Were the Puritans Puritanical? (Part 5)

"The Puritans rejected asceticism because of their firm grip on the doctrine of creation.  In their view, it was God who had created people as sexual beings.  Thus William Whately could claim that 'the Author of nature hath appointed this union betwixt one man and one woman,' while William Perkins was assured that marriage 'was ordained by God in Paradise.'  Robert Cleaver spoke of marriage as a 'coupling together of two persons into one flesh . . . according unto the ordinance of God'" (Ryken, Worldly Saints, pp. 44-45.)

John Owen on the Mortification of Sin (Part 2)

John Owen on mortifying sin (now, positively, that is, what it is):

It consists in three things:

1)  In a habitual weakening of it. . . .  The first thing in mortification is the weakening of this habit of sin or lust, that it shall not, with that violence, earnestness, frequency, rise up, conceive, tumultuate, provoke, entice, disquiet, as naturally it is apt to do (Jas. 1:14-15). . . .

2)  In a constant fighting and contending against sin.  To be able always to be laying load on sin is no small degree of mortification. . . .

3)  In success.  Frequent success against any lust is another part and evidence of mortification.  By success I understand not a mere disappointment of sin, that it be not brought forth nor accomplished, but a victory over it, and pursuit of it to a complete conquest.  For instance, when the heart finds sin at any time at work, seducing, forming imaginations to make provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof, it instantly apprehends sin, and brings it to the law of God and love of Christ, condemns it, follows it with execution to the uttermost.

Now, I say, when a man comes to this state and condition, that lust is weakened in the root and principle, that its motions and actions are fewer and weaker than formerly, so that they are not able to hinder his duty nor interrupt his peace—when he can, in a quiet, sedate frame of spirit, find out and fight against sin, and have some success against it—then sin is mortified in some considerable measure, and, notwithstanding all its opposition, a man may have peace with God all his days . . . (Works, vol. 6, pp. 28-32).

John Owen on the Mortification of Sin (Part 1)

John Owen on mortifying sin (first, negatively, that is, what it is not):

1)  To mortify a sin is not utterly to kill, root it out, and destroy it, that it should have no more hold at all nor residence in our hearts.  It is true this is that which is aimed at; but this is not in this life to be accomplished.  There is no man that truly sets himself to mortify any sin, but he aims at, intends, desires its utter destruction, that it should leave neither root nor fruit in the heart or life. . . . 

2)  I think I need not say it is not the dissimulation of a sin.  When a man on some outward respects forsakes the practice of any sin, men perhaps may look on him as a changed man.  God knows that to his former iniquity he hath added cursed hypocrisy, and is got in a safer path to hell than we was in before.  He hath got another heart than he had, that is more cunning; not a new heart, that is more holy.

The Covenant of Redemption

Many theologians have spoken of a covenant of redemption.  I have often wondered, while very sympathetic to the doctrine, if there is much exegetical basis for it, not just conceptual.  While meditating recently on Tit. 1:2, I was struck by how clearly the doctrine is articulated, if not the term itself. 

Continuing the salutation, Tit. 1:2 says this: "in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began (pro chronon aionion)."  A literalistic, wooden, and nonidiomatic rendering could be something like "before times eternal" or "before times of ages").  Now if this promise was made before the ages (i.e., before creation and time as we know it), to whom was the promise made?  Presumably it was not made to creation, for it did not yet exist.  So then to whom was it made?  Well, to the Son, of course. 

God promised the Son concerning eternal life.  He made a covenant with the Son to redeem fallen humanity, dead in sin, to restore them, and to bestow on them eternal life in the Son.  This is the covenant of redemption, planned and promised in eternity, sealed in the eternal fellowship of the Trinity, sealed by the blood of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.  God decreed these things "before the ages for our glory" (1 Cor. 2:7).  And it is indeed marvelous in our eyes!

Marriage as Manifest Glory

Some years back, I believe in 2004, Doug Wilson preached 40 sermons on marriage.  Well, my wife Em and I have been listening to some of those in the evening as we relax before bed.  The third one in the series titled "The Leaden Rule" is an exposition of the golden rule applied to marriage.  Wonderfully helpful, theologically rich.  I highly commend it and the whole series. 

This is my third time through these sermons.  The first time made me want to get married (I'm serious; prior to sermon 39 in the series I had by and large strenuously resisted the idea).  The second helped prepare me for marriage (and all those invovled by extension).  The third time, now with my wife, is helping us continue to mature in our one-flesh union in order to put the gospel on display.  It is all about the gospel of the glory of the grace of God.  Pastor Wilson's sermons are theologically charged toward this end.  So have a listen!  You can get these at Canon Press.

President Ryken

Have a look at this post at Between Two Worlds that discusses the significance of the appointment of Philip Ryken to the presidency at Wheaton College.  I heartily agree with and rejoice in what is said there.  Have a look at the Gospel Coalition Blog for the full reflection by Ligon Duncan.

Great NCC One-Liners

"I've waited 27 years for this."—Cory Gerdts

(The context of this statement will remain the private property of the privileged community of NCC.)

Great NCC One-Liners

"He's the God-baby!"—Simeon O’Donnell

(In response to the Sunday school question, "Who is this in Mary's arms?"  The scene was Jesus' dedication at the temple. From the mouth of babes!)

Were the Puritans Puritanical? (Part 4)

"Alexander Niccholes theorized that in marriage 'thou not only unitest thyself a friend and comfort for society, but also a companion for pleasure.'  In this acceptance of physical sex, the Puritans once again rejected the asceticism and implicit dualism between sacred and secular that had governed Christian thinking for so long.  In the Puritan view, God had given the physical world, including sex, for human welfare.  Robert Croftes wrote that 'he that useth these external felicities of the world, such as this of nuptial love, to the glory of God and to good ends . . . is better to be reputed than he that . . . neglects so great a good, which God freely offers to our acceptance'" (Ryken, Worldly Saints, p. 44).

Sweet Sermons on the Song of Songs

As I've noted before, New Covenant Church Pastor Doug O'Donnell is currently unfolding that sweetest of all flowers, the Song of Songs, each Lord's Day.  I already posted the first sermon a few weeks back.  The next three in order are Better than Wine, The Metaphors and Metamorphosis of Loving Words, The Voices of Spring.  My wife and I are profitting immensely from these sermons and will likely point other couples as well as unmarried folk to this series.  We'll have to see how the series continues, but one has the sense that this series is the sort that people never forget, the sort that profoundly influences a people, the sort that gets reread later.

Speaking of reading these sermons, it won't be too long, Lord willing, before they are in print in the Preaching the Word Series edited by Kent Hughes.  So be on the lookout for them.  You won't want to miss these fine expositions.  Many know Pastor Hughes' preaching, fewer O'Donnell's, as Doug is almost 30 years younger than Kent Hughes.  But despite being young, O'Donnell's preaching is quite mature. To those who've heard Doug preach it is no surprise that he has been profoundly shaped by Pastor Hughes' preaching, so much so, I think, that Doug's preaching sounds uncannily like that of Kent Hughes!  Pastor Hughes retired from pulpit ministry at College Church several years ago, but from time to time I still feel like I'm listening to him through Doug!

Inauguration Ceremony of Dr. Philip Ryken

Yesterday Wheaton College celebrated the inauguration of its eigth president: Dr. Philip G. Ryken.  The ceremony was wonderful.  The charge of president emeritus Dr. Duane Litfin and the inaugural address by Dr. Ryken left me deeply moved and spoke encouragement for Wheaton's future.  For the passing of the baton to such a man as Philip Ryken, we ought to bless and thank God.  This is the sort of man Wheaton College needs for its next chapter, more than many, I think, realize. 

President Ryken's address leaves me leaping for joy.  The title of the address was this: “A World Servant in Christian Liberal Arts Education.”  Pastor Ligon Duncan says of the title, "Don’t miss the word servant—it is not a mere slogan in the lexicon of Wheaton’s new president but a concrete aspiration. It is also clear that Phil will not be satisfied with a reductionist or ambiguous or atheological definition of evangelicalism."

I loved Dr. Ryken's vision for the "reintegration of learning with faith."  He said that reintegration is a more fitting way of thinking of faith and learning than is the "integration of faith and learning."  Why?  Because faith really is more fundamental.  And as he eloquently pointed out, the departure from faith in the garden was the first instance of learning divorced from faith.  And what a disaster that was.  So faith, he avered, must undergird and inform all learning.  Dr. Ryken also spoke of the need for Wheaton College to move toward more global engagement, even learning orthodoxy from the thriving church in the south and east.  Yes!  And amen! 

For the cause of Christ in the next generation, we ought to pray for Dr. Ryken and others in his position of influence.  May God be pleased to do a new and greater work at Wheaton college in the next couple of decades and beyond.

Directions for Communion with the Spirit

In the third section of On Communion with God, John Owen gives three general directions for communion with the Holy Spirit.  The headings are these:

(1)  Do not grieve the Spirit, the third person of the Triune God, who indwells you.
(2)  Do not quench the Spirit in his actings and motions in grace.
(3)  Do not resist the Spirit in the ordinances of Christ and his gifts for their administration.

A good start for American Christians who are seeking communion with God the Spirit is simply to start thinking and speaking of the Spirit more personally, not as some impersonal force or energy.  His personality is often affirmed on paper (or in the creed), but functionally it is often denied.  But he is a person, an infinitely glorious person, worthy of all honor, adoration, and praise.

Democratic Wisdom?

"In America, the founding fathers conceived of democracy as a way of establishing accountability by restricting power.  If the populace as a whole did not like the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of government, the ballot box provided a means of turfing them out.  Strangely, modern politicians speak of 'the wisdom of the American people,' as if special insight resides in the masses.  That was not the perception of the founding fathers; it is certainly not a Christian evaluation" (Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry, p. 16).

The Effects of Unmortified Sin

"Every unmortified sin will certainly do two things: (1) it will weaken the soul, and deprive it of its vigour; (2) it will darken the soul, and deprive it of its comfort and peace" (John Owen, Works, vol. 6. p. 22).

The Song of Songs in Eden

Tremper Longman:

"The Song of Songs, in which many poems present the man and the woman in the Garden, enjoying one another's nakedness, makes one think of Eden and understand that the Song is about the redemption of sexuality.  However, it is an already-not yet redemption because of the continuing problems acknowledged by some of the poems."  (Note that Longman sees the Song as an anthology of love poems, twenty-three in his judgment.)

Many agree that the Song takes us back to Eden in some fashion, but why does it do this?  What is being communicated?  Is there divine authorial intention in this?  Longman says that we have "an already-not yet redemption" of marriage.  Well, there is perhaps something to this, but what are the warrants for saying this?  And, more, what will the "not yet" of the redemption look like when there is no marriage in the new heavens and new earth?  (At least not like now.)  And since there is nothing like full redemption in this age, maybe "already-not yet" is not the way to speak of what the Song is doing as it takes married love back to the garden.  So what is it doing?

Are there any gardens later in Scripture that might help us answer this question?

Spiritual Depression

I am aware of no better resource for the spiritually depressed than Martyn Lloyd-Jones' now famous sermon series on Spiritual Depression.  When I've sunk for an extended time (not just for a day or two), I've often turned to this resource and have always found encouragement and light.  In fact, I just read another chapter today (after not touching the book for probably a year) since I'm going through an unusually dry and dull season.  And, again, I got help.  I highly recommend it.

Lewis on Government

"Government is at best a necessary evil" (C. S. Lewis, Letters).

The Purest Churches on Earth

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error . . ." (WCF, Ch. 25, Sect. 5).

Were the Puritans Puritanical? (Part 3)

"Married sex was not only legitimate in the Puritan view; it was meant to be exuberant.  Gouge [a Puritan pastor] said that married couples should engage in sex 'with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.'  An anonymous Puritan claimed that when two are made one by marriage they 'may joyfully give due benevolence one to another; as two musical instruments rightly fitted do make a most pleasant and sweet harmony in a well tuned consort'" (Ryken, Worldly Saints, p. 44).

The Puritans used language for married sex that is outdated, such as matrimonial duty, cohabitation, act of matrimony, but (especially, says Ryken) due benevolence.  Don't you just love that expression, due benevolence?  Try wooing your wives, men, with this sort of languange.  "For date night this week, my Love, why don't we do a nice dinner, enjoy a litte fruit of the vine, share some conversation, and then delight in due benevolence."  A surefire way to stir her affections for you, despite your balding and the extra ten pounds you gained last winter and never shed.

Were the Puritans Puritanical? (Part 2)

"A leading Puritan preacher, in giving an exposition of Proverbs 5:18-19 (which compares a wife to 'the loving hind and pleasant roe'), claimed that the hind and roe were chosen because they are most enamoured of their mates 'and even mad again in their heat and desire for them'" (Ryken, Worldly Saints, p. 39).

The Bellies of Lust Under Foot

"Let not that man think he makes any progress in holiness who walks not over the bellies of his lusts" (John Owen, Works, vol. 6, p. 14).

What's at Stake in War with Sin

"Be killing sin or [sin] will be killing you" (John Owen, Works, vol. 6, p. 9).

Were the Puritans Puritanical?

Everyone has heard it.  I mean, the heaping of opprobrium upon someone or some view (perceived to be) sexually repressed or inhibited: "Oh, how puritanical."  It's a nasty designation.  Ouch!  It hurts.  Who wants to be puritanical?  After all, the Puritans, as we all know, were sexually repressed and wierd.  And we today are so liberated, enlightened, free. 

Oh really?  Are we?  And were they?  I would submit that we haven't begun to catch up with their holy and healthy views on sex and marriage.  We could learn much from the Puritans.  Us, you say?  Yes.  Us.  The Puritans were a robust Christian people who enjoyed all of life in submission to God's word, a word that speaks robustly of sexual love.  

Some years back Leland Ryken wrote a fine and balanced treatment of the Puritans called Worldly Saints.  In chapter 3 on "Marriage and Sex," he show us just how unpuritanical the Puritans really were (and so the subtitle of the book The Puritans as the Really Were really fits).

Here's a sampling (more to come):  "When a New England wife complained, first to her pastor and then to the whole congregation, that her husband was neglecting their sex life, the church proceeded to excommunicate the man."

Such was their high view of the place of the marriage bed.  Neglecting it was, at least in one Puritan church, grounds for excommunication!

Song of Songs: The Holy of Holies

In his excellent theological survey of the Old Testament—The Faith of Israel—William Dumbrell says that early disputes about the canonicity of the Song of Songs were virtually settled by a pronouncement of Rabbi Akiba. That's powerful, you say.  So what was it?  It was this marvelous word: "The whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; all the writings are holy, and the Song of Songs is the holy of holies" (m Yadayim 3:5).

Biblically Based Political Principles

Doug Wilson doesn't know how to write a dull sentence.  And for this I love his writing.  But, and more important, I also love his writing because so much soundness and sensibility pours forth from his pen.  Here is a sample in a recent post about biblical political engagment:

"Always act, and never react. Action needs to proceed from a biblically based framework of political principles, and not from faux outrage over the fact that your gored ox is not covered by Medicaid."

The rest of the post (welll worth reading) may be found here.  But read anything within the category of Culture and Politics, especially the subcategory of Obama Nation Building.

The Message of the Song of Songs

Here is a take on the Song of Songs from the back cover of Tom Gledhill's excellent commentary:

At first reading the Song of Songs appears to be an unabashed celebration of the deeply rooted urges of physical attraction, mutual love and sexual consummation between a man and a woman. Tom Gledhill maintains that the Song of Songs is in fact just that—a literary, poetic exploration of human love that strongly affirms loyalty, beauty and sexuality in all their variety. With tender metaphor and extravagant imagery, the Song writer spins a tale of human love into the cadence of verse, innocent of our quest for historical persons behind the text. But in God’s story, human beauty, intimacy and sexuality are not ends in themselves. They are transcendental longings, whispers of immorality. Like all of creation they point beyond themselves to their divine author, who in this Song is nowhere mentioned but everywhere assumed.

Gledhill deals fairly and faithfully with this sacred text, giving due attention to the song in its historic context, noting that the realities of which the Song sings ultimately point way beyond themselves to something more lasting, more satisfying, more invigorating.  Take up, and read!  This is a very readable commentary!

The Song of Songs in Its Canonical Framework

D. A. Carson says this about how to understand the Song of Songs:

Although some have denied that this book is about sexual love in any primary sense, but is an allegory of either the love between Yahweh and Israel or between Christ and the church, I doubt it.  So many details of Song of Songs are so explicitly human and sexual (all the more so when the ancient Semitic symbolism is appreciated) that to argue that the meaning of the text is allegorical is unlikely.  Moreover, there are many parallels in other love poetry in ancient near eastern Wisdom Literature, so that one must conclude the genre was well known. 

On the other hand, after fully acknowledging the human and sexual love that this book celebrates—for God has made us human and sexual, and Wisdom Literature often focuses on the glory of the created order—we may not be far off the mark if we also see, within the canonical framework, a typological connection with God and Israel, with Christ and the church. For that is a theme repeatedly picked up in both Testaments (see, for instance, Hosea, or Rev. 21).

At some later date, as God allows, since I think Carson is on track, I hope to provide reasons from within Scripture itself why the Song should be understood typologically within its canonical context.  I also hope to work out in a rudimentary way an approach to the Song that steers clear of two extremes: the first I will call the literalist approach (common today, especially among scholars); and the second, the allegorist approach.  I think the swing from the allegorist interpretation (dominant throughout the history of the church and the history of Jewish interpretation) to the literalist interpretation is intriguing and even perhaps telling.

A Soul that has the Spirit may Say

"'The world hates me,' may such a soul as has the Spirit say; 'but my Father loves me. Men despise me as a hypocrite; by my Father loves me as a child. I am poor in this world; but I have a rich inheritance in the love of my Father. I am straitened in all things; but there is bread enough in my Father's house. I mourn in secret under the power of my lusts and sin, where no eye sees me; but the Father sees me, and is full of compassion.  With a sense of his kindness, which is better than life, I rejoice in tribulation, glory in affliction, triumph as a conqueror.'"

(Once again, balm from Owen's pen in On Communion with God, from the third division on communion with the Holy Spirit.)

Understand Thou What Thou Readest?

New Covenant Church pastor Doug O'Donnell's first sermon in a series on the Song of Songs, titled Understand Thou What Thou Readest?, provides a helpful orientation to the Song of Songs.  The title indicates that this is a book that requires explanation, that requires a guide, like the Ethiopian eunuch needed a guide to understand Isaiah's prophesy (Acts 8).  So Doug explains S. of S. 1:1 and gives "four guide posts" for approaching the book.

The four guide posts:

1)  This is a song (1:1 identifies the genre).
2)  It's a song about human love set in the context of marriage.
3)  This is a song about marriage love found in the Bible .
4)  It's written to give us wisdom (it participates in the wisdom genre). 

I found this sermon personally helpful and encouraging, especially the first guide post.  The first guide post tells us that we're reading poetry, not prose, or anything else.  And so we should let it function as poetry and have its full impact.  The sermon also has a number of healthy injuctions for the married and unmarried alike.

May we be doers of the word and not hearers only!

The Song of Songs Typological?

Does the Song of Songs include typology?

Here is Graham Cole's definition of typology taken from his book He Who Gives Life (p. 289):

The idea that persons (e.g., Moses), events (e.g., the exodus), and institutions (e.g., the temple) can—in the plan of God—prefigure a later stage in that plan and provide the conceptuality necessary for understanding the divine intent (e.g., the coming of Christ to be the new Moses, to effect the new exodus, and to be the new temple).

This definition seems to summarize fairly well most if not all that this biblical phenomenon intends.  (And, incidentally, the prefiguring or pointing is by way of patterns and models intended and warranted by Scripture itself.)

Now, assuming Cole's is a good definition, back to the question: Does the Song of Songs qualify as typology or contain typological elements?  A second question: May we discern typological authorial intention?  One more: If so, how?

Interpreting the Song of Songs

In part 2 of  John Owen's On Communion with God, the point of departure and then the place of exposition for describing communion with the Son is the Song of Songs.  I said in an earlier post that I wanted to come back to this and give some of my thoughts on the propriety of this approach, knowing full well what most today think of this.  I do believe that the Song of Songs is fundamentally human love poetry.  It is about married love, conjugal love, between a man and a woman.  No doubt about it.  And yet. . . .

Owen says this of the Song of Songs:  "In brief, this whole book is taken up in the description of the communion that is present between the Lord Christ and his saints."  Who would agree with this today?  But is there any sense in which this is true, even if we assert (as I believe we must) that the Song of Songs is love poetry expressing union and communion between a man and a woman in the context of a marriage covenant?

When Grace Dances

Isaiah 54:1, following the suffering and anguish of Isaiah 53, comes with an explosive change of tone and mood.  It shouts!  It sings!  It glories!  And Pastor Ray Ortulund says this of it and of us: 

Isaiah looks at the sin-bearing servant of the Lord and has one thing to say to us: 'Break forth into singing and cry aloud' (54:1).  In other words, 'Let joyful song explode out of you!'  We resist that.  Isaiah 54:1 may be one of the most disobeyed commands in the Bible.  Our exaggerated sense of decorum is the last bastion of pride holding out against the gospel.  Some churches make it a virtue.  But God doesn't.  In his exuberance he's creating a new world of boisterous happiness through Christ.  We must rejoice with him, or we risk making our hearts impervious to salvation, because that holy but raucous joy is salvation.

How are we doing?  Are we full of "that holy but raucous joy" that "is salvation"?  Are we marked by "boisterous happiness through Christ"?  Is this the feel of our corporate gatherings?  Or is there more of a cool and calm detachment about it all, perhaps on account of "our exaggerated sense of decorum"?  This may be "the last bastion of pride holding out against the gospel."  And it may betray more concern about what we think others would think of us (which is man-centeredness) if unrestrained praise and worship broke forth from full hearts moved by grace to dance and sing, to shout and leap for joy!

May God be pleased to overwhelm us with gladness in the glories of the Gospel of the grace of God!

Mohler on Evolution

Al Mohler on evolutionary theory in relation to Genesis and the Gospel:  "There is no way to affirm an historical Adam while holding to any mainstream model of evolution, and there is no way to affirm the Gospel without an historical Adam."  The quotation comes from Dr. Mohler's post today at AlMohler.com.  Here is the title and link: ‘Prettifying’ Darwin—A Timely Look at a Losing Strategy.

The Holy Spirit Versus a False Spirit

From the third division of Owen's On Communion with God, which addresses communion with the Holy Spirit, we're given this golden wisdom to help us discern the ministry of the Spirit of Christ versus a false spirit:

The Holy Ghost sheds abroad the love of God in our hearts . . . and thence fills them with joy, peace, and hope; quieting and refreshing the hearts of them in whom he dwells; giving them liberty and rest, confidence, and the boldness of children. This spirit whereof men now boast is a spirit of bondage, whose utmost work is to make men quake and tremble; casting them into an un-son-like frame of spirit, driving them up and down with horror and bondage, and drinking up their very natural spirits, and making their whole man wither away. There is scare any one thing that more evidently manifests the spirit whereby some are now acted not to be the Comforter promised by Christ, than this—that he is a spirit of bondage and slavery in them in whom he is, and a spirit of cruelty and reproach toward others; in a direct opposition to the Holy Ghost in believers, and all the ends and purposes for which, as a spirit of adoption and consolation, he is bestowed on them.

My response is simply this plea: O Lord, our Father, be pleased for Jesus' sake, to pour out more of your eternal love, through the pouring out of your Spirit into our hearts, as we look to the Christ in faith as our Pardon, Righteousness, Treasure, and King.  Amen.

Missionary Motivation: The Imperial Majesty of Jesus and the Glory of His Empire

A good follow-up to yesterday's post on the sermon by Matt Newkirk is this stirring word from John Stott's commentary on Rom. 1:5:

The highest of all missionary motives is neither obedience to the Great Commission (important as that is), nor love for sinners who are alienated and perishing (strong as that incentive is, especially when we contemplate the wrath of God, verse 18), but rather zeal—burning and passionate zeal—for the glory of Jesus Christ.

Some evangelism, to be sure, is no better than a thinly disguised form of imperialism, whenever our real ambition is for the honour of our nation, church, organization, or ourselves.  Only one imperialism is Christian, however, and that is concern for his Imperial Majesty Jesus Christ, and for the glory of his empire or kingdom.  The earliest Christians, John tells us, went out 'for the sake of the Name.'  He does not even specify to which name he is referring.  But we know.  And Paul tells us.  It is the incomparable name of Jesus.  Before this supreme goal of the Christian mission, all unworthy motives wither and die.

So, my cushy American brothers and sisters, let's get fired up for the sake of the Name and either go with passionate zeal or send with equally passionate zeal, laboring in word, deed, and prayer until the earth is covered with the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

Jerusalem the Bride

Last week I posted part one of a two-part series on the book of Revelation preached by New Covenant Church pastor Matt Newkirk.  Here is the next bit: Part 2: Jerusalem the Bride.  Last week's sermon was good, this week's even better.  Don't miss this one.  Get a grand vision for the church, the world, and the world to come.

Here's an outline of the sermon from my wife's stellar notetaking skills (which I don't possess):

How should life in the new Jerusalem inform our lives now?
1) Life in the new Jerusalem is more communal than individual.
2) Life in the new Jersualem is more priestly than casual.
3) Life in the new Jerusalem is contingent upon a right relationship with the Lamb.

The biblical theology of this exposition embraces the sweep of the Bible's revelation.  The systematic theology undergirding the eschatology betrays coherency and care.  The pastoral theology models truly pastoral pulpit ministry.  The pastoral application, fitting for our day and our times (as application always should be!), is wisdom for the endurance of the saints. 

Only one question I have after listening, which you might ask yourself as you listen: how do points one and two (as they are fleshed out in the sermon) relate to each other?  How should our communal vision influence our priestly ministry?  Matt spoke of one way, that is, by adding to our number through evangelism.  And amen!  But what more could be said?  And, more importantly, practiced!

Open Your Eyes Christian: Higher Education

Thoughtful Christians (yeah, yeah, I know, these are in short supply nowadays) will want to take a look at breeders no more and then they are all mine.  For the love of God, please think about these issues.  It appears that many in the baby-boomer generation were too drunk with worldly pursuits to bother about such things.  But the damaging effects of that inebriation are upon us.  And those effects will be more horrifying if Christians don't get their heads out of the sand and, most importantly, call upon the name of the Lord of hosts for deliverance.  We're reaping what we've sown for generations now.

Great Texts

One of the great texts of Scripture: "Let not him who straps on his armor boast himself like he who takes it off" (1 Kgs. 20:11).  This is king Ahab's retort to Ben-hadad's taunt.  Love it.  Sounds like: "Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk."

The Peace of Christ

I'm going to begin a new category or two of posts that includes clear and concise definitions (sometimes with expansions) of important theological terms.  The term for this post is peace.  There is both a vertical and horizontal dimension to the experience and reality of peace, but the Godward dimension is primary and foundational in Scripture.  And I'll lean, as so often I do, on my beloved friend John Owen for help here.

Here is a definition of peace given by Owen as he comments on the work of the Holy Spirit from Jn. 14:27, which reads: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you."  These are, of course, Jesus' words.  And Owen says of them: "The peace of Christ consists in the soul's sense of its acceptance with God in friendship."  That's it.  This is a good definition of the primary dimension of peace. Owen then expands: "So Christ is said to be 'our peace' (Eph. 2:14) by slaying the enmity between God and us and in taking away the handwriting against us.  'Being justified by faith, we have peace with God' (Rom. 5:1).  A comforatable persuasion of our acceptance with God in Christ is the bottom of this peace; it [includes] deliverance from eternal wrath, hatred, curse, condemnation—all sweetly affecting the soul and conscience."

Now as mentioned, there is also a horizontal dimension to peace, that is, between humans flowing from peace with God.  The fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 almost certianly primarily has this horizontal dimension in view, as the context makes clear.  Yet, since peace with God is foundational to peace with others, the vertical dimension, I would argue, is not out of view even when horizontal peace is in view.  In fact, the vertical dimension of our lives is never out of view.  For we always live coram Deo, always before the face of God.

"Short-Cut" Word Study

Word studies are part and parcel of the exegetical process by which every preacher and teacher comes to terms with an author's intended meaning.  But most of the time an exhaustive word search is neither necessary nor possible for the finite preacher or teacher with limited time.  So Professor G. K. Beale's "short-cut" word study is very helpful.  Here it is in my own words:

1.  Check BDAG for the range of possible meanings.
2.  Check a Greek concordance to trace the usage of a word in the NT, especially within the corpus of the author whose writing you are studying.  (The same would be true for the OT, but using a Hebrew concordance, of course.)
3.  Give most attention to the usage by your author, especially where the word occurs in the book under study.
4.  Labor to discern which possible meaning works best in the context under study.  Comparing your findings with the best commentaries should be helpful at this stage.  When you are finished, you must justify your conclusions based on the context in which the word occurs, not based on etymology or usage elsewhere.

The Holy Spirit at Work

"When we find any of the good truths of the gospel come home to our souls with life, vigor, and power, giving us gladness of heart, transforming us into the image and likeness of it—the Holy Ghost is then at his work, is pouring out of his oil."—John Owen

Underestimating What Children Can Learn

Here is a good word from Dr. Peter Leithart about teaching children, from the preface of his book A House for My Name:

I encourage parents not to underestimate what children can learn about the Bible.  Unlike many books of theology, the content of the Bible is fairly easy to grasp.  Even (especially?) a two-year-old understands what happens when someone's head is bashed with a tent peg.  If trained to read properly, children can begin to see how parts of the Bible are connected to each other and to one big story.

It has been my experience that too often it is assumed, not least in Christian circles, that children need an adult brain before they can really start learning.  Alas!  It's probably then that it's too late for some of the most important learning to take place, with years of sponginess and inquisitiveness gone and forever lost.

(By the way, in case you missed it, the tent peg reference is from the book of Judges, when Jael pounded a tent peg through Sisera's head, just before one of the great songs of Scripture.)

Babylon The Harlot

Last Lord's Day, Pastor Matt Newkirk of New Covenant Church in Naperville preached the first part of a two-part series from Revelation.  It is a sturdy, strengthening word!  His grasp of how the antithesis in Revelation bears upon contemporary application is both insightful, and more important, a stirring call to flee idolatry, to flee Bablyon and align with the City of God.  In the first half of the exposition, Matt also gives a good overview of how to come at Revelation, full of apocalyptic imagery as it is, a much needed word of instruction in light of (or in the darkness of) the silly mishandling of the Apocalypse so prevalent in evangelicalism.  Here is the sermon: The Two Cities of Revelation: Part I--Babylon The Harlot.  See the same website next week for part two. 

A biographical word on Matt.  Matt is a full-time Ph.D. student at Wheaton College under Dr. Block.  He attended Reformed Theological Seminary prior to Wheaton, where he obtained the M.Div.  He grew up in a strong Christian home and within the PCA.  Before receiving the second blessing of the Spirit, Matt was part of a Christian rock band.  Most important of all, he is married to Caroline, his best friend, with whom God has recently brought forth their first little one, a lovely little girl named Lydia.  Blessed be God, Matt and Caroline are heading to Japan, when they finish up at Wheaton, to serve and strengthen the growing church there.  Matt will be working alongside and under the leadership of Michael Oh, president of Christ Bible Seminary.  Continue to look for Matt Newkirk, as no doubt you'll profit much from the instruction of this budding pastor-scholar.

Content with Notions of the Truth?

"When men content themselves . . . with notions of the truth, without laboring after an experience of them in their hearts, and the bringing forth the fruit of them in their lives . . . a decay must needs ensue."—John Owen

Who We Really Are

"Indeed, what men are in these duties [prayer and meditation] (I mean as to faith and love in them), that they are, and no more."—John Owen

Prophets or Professionals in Pulpits?

Do we want prophets or professionals in our pulpits, men of steel or boys of the cloth?  O, Lord, give us vertebrates!

A word from that prince of preachers, C. H. Spurgeon: "Give us all the vulgarities of the wildest back-woods' itinerant rather than the perfumed prettinesses of effeminate gentility."

Amen.

What a Piece of Work is a Man!

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties . . . in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god."—Shakespeare

Social Grace and Supernatural Grace

I think I've put my finger upon something about middle class and upper middle class conservative Christian society, not least of the Wheaton variety: social grace, it seems, may well be mistaken for supernatural grace.  So here's a question: Are tidy, clean-nosed Christians who live in affluent societies with significant social expectations more prone to mistake social grace for supernatural grace?  I think so.  I think it's a danger for my corner of the Christian world. 

And by the way, I'm not slamming social grace!  That can be a proper outworking of Christian faith.  However, it mustn't ever be more influential than or mistaken for supernatural grace.  A tidy, clean life can go to hell while observing all the acceptable and respectable social graces.

Heaven on Earth: Divine Love

Speaking of trinitarian love toward us—the fountain of divine love in the Father's sending of the Son, the purchase of the benefits of the Father's love, and the application of that love by the Spirit—John Owen speaks sanity to worldly madness: "What we have of heaven in this world lies herein." Oh for more of that sort of heaven on earth! For heaven is a world of trinitarian love.

Authentic Christian Experience: A Sense of God's Love on the Heart

"Hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us" (Rom. 5:5).  In On Communion with God, John Owen rightly points out that this is God's love for us, not our love for God, as the context makes crystal clear.  With genitival phrases, context is all.  Hermenuetics 101.  Owen got it.  Owen then says that the love of God in Scripture speaks of either God's love of purpose to do us good or of the love of acceptance and approval with God. 

Now, for the heart of this post, and the heart of Christianity: experiencing God's love on the heart. Owen asks this question: "Now, how can these [God's love of purpose to do us good and God's love of acceptance and approval] be shed abroad in our hearts?" Answer: "Not in themselves, but in a sense of them—in a spiritual apprehension of them." That's it. That's what's often missing in intellectualistic forms of religion that try to pass for Christianity.

To be sure, Christianity embraces the mind, the intellect. But that's not all. If that's all one has, a cognitive experience of the faith, one does not have Christian experience. Christian experience always includes this sixth sense of divine realities on the heart, melting it, moving it, satisfying it, rejoicing it. God's love is apprehended spiritually, that is to say, by the Spirit shed abroad in our hearts as we behold the glory of the once-crucified and now-risen Lord Jesus, who loved us and gave himself for us. A sense of this on the heart, really tasted, really perceived, is worth more than ten thousand worlds, worth more than all the pleasures, experiences, and evidences this world can afford. And it goes infinitely deeper, down into the depths of eternity past, taking us into eternity future—and there holds us in divine love, sent by the Father, purchased by the Son, shed abroad by the Holy Spirit.

An Evident Sign of a False Spirit

"This is an evident sign of a false spirit, whatever its pretense be, if it glorify not that Christ who was now speaking to his apostles; and such are many that are gone abroad into the world" (John Owen commenting on Jn. 16:14).

Always ask:  Does this glorify Christ?  Is the dominant note the glory of Christ?  Is Jesus Christ being set forth as supreme and all-sufficient?  If not, this is a sure sign of a false spirit.  The spirit behind such is not the Spirit of Christ, the third person of the triune God. 

So how does the typical televangelist or teacher or preacher fare?

Marks of Authentic Faith

In Ps. 40, we see the faith of David in action.  Amid his trials and tribulations, set before our eyes are two essential ingredients of genuine faith: (1) patient waiting; and (2) confident trust.  These are even two checks to discern whether or not there is true faith in our hearts amid our trials and tribulations.  Oftentimes we think, speak, and act as though faith is just intellectual assent.  It's not less than that, of course; but it's so much more.  And without that more, there is no saving, gracious faith.

Now David's faith in Ps. 40.  First, look at verse 1: "I waited patiently for YHWH; he inclined to me and heard my cry."  Here is patient waiting for the Lord's deliverence amid evils beyond number encompassing David, amid iniquities overtaking him so he could not see (v. 12).  True faith.  This is what it looks like.  How long David waited, we're not sure.  But he had to wait.  Deliverence was not immediate.  Fill in the blank with your evils-encompassing-you-beyond-number, with your iniquities-overtaking-you-so-you-cannot-see.  And then wait patiently for the Lord's deliverence.  It will come.  Count on it.

Second, note the confidence of verse 11:  "As for you, O YHWH, you will not restrain your mercy from me; your steadfast love and your faithfulness will ever preserve me!"  David knows his God, has tasted his ways and seen his heart, and so looks boldy for God to act in accordance with his revealed character and works.  He will do it again, David says to himself, this faithful, covenant-keeping God of steadfast love and mercy.  So as you wait patiently for the Lord's deliverance in your "pit of destruction," your "miry bog," remember who your God is and how he acts toward his own.  Consider and count on the grace, mercy, and love of God in Christ.  He'll put your feet on a rock, making your steps secure! (v. 2).  Do not doubt that!  He is faithful; he will bring it to pass.

So there it is: patient waiting, and confident trust.  The stuff of real faith.  May God be pleased to grant an increase of genuine faith in our churches.  And why do I pray this?  For the same reason David experienced deliverence in Ps. 40: that God's great deliverences might be told and sung in our congregations (vv. 9 and 10).

Cause or Result in Psychiatric Disorders?

From the introduction of The Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, 3rd edition, Armand Nicholi, MD, says this about the state of psychiatry:

Progress in psychiatry continues in many directions.  More rigorously controlled studies have replaced the relatively unsophisticated research of the past.  Investigators have focused on establishing the neurological substrates of psychiatric disorders--that is, on ascertaining the specific parts of the brain associated with the disturbed thinking, feeling, and behavior of these disorders.  They continue to search for structural, metabolic, and physiological abnormalities that may be clues to the cure of particular illnesses.  And they do so with the full realization that even the identification of such abnormalities will leave unanswered the question of whether they are the cause or the result of the disorder. 

Italics mine.  This last sentence is worth filing away.  Again and again you will be told that specific, identifiable abormalities anatomically or physiologically, say, as seen on an imaging study, give us the cause of this or that condition.  But it just doesn't necessarily follow.

The Life and Soul of All Our Comforts

Owen on the ministry of the Spirit (from On Communion with God):

The life and soul of all our comforts lie treasured up in the promises of Christ.  They are the breasts of all our consolation.  Who knows not how powerless they are in the bare letter, even when improved to the uttermost by our considerations of them, and meditation on them?  As also how unnexpectedly they sometimes break upon the soul with a conquering, endearing life and vigor?  Here faith deals peculiarly with the Holy Ghost.  It considers the promises themselves; looks up to him, waits for him, considers his appearances in the word depended upon--owns him in his work and efficacy.  No sooner does the soul begin to feel the life of a promise warming his heart, relieving, cherishing, supporting, delivering from fear, entanglements, or troubles, but it may, it ought, to know that the Holy Ghost is there; which will add to his joy and lead him into fellowship with him.

Now this is the heart of all my joy, comfort, peace, and life in this mad hatter world.

The Spirit: The Third Person of the Triune God

Recently, in God's good providence, I've gotten to know fairly well a man who is a Jehovah's Witness.  And after speaking with him regularly for a number of weeks about Christianity, I'm more attuned to seeing crucial things in crucial passages of Scripture.  I'm noting awesome realities in my regular reading with greater sensitivity, things so easy to pass over.  Here's one from this morning's devotions:

"But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as he wills" (1 Cor. 12:11).  Remembering, not forgetting (as always), the context, we read here of the grace-gifts that the Spirit apportions to believers.  And how does he do this?  He does this "just as he wills" or "even as he desires."  The personality of the Spirit is obviously in view.  Only persons exercise volition.  And as John Owen points out on this text, only a person can exercise the choice and judgement and freedom requisite for distributing variously to individuals according to good pleasure.  The Spirit's deity is also in view, for only one who is divine may distribute supernatural gifts sovereignly, that is, as he pleases.  So here, in one, short little text, we have the deity and personality of the Spirit, seated in a broader context that affirms that there is one God (8:6).  In the more immediate context, the deity of the Spirit and the unity of God are affirmed: it is "the same God who works all things in all" (12:6).  So unitarianism is out.  Tritheism is out.  Modalism is out.  And ten thousand other heresies. 

And since theology is indubitably for doxology: All praise be to the three-in-one and one-in-three God, Father, Son, and Spirit, who lives and reigns forever, one God, world without end. Amen!

I love the Bible.  It's so clear, so bright.  Hold fast to its plain teachings, and you'll never be led astray.

Lord of the Conscience

The Westminster Confession of Faith was produced in 1647.  Em and I have been reading it at dinner for a number of weeks now.  Chapter XX On Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience is one of my favorite chapters.  Section 2 begins with this marvelous clause: "God alone is Lord of the conscience. . . ."  We would do well always to take heed of this.  O sweet liberty!  Man would rule over the conscience, but he may not do so.  It's not his prerogative.  "God alone is Lord of the conscience."

No Cross, No Crown

Last Sunday's sermon at New Covenant Church was a call to a cruciform life.  Really, it was about basic discipleship, what it means to follow Jesus, what it means to be a Christian.  Pastor Doug O'Donnell is the preacher; the title is "No Cross, No Crown."  This is no-nonsense pulpit ministry, because (as Doug said in the sermon) the Bible is a no-nonsense book.

As a personal aside, I have been wrestling this week with why on earth I am studying Hebrew in an intensive class at Wheaton College, not least because I have to work two days a week during part of this (days off for the others; yes, self-pity is a daily temptation).  I realized that vain ambition can get me through a lot, but not Hebrew.  I'd sooner take my ease and enjoy the summer.  The cross alone has the power to kill my desires for ease and comfort and pleasure.  Only because I believe that the Lord Jesus has called me to embrace this am I afflicting myself with intensive Hebrew.  O blessed cross!  There I was crucified to the world of summer ease, and there the world of summer ease was crucified to me.  And Pastor O'Donnell's sermon has been a timely call for me to deny myself for the sake of handling God's holy Word with still greater care and fidelity.  Thank you, Lord, for the preached Word that calls me to die daily--for Messiah's sake!  The cross is all!

What is Calvinism?

Now here is a description of Calvinism with which I heartily agree:

It would not be correct simply to equate Calvinism with the 'five points'. . . .  Calvinism is something much broader than the 'five points' indicate.  Calvinism is a whole world-view, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world's Maker and King.  Calvinism is the consistent endeavor to acknowledge the Creator as the Lord, working all things after the counsel of his will.  Calvinism is a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God's own word.  Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible--the God-centered outlook which sees the Creator as the source, and means, and end, of everything that is, both in nature and in grace.  Calvinism is thus theism (belief in God as the ground of all things), religion (dependence on God as the giver of all things), and evangelicalism (trust in God through Christ for all things), all in their purest and most highly developed form.  And Calvinism is a unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in God's world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of his great preordained plan for his creatures and his church.  The five points assert no more than that God is sovereign in saving the individual, but Calvinism, as such, is concerned with the much broader assertion that he is sovereign everywhere.

J. I. Packer is the name, and theological packing it in is his game.  This one is from A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life.  And in this section of the book, Packer goes on to explain even further why the "five points" are inadequate in describing what Calvinism is.  Good stuff.  Do take up and read.

Christology and Soteriology Determine Ecclesiology

In the controversy between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, there are theological assumptions driving everything that are not often stated baldly.  In a recent sermon by Pastor Doug O'Donnell, he said something that encouraged some things that I've been pondering of late.  He stated something like this: Christology and soteriology precede and produce ecclesiology (not an exact quotation, but I think I have the substance right). 

In Roman Catholocism, ecclesiology (and specifically the offices of the Church) has priority and defines everything else. 

In Protestantism,  Christology and soteriology (the person and work of Christ) have priority and define everything else.

Which follows the biblical pattern?  Which is more foundational?  Oftentimes the debate proceeds as though historical theology and exegeting individual texts (particularly those that relate to the doctrine of the nature of the Church) alone can solve the controversy.  While exegesis is important, even essential and indispensible, of course, one must ask whether an appropriate method has been used, whether an apostolic way of proceeding has been undertaken.  Do the apostles themselves start with the Church in their thinking about Christianity?  Or do they and others think about the Church on account of Christ's person and work?

The same kind of question asked of the canon is relevent here.  Did the Church produce the canon, or did the canon produce the Church?  Answer: The canon produced the Church, of course.  Well, now, does the Gospel precede and produce the Church, or does the Church precede and produce the Gospel?  The answer should be obvious, and doubtless Rome would agree.  And the point then is that this is significant methodologically as the Church thinks about all doctrines, not least those of ecclesiology.  So if one gets the Gospel muddled, as Rome most certainly does, then necessarily ecclesiology will be muddled as well.

Christ Alone Gives the Spirit and All Grace

"Believers Look to Christ as the Dispenser of the Spirit and of All Grace."  This is the heading of a marvelous section in Owen's On Communion with God that addresses communion with the Son Jesus Christ.  Almost a definition of what it means to be a saint, here is what the saints do: they look upon Christ as the only dispenser of the Spirit and all grace for sanctification.  

Based upon a threefold lack, the risen Christ gives to his own the Spirit to dwell in them (as a pledge of the inheritance of the children of God); he imparts life to them in the Spirit (which habitually inclines to holiness); and he gives to them actual aid by the Spirit for every duty to which they are called (seasonable grace to help in time of need).  Then Owen asserts: 

In vain is help looked for from other mountains; in vain do men spend their strength in following after righteousness. . . .  Fix your soul here. . . . This is the way, the only way, to obtain full, effectual manifestations of the Spirit's dwelling in us; to have our hearts purified, our consciences purged, our sins mortified, our graces increased, our souls made humble, holy, zealous, believing--like to him; to have our lives fruitful, our deaths comfortable.  Let us herein abide, eyeing Christ by faith, to attain that measure of conformity to him that is allotted to us in this world, that when we shall see him as he is, we shall be like unto him.

Once again Owen provides the stuff of faith.  Evangelical holiness is what the Puritans called it.  Which I like a lot.  May the risen Lord Jesus be pleased to pour forth more of his Spirit upon his blood-bought bride, as we look to him in faith as the only source of the Spirit and of all grace.

Dancing in the Minefields

Em and I have really enjoyed this music video, especially the last portion where the old, married couples who've gone the distance are dancing.  (The fruit and joys of covenant commitment!)  It's called Dancing in the Minefields by Andrew Peterson.   I love it's biblical realism.  We live in a fallen, broken world, and we suffer from indwelling sin.  But it also seems a bit more pessimistic than is warranted by the Gospel and Scripture regarding sanctification possibilities, not least in a marriage. 

Em and I have been married almost three years now, and we wouldn't say that our marriage is a minefield.  We wouldn't quite put it that way.  The Word and Wisdom of God have kept us from the explosive folly of our own ways.  (Mind you, the Lord has not given us children yet.)  But each realizes that the other is a sinner in need of a Savior.  And with the Savior directing us in grace, we dance.  Oh how we're dancing together to the tune of the free grace of God.  Blessed be his great name!

Bible-Driven Calvinism

The evangelical wing of the Church in which I came to Christ--for which I never cease blessing God--by and large embraces Calvinism's soteriology.  But much of the evangelicalism with which I am familiar does not openly teach a full-orbed view of God's sovereignty with far-reaching scope. There are numerous exceptions.  For instance, Bethlehem Baptist Church, to name one.  Christ Church in Moscow Idaho also comes to mind.

In the course of my ordinary, daily Bible reading over the last ten years or so, repeatedly I've been shocked by text after text that boldy speaks of God's absolute sovereignty.  The texts are literally everywhere, and one notices them particularly in Old Testament narrative, where they are starkly set in daily life.  This one is from a recent assigned reading:

Judg. 9:23: "And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem, and the leaders of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech. . . ."  Read the rest of the chapter, and note the strife, wreckage, and bloodshed that follow.  Of course God himself does not sin; don't be silly, we should say, and read the rest of the Bible.  But his sovereignty is absolute, and it embraces "evil" as well.

Among evangelicals who call themselves Calvinists, there is oftentimes a truncated view of God's sovereignty, which focuses chiefly on God's sovereignty in salvation, not everywhere.  And it's not so much that God's sovereignty is denied explicity.  It's denied functionally, from lack.  In a day of rampant functional deism, it would be salutary, in my estimation, for the full-orbed, robust, biblical atomosphere of God's total control to be set forth.  As for me and my house, in any case, God's absolute rule is beyond dispute, beyond precious.

The Israel of God

After my conversion about a dozen years ago, I read the Bible voraciously.  After graduating from college, I think I typically read carefully about 10-20 chapters a day for a number of years, initially getting up at 4:30 or so in the morning to fit it all in before starting work at 8:00.  As a newborn believer, I was reared in what could be called moderate dispensationalism, heavily influenced by John MacArthur (especially, I think, the earlier, less Calvinistic, John MacArthur). 

Well, to get to the point, in the course of my regular Bible reading over the first six or seven years or so, I continued bumping up against texts that rocked my world and jarred the inherited system.  My wife and I read some verses this morning that were part of the shaping and shifting that began some years ago.  I don't think I'll ever get over being stunned by these texts.  Here are just a couple from this morning, with brief commentary, from amid the dozens of similar texts strewn across the revelation of God.

Gal. 3:29:  "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."  Those who belong to Jesus, and they alone, are the true children of Abraham and inherit God's promises to him.  National Israel and Jews detached from Jesus have no portion in this inheritance.  Apart from union with Christ, they remain children of the devil, as Christ himself taught, lost and dead in tresspasses and sins.

Death in His Grave

I recently purchased John Mark McMillan's new album The Medicine.  I really like the song "Death in His Grave."  Have a look and listen. Over at Justin Taylor's website some days ago it was posted with a high recommendation.

God Moves in a Mysterious Way

William Cowper produced in 1774 what is probably my favorite hymn: God Moves in a Mysterious Way. It expresses the mysteries and glories of Providence, learned through real-life experience of God's all-wise Word and ways.

Cowper battled depression and despair almost all life long. He even spent considerable time in a mental institution. Believing while afflicted of soul, he wrote a number of poems and hymns, one of which has powerfully touched my soul.

So here I reproduce Cowper's hymn that surely is matter for mediation, that surely is the raw material of counseling. No one could go wrong getting it by heart. 

God moves in a mysterious way
his wonders to perform;
he plants his footsteps in the sea,
and rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
of never failing skill
he treasures up his bright designs
and works his sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
the clouds ye so much dread
are big with mercy, and shall break
in blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
but trust him for his grace,
behind a frowning providence
he hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast,
unfolding ev'ry hour;
the bud may have a bitter taste,
but sweet will be the flow'r.

Blind unbelief is sure to err,
and scan his work in vain;
God is his own interpreter,
and he will make it plain.

Faced with suffering and loss, these words and others like them are what I want to hear again and again. My wife and I love the doctrine of providence. And we are learning to love and trust the infinitely trustworthy God who reigns supreme still more and more with each passing day as we stand in grace and exult in hope of the glory of God.

God is so wise, so good, so just. We eat and drink ten thousand providential mercies every day. There is no place we'd rather be than in the hands of this sovereign Lord, our heavenly Father, who never errs as he governs all things wisely and well—for his glory and our good. Bless his holy name.

The Power and Pleasure of the Word in the Local Church

Something a bit unusual occurred last Sunday.  At New Covenant Church in Naperville, since our senior pastor Doug O'Donnell fell ill, and was therefore unable to preach, we shifted and did something that we've never done before.  Pastor Andrew Fulton led our corporate time ordinarily reserved for a sermon by reading 2 Peter right through and then opening up a time for impromptu congregational insights and applications (since no one who had a voice had prepared a sermon). 

It seems the Word simply read, pondered, and straightaway applied was felt powerfully and movingly by God's people.  A rich and sweet time!  Many rank and file believers spoke feelingly and stirringly in response to Peter's second epistle.  I confess that what many said greatly encouraged my faith, not least because it came from about a dozen brothers and sisters who ordinarily don't publicly encourage the body.  May that good Word, and the good words in response to it, continue to bear fruit and multiply among us--for the sake of the Name in our midst, in Naperville, and to the ends of the earth!

As a caveat, this is not said at all (how can I stress this enough?) in deprecation of the preached Word by specially endowed ministers of that Word that is above all earthly powers.  Nothing can replace that.  Nothing.  Whatever.  Ever.  My view of preaching, and its indispensibility for the life and health of the local and global Church, is as high I hope as anyone's.  Preaching is the corporate high point of every week.  Nevertheless, it should be duly noted with gratitude: God was pleased, it seems, to bless the simple reading of his Word and our simple, untrained and unprepared response to it.  Bless his holy name!

Bible Meditation Amid Loose Women in the Checkout Aisle

At the last monthly New Covenant Church community chat, I spoke briefly about a men's ministry memorization effort that will shortly be underway.  The banner over the effort is Ps. 119:11: "Your Word, O LORD, have I treasured in my heart, that I might not sin against you!"  In order to motivate the men biblically, I gave four scriptural reasons why we should consider memorizing Scripture as a regular discipline.  All of these fall under the rubric of communion with God.  Briefly here they are in four Ds, along with some Scripture references: 

Delight  (Pss. 1:2; 19:10; 119:97; Jer. 15:6)
Desperation  (Psalms everywhere; e.g., Pss. 16:8; 130:1)
Dependence  (Jn. 15:5; Ps. 119:105)
Duty  (Mt. 28:18-20)

I spoke about how the men might go about the memory work, namely, by meditating as they go about their way each day--in the shower, while brushing teeth, on the treadmill, in the car, and so forth.  But I failed to mention another important time for meditating on the Word of God in the ordinary, ho-hum, humdrum, mundane of daily life: the checkout line.  I almost always do it there.  Of necessity.  (For all four reasons mentioned above.)  It's either that, pondering things above; or it's pondering things below, like loose women hanging out in magazine racks both sides of the aisle, breasts falling out of what I think is supposed to be clothing.

Spurgeon on God's Absolute Sovereingty

I first heard the quotation below on God's absolute sovereignty in a lecture that John Piper gave on C. H. Spurgeon in 1995 at Desiring God's Conference for Pastors: Charles Spurgeon: Preaching through Adversity.  It's one of my favorite Spurgeon quotes, and Justin Taylor recently reproduced it on his blog.  I record it here mainly for my own soul to return to again and again--because it's so good, so right, so true, so solid.

Charles Spurgeon on the absoluteness of God's sovereignty:

I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes—
that every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit, as well as the sun in the heavens—
that the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses.
The creeping of an aphid over the rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence—
the fall of sere leaves from a poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche.

This is exactly what I believe.  And I believe, exactly what Scripture affirms.  Which is why I believe it.  For from him and through him and to him are all things--to him be the glory forever!  Amen! (Rom. 11:36).

Unholy Diversion

Section VIII of Pascal's Pensees, entitled "Diversion," includes these two profound sentences:

"Being unable to cure death, wretchedness and ignorance, men have decided, in order to be happy, not to think about such things" (#133).

"I have often said that the sole cause of man's unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room" (#136).

I poked around in this portion of the Pensees today, having recieved some stimulus over at Between Two Worlds to do so.  There is much in the Pensees to think about and heed for the modern American.  And I confess feeling much more at home with Pascal than with most Americans who are constantly worked into a dither about this and about that inconsequential distraction.  Perhaps you'll consider staying home in the quiet of your room to take up and meditate upon the Pensees by Pascal, especially the section on diversion.  But be prepared: to face your awful self, this awful world, and that awful world to come.

Faith and Obedience of a Piece

In chapter 2 of Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship, these two propositions are set forth: 1) "only he who believes is obedient," and 2) "only he who is obedient believes."  Bonhoffer then asserts what surely is in fact biblically the case:

It is quite unbiblical to hold the first proposition without the second.  We think we understand when we hear that obedience is possible only where there is faith.  Does not obedience follow faith as good fruit grows on a good tree?  First, faith, then obedience.  If by that we mean that it is faith which justifies, and not the act of obedience, all well and good, for that is the essential and unexeptionable presupposition of all that follows.  If, however, we make a chronological distinction between faith and obedience, and make obedience subsequent to faith, we are divorcing the one from the other--and then we get the practical question, when must obedience begin?  Obedience remains separated from faith.  From the point of view of justification it is necessary thus to separate them, but we must never lose sight of their essential unity.  For faith is only real when there is obedience, never without it, and faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience.

This all seems to be biblically sound stuff, except that last bit about faith only becoming faith in the act of obedience.  That sounds like obedience creates faith.  I don't find this in Scripture.  With many of the reformers, I believe that faith does have the priority.  Obedience always flows from faith, theo-logically, actually, necessarily.  But the rest of this quotation is undoubtedly dead on. 

I'm realizing that as Bonhoeffer says many useful and stirring things, he often overstates his case and lacks biblical nuance.  Nevertheless, the first 50 pages or so of The Cost of Discipleship would be healthy compulsory reading for the membership class in a local church, lest we give assurance to would-be disciples too soon.  With the invitation to come to Christ should also come the words of Lk. 14:28: "count the cost."  Otherwise we may simply be multiplying the spurious conversions in our churches.  And there is already too much of that.

The Call of the Sovereign Christ: Total Response

When the call to discipleship goes forth from the sovereign Christ, why must the response be immediate?  In chapter 2 of Bonhoeffer's The Call to Discipleship, this question is posed.  The answer:

Why?  For the simple reason that the cause behind the immediate following of call by response is Jesus Christ himself.  It is Jesus who calls, and because it is Jesus, Levi follows at once.  This encounter is a testimony to the absolute, direct, and unaccountable authority of Jesus.  There is no need of any preliminaries, and no other consequences but obedience to the call.  Because Jessus is the Christ, he has the authority to call and to demand obedience to his word.  Jesus summons men to follow him not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life, but as the Christ, the Son of God.  In this short text [Mk. 2:14] Jesus Christ and his claim are proclaimed to men.  Not a word of praise is given to the disciple for his decision for Christ.  We are not expected to contemplate the disciple, but only him who calls, and his absolute authority.

Have you heard his call?  Are you holding anything back?  Jesus is Lord of all.  Follow him.  Follow him unswervingly with spiritual abandon.

The Anointing of the Spirit

In 1 Sam. 16:13, the prophet Samuel anoints David:  "And the Spirit of YHWH rushed upon David from that day forward."  Under the Old Covenant, we read of anointing with oil in connection with the Spirit coming upon a man.  In the books of Samuel, Kings Saul and David are anointed by the prophet Samuel.  The Spirit then rushes upon them. 

Under the New Covenant, who is the prophet who anoints people for particular roles and ministries in the kingdom?  It is the Lord Jesus himself.  God, the Holy One, anoints with the Spirit through the mediator--who is the Prophet, Priest, and King.  See, for example, 1 Jn. 2:20, 27 (see also Jn. 14-16 and Luke-Acts).  And in this new world transformed with the New Covenant, all of God's people are anointed, not just prophets, priests, kings, and an Oholiab or Bezalel.

Costly Grace Crucifies Cheap Grace

What follows is an excerpt from Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship.  I think it sums up what he's on about in the book.  He provides a healthy corrective for our sinful tendency to abuse and mutilate grace beyond recognition.  In this part of chapter 1, he is speaking about those who abuse and distort the grace of God and justification by faith alone and turn it all into licentiousness.

The Christian life comes to mean nothing more than living in the world and as the world, in being no different from the world, in fact, in being prohibited from being different from the world for the sake of grace.  The upshot of it all is that my only duty as a Christian is to leave the world for an hour or so on a Sunday morning and go to church to be assured that my sins are all forgiven.  I need no longer try to follow Christ, for cheap grace, the bitterest foe of discipleship, which true discipleship must loathe and detest, has freed me from that.  Grace as the data for our calculations means grace at the cheapest price, but grace as the answer to the sum means costly grace.  It is terrifying to realize what use can be made of a genuine evangelical doctrine.

Terrifying indeed.  God help us from embracing and holding out cheap grace.

Patriotic Pizzazz and American Flair

This youtube video Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration is too good to pass up.  Enjoy.  Em and I were jammin' to this over the holiday.

As an aside, watching Benjamin Franklin rockin' and rollin' creates quite an odd sensation in that historical part of my brain so prone to compartmentalize.

HT: Justin Taylor

Church Anatomy 101: The Hand Is not a Mouth

Two texts have been on my mind as I think about church body life. They have wide scope, I believe, but I want to point them up in relation to a couple of issues on my mind since, by God's gracious appointment and calling, I'm joined to a church plant in Naperville: New Covenant Church. 

First, the texts:

"The members do not all have the same function" (Rom. 12:4b).

"We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us" (Rom. 12:6a). 

Now these texts are part of a flow of thought. I don't want to obscure that. So what is in view in large measure is how the local Roman church (or churches) should think of herself as she, by the mercies of God, offers her bodies (plural) as a living and holy sacrifice (singular). Body life is on Paul's instructional agenda.  And, like a competent clinician, he knows how to distinguish anatomical structures, how to identify healthy physiology, medial from lateral, caudal from cephalid—for instance, the ear from the foot, and how each should function.

The Purifying Efficacy of Jesus' Blood

Still moving through Owen's On Communion with God, I am in the midst of a rich section that speaks of communion with the Lord Jesus in the grace of sanctification.  Here Owen addresses how "believers look to the purifying efficacy of Christ's blood" on account of his fullness in reference to their condition.  He cites texts like 1 John 1:7: "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin."

This word in particular moves me this morning:

"One moment's communion with Christ by faith herein is more effectual to the purging of the soul, to the increasing of grace, than the utmost self-endeavors of a thousand ages."

Surely this is the stuff of walking by faith.

Just Do It: A Word for Procrastinators

No unwelcome tasks become any the less unwelcome by putting them off till tomorrow.  It is only when they are behind and done, that we begin to find that there is a sweetness to be tasted afterwards, and that the remembrance of unwelcome duties unhesitatingly done is welcome and pleasant.

Accomplished, they are full of blessing, and there is a smile on their faces as they leave us.  Undone, they stand threatening and disturbing our tranquility, and hindering our communion with God.

If there be lying before you any bit of work from which you shrink, go straight up to it, and do it at once.  The only way to get rid of it is to do it.

--Alexander MacLaren (1826-1910), Scottish preacher

(I like this, not profoundly, but I like it.  Add Piper's APTAT to it, and it's complete advice.)

A Mother's Mission Field

I've mentioned before, and I'll never tire of saying it, that I believe that the calling of being a mother is the greatest and highest calling on earth.  Perhaps you'll recognize in this conviction the description that Lloyd-Jones gave to preaching: the greatest and highest calling.  I think he was almost right.

Well, I've come across this brief article by Jani Ortlund: For the Young Mother: Ministry, Guilt, and Seasons of Life.  It's full of sober wisdom (which evangelicalism needs amid the short supply these days).  It's biblically balanced (a rare virtue among us). 

So often women with small children feel guilty that they are not more involved in "ministry."  Whatever they mean by "ministry," it's obvious that they don't think their children are a significant part of this.  Shameful.  Tragic.  And I fear that evangelical leadership oftentimes unwittingly fosters this in two ways: first, by regularly encouraging mothers to be more involved in "ministry" (usually this means programs); second, by not regularly encouraging mothers in their primary, God-given task of discipling their children for the sake of the Name among the nations in the next generation.  Please note well that I did not say: spending lots of "quality" family time together bowing before American idols.  Regarding that there is only one word: repent!  Yes, that's a problem.  So we should call families to keep themselves from idols.  But it does not follow that because some are idolaters when it comes to family that others should forget how God actually calls families to do family: God and his Word at the center, governing all of life. 

The Lord Jesus purchased with his blood families from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.  They belong to him.  He is Lord of all.  Yes, all includes the family.  Since we are so thick on this point: all means all, including the family.  Jesus wants mothers to disciple their children as their primary, God-given responsibility.  And exalt in this high and holy calling! 

HT: Justin Taylor (I still do not know what HT means, but as this seems to be the convention, so I use it.  If someone would be so merciful as to illuminate my benighted condition, I'd greatly appreciate it.)

Communion with the Lord Jesus in Grace

"In the receiving of grace from God, we have not communion with Christ, who is yet the treasury and storehouse of it, unless we look upon it as his purchase" (John Owen, On Communion with God).

To put this in plain English, we do not have fellowship with Jesus when seeking grace from God unless we embrace grace as the special effect of the death of Christ.  In fact, there should be no expectation of grace apart from seeking it through Christ. So whatever grace we seek, whatever grace we enjoy, whatever growth there is in grace, all of it should be considered as the fruit of the purchase of the Lord Jesus.  As we fix our minds and hearts on the Lord Jesus when we are seeking still more grace to press on in the fight of faith, then—and only then—do we hold fellowship with the Son in grace.

Grace flowing directly from heaven apart from Christ's purchase and intercession is a chimera.  There is no such thing.  And sadly we Christians can act as though Christ's purchase and intercession are not necessary for God to give us more grace.  (Just listen to how we sometimes pray.)  But it isn't so.  We don't hold communion with the Lord Jesus in grace unless we embrace all the grace that comes our way as the fruit of his purchase and ongoing intercessory work.

So, all faith seeking grace should eye the Lord Jesus, who loved us and gave himself for us, who ever lives to make intercession for us.

Stewardship and Time: Students

"Students, I tell you solemnly, nothing will excuse you from the most rigid economy of time; it is at your peril that you trifle with it" (C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students).

Stewardship and Time: Ministers

"Woe unto the minister who dares waste an hour" (C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students).

Confessing Jesus as Lord of All

If you are looking for suitable inducement to aid in confessing Jesus as Lord of all, this New Covenant Church sermon from last Sunday is somewhere you could go without disappointment.  The text is Matt. 16:13-20; the preacher is Doug O'Donnell.

Serious Joy

The following Lewis quotation is one of my favorites, since it holds together precious realities (much like "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing" in 2 Cor. 6) that so many so readily separate:

"There is a kind of happiness and wonder that makes you serious" (C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle).

Incidentally, when I first began dating my wife, and she wondered if I was too serious for her (on account of something a friend had said), I quoted this text to her.

Be Happy or Else . . .

In my regular reading through the Scriptures with my wife, we've come to Deutoronomy.  This is one of my favorite OT books on account of the robust monotheism and grandeur of God set forth there (not to mention the devotional quality of instruction inculcated by Moses, which typically stirs my heart, or the gospel of grace held forth, which comforts my sin-sick soul).  And at Deut. 28:47-48, in a section that recounts the blessings and the curses for covenant fidelity or infidelity, respectively, I was reminded of an important word from Jeremy Taylor that John Piper records in Desiring God. 


But first, the text of Deut. 28:47-48:  "Because you did not serve YHWH your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart, because of the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies whom YHWH will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness, and lacking everything. . . ."


Now, Taylor's word of warning that throws some of the shock of Deut. 28:47-48 into bold relief:  "God threatens terrible things, if we will not be happy!"


Yes, God commands that we be happy in him.  And no, of course it is not a chipper or light-hearted happiness in view.  Weighty joy, joy with gravity, rooted in the everlasting goodness and grace of God, bought by Jesus' blood and freely offered from his exalted throne, is commanded. 


Paul put it like this:  "Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice!"  A command to be happy in God.  So familiar we miss it.  So for all those who love to make a big song and dance about the ten commandments in schools and the like, add this one: "Rejoice in the Lord always!"

Not if, but What

Worship.  We all do it.  It's inescapable.  We're incurable.  So the question is not if we will worship someone or something, but who or what we will worhsip.

So how may you know your functional center?  Who's your master?  What's ruling you?  Here's a test.  What is ultimate in your life?  Whatever is ultimate, that is your deity.  What is it, that if you lost it, life wouldn't be worth living.  What is it, that if taken away, doesn't just disappoint you, but devastates you?  What is it, that when threatened, not only makes you mad, but utterly bitter, outraged?

And even good things can become god things.  This is where many conservatives often go wrong.  If something is good, it's assumed, it's an unqualified good.  And biblical proportions and priorities are ignored.  And it's not all submitted to the true and living God.  It's called idolatry.  If a good thing becomes an ultimate thing, it's your sovereign, your lord.  And everyone's doing it with someone or something.  As one of our own prophets, Bob Dylan, put it in a song some years ago: "You're gonna have to serve somebody."

So who is your lord?  Whom will you serve?  Wittingly or not, you will worship.

Sparing neither Pharisee nor Sadducee

Well, there he was, at it again.  New Covenant Church Pastor Doug O'Donnell sparred neither Pharisee nor Sadducee in last Sunday's sermon: Dual Dangers.  He seemed to disregard utterly how offensive what he said would be to them and their progeny.  You know, Pharisees have feelings too.  Sadducees are not stones.  I mean, both of these groups are fellow humans, made in the image of God, with dreams and ambitions, hopes and aspirations, opinions and preferences.  So what if they don't entirely agree with what you or I believe, right?  Nobody's got it all figured out.  Do you?  It's just one opinion versus another, isn't it?  To each his own. 

And this lambasting from the pulpit, despite all these religious leaders' religious labors, their high public approval rating, and their respectable societal standing.  No doubt they had the equivalent of an M.Div. or Ph.D. from highly regarded institutions. They had credentials.  So who does this O'Donnell guy think he is?  I mean, in any case, only God knows the heart.  And why should this preacher's opinion matter any more than that of the Pharisee or Sadducee or their modern day counterparts?  So who does this man think he is?

Well, I suppose, a real preacher of the real Gospel of the living Lord Jesus.  That's who.  And he doesn't have the authority to preach from his own brains or to tickle the itching ears of the hearers.  And so, it was a less than perfectly tender word for those who want either to add to or subtract from the Gospel.  Well done.  Knocked us again a little off balance, but also steered us clear of falling off the cliffs of error.

The sermon reminded me of another place in the four-fold Gospel record where Jesus was questioned for offending the religious elites of the day.  In Luke 11, after Jesus had given the Pharisees and lawyers a little of what they had coming, a rather sensitive chap, a lawyer, said this to him: "Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also" (Lk. 11:45).  Jesus' reply is priceless: "Woe to you lawyers also!  For you load people with burdens hard to bear . . ." (v. 46).  And so on.  Jesus was the most tender man who ever lived.  And most loving.  And because he loved the sinners he came to save, not least those who were heavy laden with the burdens of the well-respected religious leaders of the day, Jesus was pretty heavy hitting with those very religious leaders.  These religious leaders put unbearable burden after burden into the backpacks of all would-be followers of YHWH.  Not very loving.  So Jesus lovingly lambastes them, protects and guides the sheep as he came to do, and heads toward the cross, where he would bear every last burden for every last one of his own.

Hallelujah!  What a Savior!  Hallelujah!  What a friend!

(Incidentally, O'Donnell's sermon includes a salutary word about remembering God's works, turning from that forgetfullness to which we are all so prone, and also a much-needed word about "weather-watchers.")

Intoxicated by Orthodoxy: Chalcedon

As a twenty-first century evangelical Protestant living in postmodern America who is a physical therapist by profession, I know that I'm not expected by most to care much about ancient creeds and confessions.  But I confess that I do.  I find creeds energizing, clarifying, stabilizing.  What's more, they get my blood boiling for the glory of the triune God.  Call it quirky.  Call it an odd primitive urge.  Call it what you will.  I love Chalcedon.  I get intoxicated by orthodoxy.  And today I savor this particular creed more than usual on account of recent discussions with a client who is a JW.  So much wisdom in the creeds!  What a heritage the Christian Church has!  Oh how we should give thanks to God for them!  We stand on the shoulders and walk in the steps of so many who've gone before.

Last week I posted the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.  This week you get the Chalcedonian definition:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] (homoousion)* with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial (homoousion) with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the disctinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Praise God, Father, Son, and Spirit, from who all blessings flow, praise him all you creatures here below!  For this God, the triune Lord who reigns supreme, our Creater and Redeemer--and this God alone--is worthy to receive all power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing! Amen.

* The parenthetical Greek additions are mine.  The text is taken from Philip Schaff's The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2.

(By the way, I am an infallibalist inerrantist who embraces sola Scriptura with every fiber of my being.  The Scriptures, not creeds, are our sole rule for belief and behavior, for faith and practice.)