This morning I stumbled upon this while browsing another blog:
The inward attitude certainly holds first place in prayer, but outward signs, kneeling, uncovering the head, lifting up the hands, have a twofold use. The first is that we may employ all our members for the glory and worship of God; secondly, that we are, so to speak, jolted out of our laziness by this help. There is also a third use in solemn and public prayer, because in this way the sons of God profess their piety, and they inflame each other with reverence of God. But just as the lifting up of the hands is a symbol of confidence and longing, so in order to show our humility, we fall down on our knees. (John Calvin, Commentary on Acts 20:36)
Who says that physical expressiveness in worship is incompatible with the Reformed tradition?
Showing posts with label Practical Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Practical Theology. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Friday, November 28, 2008
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.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
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).
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
