Archives For theology

In my ministry in London I often used to say that what determines whether or not you and I are Christians is not what we say on vacation and not what we say when we are in our studies or reading a book somewhere and reading about theology and reading the Scriptures. This is not the ultimate test.

The ultimate test of our profession of the Christian faith is what we feel, what we say, and what our reaction is when a hurricane comes or a tornado or some calamity produced by nature or some violent epidemic, a disease that brings us face-to-face with time and eternity, with life and death. The ultimate question is, what is our response then?

From Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Setting Our Affections Upon Glory

Lloyd-Jones, Martyn. Setting Our Affections Upon Glory. Wheaton, IL.: Crossway, 2013. 173 pp. $15.99.

W400.9781433532658

In Setting Our Affections Upon Glory, nine sermons from Lloyd-Jones’ final trip to the United States are published for the first time, demonstrating to a new generation the homiletic mastery of “The Doctor.” These sermons, delivered at the Pensacola Theological Institute in 1969, are saturated with exegetical insight and seasoned with pastoral wisdom.

In expositional form, these sermons address topics related specifically to the gospel and the church that are just as cogent in our day as in his. He reminds his hearers that the ultimate test of faith is not our response to times of plenty, but in times of loss. He argues that the church generally must be built upon doctrine, because otherwise, “it is not Christian fellowship. It is carnal fellowship. It is merely human fellowship” (56). In fact, he states that “there is nothing more dangerous to the true life of the church than reversing this order and putting fellowship before doctrine” (58).

This little book is a wonderful addition to any collection of sermons. It serves as a fantastic introduction into the masterful preaching of Lloyd-Jones, but more importantly has the capability of transforming the way we think about the gospel and the church.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Setting Our Affections Upon Glory


I received this book free from the publisher through Crossway book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

“Canst thou by searching find out God?” (Job 11:7). Can a man ascend into that eternal realm where God dwells, God, “[who] is light, and in [whom] is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5)? The thing is preposterous. God is Spirit. “No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18). It is impossible. And yet the modern man says, “I don’t understand this. And because it doesn’t conform to the rules of my scientific outlook, I’m going to reject it.” Oh, what a fool the modern man is! What a baby he is, even in the realm of thought. Fancy bringing his abilities and his methods into a subject that, by definition, excludes it all! If people could understand God, they would be equal to God. God, by definition, is altogether “other.” He is the absolute and the eternal, the everlasting God. That is the subject matter of the gospel.

From Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Setting Our Affections Upon Glory

Introduction to his Life

In the late Spring of 1747, Jonathan Edwards welcomed a terribly sick young missionary by the name of David Brainerd into his home (31). The young man was dying of tuberculosis – a disease that plagued Brainerd’s life and ministry for seven years until finally taking it October 9, 1747. Edwards recalled that he found Brainerd to be, “remarkably sociable, pleasant, and entertaining in his conversation; yet solid, savory, spiritual, and very profitable” (349).

Several years before, a controversy was brewing in New England as the result of the Great Awakening. Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches were experiencing significant differences of opinion regarding revivalistic preachers such as George Whitefield and the new converts resulting from their ministry. Those clinging to a more traditional faith looked with disdain and contempt upon those who were emphasizing excitement and emotional responses to the revivals taking place. In 1741, Edwards was invited to extend the commencement address at Yale College in the hopes that he would chide the excited and excitable students and support the more conservative faculty. Instead, Edwards’ sermon, “The Distinguishing Marks of a Word of a Spirit of God,” defended the legitimacy of the Great Awakening and produced greater fervor and excitement among the student population.

Young David Brainerd was in the crowd as Edwards spoke, and though he ranked at the top of his class, he was expelled shortly thereafter for making a disparaging remark regarding one of the tutors. This expulsion would radically alter the trajectory of Brainerd’s life, for in that day no one could be installed as a pastor in Connecticut unless they had graduated from Harvard, Yale, or a European University.

Brainerd was a devout, pietistic young man who, due to his expulsion from Yale, was no longer able to achieve the end to which he believed God had called him – to faithfully serve as a pastor. The faculty at Yale, however, were unwilling to reinstate him. Shortly thereafter, he was charged by the Society in Scotland for Propogating Christian Knowledge to become a misisonary to the American Indians in New England.

He served for a combined four years in three different locations where he experienced the full spectrum of emotions as he saw seasons of openness and resistance to the gospel. After the most fruitful season of his ministry, he began to succumb to the tuberculosis that had plagued his life, and traveled to New England where he hoped to recover his health in order to return to those he affectionately deemed to be, “his” Indians. Rather than recover, Brainerd was diagnosed as terminal and was nursed by Edwards’ daughter, Jerusha, until he passed into his eternal inheritance.

Though Brainerd only lived to see his twenty-ninth birthday, Edwards saw fit to edit and publish his diary and journal to the public. In doing so, an obscure missionary that few would have ever been aware of has become a pivotal example in piety, devotion, self-sacrifice, and perseverance to generations.

Keys to his Ministry

An Honest View of Self
Underlying Brainerd’s missionary endeavors was a gut-wrenching, honest appraisal of his own relationship with God. Upon reading his diary and journal, one may be struck by Brainerd’s lack of missionary zeal early in his ministry. He seems much more content to study, pray, and repent than to actually share the gospel with the indians in his care. One reason for this appearance is that Brainerd wrote his journal for public consumption (to be published by the Society in Scotland for Propogating Christian Knowledge), while his diary was written for the sake of his personal self-examination and to measure his spiritual growth. Thus, while his journal contains stories of preaching and conversions, his diary is full of self-introspection. This ongoing self-appraisal, and constant reminder of his own need for God’s sovereign goodness, provided the ballast he needed in order to effectively minister to others.

A High View of Preaching
Yet one must not read Brainerd’s Life and Diary and not take note of the means by which he shared the gospel with the American Indians. He preached whenever he could find a hearer, but was convinced that, “only He [God] can open the ear, engage the attention, and incline the heart of poor benighted, prejudiced pagans to receive instruction” (207). Brainerd understood that the sovereign God works through the human preacher, leading Brainerd to herald the message of the gospel of Christ through an interpreter (who became the first to be baptized during Brainerd’s missionary endeavors).

A High View of Baptism
One final observation is that Brainerd did not baptize new believers upon conversion, but instead, “deferred their baptism for many weeks after they had given evidences of having passed a great change” (242). Brainerd was not too quick to encourage new believers to enter into the baptismal waters, but first insisted upon observing the change in their lives as a result of the gospel. In doing so, he emphasized the weighty-witness that baptism is to believers and non-believers alike.

Conclusion

Brainerd’s ministry to the American Indians pales in comparison to the impact his life and sacrifice have made upon generations since. However, as one notes his intense self-introspection, the emphasis he placed upon gospel proclamation, and the weight he ascribed to the ordinance of baptism, one cannot help but question our efforts today. Do we regularly seek examine our own walk with Christ? Do we value and lift high the proclamation of the gospel? Do we believe that ordinances and sacraments mean something? Studying the efforts of Brainerd’s ministry calls us to no less than these questions, but opens us up to one further. Has God called us to give up our dreams and embrace the task of carrying forth the gospel to the nations?


Quotes from Jonathan Edwards, The Life and Diary of David Brainerd

Harris, Joshua. Humble Orthodoxy. Colorado Springs, CO.: Multnomah Books, 2013. 83 + xi pp. $9.99.

harris-humble-orthodoxy

In December of 2011, I reviewed Joshua Harris’s Dug Down Deep. In that review, I wrote, “The final chapter turned out to be my personal favorite. In that chapter (titled “Humble Orthodoxy”), the author gives great encouragement to approach orthodoxy and doctrine and theology with humility.”

It would appear that others shared my appreciation for this particular chapter, and the publisher opted to publish it separately under the name of the original chapter, Humble Orthodoxy.

In this small book, Harris makes the observation that, “it seems like a lot of the people who care about orthodoxy are jerks” (3). They seem to have taken the instruction in Jude to “contend for the faith,” and have interpreted it to mean, “Be contentious for the faith.” For Harris, this is simply unacceptable for the believer.

Harris opines that far too often, Christians struggle with either remaining orthodox or remaining humble. This, however, is not a choice we get to make. We are called to be both – humble and orthodox. In what I believe to be the key paragraph from the book, he writes,

“Genuine orthodoxy – the heart of which is the death of God’s Son for undeserving sinners – is the most humbling, human-pride-smashing message in the world. And if we truly know the gospel of grace, it will create in us a heart of humility and grace toward others” (30).

This does not mean that we refuse to stand for biblical truth when the situation warrants we do so. Rather, this means that we need to exercise wisdom and “avoid controversy that distracts from the gospel” (53). In doing so, we reveal a critical mind without a critical spirit, and are more likely to gain an audience when, in fact, we do speak up.

Humble Orthodoxy was a book I needed to read. It will be a book I need to read again and again. I humbly recommend that you do so as well.

Joshua Harris, Humble Orthodoxy


I received this book free from the publisher through Multnomah Books’ Blogging for Books Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

“Just as men spontaneously praise whatever they value, so they spontaneously urge us to join them in praising it: ‘Isn’t she lovely? Wasn’t it glorious? Don’t you think that magnificent?’ It isn’t out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete until it is expressed.

It is frustrating to have discovered a new author and not be able to tell anyone how good he is; to come suddenly, at the turn of the road, upon some mountain valley of unexpected grandeur and then to have to keep silent because the people you are with care for it no more than for a tin can in the ditch.”

From C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms

The delight is incomplete until it is expressed

William Gouge, edited by Brown, Scott and Beeke, Joel. Building a Godly Home. Vol. 1 Grand Rapids, MI.: Reformation Heritage, 2013. 192 + xiii pp. $18.00

gouge

Of Domesticall Duties, originally written in 1622 by Puritan minister William Gouge, was the seminal volume on the Christian home for generations. His thorough exposition of Ephesians 5:21-6:4 provided wise guidance and biblical counsel for those seeking to pattern their home after the Word of God. But due to its sheer size and antiquated language, the work has largely been lost to history. Seeking to introduce Gouge to a new generation of believers, Scott Brown and Joel R. Beeke have taken the monumental task of editing Gouge’s work and modernizing some of the language, while striving to remain faithful to his instruction.

As already written, the book is itself an exposition of Ephesians 5:21-6:4, and stands as an wonderful example of Puritan teaching. It is biblically-grounded, Christ-exalting, and vast in scope. Unlike many contemporary voices who work diligently to bend the Scriptures to tickle politically-correct ears, Gouge does not hesitate to allow God’s Word to speak clearly on the subjects of submission, headship, and authority. In good, Puritan style, Gouge frequently allows the text and the portrait of marriage to lead him into deeper theological discussion concerning baptism, communion, atonement, the nature of the Trinity, and other such doctrines leading the reader to ponder what length and breadth did Gouge’s original work travel without the work of the editors.

Critique

The editors ask in the Preface, “Have you ever desired a seasoned friend, thoroughly grounded in Scripture, to help you troubleshoot a family problem?” They then encourage the reader by writing, “In these pages, we hear the voice of a wise and loving mentor, calling us to the old paths laid out for the family in the Bible. Reading it is like sitting down to coffee with a gentle grandfather and wise pastor” (vii). This is a fantastic description of Gouge’s words and helps the reader understand the impetus behind the editing and republishing of such a work. But editing for the modern reader comes at a cost.

At several points in the book, the authors footnote that they are omitting certain grammatical arguments in support of Gouge’s interpretation on particular issues. Though this may seem a slight omission to many (if not most) readers, it leaves those well-versed in Greek wanting for a peek into the study of the author. One particular instance (page 67) cites Latin comments by Erasmus and Theodore Beza. Another occasion (page 112) eliminates a discussion of the genitive case and Greek prepositions. Once more, while seemingly insignificant for most audiences, scholars understand the significance of such discussions. Gouge was not an unlearned pastor and author. He handled the text in the original languages and no point was too minor to emphasize. While such edits are necessary for the sake of brevity, some readers will long that the editors include them in the appendices in future volumes.

At another point in the book, in a digression on the subject of baptism, Gouge expounds the meaning and beauty and wonder of the ordinance while defending a paedo-baptistic view. While it must be noted that this was the majority view in Gouge’s day, and remains such in many modern churches, Baptist readers (such as this reviewer) will be left to question how a man so steeped in Holy Writ could fail to see the inadequacy of his view, and the breath-taking imagery and biblical fidelity that demands the full immersion of believers in baptism.

These few critiques aside, Gouge’s work is one that this reviewer will continue reading as the second and third volumes are released. In a world where the definition of marriage is under attack even in churches, perhaps a voice from the past can help a generation find its way back to “the old paths laid out for the family in the Bible.”

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 1 A Holy Vision for Family Life


I received this book free from the publisher through the Reformation Heritage book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

“And they two shall become one flesh.” -Ephesians 5:31

Marriage can be but between two, one man and one woman, for it is impossible that more than two should as nearly and firmly be joined together as man and wife are. Almost every word in this law proves this doctrine. For it says ‘a man,’ not men; to ‘a wife,’ not to wives; to ‘his’ wife, not to another’s wife; ‘two,’ not more than two; ‘they’ two, not any two; and ‘one flesh,’ not many fleshes.”

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 1 A Holy Vision for Family Life

Marriage can be but between two, one man and one woman

Recently, author Rob Bell announced his support of same-sex “marriage.” This does not necessarily come as a shock to anyone who has been paying attention to the trajectory he has been on ever since his book, Velvet Elvis, he is yet another in the swarm of public figures announcing this support of late.

And while I completely disagree with his position on the matter, my ultimate concern is the manner in which he comes to his conclusion. Regarding Evangelicalism, he says,

”You sort of die or you adapt. And if you adapt, it means you have to come face to face with some of the ways we’ve talked about God, which don’t actually shape people into more loving, compassionate people.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/rob-bell-comes-gay-marriage_b_2898394.html

Bell argues that Evangelicalism needs to change or die. Culture, he posits, has changed. Christianity, then, must change as well or get left behind. This line of thinking is not new to this subject, or frankly to any other controversial subject that finds Christianity opposed to contemporary culture. This is mere cultural relativism. In Bell’s understanding, what is the anchor – the tether – to which Christianity or Evangelicalism is pictured as being tied to? We must adapt or die. Does that sound as though we are “held captive,” as the Reformer Martin Luther wrote, to the Word of God, or as though we are bound to the culture in which we live?

Have we misunderstood God’s Word for 2,000 years concerning God’s design for marriage? Is the notion of one man and one woman for life simply an archaic design thrust upon the text by Christendom and defended to the death? Or rather, are there many today like Bell who interpret God’s Word through a acceptable, cultural grid in order to determine what is and what is not acceptable teaching? Will culture receive someone who opposes same-sex unions, who maintains that God establishes order in the home and in the church, who believes that those opposed to God will receive eternal punishment for their rebellion?

Bell is not as much a voice crying out from the wilderness as much as from behind a political lectern.

Bell’s “Christianity” is harmless and powerless to confront those apart from Christ. There is no need to change, nor is there power to do so. His Jesus more closely resembles a harmless Ghandi (who is in hell, despite what Bell has argued) than the Nazarene. The scandal of Christianity – authentic Christianity – is not that we are “more loving, compassionate people,” but that we are fallen, sinful people who have been redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ.

We believe that God’s intended design for marriage is for a husband (male) and wife (female) in covenant with God because that is what the Scriptures demand we believe. Anyone who teaches contrary to that design must redefine and re-interpret the text in order to make it say the exact opposite of what the words say.

In the Garden, when God created a mate for Adam who was, “fit form him,” He created a woman. At the conclusion of this first wedding, the author of Genesis under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote, “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24 ESV)

This first marriage is the model to emulate. Otherwise, the author had no reason to include, “a man shall leave his father and mother.” Adam was created from the dust of the earth and had no father or mother. The writer is clearly establishing a model for the reader.

  • Marriage is instituted by God. Marriage cannot be defined by culture because it was not created by culture. It matters very little what culture deems acceptable or unacceptable when culture is not the authority to which one appeals. God’s Word, for the Christian, must be the authority to which we submit.
  • Marriage is designed to be monogamous for life. Marriage involved forsaking and holding fast. Husband and wives must forsake all other suitors and distractions and cleave, to use the KJV term, to their spouse. No one and nothing should separate them, for they are to become “one flesh.”
  • Marriage is designed to be between one man and one woman. They become “one flesh” which depicts ultimate intimacy – sexual, emotional, and otherwise. God has designed even the human anatomy to complete one another and become one. This is only true of “traditional” marriage.

We must not be swayed by popular opinion, political correctness, or those who snarl beneath their sheep’s clothing. If we are not, like Luther, held captive by the Word of God, we can be certain that we will be swayed to conform, perhaps even to evolve, in such a way as to oppose that very Word.

May God give us the resolve to cling to His Word.

Two Fears

March 22, 2013 — Leave a comment

Filial [son-like] fear is such a fear as dutiful children bear to their fathers. But the servile [slavish] fear is such as bond-slaves bear to their masters. A son simply fears to offend or displease his father, so that his obedience is accomplished with love. A bond-slave fear fears nothing but the punishment of his offense, so that his obedience is joined with hatred. Such a man fears not to sin, but to burn in hell for sin.


Nothing is acceptable to God but that which is performed through a true filial fear of God, a free, willing, ready, cheerful submission in good conscience. Such a submission as will stir us up to do the best good we can to those to whom we submit ourselves is therefore more acceptable to God by reason of its cause, and more profitable to man by reason of its effects and fruits.

A true fear of God makes us respect more what God requires and commands than what our corrupt heart desires and suggests. It subdues our unruly passions, and brings them within the compass of duty. It makes us deny ourselves and our own desires, and, though through the corruption of our nature and inborn bride we are loath to submit, yet God’s fear will bring down that proud mind and make us humble and gentle.

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 1 A Holy Vision for Family Life