The Holiness of God- Part One

The scene is a familiar one. A witless, young blonde opens a door to find a dark stairwell that leads down to an old basement. She begins to fumble down the stairs while the audience knows all too well that something strange and sinister lurks below.

In every culture, there exists some idea of the holy. This is due to the fact that within every human there is an innate desire to feel terror. It is a strange phenomenon that theologians have called the mysterium tremendum, or the "overwhelming mystery." We seek to satisfy this desire whether it be through the Hollywood, horror slasher or through telling ghost stories by the campfire. In Scripture, God is portrayed as the being who evokes "overwhelming mystery." If we lose this concept of God as holy and mysterious, we will replace it with something that will make the hair stand on the back of our necks.

In the modern church, the holy tremors have all but vanished. In its place, we have adopted a casual, cavalier attitude towards the Sovereign of the universe. The slogan, "Jesus is my homeboy" has become so ubiquitous that the concept of God as transcendent and holy is nearly unintelligible. God is imminent but he is not imminent to the exclusion of his transcendence. We must recapture the Biblical picture of God as "high and lifted up" (cf. Is. 6:1) if we are expected to encounter God in this generation.

To gain an understanding of the holiness of God, let us look to Scripture where men had real encounters with the holy. Such a visible manifestation of God's presence is often called by theologians a theophany. One such theophany is recorded for us in Isaiah 6:1-7:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”

The theophany

Chapter six unfolds with a majestic manifestation of God. Isaiah records that he saw the Lord "high and lifted up" and "the train of his robe filled the temple." The temple spoken of here is not the earthly temple but the heavenly temple. Isaiah is seeing God exalted in the heavens! "The train of his robe filled the temple" signifies the majesty of God. Seraphim fly about the throne of the Lord, covering their faces because angelic beings have no glory that can compare with God. The cry of the seraphim is that of "Holy, Holy, Holy" and it is known as the trihagion. God is holy. Why would it not suffice for the angelic beings just to cry holy once? It should be noted that in the Hebrew language, repetition is used for emphasis. However, this is not a complete answer. The reason that the angelic beings cry "Holy" thrice is because God is thrice holy. And God is thrice holy because God is tripersonal. God is holy-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To be enraptured with the holiness of God, is to be enraptured with the holiness of the Trinity. Let us examine closely what is meant by the term "holy."

The two meanings of holy

When we speak of holiness, we should be careful to distinguish its two meanings. Its primary meaning has to do with transcendence. God is separate from his creation. This meaning does not involve the idea of moral purity. If the idea of holiness were exclusively moral purity then only humans would reckon God as holy. For the seraphim were morally pure, yet we have just read that they had to cover their faces and feet and cry out, "Holy!" It is because God is transcendent and distinct from his creation. As such, the creation falls in reverential awe of him.

The text continues in v. 4 and we read "the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke." We will look next time at the secondary definition of holiness and how Isaiah reacted in the presence of a being with absolute moral purity.

The Lord's Supper

Today, the church where I serve celebrated the Lord’s Supper. I must confess that I cherish the Supper because it is a real means of grace to the believer. More importantly, the Supper, among other things of course, is a sacred occasion for believers to feast on the body and blood of the risen and exalted Lord Jesus.

Unfortunately, the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament that the contemporary Reformed church has neglected in both doctrine and practice. Historically, however, Reformed Theology has made significant contributions to the doctrine, practice, and piety of the Lord’s table. For example, when I read John Calvin, I am amazed at his reflection upon the spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper. Of course, Calvin did not invent the doctrine that Christ is really and spiritually present in the Supper. He learned this truth from Holy Scripture. The Bible teaches that the Lord’s Supper is communion (Grk. koinonia) with the risen Christ.

Although most people think that 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is the only Lord’s Supper passage in the book of 1 Corinthians, this simply is not so. Paul also speaks of the Supper in 1 Corinthians 10:16, which says, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation (koinonia) in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation (Grk. koinonia) in the body of Christ?” Paul’s two questions anticipate an affirmative response. "Yes, the cup of blessing that we bless is indeed a participation in the blood of Christ, and, yes, the bread that we break is indeed a participation in the body of Christ." In other words, when the believer receives the bread and the wine by faith, he communes with the risen Christ. There is real participation. There is real communion. There is real fellowship.

So then, as I celebrated the Lord’s Supper with God’s people this morning, I was feasting on the body and blood of Jesus Christ, not physically but spiritually. The body of Christ remained at the right hand of the Father, but by the Holy Spirit my spirit was raised by faith into heaven where I feasted on the body and blood of Christ. The body and blood of Christ were as real to my faith as the bread and wine were to my senses. Even more significant, I can say that I ate and drank the gospel. The gospel is that real.

The Supper is precious to me because it reminds me of the reality of Christ and the gospel. Christ really exists, and the gospel is really true. That is objective and outside of me. Nevertheless, God wants me to taste and see that Christ is good (Psalm 34:8). He wants me personally to appropriate the benefits of the broken body and shed blood of Christ. That is why Jesus says to us, “Take, eat. Take, drink.” We must personally appropriate the body and blood of Christ by faith, and Christ has given us the Supper as a sacrament to strengthen our faith. When we celebrate the Supper, our faith is nourished and strengthened, and our union with Christ is invigorated. All this comes from the Holy Spirit who makes the Supper a real means of grace, namely, a real communion with the risen Christ who is seated at the Father’s side.

If you want to read more about the Lord’s Supper in Reformed Theology, I highly recommend Keith Mathison’s book, Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002). I would also encourage you to read Robert Letham’s The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001). Finally, there is the classic text by Ronald Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of Word and Sacrament (Eerdmans, 1957). Happy reading!

The Lord Jesus Christ- The Promised Seed, True Israel, and Last Adam- Part Two

In a real sense, Noah is the new Adam. He is commanded to spread the image of God throughout the earth which is recorded for us in v.18-19. However, though he is the representative of a new humanity that is saved in him and his ark, he is not the last Adam. His own sin demonstrates that he is not the ultimate fulfillment of the seed of the woman (cf. Gen. 9:21). Unable to keep his line in complete covenantal obedience, corruption soon emerges from Noah's own seed when Ham sees his father's nakedness and brings open shame to him (v. 22-23). As a result, Ham is cursed (v.25) and thus there is a re-emergence of the conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. We, however, do have a covenant representative who is able to keep his seed in complete covenantal obedience: the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Is. 53:10-11). This is not because we have our covenantal obedience to plea but the covenantal obedience of the representative who was faithful in all ways.

In the last article, I alluded to the antithesis between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent which began at the fall and will continue until the return of the Lord in glory. It was my assertion that the theme of redemptive history was summed up in the protoevagelium: the seed of the woman will triumph over the seed of the serpent. Immediately from Genesis 3:15 and following, we witness the unfolding of the conflict between the two seeds. In Genesis 4, the first act of murder occurs when Cain, the seed of the serpent, takes the life of his brother Abel, the seed of the woman. As a result of his actions, Cain is banished east to the land of Nod where he eventually builds a city and names it Enoch after his seed. Just when it seems that the seed of the serpent is flourishing and has triumphed over the seed of the woman, God provides Eve another son: Seth. The birth of Seth closes out the Cain and Abel narrative and Moses then gives us a genealogy. The point of the genealogy and of all the genealogies is this: that God maintains his covenantal faithfulness through the seed of the woman.

The growth of the seed of the woman does not remain unchallenged however. In fact, by Genesis 6, the seed of the serpent outnumber the seed of the woman so much so that only Noah and his seed finds favor with God (Gen. 6:8). God's judgment of the seed of the serpent, the flood account, spans the next two chapters and by the outset of chapter 9 we have the institution of the Noahic Covenant. In the aftermath of the flood, God has appointed Noah as the new representative of humanity and re-issues the cultural mandate he gave Adam (cf. Gen. 9:7). In a real sense, Noah is the new Adam. He is commanded to spread the image of God throughout the earth which is recorded for us in v.18-19. However, though he is the representative of a new humanity that is saved in him and his ark, he is not the last Adam. His own sin demonstrates that he is not the ultimate fulfillment of the seed of the woman (cf. Gen. 9:21). Unable to keep his line in complete covenantal obedience, corruption soon emerges from Noah's own seed when Ham sees his father's nakedness and brings open shame to him (v. 22-23). As a result, Ham is cursed (v.25) and thus there is a re-emergence of the conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. We, however, do have a covenant representative who is able to keep his seed in complete covenantal obedience: the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Is. 53:10-11). This is not because we have our covenantal obedience to plea but the covenantal obedience of the representative who was faithful in all ways.

We will continue to witness the unfolding of this drama of this between the two seeds until Genesis 15 and God's covenant with Abram. It is amidst the backdrop of the protoevangelium that we best understand significance of the Abrahamic Covenant, its fulfillment in the gospel and how Christ is the True Israel. We will examine this in greater detail next time.

The Glorious Doctrine of Double Imputation

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. "-2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV)

Though there is an anti-doctrinal movement sweeping the evangelical church today, such has not always been the case in church history. Historical Protestantism was berthed by a belief in the centrality of the Word of God. Naturally, along with this came a strong appreciation of doctrine, since that is what Scripture contains (see 2 Timothy 3:16). While evangelicals today would make statements like "Don't give me doctrine, just give me Jesus" or "No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible" (a statement which, in essence, is meaningless) because they believe doctrine to be antithetical to practical living, in actuality there is no antagonism between doctrine and practice. We must avoid such a false dichotomy if we are to ever experience the kind of Christian growth that the Lord desires for us. In Pauline theology, all Christian doctrine is wedded to its practical application. In Paul's mind, if you don't practice sound doctrine, you don't truly know it. Rather than neglect the study of Biblical truth, evangelicals ought to endeavor all the more to know it experientially. One such doctrine that has been oft-neglected is the doctrine of justification by faith alone and with it, its twin doctrine of double imputation. Fortunately, the man who sparked the Reformation, Martin Luther, believed doctrine held practical value and he compared the knowledge of the truth of justification by faith alone with "walking in paradise." But perhaps he most concisely summarized the significance of this truth when he said, "Justification is the article on which the Church stands or falls." In an age when the gospel has lost all specificity, this is a doctrine that must be recovered.

The term imputation refers to the act of charging an individual with something that is foreign to him. Double Imputation is the doctrine that the sins of the elect were imputed, accounted, or credited to Christ, while the righteousness of Christ was imputed, accounted, or credited to the elect. What marvelous, peace-giving truth this is! To know that a lifetime of sin and a lifetime of righteousness are traded instantanteously. This is what Luther called the "Great Exchange". And this is part and parcel of the doctrine of justification by faith, because we receive the righteousness of Christ when we are united to him by faith. Faith is not any part of that righteousness but is simply the appropriating organ by which the righteousness is brought to us. The righteousness is solely the perfect obedience of Christ in keeping the Mosaic Covenant and in his efficacious death on the cross. It is because of his perfect obedience and substitutionary death that we are acquitted by God the Father as judge. But how could this happen? Christ was not guilty. How could the sinless be crucified? It was because, as Paul says, "he made him to be sin who knew no sin (2 Cor.5:21a)." Christ was credited with all of the elect's sin so that the wrath of God was satisfied to fall on him. All of our sin was expiated so that is why Paul could say to begin Romans 8, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus..." What could be better news to one with a weak conscience and grappling for assurance! Faith unites you to Christ and credits you with a lifetime of perfect obedience to the Father and imputes your lifetime of sinfulness to the perfect Son of God. Your sin has been punished on the cross so there is no more place for the wrath of God to come upon you. Your faith has united you to Christ, not any meritorious work done on your part! How could it be any meritorious work? For Christ himself has performed the one work that is worthy in the sight of the Father! Here, the believer's heart should sing unbidden. It is when one tastes the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that he truly knows what Paul meant when he said, "Having been justified by faith, we now have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rmns 5:1)." Soli deo gloria!

The Glory of the Triune God in the Gracious Work of Redemption

Here is a sermon I preached at Maranatha Baptist Church in Lilburn, GA:

The Glory of the Triune God in the Gracious Work of Redemption

Ad Honorem: Athanasius' Stand for Orthodoxy

"The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth." -Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Romans 13:7 says, "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed (emphasis mine)." In light of this, we have begun a new series of articles that will be entitled ad honorem which means simply, "for the honor." In our first edition, we will examine the life of the great champion of orthodoxy, Athanasius of Alexandria.

Athanasius was born somewhere around 298 A.D. in Egypt. He became bishop of Alexandria on June 8, 328 and despite five exiles from the powers of the Roman Empire, he was considered the bishop by the people until his death in 373. Unlike many ancient saints, Athanasius is not credited with having performed any miracles. What Athanasius is famous for rather is a steely, steadfast alleigance to the truth of Scripture. This gives men like myself hope knowing that one's profitability for the kingdom rests on life and character and not on the spectacular. Athanasius' entire life was a testimony to how God works through the seemingly plain and ordinary resoluteness of conviction.

The culmination of this conviction is found in Athanasius' rugged, never-give-up, dogmatic defense of the deity of Christ. I say "rugged" because his defense was full of trial and hardship. He was exiled FIVE TIMES. I say "never-give-up" because it seemed at times as if the whole world was abandoning orthodoxy. Arius' view of Christ as a created being had spread like a tumor throughout the ancient church. The phrase "Athanasius contra Mundum", which literally means "Athanasius against the world", finds its origins in the Arian controversy. And I say "dogmatic" because Athanasius was precisely that: he defended the orthodox expression of the deity of Christ in the Nicaean Creed against the heretics who tried to twist its wording so as to allow for the continual spread of Arianism. This kind of defense has earned him the title of "Father of Orthodoxy."

It must be admitted that "Father of Orthodoxy" is somewhat anachronistic considering that orthodox refers to the historical, official teaching of the church. Until the Council of Nicaea, there had not been a formal, creedal statement of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is not to say what some liberal scholars have wrongly inferred however. The doctrine of the deity of Christ (and likewise the doctrine of the Trinity) was not invented at Nicaea. What the Arian controversy, like all other church controversies in church history, did serve to do was to elicit an official, clear-cut, creedal statement of the deity of Christ. Often what is meant by the moniker "Father of Orthodoxy" is that Athanasius is the first prominent figure in church history to contend against a widespread, heretical movement in the church by lucidly articulating the truth of Scripture. This is most certainly accurate.

What lessons do we learn from this man's life? FIRST, we would do well to observe the resiliency of his faith. In an era where trendiness is more virtuous than truth, there is a stunning dearth of godly men who will "tow the line" for Biblical doctrine. At worst, we face public ridicule or ostracization for our alleigance to truth yet in the ancient world the stakes were much higher. Consider what Athanasius was up against. He fell in the hands of Emperors who could have easily have executed him rather than exiled him. He was outrageously slandered time after time. Some said he used magic and once he was even accused of cutting off a bishop's hand. Even after the formal, creedal statement at Nicaea, the majority of the Eastern Empire was Arian. Such steadfastness amidst overwhelming adversity is stunning. I pray the Lord would raise up such men in our generation.

SECOND, we learn that the gospel without doctrine is no gospel at all. In today's evangelicalism, how often have we heard the phrase "don't give me doctrine, just give me Jesus" triumphed? I think that Athanasius would be grieved to hear such maxims being thrown around in the church today. He understood that to contend for the gospel meant to contend for sound, Biblical doctrine. He recognized that there were certain doctrines that if people embraced, it would send them to Hell. In a letter entitled, "To the Bishops of Egypt", while referring to the past saints who had shed their blood in defense of the deity of Christ, Athanasisus in essence said, "We are contending for our all." He grasped the weight of the doctrine of the deity of Christ. He understood that it meant everything. To lose this doctrine was to lose the gospel. Today, when evangelicals chant phrases like the one mentioned before, they misunderstand that a Christ without doctrine is a Christ without content. They have replaced a proposition for a word. Athanasius would likely ask them, "Okay, which Jesus do you want to be given?"

THIRD, we learn that the younger generation may be more Biblically faithful than the older generation. Arius, who was born in 256, presented a letter to bishop Alexander claiming that if the Son of God were really a Son he must have a beginning. Athanasius was in his early twenties when this controversy broke out, over forty years younger than Arius. In an age steeped in philosophy, Arius was making a logical deduction concerning the nature of Christ. Athanasius, however, clung to the Scriptures, which he had been heavily disciplined in from his youth. Gregory of Nazianzus commends his rigorous, Biblical training:

He was brought up, from the first, in religious habits and practices, after a brief study of literature and philosophy, so that he might not be utterly unskilled in such subjects, or ignorant of matters which he had determined to despise. For his generous and eager soul could not brook being occupied in vanities, like unskilled athletes, who beat the air instead of their antagonists and lose the prize. From meditating on every book of the Old and New Testament, with a depth such as none else has applied even to one of them, he grew rich in contemplation, rich in splendor of life.

The same could be said of our generation. With robust, Biblical conferences like Resurgence and Together for the Gospel drawing a wide gathering of youth, it seems that God may be guiding this generation back to a strong alleigance to the Word of God. The Bill Hybels, Rick Warrens, and Joel Osteens of the "baby boomer" generation are waning. Preachers like John Piper, Mark Driscoll, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Derek Thomas, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler and Mark Dever are rising. When the church returns to the precious, sound doctrine of Scripture, the rain of revival is not far away. Let us pray that the Lord sends the rain.

In conclusion, we can see that Athanasius was a man who consistently battled for the truth of Scripture. For sixty years following the Nicaean Council the controversy raged. It was not until the Council of Constantinople in 381 in which the Nicaean Creed was confirmed and refined that the battle subsided. Athanasius died in 373. He never saw the fruit of his labor. We, however, are indebted to his life and stand on his shoulders. Thank God for men like Athanasius, who doggedly contend for the truth of the deity of the glorious, eternal Son of God! Soli deo gloria!

Recommended Read: Communion with God by John Owen

Outside the Bible, John Owen's Communion with God is one of my favorite books. I usually do not recommend "the abridged and made easy-to-read" version of any Puritan work, but in Owen's case I make an exception. Puritan Paperbacks made a wonderful contribution with this volume (transl. R.J.K. Law, Banner of Truth, 1991, repr. 2000). It is 209 pages of sheer glory. Owen is infamously difficult to read, and I would rather the contemporary church read Owen abridged than no Owen at all.

The whole book is a biblical, theological, pastoral, devotional, and practical exposition of 1 John 1:3, which says, "...Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." Owen's thesis is that the believer has a distinct communion, fellowship, participation (Grk. koinonia) with each person of the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. After explaining the nature of communion with the Trinity, Owen proceeds to expound upon the unique fellowship that the believer has with the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Owen's tone is warm, intimate, and gracious throughout. The book is truly a pleasure to read and ponder. I highly recommend that you acquire this book as soon as possible and begin savoring its precious truths.

On a practical level, I recommend praying through books, especially works of theology (Puritan theology works best). I developed this spiritual discipline many years ago, and I actively practice it to this day. So then, as I read Owen's biblical descriptions of the Father's love (pgs. 28-30 - eternal, free, unchangeable, selective), I make the theological content into a prayer. For example, I may pray, "O Father, may I know, feel, and believe in my heart that your love is eternal. As far as I can look into eternity past, which is not far, you love, and as far as I can see into eternity future, which is not far, you love. You love beyond my gaze. Your love is infinitely larger than my perception of your love. I also adore your free love for me in Christ. You were not bound to love me, and your justice incited your holy hatred. However, you are love, and you choose to love. Your love is free and unbound. It is a sovereign love. I am also humbled, Father, by your selective love. Jacob have you loved, and Esau have you hated. You chose to love me before the foundation of the world. You have debased my pride and exalted your grace. You loved me first..." And on and on I would pray.

The reason that I practice this discipline, and the reason that I recommend it to you, is because it helps us to avoid a stuffy, sterile, academic and theoretical knowledge that only puff up pride rather than builds up love. Reading theology is dangerous. If we do not read with an aim for the glory of God, a love for Christ, and a desire to grow in grace, then we only increase our condemnation on judgment day. Beware reading theology to inform the head instead of reading to transform the heart. Again, Owen is a good place to start. Read. Learn. Commune.

Ten Reasons for the Godly to Give Thanks

As we convene with our families today to celebrate God's provision, consider ten incentives to praise God for his goodness (there are, of course, far more than ten):

1. Praise God- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- that he alone has accomplished your redemption. Exult in the Father's sovereign, immutable, electing love (cf. Eph. 1:4), without which we would never believe in His Son. Rejoice that the Son has bought us with his precious blood (cf. 1 Pet. 1:19) and ransomed men out of every ethnicity (cf. Rev. 5:9).

2. Glorify God that he does "according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done (cf. Dan. 4:35)?'"

3. In view of God's exhaustive, all-extending sovereignty, thank him that he is working all things to our good (cf. Rom. 8:28).

4. Sing with joy that "the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (cf. Hab. 2:14)."

5. Remember that the Lord has not left us orphans but has sent us the Holy Spirit (cf. John 14:18).

6. Marvel at the Spirit's work in interceding for us according to the will of God (cf. Rom. 8:27).

7. Be grateful for the beatific vision: that the Lord has promised that his holy saints will get the unspeakable privilege of seeing God (cf. Heb. 12:14)!

8. Rest in the fact that God will provide every need we will have (cf. Phil. 4:19).

9. Wonder that the eternal Son of God left the heights of heaven to come to the dregs of this fallen world in obedience to the Covenant of Redemption (cf. John 1:14).

10. Shout with glee that Christ bore the full force wrath of God in our place by becoming a curse for us (cf. Gal. 3:13).

According to the NT, What is the Status of the Children of Believers?

In reading the NT the careful exegete should make at least FIVE OBSERVATIONS pertaining to the children of believers.


First of all, according to the NT, the children of at least one believing parent are HOLY. In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul is explaining the implications of the gospel for marriage. In verses 12-16, he considers the problem of marriages in which only one spouse is a believer. Under such circumstances, Paul encourages the believing spouse to remain married to the unbeliever, and in verse 14 he explains his rationale. 1 Corinthians 7:14 says, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” In other words, the faith of the believing spouse makes (notice the use of the verb in Greek) the unbelieving spouse holy, and because of the faith of at least one believing spouse, the children of that marriage are holy (notice the use of the noun in Greek). Paul’s expectation is that the unbelieving spouse will be influenced by the faith of the believing spouse, but Paul’s assertion is that the status of the children of at least one believing parent is presently holy. In order to accomplish this, Paul uses the noun “holy” of the child and the verb “make holy” of the parent or spouse. The verb speaks of the effect of the faith of the believing spouse upon the unbelieving spouse. However, the noun speaks of the effect of the faith of the parent on the status of the child. Furthermore, this is why it would be inappropriate to say that Paul says the same thing of the unbelieving spouse that he says of the child. In terms of the unbelieving spouse, Paul speaks of the influence of the faith of the believing spouse upon the unbelieving spouse. In terms of the children, however, Paul speaks of their present status by virtue of the faith of one of their parents. They are holy. Of course, the fact that the children are “holy” does not necessarily mean that they are “born again” or “saved” or “justified” in any of the ways in which we ordinarily use those terms. It simply means that they are “set apart.” But in what sense are the children of at least one believing parent “set apart”? It would seem that the children of believers are “set apart” in the sense that they are set apart from the world and made members of God’s covenant people. Calvin’s citation of the second half of Romans 11:16 seems helpful in this regard: “…if the root is holy, so are the branches” (See Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:14). This is Paul’s reasoning in 1 Corinthians 7:14 as well (See also, Ezra 9:2).


Second, the children of covenant members are RECIPIENTS OF THE SAME PROMISE that God makes to their parents, who are adult covenant members. After preaching a powerful sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter commanded a response from his Jewish audience. He says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:38-39). By remembering that Peter is addressing a Jewish audience (cf. 2:5, 37) and that the Jewish people are covenant members, it is incredibly significant that Peter offers the promise of the Spirit (cf. 1:4; 2:33) to them (the Jews) and their children. In other words, speaking from the perspective of the children, the children of covenant members are recipients of the same promise that their parents receive as members of the covenant people. If it is objected that this promise is only valid for Jews, not Gentiles, then the objector would do well to consider Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:11-13. Paul says, “Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:11-13). In other words, it would be appropriate to assert that in Acts 2:39 Peter could have said, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off (Gentiles), everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself [and their children],” but he does not say this because (A) he is addressing a Jewish audience and because (B) the truth that the promise made to the Jews comes also to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ is developed only later in the NT. So then, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude from Acts 2:39 that the children of covenant members are the recipients of the same promise as their parents. And this is not even to mention the obvious reference to the Abrahamic covenant and the continuity of that covenant with the new covenant.


Third, the children of covenant members were BAPTIZED WHEN THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD BELIEVED. It is well known that both Acts and 1 Corinthians contain several examples of household baptisms (Acts 16:14-15, 31-34; 1 Corinthians 1:16). However, what is not as well known is the fact that in several cases the author only records the faith of the head of the household. This is true of both Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31-34). Please note that the point is not that these households necessarily included infants, which we should not assume, or even that the children in the household were baptized without faith; the point is, however, that for some reason Luke considered the faith of the head of the household (Lydia, the Philippian jailer) as a sufficient rationale for baptizing the whole household. The skilled theologian needs to provide a reason why Luke thought this was sufficient.At this point, it should seem sufficiently clear that the understanding of Acts 2:39, which has already been discussed above, provides that rationale. At the very least, baptism is an outward sign of God’s promise to baptize his people in the Holy Spirit. According to Luke, the children of believers were baptized along with their parents precisely because God makes the exact same promise to them. This does not mean that the children have no responsibility to believe that promise. In point of fact, in order to benefit from the promise, they must believe. However, on the positive side, it does mean that God does not need their faith before he makes his promise. God gives his promise based on the covenant, not the faith of individual covenant members. Therefore, God’s covenantal promise is the basis of their faith, not the other way around. As Luther correctly asserts, “Faith doesn’t exist for the sake of baptism, but baptism for the sake of faith;” and he says, “True, one should add faith to baptism. But we are not to base baptism on faith” (Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Second Edition, Edited by T. Lull, pp. 249, 253). Moreover, since God’s promise is an extension of the covenant, he makes the same promise to all covenant members. Therefore, since children are members of the covenant (1 Corinthians 7:14) and recipients of the promise made to their parents (Acts 2:39), they were baptized along with their parents.


Fourth, children are addressed as MEMBERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. When Paul writes to “the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus,” he later includes children among the people he addresses. For example, in Ephesians 6:1, he says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” Now, it should be quite obvious that since he writes to saints in Ephesus, who are faithful in Christ Jesus, and since he addresses children in this text, he certainly assumes that these children are saints and even believers. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that they were not included as members of the Christian church, even as they are mentioned here as serving in that capacity.


Fifth and finally, children, even infants, are INCLUDED IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Consider Luke 18:15-17. In verse 15, people are brining infants (Greek: ta brephe) to Jesus for his blessing. However, the disciples try to prevent them from doing so. Jesus corrected his disciples and said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (v.16). It was probably surprising to the disciples that the reason Jesus permits the children to come to him is because the kingdom of God belongs to such as them. Jesus neither says to such like them nor does he mean it. He means that the kingdom of God belongs not only to those who are childlike, but he also means that it belongs to children. Hence, it is appropriate to say that children, even infants (cf. v.15), are included in the kingdom of God. Jesus probably means children in general, not necessarily every child without distinction. However, at the very least, it would include the children of his covenant people.


So then, in conclusion, according to the NT, the children of believers are holy, recipients of God’s promise, baptized along with their believing parents, addressed as Christians, and included in the kingdom of God. These observations are astonishing, and they do not even include the additional observations that could be made about the continuity of the new covenant with the previous biblical covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic), which all included children. Thus, the NT leads us to believe that the covenantal status of the children of believers is equal to the covenantal status of their parents.

An Echo of the Abrahamic Promise in the New Covenant

The promise of the New Covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Although our Reformed Baptist brothers in Christ claim that the nature of the New Covenant excludes the practice of infant baptism, the details of the text suggest otherwise.

Moreover, although the New Covenant is a discontinuation of the Mosaic Covenant (Jeremiah 31:32), it is a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant, and since the Abrahamic Covenant included children, the New Covenant also includes the children of covenant members.

It is not the purpose of this post, however, to demonstrate the theological validity of this argument about the inclusion of children. Instead, this post simply seeks to highlight an echo of the Abrahamic promise in the New Covenant. It is true, though, that this echo should be part of the larger argument about the continuity of the Abrahamic and New Covenants and the inclusion of children in the administration of the New Covenant.

The echo of the Abrahamic promise in the New Covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:33: “…And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” This verse echoes the Abrahamic promise found in Genesis 17:7, which says, “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” This is the great promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. Indeed, this is the great promise of the covenant of grace in every administration. God promises to be God to his people. But who are his people?

Here is what the exegete needs to observe – the background of the phrase “my people” in Jeremiah 31:33 is “you and your offspring after you” in Genesis 17:7. In other words, God includes the offspring (seed, descendents, children) of covenant members in his people.

Emphatically, then, the New Covenant does not exclude people (i.e. children of covenant members) who were previously included in the Abrahamic Covenant. In point of fact, the New Covenant celebrates their full inclusion because the New Covenant promises to write the law of God on the heart, not merely on tablets of stone (cf. Jeremiah 31:33).

When the Term "Protestant" Becomes a Misnomer

I have often remarked on this site on how the state of evangelicalism today comes down to the fact that the gospel has lost all specificity. No where is this more true than in the eccumenical movements to unite Protestants and Catholics such as the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document of 1994. As long as America's church has a vague, ambiguous understanding of the gospel, she will be prone to all kinds of counterfeit gospels. To most evangelicals today, someone is preaching the gospel if he names the name of Jesus. But all of the cults cloak their erroneous teachings in such psuedo-Christian language. What the church needs today more than anything is education. Evangelicals need to understand that the gospel is more than just, "God loves you and has a purpose for your life." The gospel contains two crucial doctrines: the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The denial of either of these doctrines results in a false gospel and the denial of the former directly leads to a denial of the latter (and this is to be expected if one does not believe in a Christ who is fully God). While Rome officially embraces the doctrine of the Trinity (we can only attribute this to the grace of God, that Rome is not totally abandoned to rank apostasy), she dogmatically denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If we are to truly bear the title "evangelical", we must not hesitate in decrying Rome's teachings as a false gospel. While most evangelicals would have no problem in identifying Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses as presenting a false gospel (after all, they're "cults"), those same people cannot detect equally flagrant misunderstandings of the gospel by the Roman church. However, if we really have a clear grasp of the gospel and its content, then we should have no difficulty in recognizing when people are deviating from its truth. If we do not want to wear the title "evangelical" hypocritically, then we must begin, foremost, by being Protestants. After all, the meaning of the term "evangelical" is one who heralds the gospel.

But lest anyone in our postmodern age of muddled meanings and redefinition of historical terms gets confused, I am referring to the original meaning of the term evangelical not the way it gets recklessly applied today. An evangelical is not one who kisses a lot of kids and has good PR. An evangelical is not one who is for right-winged, Republican, family values. An evangelical is not one who lobbies against abortion (though he ought to do this as well). An evangelical is not one who passes out tracts at the grocery store. An evangelical is one who bears the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. This is very important because this concept seems to have been lost in our day. Rather than defining proper "evangelicalism" by Scripture's standards, Christians define it by their own notion of moral conduct and sentimentality. If we were really to live consistent with the Bible's definition of an evangelist, we would not hesitate in debunking the false gospels rampant in the world today, because this is precisely what the evangelist Jesus Christ did. He mocked the legalism of the Pharisees. Yet today, most evangelicals will not mock Rome's teachings for fear of being labeled insensitive and cruel. However, Rome's abusive system of purgatory, sacraments, and Mass far outweigh any kind of legalism that Pharisees ever practiced in their day. What we must understand is that mocking a false belief system is not unloving. In our culture today, we have completely misunderstood what true love is. True love is not esteeming people's feelings as top priority. True love is esteeming people's eternal destination as top priority.

With that said, let's examine the veracity of what I stated earlier: that one must be a Protestant if one is to be an evangelical. In reality, the two are inseparable. What does the term "Protestant" mean historically? Well, it means exactly what it sounds like it means. A Protestant is one who protests something. While an objector might claim that evangelicals do not need to be protesting any teachings but merely promoting teachings, evangelicals down throughout the centuries have protested teachings. In fact, the main problem with this kind of claim is that it is a logical, self-contradiction. If I promote an idea, then by default I protest another idea. For example, if I promote pro-life movements, then I will protest abortion. Thus, on a very basic level all evangelicals must be protestors or, put in another way, Protestants. For if we promote the gospel, we protest that which is not the gospel. So, historically, what system of teaching were the original "Protestants" protesting? Well, any history student knows that it was the vices and abuses of the Roman church that the first Protestants protested. We often forget that when Martin Luther wrote his "95 Theses" in 1516, he was a monk. He wasn't seeking to establish a new church. On the contrary, he was seeking "reformation", hence the movement later being called "The Protestant Reformation." And the unavoidable fact of the matter is that the Protestants did reform, Rome didn't. The result of the Protestant Reformation was not a new religion but the restoration of true religion. What was this true religion? The true religion that was rediscovered during the Reformation was the doctrine of justification by faith alone. That doctrine is intrinsic to the gospel. Any system of teaching that denies it, obscures it, repudiates it must be protested by anyone who claims to be a harbinger of the gospel of Christ.

And yet still, the majority of Christians today would much rather wade in a cesspool of vague, ambiguous, unintelligble psuedo-evangelical fadism than stand up for the true gospel of Christ. Here's my advice to all you would-be-evangelical, I-don't-care-for-saying-the-term-Protestant-because-it's-divisive-and-the-Roman-Catholic-is-my-brother types: stop calling yourselves Protestants at all. And I don't just mean in your eccumenical gatherings either. I mean stop calling yourselves Protestants on surveys, stop calling yourselves Protestants amongst your other "Protestant" friends, and most of all, stop calling yourselves Protestant when you take compromising stands on vital doctrinal issues. Instead of specifying your denominational background, and by doing so help others identify your beliefs and traditions (and we all have traditions, whether or not you want to admit it), remain in your anonymous conglomeration of "Don't give me doctrine, just give me Jesus" types. In fact, I would recommend that you go so far as to paint over that awfully divise title in your sign: "Baptist." While you're at it, you might as well take out the term "church" as well, since that bears so many negative connotations of stuffy pews, boring hymns, and didactic preaching for many. Oh but don't stop with just that. It's probably wise if you remove the term "Christian" from your sign as well because we want Muslims and Hindus to feel welcome in our worship. "Neo-orthodox' might be a better term to write on there. After all, you never know when Bishop Spong might visit. :)

The Lord Jesus Christ- the Promised Seed, True Israel, and Last Adam-Part One

At times, redemptive history seems turned on its head and the wicked seem to outnumber the righteous. However, the continual message of Scripture is one of hope: the meek will inherit the earth (cf. Matt. 5:5), the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will spread throughout the world (cf. Habb. 2:14), the cities of this world will become the cities of our Lord (cf. Rev. 11:15), and unrighteousness will be banished from Zion (cf. Rom. 11:26). While we may at times cry out with Job, "Why do the wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power" (Job 21:7), we must remember that Christ is the fulfillment of the Seed Promise and has defeated the Seed of the Serpent.


It is interesting that the two chief moments in redemptive history occur in a garden. Both the first and last Adams faced the pinnacle of tribulation in the same setting. However, it is here where the similarities end. While Adam was tested in Paradise (cf.Gen. 2:9-15), Christ wrestled in the fallenness of Gethsemane (cf. Matt. 26:38). Adam was provided a helper (cf. Gen. 2:22), while Christ was forsaken by his disciples (cf. Matt. 26:40). Adam was confronted with breaking the covenant of life (cf. Gen. 3:1), while Christ was confronted with the daunting task of facing the divine tribunal (cf. Matt. 26:39). Most significantly, Adam broke the covenant of life (cf. Genesis 3:6-7), while Christ kept it for those whom he represented (cf. Rom. 5:18).

Immediately following Adam's trespass, God institutes what is commonly known as the Seed Promise, or the protoevangelium. It is called the protoevangelium because it is precisely that, the earliest mention of the gospel in the Scriptures. It is found in Genesis 3:15:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

This promise made to our antediluvian ancestors quickly becomes the theme of the Scriptures and of redemptive history. Our progenitors earnestly longed for the fulfillment of this promise. How merciful the account of the Fall demonstrates God to be! Even after Adam's rebellion, he provides the gospel. He does not wait one generation (though who could fault God if he did) but immediately provides a covering (cf. Gen. 3:21).

So prominent was this promise on our ancestors' minds, that even with the birth of Cain, they were looking for the fulfillment (cf. Gen. 4:1). The events that unfolded would demonstrate, however, that Cain was actually the Seed of the Serpent, who would murder his brother (cf. Gen. 4:8) and go to build a city of wickedness in the land of Nod (Gen. 4:16). This perpetuates the continual conflict between the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent foretold in the protoevangelium. At times, redemptive history seems turned on its head and the wicked seem to outnumber the righteous. However, the continual message of Scripture is one of hope: the meek will inherit the earth (cf. Matt. 5:5), the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will spread throughout the world (cf. Habb. 2:14), the cities of this world will become the cities of our Lord (cf. Rev. 11:15), and unrighteousness will be banished from Zion (cf. Rom. 11:26). While we may at times cry out with Job, "Why do the wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power" (Job 21:7), we must remember that Christ is the fulfillment of the Seed Promise and has defeated the Seed of the Serpent.

Bearing in mind the Seed Promise as the theme of the Scriptures enables us to see the unity of all of the Bible. When we come to Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic Covenant, it is quite clear that God is not beginning something new but continuing to develop the promise from Genesis 3:15. The Abrahamic Covenant and its direct fulfillment in the emergence of Israel as a nation is simply an expansion of the protoevangelium. We will look at this in greater detail in part two. Soli deo gloria!

Charles Spurgeon and Modern Day Evangelicals

While many modern evangelicals abhor Reformed theology, those who do so also unwittingly revere many godly men who embraced the doctrines of grace (i.e. Calvinism). It is interesting to note that those who are the most strident in their opposition against Calvinism are also those who think fondly of men who held firmly to the Reformed faith. One such example of this is the Prince of Preachers, C.H. Spurgeon. Many, particularly in the Southern Baptist Convention, laud this man with the highest accolades but are ignorant of what he believed. Was C.H. Spurgeon a five-point Calvinist? Did he teach limited atonement? Let's examine a few quotes:

Spurgeon taught that Calvin's gospel was Paul's gospel:

The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again. -"A Defense of Calvinism"

Spurgeon taught Limited Atonement, contrary to what naysayers have alleged:

Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good! -"A Defense of Calvinism"

Spurgeon said that there was "no soul living" who held more firmly to Calvinism than he:

There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. -"A Defense of Calvinism"

Spurgeon called Calvinism a nickname for the gospel:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor. -"A Defense of Calvinism"

Spurgeon claimed that the doctrines of grace had been affirmed by the godly since the apostolic age:

We have gone back to the old school; we can trace our descent from the apostles. It is that vein of free-grace, running through the sermonizing of Baptists, which has saved us as a denomination. Were it not for that, we should not stand where we are today. We can run a golden line up to Jesus Christ Himself, through a holy succession of mighty fathers, who all held these glorious truths; and we can ask concerning them, "Where will you find holier and better men in the world?" -"A Defense of Calvinism"

It is clear then that what fueled C.H. Spurgeon's burning, evangelistic zeal was a deeply entrenched belief in the doctrines of grace. Spurgeon's robust theology of grace would be abhorrent to most evangelicals today. The same men who laud him would be the ones who drove him out of their church for exalting the electing, sovereign love of God! So if you are a Southern Baptist who hates Calvinism and believes it to be a smear on the church, do not claim to love C.H. Spurgeon. Spurgeon understood that the doctrine of salvation that most extolled the grace and glory of God was Calvinism. He would have reproved the man-centered gospel presentations that plague the church today. He would have reminded Southern Baptists that the lost men are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1), unable to understand spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), unable to submit to the law of God or please him (Romans 8:7-8), and unable to change his sinful nature (Jeremiah 13:23). How then can a dead, unregenerate man make a "decision for Christ?"

Spurgeon loved grace and he loved evangelism. If you are antagonistic to Calvinism, then do not claim to love Spurgeon. If you hate Reformed theology, do not succumb to using the weak, straw men argument that Calvinism destroys evangelism. Most men who make this claim are not half the evangelist Spurgeon (or other famous Calvinists throughout church history, for that matter) was. To oppose Calvinism is one thing, to use dishonest argumentation is another. As Christians, we should have a high alleigance to the truth. Let us continue to honor Christ by being truthful in representing the opposition even when we believe them to be in error. Soli deo gloria!

God's Sovereignty and Plenary, Verbal Inspiration

Despite the rampant denial of God's exhaustive control over all human decisions by the majority of modern day evangelicals, there is still, within that same group, a strong tendency to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. While we can rejoice at the preservation of this orthodox approach to the Bible, we must be diligent to note the theological inconsistency of denying God's sovereignty and adhering to inerrancy. For if man's will is truly free in the libertarian sense (independent from any outside or inside influences), then there is no way God could ever have inspired the Patriarchs, the Prophets, or the Apostles to write Scripture. God would have been violating man's free will if He chose to control him for the purposes of His revelation. For if man has an autonomous free will, who is to say he would not assert that free will against the best efforts of God and insert error into the Scripture? According to the libertarian, he has every right to do this. Thus, God could never have inspired Scripture, at least not in the plenary, word-for-word inspiration sense. Perhaps, in the libertarian view, men could have been inspired in the same sense as men are inspired to write songs and novels, but never in the sense that we would know God's authoritative, self-revealed will on any subject. God could have wooed men into writing echoes of His divine will I suppose. But they would only be that: echoes. We could never know what part was inspired by God and what part was inspired my man by virtue of his free will. This would be a sorry condition and thankfully is not the case. God has spoken clearly and our basis for believing he has done this to the exclusion of any defects in the message is our fundamental belief in the sovereignty of God. Consider the words of the apostle Peter:

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. -2 Peter 1:21 (ESV)

"For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man" indicates that the basis for all divine revelation depends on the sovereign initiative of God and not the will of man. To even think of man having an independent and absolutely free will is antagonistic to the idea of plenary, verbal inspiration and thus inerrancy. It is as illogical as believing the wind spins the fan of a mill and at the same time denying the wind's power and its right to have such control over the entire mill. So it is the same with plenary, verbal inspiration. Such revelation presupposes a sovereign God who superintends every act of the creature in such a way as to ensure that His message reaches His people without error. This is the logic behind Peter's words and why he states that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (v.21b, emphasis mine)." It is interesting to note that the Greek verb used here can be literally translated "to be forcefully borne along." Peter's point is emphatic: the inspired and holy Writ came not by virtue of man's will but by the sovereign and active control of God. And the delightful result of such divine oversight: the inerrant and infallible Word. As C.H. Spurgeon poignantly put it:

The Bible is a vein of pure gold, unalloyed by quartz or any earthly substance. This is a star without a speck, a sun with a blot, a light without darkness, a moon without it's paleness, and a glory without a dimness. O Bible! It cannot be said of any other book that it is perfect and pure, but of the Bible we can declare that all wisdom is gathered up in it without a particle of folly. This is the judge that ends the strife where wit and reason fail. This is the Book untainted by any error, but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. -"Pure, Unalloyed, Perfect Truth", C.H. Spurgeon

Is Christmas a holy day for Christians?

It's that time of the year again. Mistletoe. Chestnuts roasting on an open fire. Jack frost nipping at your nose. Yuletide carols being sung by a choir. And folks dressed up like eskimos.

Ok. Perhaps Nat "King" Cole is not the best authority on what Christmas should represent (I never did understand how we got from the Incarnation to eskimos anyway...). Even Christians who believe Christmas to be a "holy day" understand that much. The question which remains to be answered, however, is whether or not Christmas ought to function as a "holy day" for the church.

Don't get me wrong. I'm as festive as the next guy out there. On New Year's I'm the one who eats all the collar greens so that I'll be wealthy in the coming year. On St. Patrick's day I'm all about a pint of guinness (and if you have a problem with that, check out Ps. 104:15). On the fourth, I don't feel right if there is not a gigantic, fireworks display. The issue of whether or not Christmas is a Christian holy day is not about festivity.

It is evident that there is no recorded mention in the New Testament of the early church setting aside a day to celebrate only part of the Lord's work (i.e. the incarnation). The regulatory principle in Scripture teaches us that we should consider the Lord and all his works (cf. Ps. 105:2). At its best, Christmas only aims to remind Christians of the glorious condescension of the eternal Son of God who humbled himself by leaving the wonders of heaven and coming to the woes of earth (and not his death or resurrection). At its worst, Christmas is the most carnal of days, where greedy masses sit on their haunches outside stores, waiting until they open to pounce on the latest hard-to-grab toy like a pack of ravenous beasts. However, neither Christmas' less-than-holistic approach to worship nor its worldly abuses necessitates a complete prohibition of it by Christians. The simple reason for this: Christmas should not be viewed as a holy day. To observe it as a holy day is one thing, to observe it as a leisurely holiday is another thing altogether.

Before proceeding, allow me to clarify. 1) There is only one holy day recorded in Scripture and that is the Sabbath. It is a part of the giving of the moral law at Sinai (cf. Ex. 20:8). It is a creation ordinance (cf. Gen.2:2-3). It does not pass away with the old covenant. It is a perpetutal institution (cf. Ex. 31:16).

The Sabbath is the only holy day for Christians which means Christmas is not. The question then arises, "Can Christmas detract from the one, Christian holy day?" The answer: "It can." However, just as Christmas can detract from the Sabbath, so can New Year's, or the Fourth of July, or President's day for that matter. God knew in his creative design that men would establish their own special days that they observe. God created culture (cf. Gen. 1:28). Culture is not evil. It is the malpractices of the culture that are evil. To use an analogy, just as alcohol itself is not evil (or if this offends your parochial sensibilities, food), but the abuse of it is: drunknness (or gluttony). What am I saying? I am saying that to observe the day of Christmas is not sinful. Some Christians will choose to observe Christmas and some will not. That is fine. I will caution those who do observe by warning them not to use their freedom as a cloak for vice (cf. 1 Peter 2:16). To those who do not observe it, I will say be careful of passing judgment on your brother because both of you will stand before God's judgment seat (cf. Rom. 14:10)

Where does that leave us? I think the best way to summarize all I have said is found in the words of apostle Paul, mentioned earlier:


"One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God..." (Rom. 14:5-10)


As for me, I will observe Christmas to the Lord. Pray for me that I do not get caught up in the materialism or functionally begin to focus more on this holiday than I do the Lord's day. And I will pray for you as I drink my egg nog (with a little rum too)! Soli deo gloria.

Another Author

In continuing in my attempt to update and improve this blog, I have doubled the number of our contributors (we are now at a grand total of 2). Logan Almy (M.Div Covenant Theological Seminary '08), my brother and fellow worshipper of our Sovereign, Triune God, will also be authoring Post Tenebras Lux. I am truly glad he has agreed to join and I am excited about his future articles. Welcome Logan!

The Primacy of Preaching and Sound Biblical, Exposition

Throughout the evangelical community, there is a desperate and urgent cry for a recovery of gospel-centered ministry. While some churches try to fill their appetites with empty, Christian fadism, the sheep starve. Nothing will satiate the child of God as long as pastors continue to exchange gospel for gimmickry, teaching for technique, and ministry for management. In the face of such a dearth of biblical teaching, the church must recover a vision of proclaiming the full-orbed truth of God. Consider the final words that Paul spoke to the Ephesian elders:

"26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God." (Acts 20:26-27)

In light of Paul's instructions, let us consider three implications the apostle's command has for faithful, Biblical preaching.

1. Biblical preaching begins with God and not with man.

The pastor's task in the pulpit is not to teach you how to have your best life now. Any teacher of the Word who begins by attempting to address felt-needs is a scandal and not a true gospel minister. Any preaching that seeks to exalt man's supposed "self-esteem" is in direct contradiction to the Scriptural teaching of self-abnegation. Therapeutic messages trivialize the minds of the congregation and do not feed the soul. As preachers of the Word, we are to be doctors of souls! The only way we can do this is by exalting the sovereign grace of the Triune Jehovah. Men need theology not more triteness! The world is already fattened with frivolity. We wonder why we do not have a revival and why men are not hungry for the Word of God. It is because they are so full of the world. Ministers of all stripes are guilty of stuffing their congregation with meatless food. From the seeker-friendly antics of the Southern Baptist preacher to the chic, eloquence of the psuedo-Reformed PCA pastor, men across the denominational spectrum are depriving their congregations of hearty, robust preaching. Yet, we plead for revival and wonder why the rain has not come. My friends, we have not tilled the soil! We must break up the fallow grounds of Biblical and Systematic theology. True devotion springs forth from a solid doctrine of God. Let us eschew this false dichotomy of doctrine and application. As John MacArthur has said, the Word of God is relevant, so we do not need to make it relevant. Those of you who crave for revival, ask yourself this: "When is the last time I heard a sermon on the holiness of God?" More importantly, would such a sermon be cold, lifeless, and boring to you? We want a manifestation of God's presence without true knowledge of him! We want revival without reformation! Such talk is nothing more than sensationalism.

2. Biblical preaching must do justice to the teaching of all of holy Scripture.

Mark Driscoll has said that one of the greatest dangers in the church today is that of theological reductionism and I believe he is correct. Theological reductionism is teaching one truth in Scripture to the exclusion of others. For example, old school liberalism emphasizes the imminence and humanity of Christ to the exclusion of his transcendence and deity. Both Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism are the results of theological reductionism. Arminianism teaches the autonomy of the human will to the exclusion of God's sovereignty, while Hyper-Calvinism teaches God's sovereignty to the exclusion of human freedom. Arminianism depicts God as an impotent, beggar unable to accomplish his desires while Hyper-Calvinism portrays him as a capricious despot who works evil in the hearts of the non-elect. Both distort the true picture of God in the Bible. Notice that in Paul's words to the Ephesians that he informs them that he is "innocent of the blood of all of you" because he declared the whole counsel of God. Does anyone speak this way anymore? What does Paul mean by saying he is innocent of the blood of the Ephesians because he preached the whole counsel of God? We find a similar statement in Paul's command to Timothy:

"Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Timothy 4:16)

The sobering reality is that our teaching can either be a means by which men are saved or a means that further serves to harden their hearts, lead them astray, and further their condemnation. Preaching the whole counsel of God enables us to say with Paul, "I am innocent of the blood of all of you." Oh how many of our hearers would be spared the anguish of being duped by false teachers if only they heard the whole counsel of God from our lips. Think of the millions of evangelicals who comprise the "health and wealth" prosperity movement who would be kept from the heartache and disappointment of not inheriting riches if they had been told that while through Christ we have everything (cf. Romans 8:32), the kingdom of God is for the poor (cf. Luke 6:20) and that in this world we will have suffering (cf. 2 Timothy 3:12).

3. Biblical preaching is inherently authoritative, proclamatory monologue not egalitarian, dialogue.

Paul's words of "I did not shrink from declaring to you" are in striking contrast to the postmodern, spirtiual ethos of this age. The muse of our culture says, "All opinions are valid. Dialogue is the best option for our worship services" and "Preaching is outdated." We must avoid the siren calls of our society and uphold authoritative preaching as the Biblical form of communicating the gospel. Spiritual gurus and their eloquence is not the call of the minister. The desire to be winsome is a deterrent to the powerful, bold proclamation of truth which is intrinsic to gospel preaching (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:17). Winsomeness leads to a watered down gospel and the Lord call us to exalt God not please carnal men. We exalt God in preaching when it is both authoritative and proclamatory. Let us examine this further:

1. Preaching is authoritative.

Preaching is authoritative not because we know everything but because the Word of God is the source of our knowledge. Any epistemological humility we have is because of the finiteness of our minds, the frailty of our condition, and the fallenness of our hearts that prevent us from further understanding the Word of God and not from any uncertainty about the veracity of Holy Scripture. We do not know all things infallibly but we do know infallible truth. To say otherwise is to fall snare to the false dichotomy that has been the crux of the egalitarian spiritualism of the emergent church, which claims that since we are fallible we must with humility consider all ideas valid. Such nonsense, is little more than thinly disguised skepticism, or to speak more bluntly, unbelief. The Word of God is the source of our knowledge and we cannot abandon our confidence in it to engage in discussion with the lost world. Apart from it, we cannot make sense of reality. As Augustine said, "I do not understand that I may believe. I believe that I may understand."

2. Preaching is proclamatory.

Preaching is proclamatory meaning that it involves not just teaching. Teaching is only one aspect of preaching. We must labor over clear articulation of the doctrine of justification. But if we only teach the technial "ins and outs" of the instrumentality of faith, the meaning of justification, and the concept of double imputation we have only done half our task. We must also proclaim this truth to the congretation. We must not just define justification but also comfort believers by telling them that if their faith in Christ is genuine, they are righteous. Many men are great teachers but they are not called to preach. To put it simply, all preachers are teachers but not all teachers are preachers.

Conclusion: Let us strive then to fulfill the mandate of the apostle Paul in preaching the whole counsel of God. Pastors, please be diligent in expositing the text of Scripture. For many this will mean a complete paradigm shift. For others, it will mean making sacrifices to labor over the exegesis of next Sunday's passage. For those of you who already faithfully preach the Word, remain the course! For those of us who fill the pews, encourage your pastors when they preach God-centered, weighty, Biblical messages. For those of us who yearn for Biblical exposition, it can be easy for us to be unyielding in our criticisms towards our pastors. Here's a challenge: spend more time praying for your pastor to have a hunger to exegete God's Word than you do criticizing him. For all of us: let us continue to shine the light of the gospel of our glorious God in this dark age, until finally, Post tenebras lux, the light of the knowledge of Christ shines most brilliantly! Soli deo gloria.