JimCassidy's Xanga

Wow! Big Book Deal!

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:03:23 GMT

This new book is now available at a special intro price of 65% off! Hey, take two!

I haven't read it yet, but it comes from the ever helpful and practical folks at Shepherd Press. If you have teens and are struggling with leading them in godliness, this may be a good choice to start out with.

Your Eats Are In Their Eating!

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:48:24 GMT

"Ah, yes, good eats tonight," he said unknowingly.

His wife, far more philosophically up-to-date than her hapless husband, stirred the sauce while turning to correct him. "Of what 'eats' do you speak? Do you not know that there are no such things as 'eats' in themselves. That, my dear, is an abstraction."

Puzzled, her husband sat down at the kitchen table and asked, "what do you mean? I was referring to the delicious smelling dinner you are preparing! It seems to me tonight we will enjoy some good eats!"

Ever patient, Carol, Jack's wife of fifteen years, sat across from the table to explain. "Honey, don't you know that 'eats' are in their 'eating'? That sauce and those hot Italian sausages do not have some independent, self-contained existence. There are no 'eats', no food, apart from or prior to their being eaten."

Jack, having dabbled in a little philosophy in college, seemed to have a light go on upstairs. "Oh, you mean their existence must precede their essence?"

Carol was encouraging, "exactly!"

"So, what am I smelling," Jack asked with a smirk.

Carol paused, made a thoughtful facial expression, and replied, "that is simply the imposition of the categories of your mind on the data of the phenomenal realm. But the food won't be actualized until you begin the eating process."

By this time the sauce was bubbling over the pan on the stove. Carol leaped to her feet and lowered the temperature on the stove.

"You see," she explained, "food by its very nature is meant to act, to produce energy in the process of eating. Food which is not eaten is not actualized and thus does not exist as food. To say otherwise is an abstraction. The food becomes a mere abstract concept part from and prior to the act of consumption."

Now Jack was going to have some fun. "OK, what I smell does not exist, then. Boy, I have to say, that smells great for a non-existent entity! Can you make that non-stuff every night? I've gotta tell ya, if that non-being tastes as good as it smells, then just call me 'nothingness'!"

Carol, rolling her eyes, turned from the stove to shoot off one more salvo, "well, that is what I would expect from an old fashioned, unsophisticated, believer in a traditional metaphysic! You and your Greek-dualistic ontology can sleep on the couch tonight!"

Jack let out a roar of a laugh as he sat down at the table ready to eat his eats. Carol, fighting back a cracking smile, lit the candles as the two enjoyed a fine dinner over less philosophical conversation.

Against Whom is The NPP Protesting?

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:26:48 GMT

The New Perspective on Paul continues its movement in an incredible way. It goes to show that this is not some fly by night scholarly trend that will be here today and gone tomorrow. In fact, it is quite revolutionary. It has, in many ways, overturned the way we think as theologians and Bible scholars.

But I am still not convinced that the emperor is in fact wearing any clothes. What is frustrating in reading NPP advocates is trying to figure out exactly what they're against. They are protesters. They are doing more than simply setting forth a positive new and fresh exegesis of Paul's writings. They are reacting. They are reacting against what is perceived to be many faults and shortcomings of Western Protestant Christianity.

They are against individualism, pietism, and liberal Lutheran biblical scholarship. OK, good, so am I. But are you getting the sense with me that they are - pardon the hackneyed expression - throwing the Calvinistic baby out with the Lutheran bath water?

Yeah, I am against crass individualism, but that doesn't mean that Paul does not address the issue of what it means to be "saved" or "justified" personally before a holy and righteous God. In fact, he does. And he also speaks about the corporate life of what it means to be the body of Christ as well. Seems to me both are true - why jettison one of them for the other? Also, it seems that Paul is concerned with what happens when individuals die and how the saints go to heaven (how about the two letters of Thessalonians and the two to the Corinthians?). But, yes, Paul is also concerned with the new creation and the eschatological reality in which God's people are "declared to be in the right" where he will "set things to rights." Why the false dichotomoy?!

Its a shame that many Reformed Christians have bought into this movement hook and line (and I speak as one who was almost swept away with it myself). In their (right) zeal to see the importance of the corporate life of the church rescued from the crass individualism of American pietism, they have (wrongly) rejected those areas upon which both Reformed and Lutheran have historically agreed. And that is a recipe for a mass deception of God's covenant people.

The Key to Avoiding Much Error?

Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:48:58 GMT

This volume according to several fine articles and reviews in the recent Mid-America Journal of Theology is a very helpful and well balanced work on the application of salvation. Bavinck was caught up in the midst of a hot denominational debate over issues of justification and the covenant. Here Bavinck shows himself to be a careful and judicious theologian giving proper biblical attention to both objective and subjective aspects of salvation. Had this volume been available (and read!) in the English speaking church 3 decades ago, so much error against which we struggle today may have been avoided!

A Christmas Message

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:04:58 GMT

Christmas Images of the Spirit

Luke 1:26-38

I. Introduction

The Hallmark channel is filled with them! You know the sentimental scenes of which I speak. There is a reunion, a proposal, and a reconciliation between estranged sisters. And, as if essential to the scene, the climax of the story always seem to take place on a snowy Christmas Eve in a great cathedral. The voice of the minister fades and the conversation in the pew comes to the fore. Through nicely designed sound engineering, the reading and preaching of the Word is inconspicuously replaced with the words of humans. The inspired Word is replace with inspirational words!

The message of Hallmark is clear. Christmas is not about Christ, church, or conviction of sin. Its about you. Its about me. Its about living a better life, being a better person, experiencing your best life now or becoming a better you. In short, Christmas is man-centered, for it is about moral transformation.

Now that is something of which all people can get on board. It is inherently non-offensive.

II. The Text

In contrast to this pull yourself up, find yourself, works righteousness Hallmark religion, our text is filled with Grace. It is filled with God's sovereign, non-merited initiative. This passage teaches no religion of glory by which man ascends to heaven to bring Christ down. No! The Word is near. The Word draws near not as it proceeds from earth to heaven but rather from heaven to earth.

God sends forth his Word through his divinely appointed messenger, the angel Gabriel. This heavenly cherub brings words of peace and good tidings to a woman in a fairly unknown town called Nazareth (v. 28). And looks at what he says to her: “Greetings!” Or, it can be translated joyfully, “Rejoice!” or “Be glad!” If we were looking at the Greek text here we would see that the word has a root within it which literally means “grace.” It’s as if Gabriel is saying to Mary, “Grace to you!”

But – as they say on the infomercials – that's not all! The very next words out of the angelic being's mouth is, “O favored one!” And again, here we find the same Greek root for grace. It is as if he were addressing Mary as “O graced one!” Grace to you, O graced one, the Lord is with you. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, indeed!

Now, in v. 29, Mary is understandably troubled at this. What kind of greeting is this? The Lord is with me? I am the favored one?

But Gabriel does not leave her long in suspense! In v. 30 he comforts her: “you have found favor with God.” Yet again, we see that Greek word for grace. Literally translated, we might say it reads: “you have found grace with God.”

Why is Mary chosen to bear the Son of God? We, for one thing, it was not because of what she did. Otherwise it wouldn't be of grace. The reception of grace presupposes what? Sin! Mary bears the Son of God not because of what she did, did not do, or what she is. Her virginity is not the reason. It’s not because of her moral rectitude. Rather, it is because of God’s pure, unconditional, sovereign grace shown to woman who was a sinner redeemed by God's mercy.

Now, in v. 31 we hear the official announcement: “You will conceive!” Yes, Mary, you will conceive and bear a Son and his name shall be Jesus. It is important to be reminded at this point of what the name means. It means: “Jehovah is Salvation”. Now, elsewhere in your Bibles that name appears. Joshua also translates “Jehovah is Salvation.” So what is the difference? Joshua only served as a living monument. He pointed to the reality of which his name served as a sign. However, in the case of Mary's Son, the name and the reality are one and the same. Jesus is literally Jehovah who is salvation.

Things only get more exciting at this point. In vv. 32-33 we see a description of this new Joshua. We are told that he will be great and the Son of the most high! He will reestablish and sit upon the throne of David, reigning over the house of Jacob! And what is more, his kingdom will be no temporary, thousand year reign. Rather, we are told that it will have no end!

Again, we are reminded, are we not, of another portion of our Old Testament Bibles. Indeed, we are reminded of the Davidic covenant. In 2 Samuel 7:12-16 God makes the following promises to David:

¹² When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. ¹³ He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. ¹⁴ I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, ¹⁵ but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. ¹⁶ And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.'"

And, of course, that covenant promises is renewed through the prophet Isaiah when he writes in 9:7:

⁷ Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

Now, in v. 34 Mary asks the obvious question! How can this be? I have never known a man! How can I have a child? That's physically impossible! Indeed, it is. But what is impossible with man is possible with God.

And that, in short, is the angel's answer. Look at v. 35. How can you conceive and have a child though you are virgin? Well, simply, the Holy Spirit will come upon you! What does that mean, exactly? The angel explains that the power of the Most High will overshadow her. And immediately we are drawn ahead in the story to the Transfiguration (list reference?). The same Greek word used here for overshadow is used there to describe what the cloud does to the disciples. You see, Gabriel has in mind the idea of the Holy Spirit overshadowing her like a cloud.

Does this mean there is some weird, pagan, divine-human intercourse which will produce Mary's Son? No. Rather, it is a Holy hovering. What makes this virgin so holy is not her virginity. Being a virgin doesn't make one holy. Nor is it her moral rectitude. We explained already that if she was so in need of God's grace, that she must be a sinner – like the rest of us..

Rather, it is the presence of the Holy Spirit with Mary – his hovering, his overshadowing - which makes her holy. This is how she conceives. This is what makes her child holy. It is this Glory of the Lord, this Shekinah Glory, which denotes God's presence with her as her shade by day and her light by night.

Are we not reminded of that great prototype of God's redemption, the Exodus event? There God made his presence known to his people by overshadowing them with his glory-Spirit cloud. Which itself would hearken back to Genesis 1.

In Genesis 1 we see the Spirit of the Lord active in creation. And once again, he is doing what he does best – hovering, overshadowing. And there we see in v.2 a virgin earth: a planet without form and completely void of life. There was darkness there. But also, dispelling the darkness and giving light by night and shade by day, there was the Spirit of God. He hovered, he overshadowed the face of the waters. And what came next? The Word of God. God spoke. He commanded. And by perfect divine fiat, light – created light – is brought into existence.

Back to Mary. She is a virgin, she has known no man; her womb is void and without form or life. In this way she reminds us of the great women of the past. Abraham's Sarah was not a virgin, but she was barren and she was old. Her womb too was void and without form or life. We are reminded too of godly Hannah. She was without child, yet when she prayed to the Lord, God gave her a son, Samuel. And you'll remember Hannah’s prayer of thanksgiving in response – “My heart exults in the Lord!” – words echoed in Mary's Magnificant.

Mary is overshadowed by the Glory-Spirit-Cloud of the Lord. As God created out of nothing in Genesis 1, so God here sovereignly creates a human life out of virgin: Mary conceives, and the child will be called holy. He will be called “the Son of God.”

Now, interestingly, Luke uses that expression here in a special way. The very next time we see the expression used is in chapter 3, the genealogy of Jesus. And the last man mentioned is “Adam, the son of God.” Again, Luke draws another purposeful analogy to Genesis. As God had directly begotten Adam without earthly father, so here God has begotten Jesus. As the Breath-Spirit of the Lord gave the first Adam a living soul, likewise here with the second and last Adam.

Now to be sure, this Son of Mary will be in the human line of Adam. He will be fully human. He will have a God-given, God-breathed, God-Spirited soul. But when we see the overshadowing of the Glory-Cloud again in Luke's gospel, at the Transfiguration, we see God give us further explanation as to what it means that this Jesus is the Son of God. In Luke 9, where Peter and John have just seen Jesus transformed into a figure of Glory, a voice comes out of the cloud and says, “This is my Son, my Chosen one, listen to him”. Geerhardus Vos explains the meaning of this declaration from heaven as “This is my beloved Son, and because of that, I have chosen him to be your Messiah.” In other words, Jesus' fully human sonship as Messiah can only be because Jesus is first of all eternally begotten of the Father! Jesus is, by nature, both fully human AND fully God! Again, Vos is helpful:

“The passage belongs in a small group of statements which give us a glimpse of the relation existing between our Lord's Deity and His redemptive function in the incarnate state. It is the name Son of God which holds these two aspects in His life, the eternal aspect and the temporal aspect, together in a common designation.” (Self-Disclosure, 187).

III. Application

There is no sentimentalism here. There is no man-centered religion with its Hallmark of self-help, self-improvement-ism. No, there is no help of self here. All the help proceeds from above. It is sovereignly initiated and enacted.

No, this is no Hallmark Christmas. This is serious business. This is the business of the utter, complete, and unconditional Grace of God. This is the story of Jesus, Jehovah-is-salvation.

You see, Christmas is not about you. And it is not about me. It is not about turning over a new moral leaf. It is not about family. It is not about the snow. It is not about a turkey dinner, garland, candles, stables, or nativity scenes. That's not to say all those things are wrong. Family is good! Snow is nice, I like snow. I love turkey! But it is to say that when Jesus comes, his coming is of cosmic significance. Yes, it is all about him. He is the center of it all. Christ is the center. He is the fulfillment of it all. All of the images of the Spirit of God throughout the OT were there to direct the attention of the people of God to this moment. And it has arrived. Christ has arrived.

Of course, you know, Jesus could not remain a baby. He would have to grow up. He would have to increase in knowledge and stature. He would have to be baptized to fulfill all righteousness. He would be tempted by Satan for 40 days. And he would go to the cross. He would rise again for the justification of sinners, and he would ascend to heaven above where he ever intercedes for God's people.

This Christmas season you are called to reflect. Take time from the business of it all and ask yourself, “Is Jehovah my salvation?” Do you know this savior, this Son of God? Or have you been living apart from him for Christmas after Christmas after Christmas? All your decorations, shopping, traditions, food, and family will not change your life and redeem you from all of your sins. Only Jesus, Son of God, can do that. This Christmas season you are called not just to reflect on Jesus Christ as Jehovah-is-salvation, but to receive him as your Jehovah-is-salvation. Won't you come to him by faith tonight? Come, believe in him, and receive new life.

Amen.

Success in Ministry

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:29:08 GMT

This volume looks to be a nice companion book to this monumental work by John Piper.

I say "monumental" not because the book is somehow a definitive work of scholarship. But I say that because the book is so very important for properly understanding the gospel ministry. The standards by which the world judges success is not the standard by which success is judged in the church. Success in the church is spiritual, as the church is a spiritual entity. And thus it can not be quantified by numbers, reports, or stats. To be sure, in the church there will be visible fruit. Sinners we would expect to be saved and the saints to be sanctified. But, again, these are not things which lend themselves to statistical reports.

Reading through the OT has been illuminating in this regard. Especially as I read through 2 Kings. This is the book of the downfall of Israel. Their kings - in both Judah and Israel - lead their people into idolatry and paganism. For this God eventually banishes his people into exile (granted, thanks to Hezekiah, it takes Judah a little longer to end up in exile than Israel).

But, what the rest of the OT teaches us is that he also preserves for himself a remnant. The numbers are few, but they are faithful. And, really, that is what matters at the end of the day. Not the numbers, but faithfulness to our Lord.

I think about our situation here in America. Sometimes I feel like we are a part of the remnant. Granted, there are many churches out there that are faithful and also are large. Praise the Lord! But here is the question with which I want to challenge all pastors and ministerial students:

"Can you be content with serving a small ministry faithfully for your entire earthly life?" If not, you're already a recipe for burnout.

I think a lot of guys come out of seminary with visions of granduer. To be sure, it is appropriate to pray that we would be used to bear much fruit in the kingdom. But that raises the question, doesn't it: What does it mean to bear much fruit? Does it mean a huge church with an impressive building and all sorts of programs?

I think the answer is: "it may, but not necessarily."

Being the remnant often times does not mean being big, but small and faithful. Making strides - slowly but surely. Being content to see a convert to Christ once in while, to see a believer come to understand the doctrines of grace for the first time, to see the elderly comforted as you read them Scripture on their death bed, and seeing the suffering cling closer to Christ.

Anyway, pick up Huges and Piper and read them. Finally, there are some resources out there for true pastoral theology. All those other "how to grow your church" books can be thrown out (or sold on Ebay!), and feast your souls on what it means to be a faithful minister of God's remnant.

Can Our View of the Sacraments Be Too High?

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:14:56 GMT

OK, by that question I do not mean the Lutherans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Episcopalians. I'm asking that of the Reformed church in general.

In our zeal to respond to the empty view of the sacraments found in most of American evangelical churches (and they are empty), I wonder if we have at times gone to extremes? I believe firmly that one of the marks of the true church is the right administration of the sacraments. I also firmly - and zealously! - affirm that the sacraments are a means of grace, along with the word, by which God builds his church.

However, I have heard Reformed brothers make the word and the sacraments equally ultimate. The Lord's Supper, for them, is as important and essential as the word. In reply to this, I think Francis Turretin has a helpful word of caution. With reference to the marks of the true church he writes:

“That there are different degrees of necessity and some are more necessary than others. In the first degree of necessity is the pure preaching and profession of the word, since without it the church cannot exist. But the administration of the sacraments does not have an equal degree of necessity which so depends upon the former that it may nevertheless be wanting for a time.”

Francis Turretin, IET, 18.12.7.

The Word has priority over the sacraments. Without the Word the sacraments are but bare signs. In addition, the Word is, indeed, a "coverting ordinance". The sacraments are for the people of God, the Word is for both the people of God and unbelievers. It is through the Word that God calls sinners to himself (Turretin has a nice section on this very thing in his IET in the section on calling).

Anyway, here are some other worthwhile Turretin quotes from his doctrine of the church. As you can see, the preaching of the Word and Doctrine are both essential to the life and well-being of the church. This is ecclesiology at its best. Enjoy!

“Therefore it [i.e., succession of bishops] cannot be a mark of the church because it cannot be a true church which does not have the apostolic doctrine. For the church is not to be sought in walls and temples, but in doctrines.”

Francis Turretin, IET, 18.13.28.

“That by which the visible church is constituted, congregated, and conserved, so that, it being posited, the church is posited, it being removed, the church is removed, that also is its proper and essential mark. For no mark is more certain than that which is drawn from its cause and inseparable property. Now such is the preached and received word.”

Francis Turretin, IET, 18.12.14.

“Although the authority [of the church] is great, still it is not absolute and unlimited, to which we are bound to submit in blind obedience and without examination; rather it is limited and ministerial, depending upon a twofold condition. The first is that they decide nothing except from the word of God. The other, that they always leave to believers the liberty of the examination of their decisions."

Francis Turretin, IET, 18.11.37.

Is Religion A Bad Thing?

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:12:24 GMT

Tim Keller's new book The Prodigal God is out and is quite attractive, concise, and even the right size for a stocking-stuffer.

However, a theme comes up in the book which is a repeated theme throughout many of Keller's materials (as well as the materials of other evangelicals). The theme is concerning "religion" and "religious people." Religion or religious people are almost always portrayed as being inherently self-righteous. Jesus, we are told, comes to confront and even condemn religious people. Now, I realize that Keller is trying to play the shock card here. I can appreciate that. However, I am afraid of the kind of impression he may be giving to those with less discernment - especially the people he is trying to reach. I mean, do we really want to say that religion or religious people are necessarily self-righteous or bad?

I mean, I am a religious person. Or, at least that is the way most of my unbelieving family understand me as being. I am a pastor and I attend church every Sunday (and what is even stranger, I attend church twice on Sunday!). In addition to this, I also attend (and happen to lead) Bible study every Wednesday night. Our church celebrates the Lord's Supper (I might be tempted to say 'religiously') every month. Our church has a set liturgy we follow every week, as I expound on the same book of the Bible (in a lectio continua fashion) every week. Are we religious? Seems so to me. Or, perhaps, we are just zealous about regularly administering the means of grace to God's people. We see that being biblical. Many of my unbelieving friends and family would say are being religious. So, if they read Keller's book, what will they think of us at Calvary OPC? "Ah, you're a bunch of those religious people who are hypocritical and self-righteous."

This is not to pick on Keller exclusively, of course. And, again, I am not so thick as to not understand what he is trying to do. But I'm just not sure creating a false impression for the sake of the shock factor and getting a hearing is the best strategy for reaching the lost.

That said, I do have to say a positive thing as well. Keller offers us some very nice exegetical insights into the parable. The idea that the father is really the 'prodigal' one in the passage is not only insightful, but is awesome to comprehend. God's grace is, indeed, lavish. And that point comes out - rightly - loud and clear in this book.

For the Law Brings Wrath - Romans 4:15

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:04:58 GMT

According to many within current mainstream Pauline scholarship, the Law in Paul is a reference to Jewish ethnic badges, or racial boundary markers. N.T. Wright argues that when Paul speaks about the Law and the works thereof, he does not have in view a kind of works righteousness religion. After all, the ceremonial law of Judaism had contained within it grace. It had the means to atone for sin when Israel disobeyed. Therefore the Law, according to Paul and second temple Judaism, is inherently gracious and even able to save.

However, there seem to be at least two problems with this understanding of the Law. First, Wright neglects to factor in the purpose of the ceremonial system in the first place. The sacrificial system was not intended as a means of actually propitiation. After all, the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). In fact, God doesn't take pleasure in those sacrifices, but rather used them as temporary types and shadows of the sacrifice of “a body you have prepared for me;” namely, Christ (Hebrews 10:5).

Second, if it is indeed the case that the Law is inherently gracious and that when Paul uses that word he has in view the Old Covenant ceremonial system with its Sabbaths, sacrifices, and circumcisions, then how can Paul say “the law brings wrath” (Romans 4:15)? Again, the Law was never intended as a means of propitiation. This is a fundamental flaw in the New Perspective. It seems to me that if you take this feather out of the cap of Wright's argument, he whole view of Paul and Law collapses.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts anyone?

Carbonarius' Faith

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:09:26 GMT

Turretin speaks about the Roman Catholic view of faith as "the faith of Carbonarius". I am not sure who Carbonarius was, but apparently he said when asked what he believed, "What the church believes". He was then asked "what does the church believe?", to which he answered "What I believe." Ha! What a convenient answer!

This is, of course, the doctine of implicit faith. The RC view of faith is that you don't even have to know what you believe (in fact, better off you don't), nor do you really have to know what the church believes. You simply need to say "I believe whatever the church believes" - and that's good enough. You believe the church and her doctrine implicity. And the worse thing you can do is actually read the Bible for yourself and protest against the teaching of the church! Don't do that!

Anyway, Turretin's helpful review of faith in volume 2 of his Institutes of Elenctic Theology can be found here.