Upcoming Broadcast: Part II of the interview with Steven Wedgeworth on Eastern Orthodoxy will air this coming Monday.
November 16th, 1PM CENTRAL
Psalm 46C: Psalm 46 (To the tune of “A Mighty Fortress is Our God”)
Ein Feste Burg, 88.88.66.668.
1. 1 God is our refuge and our strength,
A present help in our distress.
2 We will not therefore be afraid
Tho’ all the earth should be removed,
Tho’ mountains great be hurled
Into the ocean’s depths,
3 Tho’ seas may roar and foam
And billows shake the shore,
Tho’ mountains tremble at their power.
2. 4 A river brings refreshing streams
To cheer the city of our God,
The Most High’s holy dwelling place.
5 God is in her; she won’t be moved;
At dawn will God help her.
6 The heathen rage; realms quake;
He lifts His voice; earth melts.
7 The LORD of hosts with us!
Our fortress strong is Jacob’s God.
3. 8 O come, see what the LORD has done;
He desolations brought on earth;
9On earth He puts an end to wars,
Breaks bow and spear, and chariots burns.
10 Be still! Know I am God.
Exalted o’er all men,
Exalted o’er all earth.
11 The LORD of host with us!
Our fortress strong is Jacob’s God.
James B. Jordan writes:
This abysmal notion is ferociously defended by those given over to this idea. It is clear from the Bible that the pleasures of marital intercourse are to be enjoyed, and it would have been sinful for Joseph to deny it to her. There is nothing dirty about sex in marriage. Theologian John Murray, once asked if Mary stayed a virgin, replied to the effect: “Of course not! She was a Godly woman.” Jephthah’s daughter wept because she was consigned to perpetual virginity. Are we to believe that God rewarded Mary’s faithfulness with a curse!? — denying her the pleasures of a husband and the joys of more children?
Definitions are a tricky thing. These discussions assume a foundational understanding of the Trinity. Here are a few basic definitions worth memorizing:
“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”
The Westminster Shorter Catechism also has a helpful definition:
Q. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.
Another way of phrasing it is this:
When we are speaking of the Trinity we are speaking of one what and three who’s. The what is the Being or essence of God and the who’s are the Father, Son, and Spirit.
{James White’s book The Forgotten Trinity is an outstanding introduction}
Justin Taylor–who I am in the habit of visiting at least once a day–posted this interesting quote from Carl Trueman about responding to critiques on the blogosphere. Now Trueman and I would probably not drink beer in the same pub, but we do both share the same commitment to Christ and His authoritative word. This morning I had an interesting conversation with a fellow pastor about finding ways to bring about catholicity. One way to do this is to give credit when credit is due.
This blog is five years old. Hopefully over the years I have become less pugilistic. I am still a fighter at heart. But our priorities should change our motives and the use of our time. Facebook affords thousands of opportunities to respond to others (all day long if one would like); blogs also afford endless opportunities to do so. Some thrive in responding to others. The world is watching…or a dozen are watching, whatever the case, there is an insatiable need to make sure we have the last word. This quote from Trueman helped crystallize a bit for me what my priorities shoud be and how I should look at future blogosphere/facebook interactions:
From Carl Trueman’s latest:
I have been asked by several people over recent years whether Christians should respond if they are criticized or defamed on the web. The answer is simple: for myself, I do not believe that it is appropriate that I spend my time defending my name. My name is nothing—who really cares about it? And I am not called to waste precious hours and energy in fighting off every person with a laptop who wants to have a pop at me. As a Christian, I am not meant to engage in self-justification any more than self-promotion; I am called rather to defend the name of Christ; and, to be honest, I have yet to see a criticism of me, true or untrue, to which I could justifiably respond on the grounds that it was Christ’s honour, and not simply my ego, which was being damaged. I am called to spend my time in being a husband, a father, a minister in my denomination, a member of my church, a good friend to those around me, and a conscientious employee. These things, these people, these locations and contexts, are to shape my priorities and my allocation of time. Hitting back in anger at those who, justly or unjustly, do not like me and for some reason think the world needs to know what they think of me is no part of my God-given vocation. God will look after my reputation if needs be; He has given me other work to do.
Note: I am in the process of transferring all my sermons to wordmp3.com. This is my first sermon at Providence Church (CREC) in October 5th, 2008.
Isaiah 5:1 Let me sing for my beloved my love song concerning his vineyard: My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. 2 He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines; he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it; and he looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. 3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard. 4 What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes? 5 And now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured; I will break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. 6 I will make it a waste; it shall not be pruned or hoed, and briers and thorns shall grow up; I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. 7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting; and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry!
Introduction:
“Their foot shall slide in due time.” This was the dreadful text in Deuteronomy heard that day when Jonathan Edwards announced the doom of those who “brought forth bitter and poisonous fruit.”[1] Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God seems to be a prevailing theme in the mouth of the prophets. But the anger of God in the Scriptures does not arise out of nothing; it arises in response to the unfaithfulness of His people. Our text this morning in Isaiah 5 reveals the response of an angry God.
It was the Danish poet and author Hans Christian Anderson who once wrote that “Where words fail, music speaks.” Indeed nothing is more memorable than music. We may not know the complexities of Luther’s theology, but we all know the splendor of his Reformation hymn, A Mighty Fortress is Our God.
When the prophets’ words fail to reach the expected result—which is repentance—God may often use other means to bring about His message. God may make a man marry a prostitute to convey His message; He may lead a man to the middle of a valley filled with dry bones to convey His covenant promises; or He may make a man sing, so that the music may speak to their unrepentant hearts. Read the rest of this entry »
In his excellent post, Iron Ink argues that the Scriptures tell us what God has done to make us fit for the New Creation. The interpretation that makes God a co-star in our story is contrary to the flow of redemption. The author writes that:
The purpose of Scripture is to give God’s story of Redemption and what it is He has done to put us in His Story.
In God’s story we realize that God has always worked out His purposes according to His perfect will. His covenantal affections for His own was never a plan B. It was always God’s intention to rescue a people unto Himself despite their rejection. Indeed, “this was part of the Author’s intention from when He began writing His novel.”
Redemption raptures us into its history. “God takes us up into His story so that we become participants in his story.” We are created in His image so that we could be a part of His re-creation of the world by creating image-bearers from every tribe, tongue, and people.
Our very own Jim Jordan joined the Mitaka CREC congregation (Ralph Smith) in Japan. He gave them a brief concert:
I had the privilege of speaking to Dee Dee Warren. Dee Dee hosts the largest Orthodox Preterist website in the world.
Dee Dee has been involved in advocating for the orthodox preterist position and vehemently against hyperpreterism for about eight years. She is the owner of the two sister sites to this blog: The PreteristSite and The Preterist Podcast. The PreteristSite is home to thousands of pages of material for the study of orthodox preterism including a book-length commentary on Matthew 24 by Dee Dee entitled It’s Not the End of the World which is also the primary topic of her podcast at this time. In addition to these sites, Dee Dee is co-owner of TheologyWeb a highly active theology debate forum in which debate is allowed for all beliefs or lack thereof.
We’re finally back to our house here at the resort. Presbytery was long, but amazingly fruitful. We sang several Psalms and the group seems to be united in our vision.
This evening begins the Family Advance Conference. Rich Lusk will begin the conference with his talk entitled: What is marriage for? Then afterward, drinks and fine cigars.
I will be heading to Sandestin, Fl for our Presbytery meeting. Never have I looked forward so much to be in a meeting!
The Orthodox Church is becoming more and more familiar these days. But what do they teach? Join us as we delve into the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church. We will be discussing also the nature of icons in Orthodoxy.
Our guest Steven Wedgeworth has done significant research on this topic. This is the first of three discussions.Tune in the weeks ahead to blogtalkradio.com/trinitytalk.
Pastor Wedgeworth blogs at WEDGEWORDS. You can also obtain the lectures Steven Wedgeworth and Steve Wilkins gave on “Romanism & Orthodoxy” in the first Bucer class of the year. The CDs are available here and the MP3 downloads are available here.
Betsy Hart writes:
[T]he belief seems to be that it’s more likely kids will stick with church over their lifetime if it’s more geared to them when they are young. But the evidence is that this isn’t what happens.
Two decades ago, Christian education expert James W. Write showed in his book, Intergenerational Religious Education (Religious Education Press), that studies reveal that children who worship regularly with their parents are more likely to consistently worship as adults than children who grow up primarily attending “children’s church.”
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.–Martin Luther
This is Obama’s question. David Brook’s op-ed piece in the New York Times questions Obama’s fundamental commitment to the Afghanistan war. He poses at one point that Obama accepted the premise of the Afghan war in order to sound hawkish, thus gaining the reputation of a tough president. Whether this is true or not, Bill Maher was right when he said that Obama needs a little more of George W. Bush.
My own perspective is that Obama was hawkish from day one of his presidency. He may not have the tenacity of the former president, but he has neo-conservatism running through his blood. As Brooks writes:
So I guess the president’s most important meeting is not the one with the Joint Chiefs and the cabinet secretaries. It’s the one with the mirror, in which he looks for some firm conviction about whether Afghanistan is worthy of his full and unshakable commitment.
Luke Russert from MSNBC said on Morning Joe that progressives have no interest in the Afghan war. They are tired of the similarities to the Iraq war. They fear blood on their hands, as the Republicans had in Iraq. While 2010 seems ripe for a Republican take-over, the Democrats are scrambling to find a suitable message to the American people. They know they need bi-partisan support, but their sophisticated constitutional scholar commander-in-chief is losing his charm. As David Gregory said: “The yes we can is becoming maybe.”
One of the great problems we have in discussing the Trinity is that there is so much miscommunication. Our goal then is to explain the Trinity in simple terms. We do this very well with little ones. When we introduce them to something they have never tasted, we often give them an idea of what it tastes like. For instance, we say that this new food tastes like crackers and honey. Now, they are able to associate the new food with something they have tasted before. When it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity, we are in dangerous grounds every time we begin the sentence “God is like…” The problem is we are not speaking of things we have seen, tasted, or experienced. God is a Spirit, says John. What is a spirit? Have we ever seen a spirit? What can we compare it to? Language does not permit us to define neatly the indefinable. God is completely unique and to “compare God to anything in the created order is, in the final analysis, to define His uniqueness.”[1]
[1] James White, The Forgotten Trinity, 25.
It is safe to say that the glory days of Reformed theology in the United States were most clearly present at Princeton Seminary. Dr. Robert W. Anderson– in his short biography– provides a look at the great Princeton theologian Charles Hodge.
Hodge was born in 1797 and died in 1878. The book is a summary of Charles Hodge’s life as a family man, his friendships, his afflictions, interests, and some of the Presbyterian controversies of his days. The author depends heavily on Hodge’s son, A.A. Hodge, who wrote a biography of his father in 1880.
Princeton Seminary—today a haven of liberalism—was the academic dwelling place of Dr. Alexander and Dr. Miller, who together with Dr. Hodge formed the “golden age of Old Princeton.” Hodge’s life as a Princeton professor left a deep impression on the Princeton community. In the famous Sabbath Afternoon Conferences, where professors would meet students for prayer and discuss issues related to the Christian life, one student said of Charles Hodge:
Dr. Hodge’s was the voice which all waited to hear…few went away from those consecrated meetings without feeling in their hearts that there was nothing good and pure and noble in Christian character which he who would be a worthy minister of Christ ought not to covet for his own.
Dr. Hodge married the great-granddaughter of Benjamin Franklin. His life was one of beautiful affection for his family. Even though being geographically distant from his family in order to enhance his theological training, Hodge maintained a deep relationship with all his children and his wife, Sarah Bache. His letters are filled with deep intimacy and affection.
Hodge’s abilities as a theologian never led him to undermine Scriptural authority, as was so common in his day. His critics mocked his commitment to Scriptures. One critic wrote:
It is enough for Dr. Hodge to believe a thing to be true that he finds it in the Bible…Dr. Hodge has never gotten beyond the Bible. It contains every jot and tittle of his theology.
Hodge was so respected that when he died on June 19, 1878, “all the stores in the town were closed and all businesses suspended in token of respect.” This certainly is a taste of the reputation of the godly. Both in life and in death God was praised by this saint.
His famous Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans was written during the most challenging days of his life. Beginning in 1833, Hodge “endured a period of severe physical suffering and confinement resulting from lameness in the thigh of the right leg.” It is thus uniquely appropriate that when Hodge focuses on Paul’s phrase “thorn in the flesh” in his II Corinthians commentary, he writes that “…even under affliction, the( apostle) was enabled to rejoice in them.” Undoubtedly, Hodge’s “thorn in the flesh” reflected a similar apostolic attitude.
Charles Hodge was the guardian of truth. He rejected any theological innovation that undermined the sufficiency of Christ and His word. As A.A. Hodge observed concerning his father: “That Christ is what he is set forth in the Scriptures to be, and that the Bible is the infallible word of God were facts inseparable from his personal consciousness.” It is no wonder that Dr. William M. Paxton, preaching at Hodge’s funeral, concluded by saying:
From our heart of hearts we render thanks to that God who made him (Hodge) what he was, and blessed the church with his presence for eighty years.
Paul writes that the Jerusalem above is our Mother. In our Lord’s Day assembly we are invited to the heavenlies. The Church is indeed our Mother, since heaven becomes our Mt. Zion and our New Jerusalem; our abode. This is why the Church has declared– both Catholic and Protestant– that outside her there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.How could there be? All mysteries are in her, and through her, as Paul writes, the wisdom of God flows to the world.
Modern day evangellifish (as Wilson puts it) is plagued by Romaphobia. If Rome does it, it must be wrong. This was certainly the opposite of how the Reformers viewed it. Rituals, high-Church, read prayers, corporate confessions were a necessary part of the early Reformed services. Calvin’s liturgy in Geneva was strikingly rich in liturgy. Yet, modern Reformed churches have abandoned their heritage– trading the blossoming Reformation for blended forms of accomodationism.
Good Without God? Joy Behar brings Wilson and Hitchens to continue their Collision tour. After watching this debate I can only think of one word for Wilson: uncompromising.
David Brook’s Op-Ed piece in the New York Times is quite insightful. He argues that “humans are overconfident creatures.” They tend to assume that they are smarter than they really are. But it seems that this human overconfidence has been transferred to Washington. Brooks writes:
…the bonfire of overconfidence has shifted to Washington. Since the masters of finance have been exposed as idiots, the masters of government have concluded (somewhat illogically) that they must be really smart.
Government has attempted to regulate executive pay assuming that it is the central problem of the market. Brooks observes: “The Federal Reserve…has decided to police banks and veto pay deals that lead to excessive risk. Those experts must have absolutely gigantic brains if they can define excessive risk years before investments pay off.” This type of hubris is prevalent in Washington, because in the spirit of humility, thinking that regulating everything and everyone is the “wise” solution, they have become political asses. Even if they know nothing concerning a particular industry, yet their supposed wisdom tells them that they do. Brooks concludes brilliantly:
Sometimes we seem to have a government with no sense of those limits, no sense that perhaps government officials don’t know how to restructure General Motors, pick the most promising battery technology, re-engineer the health care system from the top, or fine-tune the complex system of executive pay.
Government’s conceit is their own destruction. The wisdom that gives them temporary power is the wisdom that will eventually bring the entire system down.
Some qualifications need to be made. Perhaps I have come across as someone who detests the entire project of the Westminster West gang. Most days that’s how I wanna come across; but then on those 65 degree-days in Florida when the sun is shining brighter than usual and the breeze is more gentle than usual–in those days– I feel rather loving. 2KT (Two-Kingdom-Theology) gets a lot of the spiritual stuff right. Unlike the Southern Presby’s, the Lutheranos actually do talk about bread and wine, and baptism is not as scary to them.
In fact, I heard a sermon by a 2KT pastor, who began by stating that Protestants have an “unduly negative view of baptism.” In other words, we are always trying to qualify what baptism is. Protestants spend most of their time debating the mode and who should be baptized, but they spend little time talking about what baptism accomplishes. Now that’s the way to begin a sermon on baptism! This pastor said that most pastors are so afraid that our view on baptism will sound like Rome that they simply avoid passages like “baptism now saves you” or “be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” Amen and Amen.
Now they are speaking my language! They are stressing what I think needs to be stressed more and more, world without end. But then…
they go right back to their formulations. “But of course,” they say, “baptism is not regeneration.” The sign and seal are so deeply connected that for Peter it appears to be one and the same, but it is not. Oh, logic, where art thou? We do not want to sound like Rome; check. We do not want to sound biblical; check. But why can’t we just use biblical language and let the nachos fall where they may? Let the Southern Presbys live in their inconsistency. They’re used to it! Why do you all have to be so careful in not affirming what should be affirmed? How about trying this sometime: Baptism regenerates, but not all those regenerated truly live the baptized life. Some fall away and apostatize. They abandon the faith. These are brought into the historical, visible covenant, but they are ultimately not part of the eternal, eschatological covenant. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
We had the privilege of interviewing one of the pioneers of biblical counseling, Dr. Jay Adams.Here is the Fox clip from this morning. You have to click on the Collision picture of Christopher — our segment is not the one titled “Fight Like a Girl.” –From Wilson’s blog.
Wilson says that the God Hitchens does not believe is the God he doesn’t believe either.
From NPR:
Last fall, journalist, literary critic and proud atheist Christopher Hitchens went on a debating tour with Pastor Douglas Wilson. The topic: “Is Christianity good for the world?”
The argument started with the release of Hitchens’ book, God Is Not Great. Instead of a regular publicity tour, Hitchens wanted to debate the thesis of his book with anyone willing to take on the challenge. Wilson answered the call.
They filmed their debates, and then edited them for a new documentary called Collision.
“I think there is no role for faith, no useful role, of any kind — and certainly not the Christian one,” Hitchens tells NPR’s Guy Raz. But, Hitchens says, “one of the reasons this argument never becomes tedious to me is because I have a great respect for religion and for the role it’s played in the evolution of the human species. It was our first attempt at cosmology, at philosophy. It was, in many ways, it was our first attempt at literature.”
Wilson responds to Hitchens and other atheists by saying that atheists are terrible at being atheists.
“It’s not a question of whether we have faith, it’s what we have faith in,” says Wilson. “Christopher has faith in the role of scientific inquiry, rational inquiry. He has faith in that process. Christopher is as much a man of faith as I am.” Read the rest of this entry »
Laura Ingraham hosted Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson on her show. The debate was an hour long, but without the commercials it only lasted half an hour. As is typical of this type of debate on national radio, there is little room for substance and plenty of room for soundbites. Hitchens and Wilson are masterful at the soundbite level. Hitchen’s advantage was to be in studio, which gave him primacy in speaking. He probably did about 70% of the talking. He uttered his typical vitriol against religion. “Vicarious atonement,” says the British pugilist is “a wicked thing.” Throwing our sins at a man being punished at the cross is a wicked concept. How about our sin Hitchens; ain’t that wicked?
Hitchens does make an interesting observation when he states that our minds are trained to think that there is a beginning. Where does that training come from? He does not answer. Is it instilled in mankind, as Paul makes clear? Wilson responds by saying that every position has an infinite regress of something, but the Christian’s assumption is that the eternal and infinite Triune God of Scriptures is the beginner and creator of all things.
Pastor Wilson– in traditional VanTilian style– declares that Christianity is good for the world because it is true. The argument that it brings good benefits is irrelevant to answer this question. Christianity is not pragmatic or utilitarian.
Ingraham spent the latter part of the debate on what differentiates us from animals. There was actually agreement on this part. Both agreed that there was a difference. This places Hitchens at least in a different category than a Peter Singer, who in my estimation is a much more consistent atheist.
Side Note: This was perhaps the first time I heard the name Jonathan Edwards come up in a national radio show. A caller observed that there was little emphasis on the work of the Spirit in these types of discussion.
Hitchens is fond of the description “wicked” for the Christian faith. Wilson then asks the obvious question: “Who will judge me for having all these wicked ideas?” Hitchens answers–to Ingraham’s amusement–that he will judge Wilson! A couple of laughs and the end of the beginning of a short movie tour. Next NPR, and then Fox and Friends.
Recent Comments