18) and so are subject, not only to a corporal death, (Gen. 2:7; Rom. 5:12, 14; Heb. 9:27) and involved in a moral one, commonly called spiritual; (Matthew 8:21; Luke 15:24, 32; John 5:25; Eph. 3:1) but are also liable to an eternal death, (Rom. 5:18 and 6:23; Eph. 2:3) as considered in the first Adam, fallen and sinners; from all which there is no deliverance, but by Christ, the second Adam. (Rom. 6:23 and 7:24, 25 and 8:2; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 Cor. 15:45, 47)

V. We believe, That the Lord Jesus Christ, being set up from (Prov. 8:22, 23; Heb. 12:24) everlasting as the Mediator of the covenant, and he having engaged to be the (Ps. 49:6-8; Heb. 7:22) Surety of his people, did In al. 4:4; Heb. 2:14, 16, 17) human nature, and not before, neither in whole, nor in part; his human soul being a creature, existed not from eternity, but was created and formed in his body by him that forms the spirit of man within him, when that was conceived in the womb of the virgin; and so his human nature consists of a true body and a reasonable soul: both which, together and at once the Son of God assumed into union with his divine person, when made of a woman, and not before; in which nature he really suffered, and died (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; Eph. 5:2; 1 Peter 3:18) as the substitute of his people, in their room and stead; whereby he made all that satisfaction (Rom. 8:3, 4 and 10:4; Isa. 42:21; Rom. 8:1, 33, 34) for heir sins, which the law and justice of God could require; as well as made way for all those blessings (1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:7) which are needful for them both for time and eternity.

VI. We believe, That eternal Redemption which Christ has obtained by the shedding of his blood (Matthew 20:28; John 10:11, 15; Rev. 5:9; Rom. 8:30) is special and particular: that is to say, that it was only intentionally designed for the elect of God, and sheep of Christ, who only share the special and peculiar blessings of it.

VII. We believe, That the justification of God’s elect, is only by the righteousness (Rom. 3:28 and 4:6 and 5:16-19) of Christ imputed to them, without the consideration of any works of righteousness done by them; and that the full and free pardon of all their sins and transgressions, past, present, and to come, is only through the blood of Christ, (Rom. 3:25; Eph. 1:7; Col. 2:13; 1 John 1:7, 9) according to the riches of his grace.

VIII. We believe, That the work of regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and faith, is not an act of (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16 and 8:7) man’s free will and power, but of the mighty, efficacious, and irresistible grace (Phil. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:3; Eph. 1:19; Isa. 43:13) of God.

IX. We believe, that all those, who are chosen by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and sanctified by the Spirit, shall certainly and finally (Matthew 24:24; John 6:39, 40 and 10:28, 29; Matthew 16:18; Ps. 125:1, 2; 1 Peter 1:5; Jude 24; Heb. 2:13; Rom. 8:30) persevere; so that not one of them shall ever perish, but shall have everlasting life.

X. We believe, That there will be a resurrection of the dead; (Acts 24:15; John 528, 29; Dan. 12:2) both of the just and unjust; and that Christ will come a second time to judge (Heb. 9:28; Acts 17:31; 2 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 1 Thess. 4:15-17) both quick and dead; when he will take vengeance on the wicked, and introduce his own people into his kingdom and glory, where they shall be for ever with him.

XI. We believe, That Baptism (Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26) and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of Christ, to be continued until his second coming; and that the former is absolutely requisite to the latter; that is to say, that those (Acts 2:41 and 9:18, 26) only are to be admitted into the communion of the church, and to participate of all ordinances in it, (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12, 36, 37 and 16:31-34 and 8:8) who upon profession of their faith, have been baptized, (Matthew 3:6, 16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38, 39; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12) by immersion, in the name of the Father, (Matthew 28:19) and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

XII. We also believe, That singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs vocally, (Matthew 26:30; Acts 16:25; 1 Cor. 14:15, 26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) is an ordinance of the Gospel, to be performed by believers; but that as to time, place, and manner, every one ought to be left to their (James 5:13) liberty in using it.

Now all and each of these doctrines and ordinances, we look upon ourselves under the greatest obligation to embrace, maintain,, and defend; believing it to be our duty (Phil. 1:27; Jude 3) to stand fast in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel.

And whereas we are very sensible, that our conversation, both in the world and in the church, ought to be as becometh the Gospel of Christ; (Phil. 1:27) we judge it our incumbent duty, to (Col. 4:5) walk in wisdom towards them that are without, to exercise a conscience (Acts 24:16) void of offence towards God and men, by living (Titus 2:12) soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world.

And as to our regards to each other, in our church-communion; we esteem it our duty to (Eph. 4:1-3; Rom. 12:9, 10, 16; Phil. 2:2, 3) walk with, each other in all humility and brotherly love; to watch (Lev. 19:17; Phil. 2:4) over each other’s conversation; to stir up one (Heb. 10:24, 25) another to love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as we have opportunity, to worship God according to his revealed will; and, when the case requires, to warn, (1 Thess. 5:14; Rom. 15:14; Lev. 19:17; Matthew 18:15-17) rebuke, and admonish one another, according to the rules of the Gospel.

Moreover, we think ourselves obliged (Rom. 12:15; 1 Cor. 12:26) to sympathize with each other, in all conditions, both inward and outward, which God, in his providence, may bring its into; as also to (Rom. 15:1; Eph. 4:12; Col. 3:13) bear with one another’s weaknesses, failings and infirmities; and particularly to pray for one another, (Eph. 6:18, 19; 2 Thess. 3:1) and that the Gospel, and the ordinances thereof, might be blessed to the edification and comfort of each others souls, and for the gathering in of others to Christ, besides those who are already gathered.

All which duties we desire to be found in the performance of, through the gracious assistance of the Holy Spirit whilst we both admire and adore the grace, which has given us a place, and a name in God’s house, better than that of sons and daughters. (Isa. 56:5)

by

All Hail the Pope!

At least that’s what Rome would have ya do. Here’s more heresy from Rome, from a 19th century article. The following is taken from Ferraris’ “EcclesiasticalPope Dictionary” (Roman Catholic), article “Pope.” The latest edition of this book was issued from the Press of the Propaganda at Rome in 1899, which shows that it has the approval of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. “The Catholic Encyclopedia” (Volume VI, page 48) speaks of it as “a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge,” and “a precious mine of information.”

“The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God.”

“The pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities.”

“Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.”

“Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman pontiff by no means pertain only to heavenly things, to earthly things, and to things under the earth, but are even over angels, than whom he is greater.”

“So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the pope.”

“The pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been entrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom.”

“The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing His sheep.”

by

Discussing Free Will – Part 4

In this four-part series (audio is about an hour long), Jim McClarty and his friend Alex Franzone images (1)discuss various aspects of free will. What is it and – most importantly – what does the Bible say about it?

Here’s the fourth and last part.

Listen and talk among yourselves.

I pray this short series has been edifying.

by

Discussing Free Will – Part 3

In this four-part series (audio is about an hour long), Jim McClarty and his friend Alex Franzone images (1)discuss various aspects of free will. What is it and – most importantly – what does the Bible say about it?

Here’s part three.

Part four in a few days.

Listen and talk among yourselves.

by

Crucifixion Tuesday – Summary

Excellent thoughts from a fellow pastor in Scotland, Jon Gleason. This certainly puts a new light on the church/state separation issue as well the issue of what the idolatrous Pharisees were doing in a vain attempt to trap Christ.

Jon Gleason's avatarMind Renewers

The Tuesday Before the Crucifixion

This is a summary of a series of posts on “Passion Tuesday” — the Tuesday before our Lord’s crucifixion.

“Whose is This Image and Superscription?” — A coin in the British Museum shows clearly that the coin the Pharisees and Herodians brought to Jesus was an idolatrous coin, and Jesus used this fact to reveal their hypocrisy.  (This article is also part of the “Bible in the British Museum” series.)

Misusing Matthew 22:21: “Render Unto Caesar” — Too often, modern applications of this passage miss the point.  “As so often, when you ask the Lord a question, the answer turns out to be a claim on your life.”

“By What Authority?” — The Claims of Messiah — The first question of the day came from the chief priests and elders, the religious authorities.  This post looks at the Messianic claims and actions of Jesus, the…

View original post 380 more words

by

The World a Sorry Comforter

The World a Sorry Comforter

George Mylne, 1871

The Preacher speaks of some who “had no comforter,” because, as we infer that they sought comfort wrongly — on earthly, and not on heavenly grounds. And so it is too often with the bereaved — people try to cure their broken hearts with human remedies, the quackery of the world, which mocks the patient, and does not heal him. And thus, when sorrow comes, mourners are urged to seek their consolation in worldly pleasure, and to drown their recollections for a season, only to return more bitterly at last. They might as well expect a cure from sheer intoxication — as banish sorrow thus!

“Miserable Comforters” are they who recommend such remedies to distract your grief. Pleasure can only make a man forget his sorrows; and as waters wear the stones by ceaseless droppings — so a continuous round of pleasure may in time induce complete oblivion.

Yet this, to say the least, is a dishonorable way of stifling sorrow — advisedly I use the word. It does dishonor to the dead, that you must needs forget him, and for his memory substitute the theater, the race-course, or the whirling dance. Could he but know the fact, or tell the feelings of the eternal world — would he commend your conduct, or consider it a compliment to be banished thus from mind? Through pleasure you may try to forget your friend. The giddy spectacle, whatever it may be, hides him from view. It must be so. Such objects are not transparent, but opaque, with their many sorts of deadening influences.

Not so the atmosphere of God’s grace. Its clear expanse forms no impediment to vision — quite the reverse. It gives you objects to survey, as clear as itself. It invites you to fix your eye on Jesus, Himself the Sun of that clear medium — Himself the object to bring out its properties. This will hide nothing from your view, that may be safely looked upon. It hides, indeed, objects of earthly vanity, as they again obscure the Cross. But it enables you to see more clearly, as you ought to see, all lawful objects of consideration. It enables you to weigh their consequences, discern their right proportions, and look upon them as they are looked upon by God. May you thus bear your sorrow honorably, and know the dignity of sanctified distress!

It is also dishonoring to yourself not to confront your sorrows like a man. It implies a lack of courage, the absence of proper self-command. There is something wrong, you may be sure — for is it correct, is it manly, thus to cheat the soul, to hide yourself behind some passing vanity, rather than face the sober truth? It proves you lack a higher principle, the muscles and sinews of a braver purpose, a mind nerved against unworthy refuges, a buoyancy to rise above the wave.

Yet I mean not Stoicism — encasing the mind with adamant, suppressing sensibilities, ignoring natural affection — its ground of resignation fatalism, unconscious or avowed; a dogged resolution to suffer on; a sullen tribute to some principle of harm — too blind to trace, too proud to own, the hand of the Almighty. Stoicism is not courage! There is nothing noble in its composition. It is rather cowardice, making its would-be hardiness a refuge for its lies. It dares not see affliction in its proper light.

Oh no! the strength of which I speak is something higher. It has no place whatever in the natural man. It is the offspring of saving grace. It brings its powers and its consolations from another world.

In some there is a way of sorrowing, nor seeking its distractions in the world, nor yet hardening itself in stoicism; feeding in calmness on its sensibilities, clothed in the mantle of a mournful dignity, attending to life’s duties with self-denying purpose, exhibiting a quiet resignation to the blow. Yet it lacks the principle of God’s grace, the principle of glad compliance with the will of Heaven; sorrowing, yet able to rejoice, distressed yet cheerful; not merely saying, “This is a grief — and I must bear it!” (Jeremiah 10:19), but counting it a privilege to feel a Father’s Hand — rising above the instrument, to see a Father’s Love, serene in the resilience of grace. It is thus the bread of bitterness is turned to sweetness, and the path of sorrow trodden with unfaltering steps, because of consolations that the world knows nothing of, and because the everlasting arms are underneath — surely, sweetly, sensibly.

Thus fortified and taught, a man may look bereavement in the face, undaunted. No need has he to seek a refuge in the world, and drown his sensibilities inpleasure. He has no need to arm himself with stoicism. He meets affliction not as a foe, but as a friend — the bearer of a message from the Lord. To turn from facing it, would be to scorn its mission, to hide himself from God.

Yet trust not in any power of your own. Would you do honor to yourself aright, you must have engrafted spiritual principle, engrafted courage — a self within, entirely distinct from what by nature bears the name — a New Creation in heart and mind — in principle and powers (2 Corinthians 5:17). May you thus be qualified to have a true respect for self, and have a self worthy to be respected!

But, most of all, to seek your comfort in the world is most dishonoring to God. Man was intended to hold communion with His Maker, in Him to find his consolation — -to have his Maker for his friend. But Adam fell, and, with the fall, there came a sad estrangement between him and God — an estrangement, shared by all his posterity down to the present hour. And thus, my friend, why don’t you take your sorrows to the Lord? Because you are estranged from Him. Conscious of sin, you sullenly avoid your Maker — and seek your comfort in the world.

And is it to be always so — that God, the kindest and the best, should be a cipher to your sorrowing heart — that He alone should be the subject of studied disregard? Perhaps this sad bereavement was sent to teach you better things — to show you where true comfort is to be found — and make you see your danger, if you treat your Maker as a thing of nothing, and systematically pass Him by.

Hasten to be wise. Hasten to be childlike with the Lord. Hasten to be at peace with Him through a Savior’s Blood. Hasten to regard Him as your Comforter — to treat Him as your friend.

And as the world can give no real consolation — then as little can we gain by borrowing its grief. “The sorrow of the world works death” (2 Corinthians 8:10). And this it does in many ways. It means that we grieve, irrespectively of God — that we sorrow without a comforter — that our sorrow is indulged in to satiety — that our sorrow is pent up within the breast without a safety-valve — -that we sorrow with nothing to relieve it — -that our mind is fixed on its own distress — -that we have nothing to break the continuity of wearying thought. Such sorrow wearies the flesh — it dries the bones (Proverbs 17. 22), secretly undermines the health, openly shows upon the countenance, induces gradual decay — and thus, eventually, works death!

How many, hence, have died of broken hearts! How many have committed suicide! And all, because they had no real Comforter! Had they only been at peace with God — had they only confided to Him their sorrow — their grief would have found an outlet, and their life would have been saved. And then they might have said, “I shall yet praise Him who is the health of my countenance, and my God” (Psalm 42:11).

Ask the physician, and he will tell you how sickness is often averted by a peaceful mind. Can they but avert the sickness, the patient lives. And what will keep from sickness, like a mind at peace with God? Contrast with this a broken heart — and from what does it proceed? From some hidden canker left to prey upon the mind, unchecked, unremedied — some wound unmollified with ointment (Isaiah 1:6) — some worm that feeds upon the root, sapping the constitution, eating out the stamina of life!

Such is the sorrow of the world. I beg you, Mourner, give not way to it. Before morbid feelings root themselves eradicably — bestir yourself. Shake off theviper which would eat into your heart. Awake to consciousness and healthful thought. “Is any afflicted — Let him pray!” — thus says the Scripture (James 5:13). Let him speak to God — to Him, unfold his grief. This at once unfolds the spring which opens the safety-valve, and lifts the sluice of healthy sensibilities. You are “afflicted” — then speak to God in the attitude of humble prayer. At any rate, my friend, speak to God. Catch not infection from the world — which is sorrow unto death.

The sorrow of the world works death in yet another form. Instead of leading you to God, it takes you further From Him — further from grace — further From Christ — further from hope — further from eternal life! Instead of softening the heart — it hardens. It engenders a deadened spirit, a conscience not awake to suitable impressions — it paves the way for death — death here, and death hereafter! Then take a lesson, Mourner, if such is your temptation. Shun worldly sorrow, which eats as a canker! Seek peace. Seek sweet serenity. Seek life for soul and body in the simple remedy of Christ — the balsam of the soul.

by

A Few Sighs from Hell

John Bunyan’s pastor, John Gifford, often wrote prefaces to Bunyan’s work. In his introduction to A Few Sighs imagesfrom Hell, Gifford offers the following advice to the Christian. I pray it causes the reader to pause and consider his standing before God – to be comforted and drawn near to the Savior, or be rebuked and fall down before Him crying for mercy. To the reader, from Pastor Gifford:

 

And if thou beest a Christian (to whom this may come) that hast not only had a prize in thy hands, but wisdom given thee from above to make use of it, and art one who (whilst others are seeking to make this world and hell together sure to themselves) spendest thy time, and makest it thy only business, to make sure of the one thing necessary, and heaven to thy soul, I shall lay two or three things before thy thoughts.

First. Walk with a fixed eye upon the world to come. Look not at the things that are seen, that are temporal, but at the things which are not seen, that are eternal (2 Cor 4:18). A Christian’s eye should be upon his journey’s end, as our Lord Jesus, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross (Heb 12:2). When the stones flew about Stephen’s ears, his eyes were lifted up to heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55,56). What though thou at present mayest lie at the rich man’s gates, yet a few days will translate thee into Abraham’s bosom. Though Israel had a sharp voyage through the wilderness, yet Caleb and Joshua, men of excellent spirits, had their eye upon the good land they were going to.

Though graceless souls are too dull sighted to see afar off (2 Peter 1:9), yet thou that hast received the unction from above, dost in some measure know what is the hope of thy calling, and what is the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.

Secondly. Be satisfied with thy present condition, though it be afflictive, for it shall not last always. Thy sorrows shall be short, and thy joys long; roll thyself upon the Lord, for there is a heaven will pay for all; Christ first endured the cross before he wore the crown. David, before he was a king, was a shepherd. The poor man spoken of in this ensuing treatise, before he was carried into heaven, had experiences of sorrow and sufferings on earth. Let the flesh be silent in passing judgment on the dispensations of God towards thee, and the men of this world, in this present life.

David, by prying too far herein with his own wisdom, had almost caught a fall (Psa 73). Though God’s judgments may be too deep for our reason to dive into, yet are they always righteous, and his paths mercy and truth to those that keep his covenants (Psa 25:10). When Jeremiah would debate with the Lord concerning his judgments in the wicked’s prosperity, he would lay this down as an indubitable truth, that his judgments were righteous (Jer 12:1). And his end was not to charge God, but to learn understanding of him in the way of his judgments; and although the ways of his providence may be dark to his people, that they cannot discern his  footsteps, yet are they always consistent with his everlasting covenant, and the results of the favour he bears to them. If the wicked flourish like the grass, it is that they should be destroyed for ever (Psa 92:7). And if the godly have many a wave beating upon them, yet will the Lord command his loving-kindness in the day time (Psa 42:7,8). And, after a little while being tossed to and fro in these boisterous waves, they shall arrive at the heavenly haven, this world being not their resting-place, but there remains one for them (Heb 4:9).

Thirdly. Let the faith and hopes of a glorious deliverance get thy heart up above thy present sufferings, that thou mayest glory in tribulation who hast ground of rejoicing in hope of the glory of God (Rom 5:2,3). For whatsoever thy present grievances are, whether outward afflictions, or inward temptations, this may be thy consolation that a few days will rid thee of them; when thou shalt sigh no more, complain no more, but those shall be turned into praises. Thou hast (if I may so call it) all thy hell here; let thy life be expired, and thy misery is ended; thy happiness begins, where wicked men’s end; and when thine is once began, it shall have no more end.

by

Test ALL Things, Cling to that which is Good!

Each of us has doctrines we hold to without properly examining them in light of Scripture – that’s how we are wired as humans. This comes into play on this notion of Christian Sabbath keeping which was first invented by early Roman Catholics in the 6th century and codified in paedobaptists’ system of theology a thousand years later. Now it is a tightly held tradition by many; and many who love this teaching celebrate any work that supports their perspective – which does their argument no good. Walter Chantry’s book, Call the Sabbath a Delight, is such a work. In my two years of researching this subject, this book did more to convince me this “Christian Sabbath” is not defensible from Scripture than anything written against this doctrine. The best thing about this book is that it’s small and short.

Call the Sabbath a Delight call-the-sabbath-walt-chantry

by Walter Chantry – a critical review

Walter Chantry was born and raised in a Presbyterian home and graduated from a Presbyterian school (Westminster Theological Seminary). This is something worth mentioning, as it’s obvious he was heavily influenced by our paedobaptist brothers. Let each one of us realize we are likewise influenced by what we’ve taught and think is “so” and need test all things in light of God’s holy Word. In the introduction to this book, Chantry starts off presuming the Decalogue (not called the Ten Commandments until the New Geneva Bible) equals God’s moral law. Since this is foundational to his entire argument, it needs some explanation and defense, not mere assertion – but our author provides none. Perhaps he assumes everybody knows this or accepts it. Why this is problematic will be shown later. This short introduction to his book sets his premise, in which he comes across very much like the folks in the movie, Divided: just as the movie implied teenagers were going to hell because the right church program was not available, so Chantry paints a picture of a culture hell-bound because people have turned their back on the so-called Christian Sabbath: “We should consider it nothing less than shockingly unacceptable for Bible teachers and ministers to undermine the practice of the worship and service of God by teaching against the Sabbath law.” This pragmatic streak is another thing that shows up throughout this book. But we know, God saves His elect through the gospel people; salvation does not come through the Law or through behavior modification.

In chapter 1, Chantry quotes Ex 20:8-11 and calls it the 4th commandment. Does anyone think the tablets God wrote on contained all those words for the “4th Word”? By assuming all the words in these verses are the commandment, he fails to see the ceremonial, judicial, civil, etc. content in this and several of the commandments. He considers all of Ex 20:3 – 17 to be “the Ten Commandments”, summing up God’s moral law. If the 10 Words on the first set of tablets is God’s moral law, why do we not have those 10 Words clearly preserved in Scripture rather than bound up in words that conveyed the re-issue of the covenant of works to the Hebrew people? And why does the record of the Decalogue differ, particularly in the 4th commandment, between Ex 20 and Deut 5? Our author merely waves this aside, asserting, “as originally given on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20), the fourth law was enforced with an argument from God’s behavior during creation week.” Yes, the Lord gave illumination of His Sabbath command to the Hebrews by pointing back to the 7th day of creation, providing an example of the rest He was commanding the Hebrews to keep. God doesn’t call the 7th day of creation a Sabbath in Ex 20 – but He does use that word to describe the sign He has given the Hebrews. In his effort to defend his position, Chantry claims, “the Ten Commandments per se are free of all ceremonial and judicial peculiarities of the Mosaic covenant.” If this is true, should not the Lord have struck Moses dead for changing His eternal, moral law with he “rehearsed the Ten Commandments to Israel” in Deuteronomy? If by this our author means that embedded in the text of Ex 20:3 – 17 are the “the Ten Commandments per se”, that some of what’s recorded in this passage is not God’s moral law, he should have developed this argument. He leaves us wondering what he means, because he consistently calls “the Ten Commandments” God’s moral law and he does not tell us what he thinks “the Ten Commandments per se” might be. Just as we don’t have an inspired record of “the 10 words”, neither do we have for “the Ten Commandments per se”.

Chantry tells us (page 24) that Rom 2:15 is proof that Adam was given the Decalogue when he was created. This verse tells us that Gentiles without the law of Moses have the works of the law written on their hearts – it does NOT prove Adam was created with the Decalogue written on his conscience as claimed. Further, how could Adam know the Decalogue or any version of the moral law of God prior to having knowledge of good and evil? The law – any law – brings awareness of sin (evil); Adam knew none of this before he ate and his eyes were opened. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve knew the goodness of God; they did not know evil. After he and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God said “the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.” It appears that Adam was given the moral law of God in conjunction with The Fall – not when he was created nor when he walked in innocence.

There is, however, much to agree with in this book – we do get guidance from God as to what is honorable from His moral law, Christians are to be joyful about gathering on the Lord’s Day, he decries the overly rigid rules-based Puritan view of enforcing their Sabbath – which the authors of the WCF had as their baseline for their view. But Chantry, who was raised and educated as a Presbyterian, doesn’t seem to see the difference between the Jews living under the Old Covenant and the children of Abraham according to the promise living in the New Covenant. And he lumps all who don’t see this equivalence into the dust bin of dispensationalism (this line of argument takes up most of chapter 4, providing a platform for Chantry to condemn all who disagree by saying, “Never in Israel or the church did the gospel of salvation by grace through faith promote lawlessness.” This is the bucket all who do not hold his view are thrown into. There is no other position in Chantry’s model: if you are not a Sabbatarian, you are an antinomian. This is, sadly, an all-too-common assertion by Sabbatarians.

Another problem in claiming the Decalogue equals God’s moral law comes into play when Chantry argues for its universal application to all men at all times – implicitly endorsing blue laws and contradicting the historical record of Scripture and all of mankind. Only by Special Revelation can man know he is to worship God on a given day. How can the entire 4th Commandment, as presented herein, be universal when it’s apparent everywhere that many don’t know it, when nowhere in Scripture are any people outside the Mosaic Covenant punished for violating it? Nowhere in general revelation is man given the 7 day week; yet there is every evidence that all men everywhere know murder and robbery, etc. are wrong and all men worship something. God’s moral law is known to man and no man is without excuse. But there is no evidence that weekly rest from labor is part of that moral law; it appears only in context with God’s covenant people. Nowhere in any version of the 10 Commandments are people told to worship God on the Sabbath and nowhere in the Scriptures is the first day of the week called “Sabbath”. Yet we know from Scripture that the saints gathered to worship on the day after the Sabbath. They went to the synagogues to dispute with the Jews on the Sabbath.

He gives conflicting messages, telling us rightly that, as Peter said, we are not to live under the Mosaic law (beginning of chapter 2). But our author makes no effort to separate God’s moral law from the Mosaic Covenant in applying his sabbatarian argument. He cites Isaiah 58:13 & 14 as “a discussion of the Sabbath in all its spiritual beauty. Here is a text in which the Sabbath Law is presented without the drab and unappealing attire of judicial additives.” But Chantry told us in chapter 1 that “the Ten Commandments per se are free of all ceremonial and judicial peculiarities of the Mosaic covenant.” Is he now citing Isaiah 58 as proof against his assertion from chapter 1? He gives superficial attention to Scriptures but spends lots of pages talking about the woeful state of the culture and giving what can only be called pragmatic advice. “Mothers and fathers must work at making the Sabbath a delight to their children. Boys and girls must not come to view the day of worship as grim and repressive.” One cannot muster up nor manufacture “the joy of the Lord”. If mom and dad are new creatures in Christ, they will have joy in the worship, instruction, and fellowship that takes place in a local church. Yes, they will have sin to deal with and must strive for holiness. This should be modeled for their unregenerate small children – those impressionable young people can be easily trained to look like covenant children; but that is a very dangerous role for any person to play. As with the taking of the Lord’s Supper, young people ought to see Christian character and worship but parents ought to know they cannot participate unless they be born again.

Chantry (page 52) says there are some who “the claim that the New Testament is silent on the fourth commandment.” He then shoots himself squarely in the foot by claiming Matt 12:1-14, Mark 2:23- 3:6, Luke 6:1-11, Luke 13:10-17, Luke 4:1-6, John 5:1-18, and John 7:20-24 are New Testament teachings about Christians keeping the Sabbath – “They contain our Lord Jesus’ frequent and extensive teaching on the subject.” All of these passages are records of activity by Christ and/or His disciples doing kingdom work on the Jewish Sabbath with those under the Mosaic Law. He fails to cite the clear and thrice-told declaration (Ex 31:13 – 17, Ez 20:12. Ez 20:20) that the Sabbath is a sign between YHWH and the Jews. Chantry goes on to claim (page 54), that in Mark 2:27-28, Christ points back to creation in defending the continuation of the weekly Sabbath – And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” Chantry claims the phrase, “the Sabbath was made”, refers to the 7th day of creation. He compares this passage from Mark to Paul’s very clear tie of creation to marriage – “Paul uses almost an identical formula in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9. ‘Man is not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man.’” Contrary to Chantry’s claim, there is no comparison: Paul clearly cites Genesis 2:18 – 23, but one has to claim Moses used the wrong word in writing Genesis 2:2-3, because he didn’t use the word for Sabbath found in Exodus 20. The Hebrew word for the “rest” God observed on the “seventh” day found in Genesis 2:2-3 is shābat; a primitive root; to repose, i.e. desist from exertion; the word for Sabbath in Exodus 20:8-11 is shabbāt; intensive from <H7673> (shabath); intermission, i.e. (specific) the Sabbath. These two are related but are not the same.

He constantly insists the Sabbath was created in the beginning, because God set aside the 7th day as His day of rest, made it holy, blessed it because on it He rested from creation. No mention of Sabbath, no command to man to do anything nor punishment of man for failing to obey this command. Nehemiah (chapter 9 verses 13 & 14) records that God gave the Sabbath to the Jews on Mt. Sinai. The sabbath that Christ says was made for men – not just for the Jews – is that sabbath rest all elect enter into when we are raised to new life in Jesus and cease from our working to be right with God as the Old Covenant demands. Hebrews 4 is not talking about a continuation of the pale, weekly day of the Jewish religion, which was a type and weak imitation of the eternal rest and reconciliation He bought with His blood.

In chapter 5, Chantry inadvertently makes my point – that the moral law of God is not equal to the Decalogue, though it shone through the Decalogue – when he observes that Jesus and the disciples defined moral purity by quoting the Decalogue. When the commandments are quoted in the New Testament, they rarely (once?) include the judicial/ceremonial language contained in Ex 20 and Deut 5. These first century men knew the actual “10 Words” as did their Jewish audiences. And not once does Jesus or His apostles teach or enforce any type of sabbath keeping as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession in context of the Christian faith. But Chantry doesn’t see this – he says, “Keeping the Sabbath Day holy is a commandment embedded in the code of moral law written by God’s own finger. It is a part of the definition of righteousness.” (page 63) Many theologians like to make much of the fact that God wrote the 10 Words on the first set of tablets, tablets made of stone – which Moses destroyed. The second set of tablets, which probably carved by Moses as commanded by God, were stored in the Ark of the Covenant, along with the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod. This Ark of the Covenant was lost in antiquity, and according the Word of God, is to be forgotten – (Jr 3:15-16): “And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. And when you have multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, declares the LORD, they shall no more say, “The ark of the covenant of the LORD.” It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again.” Might these “tablets of testimony” (Ex 31:18) of the Mosaic Covenant be types and shadows that point us to something greater, as so much of what God gave Israel in that covenant is properly recognized as? God’s law written on tablets of stone, given to people with hearts of stone, who gathered for worship in a temple of stone. Compare this the new Covenant Jeremiah writes about: God’s people given hearts of flesh to replace their hearts of stone, God’s law written on the tablets of our hearts rather than tablets of stone, and we are God’s temple which is comprised of spiritual stones He is assembling for Himself. Chantry goes on to state (still on page 63),“The ways in which the moral law was applied and the way it was enforced differ greatly when we compare the management of Moses and the management of Christ.” This sounds a whole lot like our paedobaptist argument – that the covenant of Moses is part of the covenant of grace, just under a different administrator.

Chantry is right and correct in pointing out the ancient basis of the covenant of grace, delineating the difference between it and the Mosaic Covenant. His guidance regarding motives, in chapter 6, is solid, although he continues to use dramatic and inaccurate comparisons – calling those who do not align with his view of the first day of the week, lawless, antinomian. This is poor practice. It will take a biblical argument pressed on me by the Spirit of God that convinces me of anything – not a comparison between Christians and the culture.

In his argument about why Christians worship on Sunday, there is no argument – until he describes how the Sabbath was moved to the day after the Sabbath. If one takes the stone tablets as God’s moral law, rather than seeing them as a lens through which His moral law shone in the context of the Mosaic Covenant, then one must find a way to explain how that “which God wrote with His finger” was changed without a command from God. If the entire record in Ex 20 known as the 10 Commandments is considered to be God’s moral law, then one cannot accept changing the day (explicitly called out as the seventh day, not “every seventh day, and not the first); that is as much a part of God’s moral law as is the command to work six days (not five). And the 4th commandment does not command worship – but to keep it holy, set apart, and to abstain from work. But, if one sees God’s moral law as described above – shining through the Decalogue rather than the Decalogue being the source – then we can easily accept this change in the day, seeing the moral principle as the key thing. The Jews were commanded to honor the seventh day; Christ was raised from the dead on the first day and we gather for worship on that day. I know that many theologians agree with Chantry that Heb 4 is a proof text for weekly Sabbath keeping. But the Old Testament type given was a one time entry into temporal rest, just as was Creator God’s one time entering into His rest from Creation work – so why would the rest between these two be other than the one time rest the elect enter into when they are redeemed by Christ and take His light load upon them and find rest in Him? It is a stretch that belies belief to claim this is a weekly Sabbath, something that was a pale shadow of what was promised in Gen 3:15.

In the last chapter, Chantry tries to write off biblical passages that appear to teach that a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath were a shadow of what was to come, Col 2 being “the most striking and troublesome” for the author. “It is apparent that these three texts are describing ceremonial and judicial laws of Moses. … Weekly Sabbath-keeping as required in the fourth commandment does not fit the description of days described in Romans 14, Galatians 4 and Colossians 2.” His argument for this position is tied to his insistence on a creation ordinance – “The weekly Sabbath day is a creation ordinance just as is marriage. Moses said so (Genesis 2:1-3), Jesus said so (Mark 2:27, 28)! So did the author of Hebrews 4:3-4!” That Genesis 2 says nothing about a weekly pattern of rest for men does not come into Chantry’s evaluation of this topic. This pattern of days refers to all of the holy days of the Jews from yearly feasts to the weekly Sabbath, and comes from repeated descriptions of the Mosaic ritual, found in 1 Chron 23:30-31; 2 Chron 2:4, 8:12-13, 31:3; Neh 10:33; Isaiah 1:13-14; Ezek 45:17; and Hosea 2:11. This is another indication that the Mosaic code, of which the Decalogue is part, does not apply to Christian as a law – but as a type or shadow of the Christ to come. Our exodus is not from Egypt; that country is a type for sin and wickedness. The moral law, though it is revealed within the Mosaic code, is eternal and no more uniquely part of that Sinai covenant than the New Covenant is – though the covenant of grace was progressively revealed over time, even within the era of the Mosaic Covenant. His last point addresses “proper Sabbath behavior.” He gives some good counsel on the limits of elders and common sense examples of variation depending on circumstance, but defaults to Jewish rules to guide us. He does finish with a recognition that Sabbath keeping isn’t the “answer to all man’s ills”, but still holds up a Christian imitation of the Jewish rite as a joy for us to keep.

In explaining how the Sabbath day can be changed from the 7th to the 1st day, Chantry accepts the narrative accounts in Scripture which document the fact that Christians met for worship on the 1st day, claiming this does not “cause the entire law to crumble or disappear.” But if the Decalogue and this commandment in particular have no judicial or ceremonial content, then changing from “the seventh day” should take something more substantial. It is a common hermeneutic rule – narrative is not normative; one doesn’t build doctrine from narrative. Why should one be able to change God’s moral law by narrative example?

Regarding the assertion that the Decalogue is or sums up God’s moral law, this is a very complex topic that would benefit from a well researched book being written. One would need to develop the concept of “God’s moral law”, get a handle on what may have been carved on the stone tablets compared to what Moses recited to the Hebrew nation, and examine the biblical history and biblical theology of the relevant texts. If someone knows of such a work, please chime in!

The authors of Chantry’s “List of Outstanding Materials on the Sabbath” is comprised of 18 paedobaptists and 1 Baptist – Erroll Hulse, plus the Westminster Confession of Faith and Shorter and Larger Westminster Catechisms. This, in itself, tells us where the bulk of support is for Chantry’s position – those who flatten out the covenants and, in an opposite ditch from the dispensationalists, see equality of identity between the church and the nation of Israel.

Give me the joyful gathering of the saints who eagerly come together to worship the Lord and build one another up; I care not to enter into the shadow of what Christ brought to His church.

by

Twelve Things to Do In Times of Trouble

Reprinted by permission of MindRenewers.com.

Jon Gleason's avatarMind Renewers

I said on Sunday that Psalm 61 is an “every-trouble” Psalm.  The Psalm’s title has nothing to tell us of the circumstances that triggered it.  And David says in the second verse that he can cry to God “from the ends of the earth” — wherever he may be, whatever the situation.  In addition, he says he can cry to the Lord when his heart is “overwhelmed.”

David was not an overwhelmed-heart kind of guy.  As a shepherd, he faced down a lion, and a bear.  As a youth, he faced Goliath.  He faced Saul’s treachery with courage, dealt with the opposition of the Philistines, and even in old age he kept going out to battle until his men wouldn’t let him go any longer.  So when someone like that is talking about problems that overwhelm the heart, you know he’s talking about great trouble.  As we look at Psalm…

View original post 1,244 more words

by

Goodbye, So Long, Farewell…Sort Of

walking-through-the-lightIt seems like such a short time ago that I was invited to become a contributing writer to DefCon. Pilgrim brought me on board when I was running a blog that received maybe 20-30 views per month. He blessed me with an opportunity to share with a larger audience about the necessity of Christians to share the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. What an amazing journey this has been.

I have been blessed by many readers who have been encouraged and edified. I have also seen the darker side of the blogging world, those who view each article as their own personal sounding board to vent anger and vitriol within the comments. Yet, it is not really for any of those for whom I write, but in truth, it is for an audience of One. I write to bring glory to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. If I do not bring honor and glory to Him, then none of what I do is worth anything. I pray that I have done that.

Last year, Pilgrim approached me and asked me to take over the reigns of DefCon. I was humbled more than I can say by this. It is an awesome task to take over the responsibilities of a blog site that over 1,000 people a day visit. It requires being a writer, a leader, a mediator and much more. It can be invigorating and exhausting all at the same time. However, I saw first hand what Pilgrim became weary over, the almost constant vitriol from readers who either took issue with an article because it addressed an evangelical sacred cow, or called us compromisers because we were not “fundamental” enough for their tastes. I saw brothers and sisters bite and devour one another over things that, while important, simply did not rise to the level of the core doctrines of the faith. Such animosity toward the brethren made me weep.

It was this that led me to call for a change to DefCon. It was always my personal stance that, while discernment articles are sometimes necessary, they should never be the primary diet of the Christian. Being strengthened and edified in the word of God was one primary tasks of every Christian. Thus, my writing reflected that (I hope). As the head administrator, I made the call to change the primary direction of the blog to that end. No more would we be the instigators of so much virtual “bloodshed” by providing the steady diet of discernment to our readers. We would go back to the word and expound it for the purposes of edifying and strengthening the brethren. While some were not fond of this change, and their absence is noted, I have never once regretted that decision. The glory of God and His character are far too important to me than generating more hits on this site.

However, as I wrote earlier this year, my family took quite a hit when my wife was diagnosed with a rather aggressive form of cancer. My priorities in life changed. While I tried to maintain my administrative duties (along with those required of me on the Cross Encounters Radio program), I found that it was my duty to my family that was of paramount importance. I was grateful for my fellow contributors who managed many things during my absence. Their work made it possible for me to focus on the time of tribulation we were enduring.

We are now three months past my wife’s final treatment and are cancer free by God’s grace. She is going through the tests and medications necessary to maintain this status, but her continued ability to draw breath is by God’s hand alone. As I have noted in recent posts, this last year has given me some clarity about my responsibilities as a follower of Christ, from the worship of my Savior to the study of His word. And as such, a growing sense of change has made itself known in me.

I truly love being a part of DefCon. Being able to share the amazing gospel of Jesus Christ through the posts I have written is more joyous than I can say. To bring glory to His name and to encourage the brethren to do likewise is an amazing gift given to me by the Lord. However, God has also given me several amazing responsibilities. The first is to be a husband and father, according to His calling, to be the model and the teacher of the gospel in my home. The second is to be a faithful employee in my chosen profession, to honor my superiors with my best effort. The third is to be the assistant manager and on air producer to a Christian radio program that focuses on evangelism, the ministry that is truly my heart’s desire. And very much tied with the last, is the blessing of being the administrator of this blog that ministers to so many wonderful brethren. With such awesome responsibilities, I am faced with a choice. I could either attempt to hold to all of them, yet not give the full attention all required. Or I would have to step down from something.

Through much prayer, and discussion with some of my fellow contributors, I came to a bittersweet decision. It is with much heaviness of heart that I must announce that I will be stepping down as head administrator and contributor to DefCon. I love this blog and I love the readers who are a faithful part of it. However, at this time, I cannot be a good steward of the position given the current circumstances in which I find myself. I believe that in this season of life, the Lord has led me to this point and another must take my place. While I hate to leave this role, I know that my successor will be more than capable of handling the task.

Mark Escalera (aka, The Jungle Missionary) has graciously stepped up and accepted the mantle of leadership. He has been a steadfast and godly contributor for several years. His articles have blessed many brethren and his wisdom has been greatly appreciated. Mark held down the fort for me on many occasions during the last year and I can think of no better person to take the role of head administrator. As he steps into this role, I ask you readers to be a blessing to him as you have been to me during the last couple of years. Thank you Mark, I know this blog will be in excellent hands.

And now I must say goodbye…sort of. I am not heading off into the sunset never to be heard from again. I am still very much involved in the ministry of Cross Encounters Radio as co-host and on-air producer (and I can be found roaming the Twittersphere sharing the occasional thought that leaks from my brain). My articles will remain, if Mark finds them useful, for folks to continue to read. While I will not be part of DefCon, I am not ceasing my involvement in online ministry. So if you see me roaming the virtual halls of the world wide web, tap me on the shoulder to say hi.

I thank you all for taking time to let me be a part of your lives. I am grateful that you gave this nobody from nowhere more than five minutes of your time and read the rambling thoughts I shared. I pray it has been helpful to you in some small way. May God bless you and keep you. And may you all be busy about our Father’s business of proclaiming the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

by

Still …

True, biblical love, is not self-serving. It is a gift from God, given in measure to His redeemed. Far too often, people who are married fail to grow in their love for their spouses, but continue to live for love themselves. This should not be so among the people Christ has redeemed by His blood.

Friends of mine, at my church, made this short video – depicting the love from God that we ought have for one another. Particularly in the covenant of marriage. I pray this prompts many to examine themselves and turn to YHWH in repentance and renewed faith.