Learning from William Perkins on Election
Posted: March 6, 2014 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: church, Election, Puritan Theology, Puritans, Theology, William Perkins Leave a comment
How did William Perkins see Jesus Christ as the foundation, means, and ends of election?
William Perkins writes on this topic the following, “Election is God’s decree whereby of his own free will he hath ordained certain men to salvation, to the praise of the glory of his grace. There appertain three things to the execution of this decree, first the foundation, secondly the means, thirdly the degrees. The foundation is Christ Jesus, called of his Father from all eternity to perform the office of the Mediator, that in him all those which should be saved might be chosen.”
How did William Perkins see predestination as being carried out through the covenants?
Perkins taught that God established a covenant of works with Adam in paradise, thus setting a covenantal context for the fall. Similarly, He made the covenant of grace as the context for the salvation of the elect.
How did William Perkins see reprobation as a logical concomitant of election, and what were the differences he emphasizes between the two?
Perkins wrote “If there be an eternal decree of God, whereby he chooseth some men, then there must needs be another whereby he doth pass by others.” Two differences of emphasis exist between reprobation and election, however. First God willed the sin and damnation of men but not with the will of approval or action. God’s will to elect sinners consisted of His delight in showing grace and His intent to work grace in them. But God’s will to reprobate sinners did not include any delight in their sin, nor any intent to work sin in them. Rather He willed not to prevent their sinning because He delighted in the glorification of His justice. Second, in executing reprobation, God primarily passes over the reprobate by withholding from them His special, supernatural grace of election.
How did Williams Perkins see preaching as essential for bringing in the elect?
Munson writes, “Perkins’ golden chain of the causes of salvation is linked through the instrument of preaching. Perkins wrote on the preaching of the Gospel “This gospel must be preached. It is the allure of the soul, whereby men’s forward minds are mitigated and moved from an ungodly and barbarous life unto Christian faith and repentance.” Perkins also said “The gospel preached is that ordinary means to beget faith.” Plain and powerful preaching of Scripture was not merely the work of a man, but a heavenly intrusion where the Spirit of the electing God speaks.
What was the Puritans view regarding the Eternal Generation of the Son?
Posted: February 5, 2014 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Jesus, Puritans, Theology Leave a commentThe Son’s generation was connected to the idea that the Father is the fountain of all deity (fons totius Deitatis). Thomas Goodwin uses this term, but he was always careful to insist that the Son and Spirit were “very God of very God”. Leigh speaks of the order of the persons to explain the doctrine, “the Father is the first person from himself, not from another both in respect of his Essence and person. The Son is the second Person, from his Father in respect of his Person and filiation, existing by eternal generation, after an ineffable manner (and is so called God of God) by reason of his Essence he is God himself. The Holy Spirit is the third person proceeding from the Father and the Son in respect of his person.” Leigh refers to the Nicene Creed to referring to the Son as (“God of God”) to speak of the Son’s eternal generation. Thomas Goodwin likewise argues for the “begottenness” or “eternal generation” of the Son based upon the Father communicating to the Son the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead.
Stephen Charnock’s Understanding of God
Posted: January 17, 2014 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: God, Puritans, Stephen Charnock, Theology Leave a comment
For Stephen Charnock (1628-1680) the being of God is necessarily bound up with the concepts of essence and existence. In Charnock’s exposition of John 4:24 “God is a Spirit”. “He hath nothing corporeal, no mixture of matter, not a visible substance, a bodily form. Charnock notes that (John 4:24) is the only place in the whole Bible where God is explicitly described as a Spirit. Charnock states if God exists He must be immaterial because material by nature is imperfect. Charnock also describes God in two ways, by affirmation God is good and God has no body.
Charnock begins by noting the difficulty of this topic. In his attempt to understand eternity Charnock contrast the attributes of God with the concept of time. Eternity is perpetual duration, without beginning or end, but time has both beginning and an end. He explains how God as God must be eternal, and that eternity properly belongs to God. The Scriptures constantly speak of God as eternal (Exodus 3:14, Rom. 16:26). Nothing can give being to itself. Acts, whatever they may be, are predicated on existence, a cause precedes an effect. God’s very existence proves that He has no being from another, otherwise He would not be God therefore God must be eternal.
Charnock describes how when God acts He does so according to the counsel of His own infinite understanding. No one is His counselor. Charnock speaks of the divine will as something that is not rash, but follows “the proposals of His Divine mind, he chooses that which is fittest to be done.” Knowledge and wisdom differ insofar as knowledge is the “apprehension of a thing, and wisdom is the appointing and ordering of things.” God possesses an essential and comprehensive wisdom. The Son of God however is the personal wisdom of God. Wisdom, as a necessary perfection in God, is manifested in the Son of God, who “opens to us the secrets of God.” The work of Christ manifests the wisdom of God as both the just and the justifier of the ungodly; but Christ also reveals the preeminent wisdom of God, for in the incarnation the finite is united with the infinite, immortality is united to mortality, and a nature who made the law is united to a nature under the law all in one person.
For StephenCharnock Christ is the image of God’s holiness because since God in His glory is “too dazzling to be beheld by us,” the incarnation makes it possible for the elect to not only behold the holiness of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3:18), but also become holy like God through Jesus Christ. Therefore in God’s goodness he provides a means in which we can apprehend this holiness, the application of this therefore has a Christ centered focus.
Charnock affirms a threefold dominion in God, that which is natural and therefore absolute over all things; that which is supernatural or gracious, which is the dominion God has over the Church; and that which is glorious (i.e. eschatological), which refers to the kingdom of God as He reigns over saints in heaven and sinners in hell. The first dominion is founded in nature; the second in grace; the third in regard to the blessed in grace; in regard of the demand, in demerit in them, and justice in him. The dominion of God is to be distinguished from His power. The latter has reference to His ability to affect certain things, whereas the former speaks of His royal prerogative to do as He so chooses.
The Similarities and Differences Between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace
Posted: January 13, 2014 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Covenant of Grace, Patrick Gillespie, Puritans, Theology Leave a commentJohn Owen’s Thoughts on Supernatural Revelation
Posted: January 9, 2014 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: John Owen, Puritans, Theology Leave a commentThe inspiration of Scripture
In view is the Word of God, which for Owen has a threefold meaning: “hypostatikos, endiathetos, and prophorikos.” The hypostatic (“personal”) Word has reference to the person of Christ. The latter two Greek terms speak of the “internal” or “inherent” (endiathetos) Word and the “spoken” (prophorikos) Word. The Bible, God’s supernatural revelation, is expressed in words and committed to writing. Faith arises from the authority and truth of God in the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth of God’s Word because the Spirit is truth. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit infallibly assures believers that Scripture is God’s Word.
The truth of the Bible
Owen states that an internal, efficacious work of the Holy Spirit must illuminate the minds of believers so that they not only recognize the divine authority of Scripture, but also embrace the truths contained therein. The internal witness of the Spirit persuades believers that the Scriptures really are the very words of God. Thus Scripture, for Owen, is self-evidencing and has an innate efficacy because of its Author. Light and power constitute the self-evidencing nature of Scripture as the Word of God. Light, like God and Scripture, does not require proof of authenticity.
Christ the source of knowledge
Owen speaks of Christ as the “sacred repository” of all truth. Owen provides the ontological basis, in the glory of Christ’s person as the God-man, for revelation to be communicated from God to humanity; He is the Mediator not only in salvation, but also in all communication between God and fallen humanity. No one but the God-man has the ability to declare perfectly the revelation of God. So the “great end” of Christ’s coming was to reveal God (Matt. 13:35; John 1:18).
Covenantal context for the knowledge of God
God revealed Himself to Adam in the context of a covenant (the covenant of works). If this was true for Adam in the garden, how much more for the elect in the covenant of grace? Owen would argue that all true theology is based on a covenant, which means that supernatural theology is best understood covenantally. In the covenant of grace, God reveals His love and grace toward His people. But those truths are all proposed to God’s people in the various post-lapsarian covenants in and by Christ. Owen would demonstrate in his own writings, revelation was progressive along covenantal lines, but in the new covenant God speaks definitively and most gloriously in the person of Jesus Christ.
What was the basic framework in which the Puritans understood biblical history?
Posted: January 8, 2014 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Covenant, Puritans, Theology Leave a commentThere are two ways according to the Puritans in which man finds acceptance with God one being works the other faith. The former was possible in the first covenant, (the covenant of works) but with the entrance of sin into the world, sinners must go outside of themselves and place their faith in the One who placed Himself under the covenant of works or be damned for failing to fulfill the terms of the covenant of works themselves. This is the covenant of grace; Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law for fallen humanity by saving a particular people for Himself (Galatians 4:4). The Puritans understood some similarities between the two covenants while forcefully insisting upon an absolute antithesis at the point of how a sinner may be justified before God (Ephesians 2:8).
Define Natural & Supernatural Theology According to the Puritans
Posted: January 7, 2014 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Puritans, Theology Leave a commentFor the Puritans, natural theology was linked to the creation of Adam in the image of God, and because of this, he was blessed in a natural theology (theolgia naturalis), or knowledge of God both innate and acquired from the handiwork of God around him. Some Puritans theologians debated among themselves whether all knowledge of God before the fall was natural or supernatural. Supernatural theology entails special revelation by God outside of his general revelation of nature. The Puritans agreed on the fact that Adam possessed a natural theology. There were some Puritans that disagreed whether or not Adam possessed a supernatural theology before the fall, Puritans such as John Owen limited supernatural theology not until after the fall because he maintains that originally revelation was partly supernatural and that this part was intended to increase daily. Thomas Goodwin believed that Adam’s end would have been continual life in the Garden of Eden, because only through Christ could he have acquired eternal life. John Owen seemed to suggest that both supernatural and natural theology coexisted before the fall, whereas Thomas Goodwin rejected this idea.
What was John Owen’s threefold understanding on the Inspiration of Scripture?
Posted: January 6, 2014 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: John Owen, Puritans, Theology 1 CommentThe Word of God for John Owen has a threefold meaning “hypostatikos, endiathetos, and prophorikos.” The “hypostatic” (personal) Word has reference to the person of Christ. The latter two Greek terms found commonly in patristic literature and used by Philo of Alexandria, speak of the (internal or inherent) “endiathetos” Word and the spoken “prophorikos” (spoken) Word. The logos prophorikos is the Bible, God’s supernatural revelation, expressed in words and commited to writing. Supernatural revelation provides objective ground for supernatural illumination, and John Owen constantly ties together the fact of divine revelation and the concept of approaching it.
How for John Owen and other Puritans was Christ the source of knowledge?
Posted: January 2, 2014 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: John Owen, Puritan Theology, Theology Leave a commentJohn Owen described Christ as the “sacred repository” of all truth. Puritan Edward Reynolds (1599-1676) similarly acknowledges that Christ is the “sum and center of all divinely revealed truth.” Because He is God incarnate, Christ makes theology possible. Owen distinguishes between the theology of the God-man, Jesus Christ and the theology of everyone else. Christ theology is innate in Himself (Col.2:3) as so this theology far exceeds that of anyone whose knowledge of God must be acquired from without. Christ knowledge of God is something utterly beyond believers, He nevertheless provides the ontological basis, in the glory of His person as the God-man, for revelation to be communicated between God and humanity; He is the mediator not only in salvation, but also in all communication between God and fallen humanity.
Adoption is Not Regeneration
Posted: September 3, 2013 Filed under: Adoption, Puritans | Tags: Adoption, Puritans, Regeneration, Theology 1 CommentIn short, the Puritans taught that regeneration and adoption are to be distinguished in several ways. Here is a summary of points made by Thomas Manton and Stephen Charnock on the differences between the doctrines of adoption and regeneration:
- Regeneration brings us to close with Jesus Christ – adoption causes the Spirit to abide in our hearts.
- Regeneration is the Spirit’s renewing. Adoption, the Spirit’s inhabiting. In regeneration, the Holy Spirit builds a house for Himself, in adoption, He dwells in the house—much like bees that “first make their cells, and then dwell in them.”
- Regeneration is not conditioned by faith, adoption is.
- Regeneration enables us to believe unto justification and adoption.
- Regeneration engraves upon us the lineaments of a father; adoption relates us to God as our Father.
- Regeneration makes us God’s sons by conveying the principle of new life (1 Pet. 1:23); adoption keeps us God’s sons by conferring the power of new life (John 1:12).
- Regeneration makes us partakers of the divine nature; adoption makes us partakers of the divine affections.
- Regeneration affects our nature, adoption, our relationships.
The Puritan Practical Use of Election
Posted: August 19, 2013 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Election, John Owen, Puritans, Theology Leave a commentThe Puritans used this doctrine to preach to the unconverted, knowing that it humbles man and can alarm man. Puritan Dickson wrote on this topic,
“Election and reprobation may be safely taught, others say it could make men despair, let none take offense at this doctrine, because Christ’s sheep will hear his voice, forces men to turn to God or force men to become reprobates, either turn to God or take home the black news that they are reprobate, very needful to put men to their decisions.”
The Puritans used the doctrine to the comfort and awakening of distressed souls. Thomas Horton wrote on the matter,
“Doctrine of comfort takes all out of ourselves and deserts, doctrine of arrogance, presumption are of despair they will not hold out or support a man when he is in need of them, doctrines of free grace are doctrines of comfort because it reduces everything to God that he will fulfill what he has promised.”
Parr writes,
“Unworthiness may dismay thee, but remember it is God’s will that matters. Use this doctrine of election for believers to teach them of their privileges and safety, use their election as a motive to live holy unto God.”
Owen writes,
“God makes a consideration of electing love as free and undeserved, his principal argument for obedience, (Col. 3) as elect of God, bowels of mercies, also an encouragement to holiness, the fountain of electing grace will never fail us.”
Relation to the Living God & the Fact of Sin
Posted: July 18, 2013 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Doctrine, liberalism, Machen, Theology Leave a commentUnfortunately, as Gresham J. Machen observed;
modern liberalism in the Church, whatever judgment may be passed upon it , is at any rate is no longer a matter merely of theological seminaries or universities. On the contrary, its attack upon the fundamentals of the Christian faith is being carried on vigorously by Sunday School “lesson helps,” by the pulpit and by the religious press.”[1]
In other words, the fight for the truth is no longer confined to the Seminaries alone; although, it must be noted that the Seminary remains a vital organ for contending for the faith since one of the objectives of establishing a seminary is to train people for the ministry and the service of the Church. The implication of this is that no one can take a neutral stance. All Christians are expected to identify with what they truly believe. A major issue in the doctrinal debate which was strongly contested by Machen is the term often used by Liberal theologians that “Christianity is a life, not a doctrine.” Machen was of the view that making such assertions cheaply without considering the fact that it has to be understood that Christianity was based on an historical evidence witnessed, recorded and expected to be lived out. Apostle John wrote,
That which was from the beginning which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;). That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you that ye also may have fellowship us : and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his son Jesus Christ. 1John. 1:1-3.
In the light of this revelation, we have to agree with Machen that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded on a message.
In as much as this discourse is not an exposition of the Bible we cannot do without making reference to the book out which the doctrinal controversial issues find its foundation. A systematic approach to the Bible clearly shows that the theme of the Bible is redemption. God’s redemptive purpose is clearly revealed from Genesis to Revelation. Therefore if the doctrinal issues being contended for were placed before the mirror of the word of God, all the controversies would have been laid to rest. Machen expounded further that modern liberalism, has lost sight of the two great presuppositions of the Christian message. This is in relation to the living God, and the fact of sin.
[1] Gresham J.Machen Christianity and Liberalism, (Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishin Company,1923),17.
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
Adopted into another Kingdom, Giving Light to this kingdom.
Posted: March 5, 2012 Filed under: Adoption | Tags: Adoption, Theology, Two-Kingdoms 1 CommentWhile reading some of John Calvin’s works this past weekend, I came across something in particular that stood out to me from all the rest. Not only does the Christian live their earthly lives in the common kingdom of this world, but is adopted into the Redemptive Kingdom of God’s promises to Abraham. Philippians 2:14-16 reads,
Do all things without grumbling or disputing, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of oa crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine pas lights in the world, 16 holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ sI may be proud that tI did not run in vain or labor in vain.
It was Calvin’s comments on verse 15 that brought to me the idea of seeing God’s adoption of His children through the lens of Two-Kingdoms.
The sons of God, unreprovable. It ought to be rendered—unreprovable, because ye are the sons of God. For God’s adoption of us ought to be a motive to a blameless life, that we may in some degree resemble our Father. Now, although there never has been such perfection in the world as to have nothing worthy of reproof, those are, nevertheless, said to be unreprovable who aim at this with the whole bent of their mind, as has been observed elsewhere.4
In the midst of a wicked generation. Believers, it is true, live on earth, intermingled with the wicked;5 they breathe the same air, they enjoy the same soil, and at that time1 they were even more intermingled, inasmuch as there could scarcely be found a single pious family that was not surrounded on all sides by unbelievers. So much the more does Paul stir up the Philippians to guard carefully against all corruptions. The meaning therefore is this: “You are, it is true, inclosed in the midst of the wicked; but, in the mean time, bear in mind that you are, by God’s adoption, separated from them: let there be, therefore, in your manner of life, conspicuous marks by which you may be distinguished. Nay more, this consideration ought to stir you up the more to aim at a pious and holy life, that we may not also be a part of the crooked generation,2 entangled by their vices and contagion.”
As to his calling them a wicked and crooked generation, this corresponds with the connection of the passage. For he teaches us that we must so much the more carefully take heed on this account—that many occasions of offence are stirred up by unbelievers, which disturb their right course; and the whole life of unbelievers is, as it were, a labyrinth of various windings, that draw us off from the right way. They are, however, notwithstanding, epithets of perpetual application, that are descriptive of unbelievers of all nations and in all ages. For if the heart of man is wicked and unsearchable, (Jer. 17:9,) what will be the fruits springing from such a root? Hence we are taught in these words, that in the life of man there is nothing pure, nothing right, until he has been renewed by the Spirit of God.
Among whom shine ye. The termination of the Greek word is doubtful, for it might be taken as the indicative—ye shine; but the imperative suits better with the exhortation. He would have unbelievers be as lamps, which shine amidst the darkness of the world, as though he had said, “Believers, it is true, are children of the night, and there is in the world nothing but darkness; but God has enlightened you for this end, that the purity of your life may shine forth amidst that darkness, that his grace may appear the more illustrious.” Thus, also, it is said by the Prophet, “The Lord will arise upon thee, and his glory will be seen upon thee.” (Isaiah 60:2.) He adds immediately afterwards, “The Gentiles shall walk in thy light, and kings in the brightness of thy countenance.” Though Isaiah speaks there rather of doctrine, while Paul speaks here of an exemplary life, yet, even in relation to doctrine, Christ in another passage specially designates the Apostles the light of the world. (Matt 5:14.)