Douglas Wilson and John Piper

There have been some interesting responses to John Piper's recent comments about Doug Wilson and his review by the CREC. Namely, Scott Clark's response, and Doug Wilson's own response to Scott Clark. I'm interested how an evaluation by a denomination that was created largely in defense of the very views that set Doug Wilson and others apart can be considered to be unbiased in any way. Also, is it a proper function of a presbytery of say the URC or PCA to examine Wilson, a man who is not nor has he ever been a part of either? Just because men in those denominations have critiqued his theology doesn't mean that there is a reason for them to examine him. Scott Clark's statements that the examination would have come out differently if a URC presbytery had done it was not an invitation to an examination, he was merely pointing out the biased nature of the examination in the first place.

Birds

About a month ago I purchased a flower in a hanging pot.  I noticed within a couple days of putting it up that the plant was starting to die on one side.  I tried watering it a little more and that didn't help.  I thought maybe it was because that side of the plant wasn't getting enough sun.  One evening I reached up to turn it around and something flew out of the plant and hit me in the arm.  I assumed that it was a bat, mostly because of the whole flying at night thing.  The next morning when I left my apartment, though I saw a bird fly out of the plant.  I looked up into the plant and discovered the reason that the one side of the flower was dying.

I kept watering the plant, because it didn't seem to bother the mother.  She'd always come back after I finished watering.  I watched it for several weeks and about a week ago the eggs hatched.

At first they were just a little fuzzball.  I couldn't see anything distinguishing, but over the last several days they've gotten bigger and now there are distinct beaks.  I can hardly wait to watch them fly.

What wonderful gifts the Lord gives us.

Grow in Grace

I remember reading Grow in Grace, by Sinclair Ferguson when I was in college. It was revolutionary to me, because in church, youth group and in college ministries I had always been fed the idea that practicing a bunch of spiritual disciplines was the way that I could grow in Christ. Dr. Ferguson helped me to understand the underlying truth, that the Holy Spirit grows us. Kate Treick has an article in Modern Reformation this month, where she explores this idea. At one point she says:

The truth is that our sanctification is not ultimately up to us. Abraham Kuyper describes sanctification as "the confession of an awful power, which lives and works effectually in us." He argues that mere self-betterment has nothing to do with sanctification, even when the attempts are to better ourselves spiritually. Instead, we must give ourselves to hearing the Word and to confessing our sin: "In city and country church the Word must be preached persistently, and with ever-increasing purity, until, convicted of personal unholiness, men begin to see that by absolute sanctification, not mere self-betterment, they must restore unto God His right; until, feeling their inability, with broken hearts they turn to God to receive the Mystery of Sanctification from the treasures of the Covenant of Grace." Thus sanctification is not a work we undertake through various methods and disciplines, but an amazing act of God's grace. We simply turn to him in our brokenness and receive from him this treasure of grace as he makes us more like Christ. This is fundamentally different from believing that it is up to you to cultivate spiritual growth through the faithful practice of spiritual disciplines.

The whole article is outstanding and well worth reading. I commend it to you.

Racial Prejudice

The mayor in Jackson was has been in the midst of a heated trial defending himself on civil rights issues in that last several months.  The civil rights issue is not a race issue, but one where he allegedly broke into an alleged crack house without a proper warrant.  The mayor's first trial had a hung jury and it was declared a mistrial.  In selecting a jury for the new trial the judge has ordered that, due to intense media coverage, the jury would be selected from a different district in southern Mississippi.  The mayors lawyer today challenged this saying that the mayor could not find a fair jury, because the people in that district are 82% white and the mayor is an african-american.  To me this sounds idiotic.  Effectively, the mayor's lawyer is saying that he is not the peer of a white person.  Doesn't this seem to be setting back civil rights advances as well as just being plain wrong.

Missions Conference Prayer

This past week, Wednesday through Sunday my church had it's annual missions conference.  Our Senior Pastor, Dr. Ligon Duncan, assisted Rev. Mike Campbell, a visiting minister from Redeemer Presbyterian Church here in Jackson, in the morning service.  Dr. Duncan's opening prayer of invocation following the call to worship was delivered with great passion and was a wonderful prayer drawing our hearts before the throne of God in adoration.  It is copied below:

O Lord – Living, True and Triune God,

We love you more than the world.  We need you more than life.

We are not here today as a diversion, or to go through the motions, we are here in the midst of a dread battle, because we need to be together with one another with the Captain of our salvation, more than we need food.  We are here because of your grace, otherwise we would be somewhere else destroying our own lives.

We are here not because we are good, or because we are better than others; rather we are here because you found a way to justify the unjust justly; we are here because in your love you gave your Son to bear death’s agony for us; we are here because in your justice you made your Son, as our substitute, to suffer the sentence that our disobedience deserved; we are here because with your power you have bought us back from sin, selfishness and Satan, and united us to the risen Christ, renewed our hearts, freed us from sin’s bondage, and moved us to repent and believe; we are here because in your faithfulness you have kept us from falling, as you promised to do, until you bring us safe home, triumphantly to our final glory, and yours. This is all of your doing, all of your grace, and so all to your glory.

Because of this, we want men and women and boys and girls from every tribe, language, people, and nation to know, love, and worship you.  Do this thing, O Lord!

Lord God, draw near to us then, now. Hear our prayers. Receive our praise. Open and draw our hearts. Speak Lord, your servants listen – and we hang on your every word.

In Jesus’ name. Amen.

McDonalds and Starbucks

This is a great post in the wake of the economic news about these two companies over the last several weeks.  Starbucks keeps cutting jobs and closing shops, while McDonalds has had the best year ever for them.  I do take exception, though.  McDonalds coffee changed a year or two ago and it's actually fairly decent now, even if you don't get one of these specialty coffees.

On What Basis Are Sinners Justified?

Before I get into my actual post, I want to let everyone know that Indelible Grace V: Wake Thy Slumbering Children is now available on iTunes for $9.99. That’s a savings of $6 when compared with the price of purchasing the CD version. It’s also an iTunes Plus offering, meaning it is DRM-Free (you can play it on any device, but why would you use anything besides an iPod??) and 256k, meaning it has parity with CD-quality sound. I downloaded it last night, and I can highly recommend it. This is seriously Gospel-centered music, emphasizing grace, faith, and the righteous life of Christ by which we are constituted righteous in God’s sight. Refreshing. Encouraging. Edifying. Christ-exalting. Praise God for the gift of music and gifted musicians to sing about His glorious gospel and Messiah!

Now, to the main subject of this post: On what basis are sinners justified? Every evangelical (at least we’ll assume so for simplicity’s sake) would acknowledge that sinners are justified by grace alone through faith alone. Yet, even within my own theological circles, something is wrong. Something doesn’t sit quite right when I hear people say this. Somehow, works are creeping in. Works done “by grace.” Works wrought “by the Spirit.” Works that don’t count as “our works” since the Spirit really does them in us. Yet these works are said to be counted for our righteousness on the day of judgment in addition to the work of Christ, the imputed righteousness of Christ. Imputed plus imparted righteousness (though no one would put it that way). 

What shall we say to these things? Perhaps we need a new litmus test for whether someone really believes the heart of the Gospel. Let me propose one here. How about this question: On what basis are sinners justified? Answer: Solely on the basis of the righteous life of Jesus Christ, including His holy conception, birth, childhood, manhood, sufferings, death, and resurrection. Or, we might put the question this way to someone: Do you believe that you are justified on the basis of anything that happened either (a) prior to the conception of Christ in history, or (b) after the resurrection of Christ in history? A simple yes or no will do. “No” means orthodoxy, the biblical gospel. “Yes” means heterodoxy, and a false gospel. Why? Because it is only by what Christ did throughout His entire incarnation, climaxing with His death and resurrection, that justifies anyone. Nothing that has happened in history, whether by a Pope, bishop, pastor, preacher, or even within or by me (even with the help/power/grace of the Spirit, not to imply help/power/grace are synonyms, but just to try to cover the gamut of options) is the ground of a sinner’s justification before God. It is only what Christ did in His incarnation, not what He is now doing in believers through the Spirit! We need to make this more clear, not less, as we move forward awaiting the coming of our crucified, risen Savior and Lord.

I realize that every litmus test that has been established in the history of the church eventually fails. People want to sound orthodox when they are not, so they find a way to obfuscate the truth of their position by redefining the terms within the litmus test without telling anyone they have done so. So maybe we do not need a new litmus test. Maybe we just need believers to make this as abundantly clear as possible when talking to others about the Gospel, whether in a seminary classroom, a pulpit, a Sunday school class, a small group Bible study, neighborhood evangelism, or family devotions.

This is not important just for our own souls, but for the sake of showing forth the glory of what Christ has done for sinners. More on that in my next post. Stay tuned.

The Gospel and Homosexuality

This week People magazine’s cover story covers singer Clay Aiken’s public acknowledgement that he is a homosexual. While this news might not come as a shock to some people, the comments made by Aiken himself and his American Idol alums are what are most disturbing. Aiken reveals the reason why he chose to tell the world that he is a homosexual: “I cannot raise a child to lie or to hide things.” Beneath that statement lies a belief in some sense of morality, of right and wrong. It is a contemporary example of Romans 1:32, that the ungodly “know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death.” At some level, Aiken knows the law of God, and that lying is wrong. Yet he fails to admit that his homosexuality is a violation of God’s law.

A few verses earlier, Paul wrote, “God gave them over to degrading passions… men with men committing indecent acts… And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.” What is staggering about this is that the ungodly know at some level the law of God even when their minds are depraved. They know the ordinance of God. They know they deserve to be condemned. But because they have been given over to degrading passions and a depraved mind, they freely practice and approve of others who practice their own wickedness. Aiken’s public statements serve as a vivid example of what Paul meant in Romans 1.

As starkly clear as this all is, the most shocking part of the story is Aiken’s claim to be a Christian. He said, “I still consider myself a born-again Christian, and I am absolutely comfortable with my salvation.” This stands directly opposed to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:9. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals… will inherit the kingdom of God.” I’ll have to give more thought to what, if anything, Aiken’s statement says about the condition of the church today.

His statement, though, when compared with what another professing Christian, Rickey Smith (another Idol contestant) said, deepens my concern: “He has to do what makes him happy. I’m just glad he’s doing what makes him feel comfortable and confident.” This sentiment finds no biblical echo except Romans 1:32, about those who “give hearty approval to those who practice them [homosexuality and a slew of other wicked deeds].”

The tragedy of all of this is that the gospel of the glory of Christ is being trampled upon. People in the spotlight are claiming Christ while living lives that contradict the very nature of God and the gospel. The magnificent mystery of the gospel is portrayed in the human institution of marriage. Christ is the husband, the Church is the bride, and God established marriage as a pointer to the union of Christ and His Church. Let us not be unaware of Satan’s schemes. This deception promulgated by Aiken, that he is both a homosexual and a born-again Christian, is nothing less than a shot at the gospel itself.

It is high time for the Church of Jesus Christ to wake up, to stop worrying about whether or not we are purpose-driven or living our best lives now or reaching our full potential or having enough “dialogue” with outsiders (that’s another post to come). It is time for the Church to clearly, boldly, and uncompromisingly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ with blood-earnestness. We cannot assume that anyone is a Christian because they say they are. We must call men and women and children to repentance from sin and faith in Christ, warning them that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. The gospel is, once again in history, now in our culture, being hi-jacked by spiritual terrorists on every side. Some of them are in the guild. Some of them are on the cover of People. When will we realize how serious this is? How long, O Lord? Visit us with Your salvation!

Semper Reformandum, Reformed Theology, and the Gospel

One Reformation principle was semper reformandum, that is, always reforming. The idea behind this principle is that as we grow in our understanding of Scripture, we should be sharpening our doctrinal positions. Because we are fallible, sinful creatures, we can never arrive at a perfect understanding of God’s Word. Therefore, we always have room to grow in our knowledge. We always have beliefs that need to be tweaked, overhauled, or discarded. Until we are glorified, we never will reach a point where we can say, “I no longer need my understanding of God and His Word to be improved and corrected.”

This presents an interesting dilemma for Reformation types like myself. Within some Reformed circles, a re-evaluation of the doctrine of justification is occurring. In my New Testament Colloquium this week, we began to discuss this doctrine and some of the changes that are taking place in the Reformed camp. One of the students brought up this principle of semper reformandum to add a new dimension to the discussion. Is it not our duty as Reformed Christians to always be reforming, even when it comes to the doctrine of justification?

This question presents at least two major challenges. First, how much reforming can be done to the Reformed faith before it no longer properly can be called “Reformed” in this historical sense of the term? We might ask it this way: Is the only non-negotiable principle of Reformation theology that we are always reforming? If we answer affirmatively, then Reformed theology can become virtually anything to anyone under the banner of semper reformandum. If we answer negatively, then we by necessity are limiting how much reforming can be done, and we must look elsewhere for the non-negotiable Reformation principle(s). That is to say, there are limits and boundaries that, if crossed, take someone out of the Reformed camp. I would assert that semper reformandum cannot be used to make the Reformed faith a Pelagian faith, or a Wesleyan faith, or the Roman Catholic faith.

This also has implications for our understanding of justification. How does semper reformandum apply to the doctrine of justification? If we, on the basis of this principle and some supposed exegetical study of, say, Romans, come to the conclusion that sinners are justified by grace through faith, but not by grace alone through faith alone, are we still Reformed? Can we really go back to Rome and stay within the heritage of the Reformation? Again, I would argue that we cannot. If we come to a position on justification that contradicts the historic, Reformed position, then the intellectually honest move would be to declare the Reformation anathema (or at best seriously in error) and to depart from the Reformed camp. It appears sneaky and dishonest when scholars “tweak” the doctrine of justification and still call themselves Reformed, using semper reformandum as their basis.

While the Reformers insisted that we must always be reforming, they did not mean that we should re-define the gospel. The underlying principles of the Reformation are clear (the five solas), and if someone decides they disagree with any one or all of these principles, the honest action would be to break away from the Reformed tradition. We should always be reforming from within the Reformed faith, but if that reforming takes a person back to Rome, or anywhere else inconsistent with Reformed theology’s major principles, that person should be clear that he is no longer Reformed in any meaningful sense of the term, and he should state clearly with which historic camp, if any, he is now most closely aligned.

Unbelievable

My wife brought an article to my attention today.  It is interesting and well worth reading.  It talks about a man in Michigan who is suing Zondervan for the use of the word "homosexuals" at the end of 1 Corinthians 6:9 in some of the Bibles that they publish.  He claims that since his pastor preached from one of their Bibles, his parents believed him to be a sinner and he had emotional damage inflicted upon him. He says that he will be suing more publishers.

I find interesting that he doesn't seem to have done any research into the original languages, based on this article alone.  He seems to have studied various translations and based on other translations assumed the meaning of the original Greek text.  Both Thayer and BDAG demonstrate that the last two words in the list are to be translated as "effeminate" and "homosexual"(or possibly male homosexual).  So, there is no merit to his attack.  However, it's interesting to see where this attack is being made.