Abraham Lincoln’s Frist Inaugural Address
Posted: July 15, 2013 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Lincoln Leave a commentOn March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln gave his first Inaugural Address. The Inaugural Address provides Lincoln the opportunity to highlight his agenda, appeal to the Congress and the people he will govern for support, and provide further insight on the new leader and the principles on which he stands. It was clear that Lincoln would continue his pursuit of the emancipation of the slaves and made an appeal for a united north and south, or at least that is what the movie made it seem like.
“In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people.”[1]
References to God are common in many politicians Inaugural Addresses, especially the President of the United States. Lincoln was no different and he continued his pursuit of emancipation for the slaves with references to the “Almighty Ruler of nations,” which would be the strongest reference to God that the researcher has found at this time of Lincoln’s life. But this Inaugural Address was drafted by William Seward.[2] Presidents often have speech writers to help craft the words that they present. After knowing the person for whom the speech writer is crafting the speech, the speech writer is able to write the speech as if they were the one for whom the speech is written. Seward followed the practice of Lincoln by not mentioning God specifically, but did provide a tone in his writings of a power greater than ourselves; someone who has all power in His hand. In attempting to avoid a hasty action, he wrote, “Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.”[3] The reference to “a firm reliance on Him” is a far different concept than Lincoln provided less than one month before when he wrote, “Without the assistance of that Divine Being” in his Farewell to Springfield Speech.[4] Lincoln wrote, poetically, the closing to the Inaugural Address, referring to “better angels of our nature,” but as in previous writings, not directly acknowledging God.
“I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memorys, streching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”[5]
[1] Abraham Lincoln, “First Inaugural Address,” In Lincoln’s Hand His Original Transcripts, Eds. Harold Holzer and Joshua Wolf Shenk, (New York: Bantam Dell, 2009) 82-3.
[2] Abraham Lincoln, “First Inaugural Address,” in In Lincoln’s Hand His Original Transcripts, 83.
[3] Abraham Lincoln, “First Inaugural Address,” in In Lincoln’s Hand His Original Transcripts, Eds. Harold Holzer and Joshua Wolf Shenk, (New York: Bantam Dell, 2009), 83.
[4] Abraham Lincoln, “Farewell to Springfield,” in In Lincoln’s Hand His Original Transcripts, Eds. Harold Holzer and Joshua Wolf Shenk, (New York: Bantam Dell, 2009), 78
[5] Abraham Lincoln, “First Inaugural Address,” in In Lincoln’s Hand His Original Transcripts, 82.
Five Ways to Kill Your Classical “Christian” School
Posted: July 12, 2013 Filed under: Classical Schooling | Tags: Classical Education, Education, School Leave a commentIf you are looking to fail within your classical model, here are five ways to be sure that you will drive your school into the ground.
5. Use your “Christian” school as a means of evangelism.
4. Place teachers into positions that are out of their studied field of education.
3. Allowing a church to rule over your school, and dictate those who are hired.
2. A headmaster who acts as a dictator, and not a servant.
1. Allowing “helicopter” parents to get their way.
Election is Not Driven by Works
Posted: May 31, 2013 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Calvin Leave a commentSince election is not driven by works it can only be attributed to God’s saving grace; or to the glory of God. John Calvin writes,
We shall never be clearly convinced as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the fountain of God’s free mercy, till we are acquainted with his eternal election, which illustrates the grace of God by this comparison, that he adopts all promiscuously to the hope of salvation but gives to some what he refuses others.”
Avoiding Plagiarism Like the Plague
Posted: May 22, 2013 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Academics, Seminary, Writing Leave a commentPlagiarism is a growing problem both domestically and internationally. Even more so in circles it should not, namely seminary education. The word plagiarize is defined in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) as
“to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own.”
Plagiarism can take one of two forms: intentional or unintentional. When a writer knowingly uses other authors’ works without providing appropriate reference citations, he or she is intentionally plagiarizing. If, on the other hand, a writer uses others’ thoughts or ideas and does not realize that credit must be provided, he or she is guilty of unintentional plagiarism. Unfortunately, both types of mistakes can result in serious consequences. Here is a helpful remembrance,
It is incumbent on the writer to be forthright and honest with regard to using original and/or existing writing. Plagiarism can be easily avoided if the writer simply provides appropriate credit when borrowing ideas or citing directly from another individual’s work.
**Quote taken from Houghton, Peggy M.; Houghton, Timothy J. (2008-12-18). Turabian: The Easy Way! (Kindle Locations 213-215). Baker College. Kindle Edition.
The pressure to live a Godly life
Posted: May 17, 2013 Filed under: Lincoln Leave a commentAbraham’s parents were deeply religious and young Abraham seemed to resent the commitment of his parents and what was expected of him. The pressure to live a Godly life resulted in him displaying behavior not becoming of a Christian. He used his intellectual skills to exacerbate his behavior. Lincoln was like many who struggle with making a commitment to Christ. There was a rebellion that seemed to have taken root during Lincoln’s youth or young adult hood that carries into adulthood.
Tellingly, no one who was close to him seems to recall Lincoln making a confession of faith of the Christian religion. Arguments from silence are hardly the best, still the broad range of people who could not remember Lincoln doing so is notable. Lincoln could have been quiet about his beliefs, but it is likely that there would have been some indication of them.”[1]
There were several known occasions when close friends and associates of Lincoln either questioned his Christianity or firmly stated that he did not believe in God. One of which was a Methodist preacher, Peter Cartwright, who was considered an authority on Christian orthodoxy. He ran against Lincoln for the Seventh Congressional District of Illinois in 1846. Peter Cartwright, during the campaign, called Abraham Lincoln an infidel. This prompted Lincoln to write a letter defending his Christianity.[1] John Todd Stuart, who was claimed to have discovered Lincoln, says:
“I knew Mr. Lincoln when he first came here and for years afterwards- he was an avowed and open Infidel – Sometimes bordered on atheism … Lincoln went further against Christian beliefs – & doctrines & principles than any man I ever heard: he shocked me…. Suppose it was against the inherent defects so-called of the Bible & on grounds of reason – Lincoln always denied that Jesus was the Christ of God.”[2]
[1] Burkhimer, Lincoln’s Christianity, 9
Having a Research Mindset
Posted: April 3, 2013 Filed under: Just for Fun Leave a commentResearchers start their work from the premise that knowledge is attainable and that finding truth is possible. The quest may be long and difficult, but results are assured. Without this optimistic mindset, little research would take place. The research mindset is characterized by objectivity, focus, clearly set-forth presuppositions, logical organization, and intellectual honesty. In a more biblical frame, it is adorned by humility.
Quote taken from Vyhmeister, Nancy Jean (2009-06-26). Quality Research Papers: For Students of Religion and Theology (Kindle Locations 1268-1271). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Bill Gates 11 Rules
Posted: December 25, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Bill Gates, Rules Leave a commentLove him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the head with this! To anyone
with kids of any age, here’s some advice. Bill Gates once gave a Commencement speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.
Rule 1: Life is not fair – get used to it!
Rule 2: The world won’t care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won’t be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it’s not your parents’ fault, so don’t whine about your mistakes; learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren’t as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent’s generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they’ll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn’t bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don’t get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you’ll end up working for one.
New Book on John Bunyan
Posted: November 9, 2012 Filed under: Brian Najapfour | Tags: Baptist, John Bunyan, Pray, Prayer, Reformed, Reformed Theology Leave a comment
The Very Heart of Prayer: Reclaiming the Spirituality of John Bunyan. By Brian G. Najapfour. Mountain Home: Ark.: BorderStone Press, 2012, pp. 102.
Recommendations:
“Najapfour advances a well-researched thesis that Bunyan was in fact a sectarian Puritan. While Bunyan was not a Puritan in the sense of a reformer within the Church of England, Najapfour demonstrates that Bunyan embraced a Reformed and Puritan spirituality—godliness empowered by biblical truth. Not only does Najapfour bridge the gap between scholarly and pious readings of Bunyan, but he also explores Bunyan’s view of prayer, the Holy Spirit, and godliness in a way that enriches our minds and souls.”
—Dr. Joel R. Beeke, President of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
“This new study by Brian Najapfour opens up to us Puritan views on what it means to pray in the Spirit and how deeper godliness is to be sought. Here we have solid help from some of Bunyan’s lesser known devotional writings. Those who are seeking serious godliness in our own times will find a good deal to help them in this book.”
—Rev. Maurice Roberts, Minister of Greyfriars Congregation, Inverness, Scotland, and former editor of Banner of Truth magazine.
“A blend of history, biography, and practical theology, Najapfour’s book will be of profit to anyone who wants to learn more about either the life and times of the remarkable John Bunyan or about prayer.”
—Dr. Donald S. Whitney, Professor of Biblical Spirituality, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.
For more information about this book, click here.
What is With All this Gospel Talk?
Posted: November 6, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Christ, Christianity, Goldsworthy, Gospel, Jesus 1 Comment“Almost everyone uses the word “gospel” in both a religious and a secular way. In the religious world it is used often without any real consensus as to what is meant by the term. Even when the word “gospel” is proposed as a biblically based term, there are some significant differences among, say, a Christadelphian, an evangelical, and a liberal view of gospel. Among evangelicals there are also differences in the way he word is used. It is a matter for some concern that some books and study courses on evangelism seen to assume that every Christian is absolutely clear about what the gospel is, and that what is needed most is help in the techniques of explaining the gospel to unbelievers. Experience suggests that this assumption is poorly based and that there is a great deal of confusion among believers about what the gospel is. Preachers may have a theoretical gospel and an operative gospel. Theoretically we will get into a theological mode and produce, as far as possible, a biblically based notion focusing on the person and work of Christ. But in pastoral practice it is easy to be pragmatic. Our operative gospel will be the thing that preoccupies us as the focus of our preaching and teaching. It may be a particular hobbyhorse or a denominational distinctive. Baptism, a particular view of the second coming, social action, creationism, spiritual gifts, and the like are all easily raised to the status of gospel by becoming the main focus of our preaching. This is especially deplorable when these spurious gospels are made the basis of our acceptance of other Christians.”
“The gospel is the message about Jesus in his life, death, and resurrection.”
Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, pp. 81-83.
We are & We are Not
Posted: November 2, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: quotes Leave a comment“We are not to preach sociology, but salvation; not economics, but evangelism; not reform but redemption; not culture, but conversion; not progress, but pardon; not a social order, but a new birth; not revolution, but regeneration; not renovation, but revival; not resuscitation, but resurrection; not a new organization, but a new creation; not democracy, but the Gospel; not civilization, but Christ; we are ambassadors not diplomats”
Quote taken from Hugh Thomsen Kerr.
The Greater Jonah, God’s Great Sign
Posted: October 24, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Gospels, Jesus, Jonah, Matthew, Pharisees and Sadducees, Signs Leave a commentThe past three weeks I have continued to blog upon points from Matthew 16:1-4. This is the fourth and final post over the passage that I have to write. Taking speical notice this time to Jesus’ words in verse four and its ending, “Except the Sign of Jonah.” Matthew 16:1-4 reads;
“1 And the Pharisees, together with the Sadducees, came, and tempting desired that he would show them a sign from heaven. 2 But he answering said to them, About the commencement of the evening you say, It will be fine weather; for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, There will be a storm to-day; for the sky is red and lowring. Hypocrites, you can judge aright of the face of the sky; but can you not judge of the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous nation demands a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. And he left them, and departed.”
Jesus says to the Pharisees “expect the sign of Jonah.” Where has one heard this saying before, better is the question, where have they the Pharisees heard such language before? Just weeks earlier Matthew records for us a similar account of Jesus Christ and the Pharisees. There the same language is used in Matthew 12:38-40, it reads,
“Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it expect the sign of the prophet Jonah. He goes one to say, For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
But what does this mean and why would Jesus continue to respond with the same answer? Why does Christ say to the Pharisees and Sadducees that “no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” Christ reminds them of a pervious sign that had been given to before them. The Pharisees and Sadducees would have known this story well, but yet Christ sees fit to remind them of this particular sign given by God. The sign was a prophet named Jonah who would become swallowed up in the belly of a great fish for three days and nights and as the fish could not hold him he would then be spit out of its mouth onto the land to preach the salvation of God to the Ninevites. The Ninevites, one of the oldest and greatest cities in antiquity, an important religious center for worship of the pagan Assyrian Ishtar, the capital of the Neo-Assyrain Empire, and worse of all a Gentile nation? How offensive to the Jews, that God’s signs and salvation be offered to gentiles.
Christ refers them to the sign of Jonah, which should be obvious to us now, because like that of Jonah, there would be a similar sign, but a greater sign to come. A Sign sent by God, who was not only a Prophet like Jonah, but like that of all the old signs; a Priest like Aaron, a Mediator like Moses, and a King like David. This sign, the Prophet, like Jonah would as well be swallowed up, but not by the belly of a fish, but by the belly of Hell. There He would suffer departure not from just mankind like Jonah, but the departure, wrath, and separation from His very father God, but in three days and night He would rise again, and as hell could not hold Him, he would be spit form its mouth back to His Father’s Kingdom for the sake of you and I, compelling His disciples to preach salvation of God to who? All the Nations, both the Jews and Gentiles. Here Christ threatens, after he has risen from the dead, he will be a prophet like Jonah. He will be the Greater Jonah, for there need be no greater sign until His return, for God’s sign has been given in Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The message today is the same as Jonah’s, repent, believer and follow Him, Christ is God’s Great Sign.
However, the text here ends sadly, and is broke off abruptly by Christ. Matthew records in this text, “he (Christ) left them and departed.” Like the Pharisees and Sadducees, Christ will not tarry long with those that tempt Him, but justly withdraws from those that are disposed to fight with Him. He simply let them alone the Scripture says. Jesus Christ let them be themselves, left them in their own counsels, and gave them up to their own hearts’ lusts. The meaning of this for us you ask? Thus He intended to serve as a sign to them, that He, Jesus Christ, when he had risen from the dead, would in every place cause the voice of His Gospel to be distinctly heard. Thus we see the Pharisees and Sadducees seeking after signs, but yet missing the Sign, The Greater Jonah, God’s Sign Jesus Christ.
A Wicked & Adulterous Nation Demands a Sign
Posted: October 15, 2012 Filed under: Jesus Christ | Tags: Bible, Gospels, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Matthew, Pharisees, Sadducees Leave a commentThe past two weeks I have been taking an expositional and applicable look at Matthew 16 verses one through four, just one of Jesus’ encounters with the Pharisees. This week I am going to continue to do the same, taking a look specifically at verse four where it reads “An Evil and Adulterous Generation Seeks for a Sign.” Matthew 16:1-4 reads in its entirety;
“1 And the Pharisees, together with the Sadducees, came, and tempting desired that he would show them a sign from heaven. 2 But he answering said to them, About the commencement of the evening you say, It will be fine weather; for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, There will be a storm to-day; for the sky is red and lowring. Hypocrites, you can judge aright of the face of the sky; but can you not judge of the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous nation demands a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. And he left them, and departed.”
One question that comes to mind after reading, why would Christ call them an “evil and adulterous generation?” He did not accuse them of being guilty of physical adultery, but of spiritual adultery (Isa. 57; James 4:4). These men were worshiping a false god of their own manufacture, and this was spiritual adultery to Christ. Had they been worshiping the true God, they would have recognized the Sign, His Son when He came. The Pharisees and Sadducees were never satisfied with any signs, but continued their own wicked desires to tempted God. John Calvin writes about this matter saying,
“He (Christ) does not call them an adulterous nation merely because they demand some kind of sign, (for the Lord sometimes permitted his people to do this,) but because they deliberately provoke God.”
Jesus is telling them to read what is there in Scripture and is obvious that has been written in their Scriptures. The famous English writer C. S. Lewis wrote a famous essay on ‘Fern Seed and Elephants’, in which he talked about people claiming to see the significance of the smallest things while not seeing the elephants in front of them. Jesus is saying that the Pharisees are like that—unwilling to accept the clearest revelation from God, Himself, Jesus Christ.
Do we not see the same type of nation today here in America? One that is in ruin, one that does not accept to hear the truth, and one that does not accept to see the Great Sign given by God. We live today with two types of people, there is no in-between, those that are in Christ and those that are not. Here I must make two points of application. One for the unbeliever and one for the believer. For the unbeliever, do not continue to follow a path of those who seek after the signs of this world, and not that of Christ. Do you not foresee your own ruin coming for rejecting Christ because you seek the pleasures of this evil and adulterous generation like the Pharisees and Sadducees? For the believer, what are you seeking after today? Are you seeking the signs of this world or are you seeking the sings of being something or someone special – maybe a better person than you are now, maybe better finically, maybe a better worker at your job, or a better husband or father? Those are all good things, but if you seek them for the sake of this generation, for your own good and self righteousness you are no different from that what Christ calls an “evil and adulterous generation.” You have lost your focus upon God’s Great Sign, His Son. Not to please those here on earth, but to please an everlasting good and pure generation apart of this world.
For this is why Christ came, to save those in “an evil and adulterous generation.” Unbeliever may you come to know Christ, who He is, what He has done and what He is doing in His Church today. Believer, may you today take refuge in Christ, what Christ has already done and accomplished for you, and rejoice that you are apart of what He is doing today in His Church.
Why Does God Permit Evil?
Posted: October 8, 2012 Filed under: Tim Keller | Tags: Apologetics, Evil, God, Suffering, Tim Keller Leave a commentRecently preparing my lessons/lectures on the topic of “Why Suffering Exists if God Exist” for my high school apologetics course I came across a quote by Tim Keller. I found it worthwhile to repeat here for those that still follow along with my blog.
God only allows Satan to accomplish the very opposite of what he wants to accomplish. He only gives Satan enough rope to hang himself…God hates evil. He’s against it. He didn’t create a world in which evil existed. But He permits it. Why? He permits Satan only to bring evil into Job’s life in such a way, in such an amount, that actually completely defeats Satan’s real intention. Satan is only allowed by God to actually defeat himself and achieve the very opposite of what he wanted… He permits evil and suffering to come into your life only to the degree that it defeats the actual intention of Satan for you. Only to the degree that it makes you a great person. Only to the degree that it actually defeats itself.
*Words found in Timothy Keller Sermon Podcast, “Questions of Suffering.”
HT: Keller Quotes ~ The words of Dr. Timothy Keller
Red Sky at Night, Sailor’s Delight . . .
Posted: October 3, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Gospel, Gospels, Jesus, Matthew, Pharisees and Sadducees Leave a commentTwo weeks ago I posted an article taking a look at a point within Matthew 16:1-4. Today I’d like to take a look at another point within the text. The passage reads,
“1 And the Pharisees, together with the Sadducees, came, and tempting desired that he would show them a sign from heaven. 2 But he answering said to them, About the commencement of the evening you say, It will be fine weather; for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, There will be a storm to-day; for the sky is red and lowring. Hypocrites, you can judge aright of the face of the sky; but can you not judge of the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous nation demands a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. And he left them, and departed.” Thus is the reading of God’s Word.
Verse 3 says, “Hypocrites, you can judge aright of the face of the sky.” We have all heard the saying “Red sky at night, sailor’s delight. Red sky in morning, sailor’s take warning.” The practical origins for this nursery rhyme are based on weather predictions and how a red sky at night would indicate fair weather on the following day. The rhyme itself came about in England that would refer to a shepherd who would say that a red sky in the morning was suggesting inclement weather to follow. In America here, the words relate to a sailor doing the same. It should be remembered that there were no weather forecasts, for one had to make his own weather predictions by the sings before them. Those with the most knowledge and experience, such as Sailors and Shepherds, whose lives were dependent on the weather and knew the changing weather patterns that were indicated by a “Red Sky at night”. This was true during Jesus’ time as well. Christ reminds them that His power has been made manifested to the naked eye that they can see themselves here on earth. Christ reminds the Pharisees and Sadducees that they on their own accord could not shut their eyes to the clearest of light. Christ reminds them that sometimes a storm unexpectedly arises, and sometimes fair weather springs up when it was not expected, yet the instructions of nature are enough for them to predict from signs whether the day will be fair or cloudy. Christ therefore asks the Pharisees and Sadducees why they do not recognize the kingdom of God, when it is made known by signs that are not less known. This shows that Pharisees and Sadducees were occupied with earthly things and cared very little about anything that related to the heavenly and spiritual life of Christ’s Kingdom, but what is most important in this section of the text is that Christ calls them “hypocrites.” Why does Christ use such strong language as this? Because they pretend to know as that if it were exhibited to them, they are not willing to see the truth right in front of them. The conclusion that we can see here in our text is that these ignorant Pharisees and Sadducees are not at liberty to predict the aspect of the sky whether they shall have fair or stormy weather. It is rather an argument which Christ places on the regular course of nature. That argument is this, that men deserve to perish for their ingratitude, who, while are sufficiently know the matters of this present day life, yet knowingly and willfully quench the heavenly light and truth by their own stupidity.
Does not the same reproof and rebuke of Christ to the Pharisees and Sadducees apply to us? The same reproof applies nearly to the whole world does it not? For mankind continues to direct their skill, imagination, and apply their senses, to their own immediate advantage in this world. Like the Pharisees and Sadducees, sailors and shepherds, we can easily tell the natural signs that are around us in this world like the weather, but how come we have no or little concern about the signs by which God invites us to himself? Is it not because every man gives himself up to willing indifference and smothers the light which is offered to him? There may be some of you here today that have the description of these men in our text called “hypocrites” who while seeking after signs to fulfill their own desires, miss the utmost desirable Sign in front of them, Jesus Christ. Like the Pharisees and Sadducees did not know they were hypocrites, the lost are pleading like them. They are pleading with God to suspend their judgment because they are waiting until they have a sign that is right for them, that then, only then they will follow Jesus Christ. There may be some of those that read this post that even try to avoid God’s Sign, and in your slothfulness you wait and neglect your own salvation of your soul with excuses like the Pharisees and Sadducees for gross and stupid ignorance of that which has already taken place, the greatest Sign of God to mankind, that is His son, Jesus Christ.
For these Pharisees and Sadducees had the signs of the Old Testament; the tree of life, the flood, the signs given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the signs of Moses and Aaron, from the plagues in Egypt to the parting of the Red Sea, the signs in the wilderness from the cloud that lead Israel, to the signs that provided water from a Rock and manna from Heaven, the signs within the Law from its offerings and atonement for sin, to that of the priesthood that carried out the duties of the Law, the signs of Elijah and Elisha during the kings and kingdoms, to the signs of the prophets, from that of Daniel and the lions to the specific sign in our text Jonah and the fish. They the Pharisees and Sadducees would what it seems have all of the signs they would have ever needed to know God, but they missed the Sign sitting in front of them. For those that do not know Christ, may you not miss Him. For those of you that do know Christ, may I friendly remind you that you have inherited salvation through the greatest Sign God has ever given to His people, Jesus Christ, and you need no more.
Looking for Signs or for the Sign?
Posted: September 18, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun Leave a commentMatthew 16:1-4 reads
“1 And the Pharisees, together with the Sadducees, came, and tempting desired that he would show them a sign from heaven. 2 But he answering said to them, About the commencement of the evening you say, It will be fine weather; for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, There will be a storm to-day; for the sky is red and lowring. Hypocrites, you can judge aright of the face of the sky; but can you not judge of the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous nation demands a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. And he left them, and departed.” Thus is the reading of God’s Word.
Here in this account, once again, Matthew injects a note of hostility and confrontation in his gospel account. The more Jesus’ fame grows, and the more the crowds gather to him and experience his healing touch and his compassionate provision, the more the opposition grows. We know that Jesus Christ is the anointed one, the true, legitimate King of God’s own choosing. But there is another kingdom in the world, one which is in opposition to the kingdom of God. The sad thing is that it is often dressed up in religion, or often times today in the Church.
Verse 1 says, “And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him,” How did they test him? The passage goes on to tell us “they asked him to show them a sign from heaven.”
Mark’s account of this story brings to light an additional feature or point that must be brought to our attention. In Mark 8:11, he records that the Pharisees and Sadducees “began to dispute,” from which we may conclude that they, the Pharisees and Sadducees had tired in argument against Jesus and this here was their last resource in their conversation. They as finite men, trying to avoid being compelled to the truth of the Gospel are accustomed to introduced something which is foreign to the subject at hand in their “dispute” they were having with Christ. While the nature of the debate or dispute is not made mention of in Mark’s account, I can only imagine that it is something similar to that debating the calling of Christ, who He was, and what He was doing claiming the Kingdom of God is at hand. Matthew and Mark both write that “The Pharisees, together with the Sadducees.” This deserves our attention, though the Sadducees and the Pharisees looked upon each other as enemies, they came together as a team in this particular dispute against Jesus Christ. It was their desire here to silence Jesus that had caused the two opposing religious parties to unite in one common effort. The Pharisees were the traditionalists of their day, while the Sadducees were quite liberal. Yet they seemed to have united to issue a challenge to Jesus saying in verse one “Show us a sign from heaven and we will believe You are the Christ.” How is it that these men came to Christ? Matthew records by their “tempting” or some translations write by their “testing.” Here Matthew means that is was not with honest intentions, nor was is a form of instruction. The Pharisees and Sadducees came by cunning and deceit, that they demanded what they thought that Christ would refuse, or at least what they had imagined was not in His power to do. John Calvin comments on this saying,
“Regarding him (Christ) as utterly mean and despicable, they had no other design than to expose his weakness, and to destroy all the applause which he had hitherto obtained among the people. In this manner unbelievers are said to tempt God, when they murmur at being denied what their fancy prompted them to ask, and charge God with want of power.”1
Did not the Pharisees and Sadducees have plenty of signs thus far? Why would they ask for another? Had not Christ healed the sick, cared for the sorrowful already in Matthews account? Every miracle Christ had completed was a sign, for no man could do what he had done thus far in the Scriptures unless God were with Him. However, this did not serve the Pharisees and Sadducees, they must have a sign of their own. They despised the signs that they had both seen and heard of before them in Christ’s ministry. As one Puritan (Matthew Henry) said,
“It is fit that the proofs of divine revelation should be chosen by the wisdom of God, not by the follies and fancies of men.”
And so one could easily ask themselves today, how often do you test or tempt God, asking Him that He may show himself according to your plans and for your sign. Do you not in our own hardships come to prayer, but often test God in doing so? Do you not often in need come to Him demanding that He answer you on your terms? Do you not in your own need come to Him with deceitful hearts seeking after your own desires and signs? Do you not in your own need come to Him seeking evidence that He is a part of what is going on in your life? How true at times believers of Christ often are like the Pharisees and Sadducees seeking after a sign for our own desires and not that of God’s. Believers like the Pharisees and Sadducees often find ourselves seeking after the signs of this kingdom, and not the Sign of the Kingdom.
Is it not interesting to see that the Pharisees and Sadducees sought after a sign and not the Sign. The same is true of us, often at times we tend to look for a sign within situations and forget to look towards the Sign of the situation. If you are seeking after help in a situation, a need in trouble, or a want within your family, God has given no greater sign than His Son for you to look upon. There is no reason for you to continue to seek after signs, wonders, wants, or desires of your own. Oh, but to be satisfied in God’s Great Sign, Jesus Christ, and in Christ alone no matter what the situation is that one may endure.
Horse-mane Shears & Amish Beards
Posted: August 31, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: amish, Beards, Religion, Religious Rights Leave a comment
Banded barbers sneaking in to houses at night to cut off beards because of spiritual differences. No matter what the disagreements may be, they are religious disagreements which the state of Ohio has now made hate crimes. I am not condoning the actions of the seven men that broke an entering of someone’s home and held down a 74 year old man to cut off his beard, but Religious rights are constantly being taken away in America, not only by the federal law, but now states too. You can read and watch more about this information over at Huffington Post.
Thoughts, comments, remarks, or concerns you may have? Please feel free to share them, I’d enjoy to hear some feedback.
For All Those Doubters
Posted: August 23, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: assurance, dutch, hyper calvinist, Luther, protestant reformed, Salvation Leave a comment“For Luther, as for the reformers in general, one could rest assured of one’s salvation. Salvation was grounded upon the faithfulness of God to his promises of mercy; to fail to have confidence in salvation was, in effect, to doubt the reliability and trustworthiness of God.”
***Quote taken from Alistair McGrath, Christian Theology, p. 391
Calvinism and the London Baptist Confession of 1689
Posted: August 7, 2012 Filed under: Baptist, Calvinism | Tags: Baptist, Confession, London Baptist, SBC, Southern Baptist 3 CommentsThe 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689
During the 17-century there were a number of issues in England that help bring about the change from the 1st 1644 LBC to the 2nd 1689 LBC, but more so that the Baptist and Presbyterians would be closer in work and deed than further a part like that we see in America today. A number of issues came about that brought the Second London Baptist Confession in it entirety, and in its likeness of its earlier cousin the Westminster Confession of Faith.
- 1661 – The Episcopalians had recaptured the machinery and endowments of the Church of England and they were bent on achieving uniformity in England, and not accepting Presbyterians, nor the WCF-1646.
- 1661 -1665 – A series of coercive acts which form the Clarendon Code were put into act effect to suppress the dissant, namely Presbyterians, but yet effecting Baptist as well, and other Congregationalists throughout England.
- 1672 – King Charles favored the restoration of Roman Catholicism and issued a Declaration of Indulgence which suspended all penal laws of an ecclesiastical nature against all Protestant dissenters, Presbyterian and Baptist.
- 1673 – England Parliament passed the Test Act which barred non-conformist from all military and civil offices.
These four key issues brought the Particular Baptist of London to show their agreement with Presbyterians and other Congregationalists through England by making the Westminster Confession their basis of a new (2nd) confession of their own. Thus the London Baptist purpose has been clearly stated,
Our (Baptist) hearty agreement with them (Presbyterians) in that wholesome protestant doctrine, which, with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted.”
One of the most evident “Presbyterian-friendly” areas the authors saw fit to change in the 1689 can be found in chapter 30 on The Lord’s Supper, that it is not restricted to scripturally baptized people, as in the 1644-LBC. The assembly writing the 2nd London Baptist Confession saw fit to work with the Presbyterians, for the sake of Protestantism during their time. While there are differences between the London baptist Confession and Westminster Confession of Faith (chapters 19-23), sections belittle some Presbyterians might add (chapter 7 & 25 ), and chapters done better by the Baptists (chapter 17), in all they often have more similarities in purpose than difference, thus showing the close relationship during the time of the Protestant Reformation.
Presbyterians at times make the remark that London Baptist copied their confession. While layout and words are almost identical at times (chapters 1, 9, 16, & 32) there are additions, differences, and sections condensed throughout the whole of the London Baptist Confession of 1689. If you do not agree, you can take a look at a Tabular Comparison of the WCF & 2nd-LBC for yourself.
The Particular Baptist and Calvinism
The London Baptist used the outline of the Westminster for their 1689, this base was far more complete and well laid out than their earlier confession of 1644. Being that it provided a well established order to their confession, changes had to be made in the 1689. There are a number of differences between the London Baptist Confession of 1644 and 1689. Sections were added to the 1689 on the areas of marriage, the Scriptures, the Sabbath, and a stronger emphasis on Calvinism than its earlier 1644 confession. This is most evident in the difference of verbiage between the 1644 and 1689 London Confessions dealing with what is called “Calvinistic” doctrines.
Total Depravity
6.2: Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
6.3: They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.
6.5: The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
Unconditional Election
3.5: Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
3.6: As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
10.1: Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
10.3: Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
10.4: Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
11.4: God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.
Limited Atonement
3.6: As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
8.5: The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him
8.6: Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent’s head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever.
8.8: To all those for whom Christ hath obtained eternal redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them; uniting them to himself by his Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by his Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey, governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.
Irresistible Grace
15.1: Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life.
15.2: Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation.
Perseverance of the Saints
17.1: Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.
17.2: This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
17.3: And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God’s displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
Connections to Today’s Current Situation: London Baptist 1689 Influence on The Abstracts of Principles
James Petigru Boyce, often called the Cavalier and Puritan, was a pastor, university professor, and most of all known as the founder and first president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS), a seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Boyce more than appreciated Calvinistic theology, he was raised by a mother of Presbyterian decent, and studied under Archibald Alexander at Princeton Theological Seminary. As Timothy George has stated, “Princeton provided Boyce with a systematic framework in which to cast the Calvinist theology he had imbibed from Basil Manly Sr. and his other Charleston pastors.” After his education at Princeton, Boyce pastored for two-years before moving on to teach at Furman University. In 1856 Boyce gave an address titled “Three Changes in Theological Institutions” which would not only effect where he labored at the time, but would bring about the foundation of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
As Boyce stated and made clear during the birth of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) “Three Changes” were a must to build a common theological seminary in the South. Boyce suggested three ideals that SBTS should embody, that they may stand strong for the years to come. The first being openness, a seminary for everyone and anyone who was called by God regardless of academic background or social status. Second, was excellence. Boyce was intent upon establishing an advanced program of theological study which in its academic rigor would be compared with they type of instruction that was being offered at Princeton, Andover, Harvard, and Yale. However it is the third change that Boyce brought to SBTS that would establish a set of doctrines that must be held and a confessional guidelines for those that taught at SBTS. Timothy George sheds light about this in his work Theologians of the Baptist Tradition;
“The third ideal was confessional identity. Boyce proposed that the seminary be established on a set of doctrinal principles that would provide consistency and direction for the future. This, too, was a radical step in the context of nineteenth-century Baptist life. Newton Theological Institute, the first seminary founded by Baptists in America, had no such confessional guidelines. Nor, indeed, did the Southern Baptist Convention, organized in 1845. However, Boyce firmly believed that it was necessary to protect the seminary from doctrinal erosion. From his student days in New England, Boyce was aware of the recent currents in theology: Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, the New Divinity. In particular, he spoke against the “blasphemous doctrines” of Theodore Parker, who had denied that Christianity was based on a special revelation of God. At the same time he was concerned about populist theologies in the South, and warned against the “twin errors of Campbellism and Arminianism.”
While all three areas of Boyce’s address and vision are true of SBTS today (Thanks to Dr. Al Mohler), that is not the case of the SBC. Not that the SBC was founded on Boyce’s Abstracts of Principles, but the SBC did not follow the examples set before them from their earlier Baptist forerunners (London Baptist in 1689, Philadelphia Baptist in 1742 and New Hampshire Baptist in 1833) in making a confessional theology which would have given them the foundation to their denomination. While the SBC was finally organized as a convention by 1845, it had no foundational set of doctrines they would hold to until 80-years later in 1925. What now has now been changed, edited, revised, and added to a number of times throughout the past century has lead to the different views within the SBC in the area of salvation, losing its historical context of its earlier calvinistic brother, The New Hampshire Confession of Faith 1833.
The SBTS still today holds to its original confessional standard, maintaining that their professors hold in agreement to the Abstracts of Principles that Boyce had intended for its throughly Calvinistic foundation. As Timothy George points out, “The Abstract of Principles was intentionally modeled on the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which was based on the Second London Confession, which, in turn, was a Baptist adaptation of the Westminster Confession.” Thus one sees the historical value in taking a look back into his or hers church history, seeing the Godly examples, the doctrinal stances, and theological guidelines God has given to His Church bringing great value to the future growth of the Church.
Additional Information to Read
Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. Timothy George and David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001).
Calvinism and the London Baptist Confession of 1644
Posted: July 31, 2012 Filed under: Baptist, Calvinism | Tags: Baptists, Calvinism, church, Confessional, History, London Baptists, Particular Baptists, Reformed Theology, Salvation, Theology Leave a commentBaptist Roots
Where did Baptists come from and, historically, what are their beliefs? The majority of historians agree that today’s Baptists were derived from three major sixteenth-century streams: Particular Baptists, General Baptists, and Seventh-day Baptists. By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, these denominations birthed a multitude. Separate Baptist, Primitive Baptist, American Baptist and Southern Baptist are just a few of today’s 100-plus Baptist denominations. Each of the three major Baptist groups claims a different line of descent. The Particular Baptists claim a heritage going back to the Protestant Reformers and Puritans of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The General Baptists trace their roots from the earlier Anabaptists of the fifteenth century, and the Seventh-Day Baptists came later, in the sixteenth century. All three major Baptist denominations started in England.
Other Seventeenth-Century Baptists
The Seventh-Day Baptists, known to follow the Judeo-Christian tradition of worshipping on the seventh day of the week, were never large in number, nor are they today. They number less than 50,000 worldwide. The General Baptists were named for their theological stance of having a general, and thoroughly Arminian, view of the atonement. Lead by John Smyth, they were a noncreedal denomination. By the eighteenth century, English General Baptists had mostly moved into Unitarianism, while most of America’s General Baptists were overtaken by the diverse strands within the Regular Baptist denominations.
The Particular Baptists
Particular Baptists were also commonly called Strict Baptists because of their practice of closed communion, their theological stance on Christ’s definite atonement for His elect, and their two-office congregational polity. It was the Protestant forerunners, like the Reformers & Puritans, that brought about a strong confessional emphasis among Particular Baptists’ theology. The Particular Baptists first appeared in a London church organized by Henry Jacob following his exile from Holland. This church was founded on a basis of confession of individual faith and of a covenant, and it contained both Independent Puritans and radical Separatists. In 1633, the issue of who would administer baptism splintered the two camps. In 1638, the first Particular Baptist Church was established in London under the leadership of John Spilsbery.
The theology of these Baptists appealed to the nation’s prevalent Calvinism and offered no obstacle to the mass of Englishmen. With the rapid growth of the Particular Baptist came serious accusations, such as Pelagianism and Anarchy. This is important to note because both groups were part of the radical wing of Anabaptism; thus, Anabaptism cannot trace its historical roots to the Particular Baptist denomination.
By 1644, the seven Particular Baptist churches in London were quick to follow their Protestant forerunners’ confessional examples. To document their doctrinal differences from the General Baptists and Anabaptists, the seven closely associated and London-based Particular Baptist churches prepared to published their own confessional statement of theology.
The London Confession of 1644 served as an apologetic theology, defending Particular Baptist views against the Arminian General Baptists and other radical groups like the Anabaptists. Henry C. Vedder called it “one of the chief landmarks of Baptist history.” There were five key futures that made it different from the multitude of Protestant Reformed Confessions of its time:
- Two representatives from each of the six Particular churches and three from Spilsbery’s church were included in the signatories of the confession.
- It had a strong Christological focus.
- It was building a confessional theology that gave structure to the New Testament’s administration of the Covenants of Grace—not attempting to reform the National Church.
- It charged that the act of baptism was to be a complete immersion of the individual and gave an outline for conduct in case of civil persecution.
It gave the Particular Baptists of its time a distinctive Baptist theology of the church, all while affirming the Reformed view of salvation
The Particular Baptists and Calvinism
1644 brought a year of growth for the Particular Baptists as they more clearly defined the doctrinal standards in their confessional statement. 1645 brought a year of trouble. . Arminian General Baptists charged the Particular Baptists with not addressing free will, communalism, and falling from grace enough, especially within the L0ndon Confession of 1644’s first edition.The General Baptists’ response to the London Confession of 1644 was documented in a pamphlet titled “The Foundation of Free Grace Opened,” which gave their dictional stance against limited atonement, clearly siding with Arminian theology.
The differences and disagreements between 1645’s General and Particular Baptists gave rise to a second edition of the 1644 London Confession and of the First London Baptist confession of 1644. Third and fourth editions would be made later in 1651 and 1652. As William L. Lumpkin commented, about the Particular Baptists,
“In the Army of Cromwell, Baptists had distinguished themselves and had risen to positions of leadership . . . (Calvinist) Baptists were everywhere in prominent positions, and no longer lived in fear of the King and Parliament. The Westminster Confession has appeared in 1646, and by comparing the London Baptist Confession with it men could see that Baptists indeed belonged to the mainstream of Reformed life.”
Calvinistic theology can be seen in a number of areas within the Particular Baptist’s confessional documents. Here are just a few examples taken from the second-edition London Baptist Confession of 1646.
Total Depravity
Article VI: first Eve, then Adam being seduced did wittingly and willingly fall into disobedience and transgression of the Commandment of their great Creator, for the which death came upon all, and reigned over all, so that all since the Fall are conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and so by nature children of wrath, and servants of sin, subjects of death, and all other calamities due to sin in this world and for ever, being considered in the state of nature, without relation to Christ.
[See also Article V.]
Unconditional Election
Article V: Subject to the eternal wrath of the great God by transgression; yet the elect, which God has loved with an everlasting love, are redeemed, quickened, and saved, not by themselves, neither by their own works, lest any man should boast himself, but wholly and only by God of His free grace and mercy through Jesus Christ.
[See also Article XVII and Article XIX.]
Limited Atonement
Article XXI: That Christ Jesus by His death did bring forth salvation and reconciliation only for the elect, which were those which God the Father gave Him; and that the Gospel which is to be preached to all men as the ground of faith, is, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the ever blessed God, filled with the perfection of all heavenly and spiritual excellencies, and that salvation is only and alone to be had through the believing in His name.
[See also Article XXX.]
Irresistible Grace
Article XXII: That faith is the gift of God wrought in the hearts of the elect by the Spirit of God, whereby they come to see, know, and believe the truth of the Scriptures, and not only so, but the excellency of them above all other writing and things in the world, as they hold forth the glory of God in His attributes, the excellency of Christ in His nature and offices, and the power of the fullness of the Spirit in His workings and operations; and thereupon are enabled to cast the weight of their souls upon this truth thus believed.
[Se alsoArticle V and Article XII].
Perseverance of the Saints
Article XXXVI: To this Church He has made His promises, and given the signs of His Covenant, presence, love, blessing, and protection: here are the fountains and springs of His heavenly grace continually flowing forth; thither ought all men to come, of all estates, that acknowledge Him to be their Prophet, Priest, and King, to be enrolled amongst His household servants, to under His heavenly conduct and government, to lead their lives in His walled sheepfold, and watered garden, to have communion here with the saints, that they may be made to be partakers of their inheritance in the Kingdom of God.
[See also Article XXVII.]
Connections to Today’s Current Situation
Where do Baptists come from, and what are their historical beliefs? The question lives on, surfacing again in the twenty-first century within America’s largest Baptist denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. As Rev. Dr. Tom Ascol stated, (during the Southern Baptist Convention of 1995), “Never in our history have we stood in greater need of reexamining our roots.” The issue is the same today as it was in 1995.
With regards to today’s current situation involving soteriology within the Southern Baptist denomination, members must look past the “traditional” views of the twentieth century and back to their historical fathers of the seventeenth century. We must not forget the theology that the Baptist church is founded upon. Southern Baptists need to clearly see the historical value of their Protestant Faith and its theological stances. As Baptist historian W. T. Whitley once stated (on Baptists’ redress of their own history), “. . . if a later generation finds that it does not agree with its predecessors, whether in content or in emphasis, it has openly revised and re-stated what it does believe or it has discarded the old confession and framed another.”
Additional Reading Information on Calvinism and Baptist Church
- Baptist History Out of Focus and From the Protestant Reformation to the Southern Baptist Convention: What Hath Geneva To Do with Nashville? by Tom Ascol
- The English Baptists of the Eighteenth Century by Raymond Brown
- Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. Timothy George and David S. Dockery
- Being Baptist and being Calvinistic: The Four-Fold Impact of Being Both According to Thomas Chalmers by Michael Haykin
- Baptist Beginnings, The Baptist Heritage, and A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage by Leon McBeth
- Confessing the Faith in 1644 & 1689 by James M. Rehihan
- The First London Confession of 1644 by Walter B. Shurden
- Ready for Reformation?: Bringing Authentic Reform to Southern Baptist Churches by Tom Nettles
- The English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century by B. R. White
James Boyce, Southern Seminary & Confessions
Posted: June 22, 2012 Filed under: Baptist | Tags: Baptist, Boyce, church, Confessions, Seminary, Southern Baptist Leave a commentAs Boyce stated and made clear during the birth of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) “Three Changes” were a must to build a common theological seminary in the South. Boyce suggested three ideals that SBTS should embody, that they may stand strong for the years to come. The first being openness, a seminary for everyone and anyone who was called by God regardless of academic background or social status. Second, was excellence. Boyce was intent upon establishing an advanced program of theological study which in its academic rigor would be compared with they type of instruction that was being offered at Princeton, Andover, Harvard, and Yale. However it is the third change that Boyce brought to SBTS that would establish a set of doctrines that must be held and a confessional guidelines for those that taught at SBTS. Timothy George sheds light about this in his work Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (which I started reading this week and highly recommend reading);
The third ideal was confessional identity. Boyce proposed that the seminary be established on a set of doctrinal principles that would provide consistency and direction for the future. This, too, was a radical step in the context of nineteenth-century Baptist life. Newton Theological Institute, the first seminary founded by Baptists in America, had no such confessional guidelines. Nor, indeed, did the Southern Baptist Convention, organized in 1845. However, Boyce firmly believed that it was necessary to protect the seminary from doctrinal erosion. From his student days in New England, Boyce was aware of the recent currents in theology: Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, the New Divinity. In particular, he spoke against the “blasphemous doctrines” of Theodore Parker, who had denied that Christianity was based on a special revelation of God. At the same time he was concerned about populist theologies in the South, and warned against the “twin errors of Campbellism and Arminianism.”
Two things come to mind. One while all three are true of SBTS today, some more than others, it does interest me today why SBTS would use dominantly and primarily use Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine and not their own confessional standards, The Abstract of Systematic Theology written by their founder James Boyce’s. Then second, if the Abstracts by Dr. Boyce truly came from the Philadelphia Confession, which came from the 2nd London Baptist Confession, which had agreed with the Cannons of Dort, then how could an Arminian Professor sign and adhere to the Abstracts to teach at SBTS?
***Quote taken from Timothy George and David S. Dockery, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 77.
When Baptist Cared About Antinomianism
Posted: June 21, 2012 Filed under: Baptist, Reformed Confessions | Tags: Baptist, History, Law, London Baptist Leave a commentThe quote below is by Scottish Presbyterian Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847), who is speaking specifically of the English Particular (Calvinist) Baptists would held to the LBC-1689. He states the following from his observations of them during his time,
Let it never be forgotten of the Particular Baptists of England that they form the denomination of [Andrew] Fuller and [William] Carey and [John] Ryland [Jr.] and [Robert Hall [Jr.] and [John] Foster; that they have originated among the greatest of all missionary enterprises; that they have enriched the Christian literature of our country with authorship of the most exalted piety as well as of the first talent and the first eloquence; that they have waged a very noble and successful war with the hydra of Antinomianism; that perhaps there is not a more intellectual community of ministers in our island or who have put forth to their number a greater amount of mental power and mental activity in the defence and illustration of our common faith; and, what is better than all the triumph of genius or understanding, who, by their zeal and fidelity and pastoral labour among the congregations which they have reared, have done more to swell the lists of genuine discipleship in the walks of private society—and thus both to uphold and to extend the living Christianity of our nation.
From Presbyterian Thomas Chalmers personal experience and witness of the Particular Baptist during his time, they defended the Christian Faith against such theological errors like Antinomianism. Now if such could be said about today’s American Baptist, could you imagine the difference in understanding Law and Grace?
*** Quote taken from Lectures on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1844), 76.
The Great Commission or the Apostles Ordination?
Posted: June 19, 2012 Filed under: Southern Baptist, sovereignty of God, Systematic Theology | Tags: Baptist, Confessions, Salvation, SouthernBaptist 2 CommentsThe blogosphere, within Evangelical and Baptist circles, has continued to go back and froth about the recent discussion on soteriology and the Ten Article Preamble written by a number within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The Preamble has been written with a major concern of New Calvinists gaining ground and number within the SBC denomination.
The Ten Article Preamble has a heavily bent towards Arminianism; and at times has been argued as Semi-Pelagian. It has brought constant posts, disagreements and differences among a number of leaders within the SBC. From the beginning, Calvinists have taken the time, on a number of platforms, to respond by pointing out their differences with the Ten Articles, none of which excel Rev. Dr. Tom Ascol’s 13 part series titled “Response to A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.”
I have seen a number disagreements with almost every point of the Ten Article Preamble, including Number 10 which concerns The Great Commission. As a matter of fact, The Rev. Dr. Tom Ascol, from my reading and understanding, did not disagree with Article Ten: The Great Commission. Article ten states,
We affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned His church to preach the good news of salvation to all people to the ends of the earth. We affirm that the proclamation of the Gospel is God’s means of bringing any person to salvation. We deny that salvation is possible outside of a faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
As Scriptural proof text, the writers of this article use the following:
Psalm 51:13; Proverbs 11:30; Isaiah 52:7; Matthew 28:19-20; John 14:6; Acts 1:8; 4:12; 10:42-43; Romans 1:16, 10:13-15; 1 Corinthians 1:17-21; Ephesians 3:7-9; 6:19-20; Philippians 1:12-14; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Timothy 2:5; 2 Timothy 4:1-5.
It is what the “Traditional SBCers ” affirm that brings some concern and is in need of clarification for a proper understanding and doctrinal agreement for myself. Two things come to my mind after reading the 10th Article along side their Scriptural proof texts.
The first concerns the fact that the SBC has remained dominantly Dispensational in their hermeneutics. Seeing the writers use proof texts in the Old Testament, such the Psalms and Isaiah, while applying them to the New Testament people of God seems to be a move towards a more covenantal hermeneutic.
The second applies to Article Ten which states “that the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned His church to preach the good news of salvation to all people to the ends of the earth.” This is proof texted by Matthew 28:19-20. I would like to see some clarification on what is meant by “commissioned His church.” What does “His church” mean in the Article? Is it every single individual member of the church? Is it the commission of the church? Does it mean that the commission was given to the offices of the church? Is this “great” commission given to both men and women of the church?
Maybe it is time that the “Traditional Baptists” of the SBC take a look at their elder brothers of the Protestant Faith such as the “Particular” Baptist. The 1689 London Baptist Confession (LBC) chapter 28 sections 1 & 2 state the following,
1. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world. 2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ. Scriptural Proof Text: Matthew 28:19-20.
What American Evangelicals, such as the SBC have commonly titled The Great Commission and used as a Scriptural proof for the Church to evangelize has lost its theological intent and audience. Here in the LBC (as well in the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 28 & The Belgic Confession Article 34 ) traditionally Protestants have seen Matthew 28:19-20 not as The Great Commission, but as the Apostles Commission, or better said The Apostles Ordination by Jesus Christ.
Here Jesus ordaining the disciples into the office of Apostleship, passing the keys and authority that had been given to Him from His father, telling the Apostles their commission, “to teach and baptize… to all the nations” meaning both to the Jew and Gentile takes place before His ascension. Later in the New Testament, it is this office of Apostles and commission of teaching and baptizing that had been given to them by Jesus Christ himself that is passed to the office of the teaching elder. (Cf. Acts 14:23, 20:28; Titus 1:5) As John Calvin gives light to the original intent and theological importance of the passage to the church today;
Now since this charge is expressly given to the apostles along with the preaching of the word, it follows that none can lawfully administer baptism but those who are also the ministers of doctrine. When private persons, and even women, are permitted to baptize, nothing can be more at variance with the ordinance of Christ, nor is it any thing else than a mere profanation.”
Why Question Worship?
Posted: May 9, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Christianity, church, evangelical, God, worship Leave a commentI am often struck by the number of church congregation services that seem to have an evangelists approach rather than a pastor leading his congregation in true worship of God during their Lord’s Day morning worship. I think one of the largest issues with this problem in America is a question that is commonly asked among pastors, elders, small groups and within the church. It goes something like this, “what type of worship do you like?” or “what style of worship fo you favor?” or “how to you feel worship should be done?” Besides the problem of creating a dichotomy between singing and preaching on the Lord’s Day (as if only one of them are worshipping) lies the problem that Evangelicals continues to create, address, fix, create, address, fix again, crate, address with a different group, and are left to fix once again. The never ending cycle of programed worship, leading to only selective groups, leaving out others, left with continually fixing the worship style, pattern with man’s thoughts, feelings, and what they themselves enjoy during worship service. The problem, the church continues to ask the question “what do we want during worship service?” and not the question “What has God commanded of His people during worship service?” As long as Dispensational roots are sunk in deep to American Evangelicals, who really applies Deuteronomy 12:32, “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.” Dispensationalism or not, understanding the use of moral law would be of great help and discernment on what one does during worship,
You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
This is just one of the many reasons why confessional protestantism helps again at truly understanding the Scriptures. Systematically looking at matters of importance throughout all of the Scriptures, identifying the Truths within Scripture and standing firm upon them within the Church. Recently chapter 22, section 1 of the London Baptist Confession has become a constant read for reminder in my family and personal life. It reads,
The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.
As Jeremiah has said, “Who would not fear You, O King of the nations? Indeed it is Your due! For among all the wise men of the nations And in all their kingdoms, There is none like You.”
Baptist & Presbyterian Confessions for the sake of Protestantism
Posted: April 9, 2012 Filed under: Baptist | Tags: Baptist, Christianity, Confessional, Confessions, Presbyterians Leave a commentPresbyterians will at times make the remark that London Baptist copied their confession. While layout and words are almost identical at times (chapters 1, 9, 16, and 32) there are additions, differences, and sections condensed throughout the whole of the LBC. If you do not agree, you can take a look at a Tabular Comparison of the WCF & 2nd-LBC for yourself. An issue at times I have heard from my close Presbyterian brothers (closer than my American-Baptist brothers) is that the London Baptist stole their outline, or copied their work. During the 17-century there were a number of issues in England that help bring about the change from the 1st 1644 LBC to the 2nd 1689 LBC, but more so that the Baptist and Presbyterians would be closer in work and deed than further a part like that we see in America today. A number of issues came about that brought the Second London Baptist Confession in it entirety, and in its likeness of its earlier cousin the Westminster Confession of Faith.
1. 1661 – The Episcopalians had recaptured the machinery and endowments of the Church of England and they were bent on achieving uniformity in England, and not accepting Presbyterians, nor the WCF-1646.
2. 1661 -1665 – A series of coercive acts which form the Clarendon Code were put into act effect to suppress the dissant, namely Presbyterians, but yet effecting Baptist as well, and other Congregationalists throughout England.
3. 1672 – King Charles favored the restoration of Roman Catholicism and issued a Declaration of Indulgence which suspended all penal laws of an ecclesiastical nature against all Protestant dissenters, Presbyterian and Baptist.
4. 1673 – England Parliament passed the Test Act which barred non-conformist from all military and civil offices.
These four key issues brought the Particular Baptist of London to show their agreement with Presbyterians and other Congregationalists through England by making the Westminster Confession their basis of a new (2nd) confession of their own. Thus the London Baptist purpose has been clearly stated,
Our (Baptist) hearty agreement with them (Presbyterians) in that wholesome protestant doctrine, which, with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted.”
I believe one of the most evident “Presbyterian-friendly” areas the authors saw fit to change in the 1689 can be found in chapter 30 on The Lord’s Supper, that it is not restricted to scripturally baptized people, as in the 1644-LBC. The assembly writing the 2nd-LBC saw fit to work with the Presbyterians, for the sake of Protestantism during their time. While yes, yes, yes I understand their are differences (chapters 19-23), sections belittle some Presbyterians might add (chapter 7 & 25 ), and chapters done better by the Baptists (chapter 17), in all they often have more similarities in purpose than one may think.
Gospel-Centered Musings 