The Confessionalist

Ordinary Means -- UPDATED

2008-05-20T11:44:00.001-07:00

Sorry for the inactivity on the Confession stuff, but I've been holding down the fort while my co-pastor is on vacation.

I will return soon to the Confession (though I myself will be on vacation in the coming weeks), and I will be doing a follow-up post to the Cultural Christianity thread that caused quite a ruckus. Here's a foretaste: I've been reading David Wells's new book, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth Lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in a Postmodern World (Eerdmands, 2008), as well as a collection of essays by Carl Trueman entitled, The Majority Report: Unpopular Thoughts on Everything from Ancient Christianity to Zen Calvinism (Christian Focus, 2008). Both men have quite a bit to say on this whole matter of the evangelical and emergent tendency to appeal and adapt to the culture at large. I will simply pilfer from them.

But the real reason I am posting under the title, "Ordinary Means," is that I have been asked to join Matt Bohling and Shaun Nolan -- two PCA pastors -- on the ordinary means podcast for the month of May. We will be recording this Thursday (5/22), and I imagine the podcast will be available shortly thereafter.

You can find the website here: http://www.ordinarymeans.com/

The blog can be found here: http://ordinarymeans.blogspot.com/

We will be picking up the discussion from the March podcast on the issue of Baptists and Presbyterians. My understanding at the moment is that they wish to ask me how Reformed Baptists handle convinced Reformed paedobaptists seeking membership in a Reformed Baptist church. If you want my answer, listen in.

That's all for now.

UPDATE: podcast won't be until next tuesday, 5/27. I'm still not sure when it will be posted; I'm assuming sometime later that day. I'll let my rabid fan base know as soon as I do...

Notes on the Confession: Introduction

2008-04-17T08:44:00.000-07:00

The church is the confessing and worshipping assembly of Christ's covenant people. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. She must ever be concerned with preserving, professing, and proclaiming the truth -- not only against all error and heresy, but for the salvation and sinners and sanctification of the saints. To that end, the vitality (if not the very existence of) biblical Christianity depends upon confessing the faith. At the very least, summarizing the system of theology revealed and contained in Holy Scripture must be viewed as essential to the well-being (bene esse) of the church.

In keeping with these (and other) convictions, I subscribe to the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689), as well as the three ecumenical creeds of the early church (yes, including Nicaea and its controversial descendit ad infernum). This Confession of Faith, though not exhaustive, is a faithful summary of the system of theology contained in Holy Scripture. In the weeks and months to come, it is my intention to provide a kind of running commentary, or notes, on the Confession.

When setting out to study any of the creeds, confessions, or catechisms of historic Christianity there are a number of important introductory questions that must be answered: (1) should the church confess her faith, specifically by way of written symbols such as catechisms and confessions; and (2) if yes, how does the church (or her ministers, more specifically) subscribe to these secondary theological and ecclesiastical standards? In short, (1) yes, and (2) fully (i.e., strict or full subscription).

Jim Renihan fleshes out these answers, better than I could, in a series of posts on the IRBS website. You can find those articles here:

Confessional Subscription: http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=78

The Scriptures and Confessions: http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=79

The Terms of Subscription: http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=80

The other articles that follow on the history of subscription amongst Baptists are also worth reading, but go beyond the scope of this post.

Two additional matters of prolegomena to this study remain: (1) the structure and substance of the Confession; and (2) the theological and historical setting of the Confession. Significant overlap obtains between these two matters.

As far as the structure and substance of the Confession are concerned, we will deal with those matters as opportunity arises (i.e., within the notes themselves).

The theological and historical setting of the Confession can be discerned if we keep in view some seven characteristics of the Confession. [Note: these characteristics are not original with me, but have been gleaned from several sources, most notably Dr. Jim Renihan's class lectures on the subject.] I will simply list these characteristics now, and return to them next week, Lord willing.

The Confession is: (1) Biblical, (2) Orthodox, (3) Protestant, (4) Calvinistic, (5) Covenantal, (6) Puritan, and (7) Independent and Baptist.

Hopefully, that whets your appetite for more to come...

Truth in Advertising

2008-04-02T17:10:00.000-07:00

As one faithful reader reminded me recently, this is a site dedicated to confessional Reformed Baptist theology and practice.

To be faithful to that description, it is my intention in the near future to begin a series of notes on the Confession. (Just so we're clear, that's the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1677/1689). It certainly won't be an exhaustive commentary on the Confession. Others (namely, Jim Renihan) are far more equipped for that task. My intention is far less ambitious (and far less demanding). So, I hope to devote at least one thread per week to the Confession.

Stay tuned...

Cultural Christianity: Bringing Together What God Hath Put Asunder

2008-03-31T11:02:00.000-07:00

Recent evangelical theology, as well as the emergent-emerging movement, has trumpeted the cause for a kind of marriage between church and culture. Of course, they've done so to different degrees and in different ways, with the the evangelical folks appealing to a sense of immediacy and immanence, and the emergent-emerging folks appealing (at least in theory) to a sense of the transcendent. Nevertheless, the end result is the same; and the best way to describe this wide-ranging phenomenon that crosses denominational and theological boundaries (and makes strange bed-fellows out of folks who would otherwise be at odds) is as multiple expressions of a kind of cultural Christianity.

This, of course, is nothing new. One could argue that Finney's new measures (e.g., the anxious bench) were the 19th century expression of this same trend, just without modern technology. Finney rejected not only the doctrines of grace, but the means of grace, in favor of what he determined would produce the greatest results in the culture of his day and age. Since Finney, however, we've seen a great many incarnations of this approach, but it is increasingly the case in today's variegated evangelicalism (using that term in its broadest possible sense) that the one thing held in common is the presupposition that the church needs to be in step with today's ways in order to reach today's people. If you don't believe me, look up George Barna's research, and you'll see what evangelical and emergent-emerging folk are both thinking. For evangelicalism and emergent-emerging folk alike culture has become the defining principle in the church's articulation and application of her mission.

Admittedly, this is painting with a broad brush; this thesis doesn't take into account the ways in which the principle might be mitigated in certain contexts or exacerbated in others. Nevertheless, that this is easily demonstrated across the theological and ecclesiastical spectrum, raises a whole host of questions, not the least of which is whether or not it is, in fact, necessary for the church to accommodate to or adapt to (or even become like) the surrounding culture in order to fulfill her divinely-ordained and divinely-revealed mission? Is this kind of cultural Christianity justifiable?

If you know me, you know my answer: no, on both counts. We cannot bring together what God has put asunder. Cultural Christianity is an oxymoron, to the extent that cult (i.e., Christ's kingdom, the church) is ever distinct from culture in this new covenant age. "My kingdom," Jesus said, "is not of this world" (John 8:36). The church is "other-worldly," since we have come to the heavenly Jerusalem and the mediator of a better covenant, Jesus Christ (cf. Heb 12:22-24). Thus, in a very particular (i.e., theological, ecclesiastical, and liturgical) way, we are not ultimately interested in the culture and its ways, but Christ and his ways. In fact, if the church isn't self-consciously counter-cultural, in terms of confessing her faith (both doctrinally and liturgically), then, as our Lord declared, we will have lost our savor, and will be worthy only to be cast out (cf. Matt 5:13). The church that panders to the culture, in our Lord's estimation, is worthless.

Often we hear our Lord's words in Matthew 5:13 applied in terms of evangelism: to be the salt of the earth we need to be vigilant in our efforts to extend the influence of Christ throughout the world. If we're talking about missionary efforts to proclaim the gospel, fine. If, however, we've begun to think that 'salting' the earth requires accommodation to it, then we've completely missed the point. Jesus is speaking of the church -- that one holy catholic and apostolic church -- as that which is decidedly distinct and separate from the world (as Machen put it). No, not in the sense that fundamentalism has come to understand it: not drinking, not smoking, not playing cards, etc. The world from which we are separate is "that way of life that fallen humanity substitutes for God's holy ways. It is the world as an idol, as a rival to God's Word" (see Hart and Muether, With Reverence and Awe, 29). The salt loses its savor, then, when we stop preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation for fallen man. The salt loses its savor when the world, instead of the Word, regulates our worship. The salt loses its savor -- the church ceases to be the church in any meaningful, biblical way -- when we lose the sense of our separateness and our distinctness as the assembly of God's holy people (again, in a very practical way in terms of our proclamation and our worship).

The church needs to recapture a proper sense of its heavenly (i.e., other-worldly) and holy character; and when we do so, we will be forced to heed a heavenly and holy agenda, one which is intrinsically at odds with worldliness. We cannot function as the salt of the earth by taking up the world's, or the culture's, agenda. No, we function as the salt of the earth as we (i.e., the church) fulfill the great commission (cf. Matt 28:18-20). And what does that look like? What will that entail? The Shorter Catechism puts it best in question and answer 88: "What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption? The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation." In other words, the fact that the church is counter-cultural, or contra mundum, is evidenced most clearly as we separate out from the world on the Lord's Day, gather together in Christ's name and at Christ's summons, to hear his word read and preached, to eat the bread and drink the cup of the Supper, and to offer up our petitions and our praises (both spoken and sung).

The world, the culture-at-large, will think this is utter nonsense. Should that dissuade us from maintaining a commitment to Word and sacrament and prayer? Should that prompt us to do something different, something more appealing, something more attractive, even something that appears more practical in reaching the lost? No, because that isn't God's way; indeed, none of the 'new measures' of today's evangelicalism or today's emergent-emerging-missional churches have not the promise of Christ attached to them: "lo, I am with you unto the end of the age" (Matt 28:20). None of them carry the promise of being made effectual unto salvation. None of them are the savor of death unto death in those that are perishing, but the savor of life unto life in those that believe.

Speaking in terms that are largely ignored today, Machen wrote, "The responsibility of the church in the new age is the same as its responsibility in every age. It is to testify that this world is lost in sin; that the span of human life—no, all the length of human history—is an infinitesimal island in the awful depths of eternity; that there is a mysterious, holy, living God, Creator of all. Upholder of all, infinitely beyond all; that he has revealed himself to us in his Word and offered us communion with himself through Jesus Christ the Lord; that there is no other salvation…save this, but that this salvation is full and free, and that whoever possesses it has for himself and for all others to whom he may be the instrument of bringing it a treasure compared with which all the kingdoms of the earth…are as the dust of the street. An unpopular message it is—an impractical message, we are told. But it is the message of the Christian church. Neglect it, and you will have destruction; heed it, and you will have life (see Machen, “The Responsibility of the Church in our New Age,” in J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, 376).

Now, this approach does not justify the church imbibing a kind of new imperialism, where we become culturally insensitive or rude in the name of the gospel. We are, however, arguing that where the church becomes like the world, she has lost her savor. Let us, then, deal with those unseen things of eternity, proclaiming that God's grace in Christ is full and free, even to the worst of sinners who will repent and believe; and let us not trifle with those temporal things that are seen, but instead worship in spirit and in truth, with reverence and with awe, the true and living God, the God of our redemption, with whom we enjoy communion of "infinite sweetness" (again, quoting Machen).

Let me put it simply: the church needs to be the church, as Christ ordains, as Christ reveals, and as Christ commands. That means we must not join together what he has put asunder. Betrothing ourselves to this world is the quickest way for the church to become irrelevant, at least in terms of that which really matters. Let us, then, eschew labels such as "user-friendly," "seeker-sensitive," and "culturally-adept," and instead be the faithful bride of the Lord Jesus Christ and thus serve and worship the Lord our God as those who already know, in principle, the blessings of heaven, of the age to come.

Let the church be the church of Jesus Christ.

Top Ten Books of the 21st Century

2008-03-11T16:03:00.001-07:00

Though this new century is only 8 years old, and though the church seems as confused as ever, a number of very fine books have been published in that time span. And even though I live by the creed 'older is better' (at least when it comes to printed matter) the following list of the top ten books of the 21st century demonstrates something of the limitation of my creed.

I offer this list not as the final word, but as one minister's humble appreciation for the labors of certain faithful ministers and theologians of our generation.

The list is in no particular order. Book number 10 may be just as significant as book number 1 -- though I do think one of these books ought to be the standard for future generations. The list is also confined to my narrow window on the (theological and ecclesiastical) world. I don't pretend to have read every new book that comes down the pike. I have neither the time nor the interest, especially given my creed (see above). One more thing: no reprints made the list. If it was published before 2000, it's not on the list.

With all the caveats out of the way, then, here is the list:

1. D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship (P & R, 2002). Simply put, the most important book on the most important subject. Hart and Muether cover a whole range of liturgical issues in brief compass, and with great clarity and cogency. This little volume needs to become the gold standard for Reformed churches everywhere. Buy it, read it, and when you're done, read it again. See also D. G. Hart, Recovering Mother Kirk -- not quite as good as With Reverence and Awe, but still quite stimulating on the subject of worship.

2. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 4 volumes (Baker, 2003). Yes, the first two volumes were published in 1987, but both volumes underwent revision and the final two volumes are brand new. So, it still makes the list. One of the most important, if not the most important work of historical theology in the last 100 years. Muller's extensive knowledge and familiarity with the primary sources makes for a fascinating read by itself. But perhaps the greatest value of this set is that it demolishes the Kendall-Armstrong-et al thesis that the generations following Calvin corrupted the pristine biblical theology of the Genevan Reformer by developing a rigid system of theology centered on the doctrine of predestination. For Pastors and Theologians of the Reformed tradition this is a must read. As an aside, I am tempted to put Muller's After Calvin on this list, too; but, I've not read the whole volume, and I don't own it. Because it is published by Oxford the cost is astronomical.

3. Walter J. Chantry, David: Man of Prayer, Man of War (Banner of Truth, 2007). Walt has the rare gift of employing an economy of words to communicate fully and powerfully the truth of Holy Scripture. The Lord's use of David is instructive, comforting, and challenging all at the same time. This little volume captures the heart of our Lord's dealings with David and, with theological precision and pastoral discernment, draws the reader into the life and world of the Lord's anointed. This is, without a doubt, a must read for every Christian.

4. R. Scott Clark, editor, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California (P & R, 2007). Most volumes of collected essays by various authors suffer from a lack of cohesion. Not Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry. On account of the authors' commitment to classical covenant theology as enshrined in the Reformed confessional standards this work sets forth a coherent and cogent defense of the Reformed faith and the gospel against every contemporary revisionist movement, especially the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul. The essays by Scott Clark and David VanDrunen are alone worth the price of the volume.

5. Michael Horton, Covenant and Eschatology (Westminster-John Knox, 2002), Lord and Servant (2005), and Covenant and Salvation (2007); one more volume forthcoming. There hasn't been a real attempt to write a comprehensive Reformed systematic theology since Berkhof early last century. Horton makes this list, not because I concur with everything he says, but because of his attempt to redress this glaring error. [As an aside, neither Robert Reymond nor Wayne Grudem can be considered comprehensive Reformed systematic theologies. Reymond is, by and large, his class notes put into book form -- and his understanding of the doctrine of the Son's eternal generation is highly problematic. Grudem is outside the bounds of Reformed theology on a number of points, most notably his affinity for Charismatic conceptions of revelation and worship.] While a number of salient points could be made, the most important aspect of Horton's work is his self-conscious attempt to structure theology around the organizing principle(s) of Scripture itself, viz., covenant and eschatology. This unifies the system of theology, and avoids an atomistic consideration of the various loci. Horton also deals with contemporary theological problems, thus avoiding a kind of Reformed parochialism. I should also say that the first volume can be tough-going; the second and third volumes are far more user friendly (though, neither would qualify as light or easy reading).

6. Guy Prentiss Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (P & R, 2006). For anyone attempting to understand the way in which the Federal Vision diverges from Scripture and the Westminster Standards, Waters is essential reading. Waters quotes the FV men extensively, letting them speak for themselves. He contrasts the FV and classic covenant theology on several points (e.g., election, justification, perseverance, assurance, apostasy, etc.), demonstrating that the FV and Reformed theology in its confessional form are two different theological systems. Waters has also written a very fine volume dealing with the New Perspective on Paul: Justification and the New Perspective on Paul (P & R, 2004).

7. Terry L. Johnson, The Pastor's Public Ministry (Reformed Academic Press, 2001). I plan on writing a review of this little book in the near future, so any comment here will be extremely brief. Two things of note make this volume very helpful. First, in only 76 pages Johnson distills the best from the pastoral theologies of the past. Second, in all three sections of the book (leading in worship, leading in prayer, and preaching), Johnson draws on the extensive work of Hughes Oliphant Old in the area of historic Reformed worship. Since some of Old's work is out of print and unavailable, this is a helpful way of getting that information second-hand, and in a context dealing more with the pastoral implications of Reformed theology and worship. This work is written for pastors, but a work that is far more generally applicable, read Johnson's Reformed Worship: Worship According to Scripture.

8. James M. Renihan, True Confessions: Baptist Documents in the Reformed Family (Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2008). Hot off the press, this massive volume puts in parallel columns several 17th century baptist confessional documents, primarily for the purpose of elucidating the historical and theological context out of which came the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689). For any serious student of the confessional standards of Reformed Baptists (or the Reformed faith more generally) Renihan's work is most welcome. This work should sit alongside Beeke and Ferguson's Reformed Confessions Harmonized, and should be perused frequently.

9. D. G. Hart, The Lost Soul of American Protestantism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002). What is there to say except that this is classic D. G. Hart: cranky and iconoclastic (as the cover asserts). Hart contends that the standard two-party typology of 20th century Protestant Christianity (i.e., liberal vs. fundamentalist/evangelical) excludes a third way, namely confessional Protestantism. Confessional Dutch-Reformed, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches, in fact, represent a way of 'being Protestant' that is at odds with both liberal and fundamentalist-evangelical ideologies. Instead of individualized, mountain top experience piety, confessional Protestants have stressed the ordinary means of grace, catechesis, and the like. Hart offers several historical examples. While accepting folks like John Williamson Nevin as the standard of confessional Protestantism is a hard sell for me, the Mercersburg theology (e.g., Nevin), old school Lutherans, and old school Presbyterians were correct to eschew the 'new measures' of Finney, et al, and maintain an emphasis upon Word, sacrament, and prayer as the ordinary means of grace. Hart reminds us of just this emphasis, and he is to be commended for his labors.

10. Michael S. Horton, God of Promise: Introducing to Covenant Theology (Baker, 2006). This is the best contemporary introduction to covenant theology. I obviously disagree with Horton's views regarding the implications of covenant theology for baptism (he is paedobaptist, I am not). Nevertheless, the overall treatment of the divine covenants is highly commendable. Horton, in fact, is quite comprehensive. After a very fine introduction (probably the best I've ever read), Horton deals with the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and even considers the doctrines of providence and common grace under the rubric of covenant. Again, at work here is the conviction that covenant theology is the Bible's own organizing principle and super-structure; it is the marrow of theology. For anyone holding on to the atomistic approach of dispensationalism, in any of its forms, Horton will challenge those convictions, and demonstrate that God revealed himself consistently and harmoniously by way of covenant. God of Promise should be on every the shelf of every serious Christian.

A few more for your consideration: Cornelis P. Venema, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ, and The Promise of the Future; David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Pow'rs: Christ in a Postmodern World; John D. Currid, Genesis, 2 vols.; Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology; Hywel R. Jones, Job; David VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law; Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures, and Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation; and anything written by Carl Trueman, but especially The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historical and Contemporary Evangelicalism.

Happy Reading.

I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it...UPDATED

2008-03-10T10:37:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the 80's music reference, but it captures something of my excitement to learn this morning that Robert Rollock's A Treatise on Effectual Calling has just been published as a part of the Select Works of Robert Rollock, 2 vols (Reformation Heritage). It is pricey, but well worth it. You can cough up your 68.00 + shipping here: http://www.heritagebooks.org/bookstore/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=2199&products_id=8389&osCsid=jtql597uvj8dbi89bt705mch13

Rollock (d. 1598) was the first principle of Edinburgh University, and was a polific author in his day. His Treatise, however, is most significant, because it is a seminal work on the doctrine of the covenants.

I was able to read a few selections from this work while in seminary, but I have long since pined for its publication for several reasons. Selfishly, I wanted a copy (hint, my birthday is March 23rd); but more important, the Reformed world desperately needs to understand its rich theological heritage. Rollock's work demolishes the argument that such doctrines as the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption are late accretions that corrupted the more pristine Reformed biblical theology of an earlier generation. The Treatise demonstrates that these doctrines are not ancilary to the system of theology. No, covenant theology remains the super-structure, the skeleton, of the Reformed system.

Warfield was right when he opined that covenant theology is the architechtonic principle of Reformed theology. It is the governing or structuring principle of the Reformed system. Indeed, classical covenant theology is the marrow of Reformed (and biblical) theology. Rollock's Treatise will only prove Warfield's observation correct, and, God willing, will inform a new generation of Christ's people how to read the Bible as it was meant to be read.

UPDATE: I received a copy of Rollock for my birthday this last week. Thanks family.

Book recommendation

2008-03-07T10:30:00.001-08:00

Hywel Jones, professor of practical theology at Westminster Seminary California, has recently published a commentary on Job.

The confessionalist highly recommends it, as Dr. Jones opens up the text in such a masterful, but plain manner. Dr. Jones summarized Calvin's preaching as "plain speech, close dealings." That comes through in this work, even though it is written as a part of a more scholarly series.

Take and read.

Another Blog

2008-03-07T09:56:00.000-08:00

Been a busy week around here, so I haven't had too much time to think about posting.

I do have a couple of entries in the works, but I don't have enough time to finish them this week.

So, in lieu of anything new from me, I thought I'd pass along the link to the one blog I frequent.

http://www.deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/

Enjoy.

On Being Reformed

2008-02-29T09:32:00.000-08:00

Here's an essay I wrote some time ago. I sent it out to a few select friends, and Dr. Renihan asked if he could put it on the new IRBS site.

I'd say a few things differently, but the substance would remain unchanged.

I'm posting the link here because it will give you, the reader, a greater understanding of my convictions and what you can expect to read here in the future.

Enjoy.

http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=25

Sabbath Observance

2008-02-29T09:05:00.000-08:00

In the course of study for the coming Lord's Day, I found this searching statement from John Eadie, Paul: The Preacher, 297-298.

Speaking of Paul preaching on the Lord's Day to the congregation at Troas (Acts 20:7ff.) Eadie comments:

The disciples must have rejoiced at their privilege, and eagerly embraced it. What could keep any of them back from enjoying Paul? Alas! that so many in modern times regard so little the first day of the week...or otherwise [profane] it in the pursuit of lawless pleasure or pastime. And even of those who "come together," how many stay away for very trivial reasons, a passing cloud throwing a chiller shadow upon their souls than it does upon the earth, and betokening a fall in their religious affections deeper than the depression of the barometer. If one may thus absent himself, why may not all; the minister, too, as well as any of the people? Who keeps at home for such paltry reason from a scene of secular enjoyment, or the place of ordinary business? Are there not many sicknesses so cunning in their coming and going, so endowed with forethought as never to invade a weekday, but to appear with the dawn of the Sabbath and disappear on its evening? Is it not a law of our nature that difficulties grow with indulgence, and if weather regulate church-going, other barriers will soon make themselves be felt - irregularity followed by long pauses, and ending in utter spiritual remissness and death. Does not such fluctuation in duty deprive one of the divine promise, and may it not rob him of the very word which was adapted to his benefit? And if heaven is an eternal Sabbath for which this recurring Sabbath prepares, how can any one hope to enjoy it who cries out as to "the weariness" of the periodical rest on earth - who finds not exceeding luxury in...worship, or who regards not the day which God has blessed and sanctified as the happiest, holiest day of all the seven?

From the Lord's Supper to Amyraut

2008-02-27T14:09:00.000-08:00

Earlier today I promised a blog entry for tomorrow. Well, you're getting it today instead. How's that for making up for lost time?

Anyways, what follows are my musings on a couple of random subjects which have captivated my attention recently.

1. The Lord's Supper.

Christ ordained the ministry of word and sacrament for his visible church. These, along with prayer, are the God-ordained means of grace (at least for those of us in the British Reformed tradition; see the Shorter Catechism Q.88-89). Reformed Christianity has a long history of trumpeting the centrality of the Word read and preached; and this is only right. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the other elements of public worship are relegated to a secondary status. While baptism and the supper, for instance, cannot be properly administered apart from the word (i.e., preceded by it), they are not something less than the word. Yet, as I survey the phenomenon that is American Reformed Christianity, the only conclusion I can reach is that for generations now we've largely ignored (or worse, forgotten) the significance of the Supper in the life and worship of the church. [To be fair, there has been a revival of interest in the Supper in recent years; yet, this can only be considered the beginning, not the end.]

The Supper is a sign and a seal of Christ's person and work, and specifically of the redemptive benefits of his substitutionary death. Through the Spirit, Christ presides at his table and feeds his sheep, on his broken body and on his blood, and yet we seem content not to eat of and receive the benefits of this spiritual feast. We come once a month or once a quarter or, in some cases, whenever the elders determine it is time again. If the nature and the benefits of the Supper are what they are, then what prevents us from observing the supper with greater frequency? Why should we not conclude, as Calvin did, that we ought to come to the Table of our Lord "at least weekly"? This conclusion seems harder to avoid especially when we consider in at least two instances the apostolic church appears to have adopted this very practice (see Acts 2:42; 20:7, 11). The only valid reasoning for less frequent observance of the Supper is, as T. David Gordon has concluded, is that we do not perceive the Supper to be of significant spiritual value, as was the case with Zwingli.

So, my question is this: If the Supper is one of the divinely appointed means whereby Christ communicates the benefits of his mediation, and if it was observed regularly, frequently, if not weekly by the early church under apostolic oversight, why, then, do we, as Reformed churches, not practice frequent or weekly communion?

2. Calvin vs. the Calvinists (especially with regard to the doctrine of limited or definite atonement).

To be honest, I have very little by way of expertise in this subject. Yes, I've read a number of the primary sources and a handful of secondary sources, both of which lead me to conclude that the Muller thesis (i.e., substantial continuity) is basically correct. Calvin's successors did not fundamentally depart from the basic contours of his theology; they did not corrupt a supposedly more biblical theology by the use of scholastic structures of teaching and thought.

My biggest difficulty in taking seriously the Kendall-Armstrong-et al thesis (that is, the discontinuity thesis) is that it always seems as though it has an theological ax to grind. This is no more apparent than with the doctrine of limited or definite atonement, which argues that Christ's death was efficient for the elect only. The saving efficacy of Christ's death takes into account only those for whom Christ was given to die (i.e., the elect, and not all men indefinitely). Though Calvin's view is admittedly difficult to understand (probably because of the context of the Reformation when compared to the context of the post-Reformation era), the views of historical and confessional Calvinism are not hard to understand. Both Dordt and Westminster (and with them Savoy and 2nd London) clearly confess that while Christ's death lacks nothing in terms of its sufficiency, his death is efficient for the elect only. Nevertheless, the discontinuity thesis wants to say that Calvin and his successors are so different at this point, that true Calvinism does not believe in limited atonement. They will jump on any and every instance of an isolated theologian making statements regarding the universal sufficiency of Christ's death and turn those theologians into proto Amyraldians (e.g., Ursinus).

My question to such a reading of historic Calvinism is this: why, then, has confessional Calvinism in every single instance affirmed the doctrine of definite atonement, and repudiated the teachings of Amyraut and those of his ilk. If the discontinuity thesis is correct on this point, why do the confessional documents of the entire Reformed tradition argue the very opposite? Why can't such fellows simply admit that they find the arguments of Dordt and Westminster unconvincing rather than attempting to turn nearly every Reformed theologian of the 16th and 17th centuries into a mouth-piece to voice their own theological agenda?

I know what the response from the discontinuity folks will be: "you've misunderstood, read this sound bite from the past". That won't do. It is insufficient. Read the historical confessions of the Reformed church and be honest. What do these documents (unanimously and unequivocally) teach?

Integrity, it seems to me, is still something worth maintaining, even whilst engaged in historical theology.

Peace...

Nearly two years...

2008-02-27T12:32:00.000-08:00

Yes, that is the amount of time I have spent away from this blog. I figured after such a long hiatus, no one was reading this. I was wrong. Two people in the last several months have mentioned stumbling on to my blog. That got me thinking a bit, and I have concluded it is either time to delete the blog, or get it up and running (meaning: trying to post at least once a week). Time to put up, or shut up.

So, here's what I'm going to do: I'll attempt to post at least weekly for the next month or so. If I receive feedback, I'll keep going. If not, I'll probably shut 'er down. So, at the end of the day, people, it's up to you...

See you tomorrow with my first "return" post.

More on the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul

2006-05-16T10:16:00.000-07:00

Follow the link to a list of helpful resources on the subject, from a trusted source.

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/fvnpp.php

William Still and Private "Ministry"

2006-05-12T10:31:00.000-07:00

In response to the quotation of William Still, my dear friend Aaron Hoak asked the following series of questions: "Is the pulpit the only place a pastor should be feeding sheep the truth? (Please note the question is not about the primacy of the pulpit ministry.) Can the Word be fed to the sheep in a conversation after church; in a visit to their home; in a counseling meeting? Or are these things worldly claptrap and goat entertaining?" As I began to reply, my response got a little too long. So I decided to post it here. Hope this helps.

The three questions you are asking are all different from one another. As to the last one, in the context of the quote, I don't find Still arguing that visitation or conversation with the sheep are "worldly claptrap." The comparison is at a very different level, viz., ministers who occupy their time with something other than their most basic and all-consuming task, the public ministry of the whole Word of God. Still does not address the question you have raised until later.

Your first two questions, however, present something of a conundrum. Should the pulpit be the only place the sheep are fed is a question of precept; but can the sheep be fed in personal conversation or pastoral visitation is a question of possibility. The two are quite different. Pardon the play on words, but we can't possibly answer the second question because, in itself, it is flawed. As ministers of the Word, and as Christians, we don't deal in the realm of possibilities (your second question), but rather we live and move and have our being in the realm of precept (your first question). The correct question to ask, then, is not "is it possible that some Christians might be fed by private ministrations of the Word," but rather, "What means of nourishment has God ordained, commanded, and promised to bless?" Neither you nor I can know the secret counsel of God; we must be content with what he has revealed (Deut 29:29). Ours is a theology (and pastoral theology) of revelation, not speculation. The question, then, is what has God said -- and more specifically for us, what has God said for us to do. And as we search the Scriptures we find that God has ordained, commanded, and promised to bless the reading, but especially the preaching of His Word unto the salvation (i.e., the feeding) of his sheep. There are a lot of things we don't know, but this much we do know: the sheep are and must be fed by the ministry of God's Word. Anything less is not the ministry.

Now, unless you conclude that I am dodging the intent of your question, let me assure you I am not. The perspective briefly laid out above has far reaching implications, and I can only address them briefly here. I (and Still) would argue that personal conversation and pastoral visitation are only complementary and supplemental to the divinely sanctioned public ministry of the Word, and only insofar as that kind of private word is actually necessary. Don't misunderstand. After church you are standing around and someone asks a question about the sermon. Are you going to ignore them? No, but your answer is going to confirm or amplify the preached Word. Will God bless that private Word? Yes, but as a by-product of the preached Word. Nevertheless, I think the question being asked here is less about that kind of conversation and more about a kind of regular, sustained "private" ministry of the Word [Not your question necessarily, Aaron, but the question as it is generally asked today]. Still (and I think he is quite right) contends that where the Word is properly ministered and faithfully preached the attention the sheep demand outside of the pulpit should naturally decrease. Seemingly needy sheep become faithful (fed or fat?) sheep as they heed the ministry of God's Word, so that the need for any other spiritual food (i.e., counseling) is greatly reduced. He writes, "My pastoral work of personal dealing, considerable though it is, has been greatly reduced through the years because the building up of people's faith, by the ministry of the Word of God, solves so much in their lives" (pp. 20-21). As I read him, he draws that conclusion for several reasons.

First, and most obvious, is the sufficiency of the Word (and the Word preached). The Word itself is living and active (Heb 4:12), and if the minister makes it his all-consuming duty to preach the whole counsel of God (not just tidbits or preferences), then the sheep should have a full diet that meets all their needs. The public ministry of the Word thus demands very little supplement -- and where it does, it is in the context of crisis or great need (e.g., death). Still is writing from a perspective that sadly not many share any longer -- one of a long tenure in the church, for both pastor and parishioner alike. If we are in it for the "long haul," the Lord will sanctify us by his Word over the "long haul." We have been trained to seek the immediate fix or the mountain top experience. And sadly many pastors either think they have the power or want desperately to provide that fix or experience for sheep who are struggling or suffering. But is that right? Is that biblical? No. None are freed from suffering and difficulty in this life -- it is an inescapable reality on account of the overlap of the ages. None are freed from sin entirely in this life -- it, too, is an inescapable reality in the life of the saint. But should that cause despair? Has the meager sheep no recourse or help? No, for our gracious Lord and Savior has ordained the public means of grace to be our steady diet, a diet that if faithfully administered and faithfully received Lord's Day after Lord's Day, is appointed to the end of our full nourishment. God will meet our real needs for solid spiritual food as his Spirit works through his preached Word. Hart and Muether make the same point in With Reverence and Awe concerning the slow but steady diet of the God-ordained public means of grace.

As I've already alluded to, the second reason Still (and I) would give for his conclusion is the sovereingty of the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ knows the sheep (their troubles, trials, etc.) with a perfect knowledge, unlike the minister. Thus, the minister ought to have confidence that the Spirit will apply his own living and active Word to Christ's sheep perfectly and sufficiently (far better, indeed, than you or I ever could) -- and the means appointed to that end is the preaching of the whole Word of God, both the law and the gospel. In this way faith and patience go hand in hand. Do we believe that God's Word is sufficient and God's Spirit is sovereign to save? If so, then we will not busily or frantically try to do the work of either (which, I fear is what we are doing by counseling, et al). Instead, we will fulfill our calling. We will preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering (i.e, patience) and teaching (2 Tim 4:2). We will minister God's Word when and where and how we are commanded and trust that the Spirit will accomplish his sovereign purposes of conversion and sanctification when and where and how God has promised, namely, as the Shorter Catechism states by the reading, but especially, the preaching of the Word of God.

The final reason, which I had never considered at great length, is the application of the preached Word in the communion of the saints. Above I quoted Still saying that the ministry of the Word solves so much in peoples lives. He continues, "It enables those who receive it and seek to live by it to understand and solve so much in other lives, that instead of becoming a liability on my time and energy, they become pastors themselves. Indeed, one of the features of such a radical and total ministry of the Word is that it thrusts so many into spiritual and social work that I can hardly keep a congregation together on account of their scattering throughout the land, and indeed, the earth" (p. 21). Now, I do not agree that the sheep become pastors -- there is a distinction to be made. But Still has a point. He suggests here that the ministry of the Word bears fruit nationally and globally. My point, and he makes it elsewhere in the book, is that the ministry of the Word ought to bear fruit ecclesiastically, i.e., in the church and for the sake of the church. While too much has been made of this in recent years by creating a whole theology of "one-anothering," there is a point to be made concerning Christ's people loving and caring for each another. As some sheep grow and mature through the means of grace, they are able to help other sheep at a more personal level. One sheep loves another, confronts another, prays for another, and the like. Now, we will miss the point entirely if we try to formalize this, or create a program for it. No, this is an informal reality in the church, which arises as a Spirit-born by-product of the full-orbed ministry of God's sufficient Word. So that just as the minister confirms privately and personally what he has declared in the ministry of the Word, so also Christ's sheep confirm the Word with and for each other.

While I have probably raised more questions than provided answers, my basic answer turns us again to what belongs not only at the center of the pastoral ministry, but what is the sum and substance of the pastoral ministry, viz., the public ministry of God's Word. Anything else we do as ministers only serves to confirm (or grow out of, or revolve around) that, and it must be our prayer that Christ by his Spirit does what only he can do in and for our churches, viz., powerfully and effectually apply the Word to each and every one of His beloved sheep.

New Books Dealing with The Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul

2006-05-11T17:30:00.000-07:00

One of the advantages the internet affords is the ability to search for new or forthcoming books, which is best done by searching the individual publisher's site. Over the past several weeks I have stumbled across several volumes I had heard about previously from various sources, but which have only recently been (or are soon to be) made available. [Note: I hope to make such reviews/previews of new/forthcoming books a regular feature of the Confessionalist.]

First, Michael Horton has written an introduction to covenant theology entitled, God of Promise (Baker). This book is available, as of last month. Reformed Baptists like myself will not agree with all of Horton's conclusions, most notably concerning the practice of infant baptism; nevertheless, as my father and co-pastor, Don Lindblad, observed, the introduction is, by itself, a concise and cogent summary of this vital subject. Much that passes for 'covenant theology' in Reformed circles today is really a 20th century revision (or retarding) of classic covenant theology. Horton helpfully reverses that trajectory and introduces afresh historic covenant theology to the present generation.

With a similar subject (i.e., covenant theology), but a more polemic purpose is Guy Prentiss Waters's The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A comparative Analysis (P & R), due out sometime in May or June. If this volume lives up to its billing and title, then Waters's labors will go a long way to show that classic covenant theology and the Federal Vision are not different shades of gray, but are as different as white and black. Some (e.g. Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together) are contending that the basic contours of confessional Reformed theology can be expressed across a broad spectrum of theological formulations. The Federal Vision, however, is an altogether different theological system than confessional Reformed theology, despite what its proponents profess. It maintains a different view of election, of the covenant, of justification, and of the sacraments (to name but a few). Lord willing, Waters will make that crystal clear to the broader Reformed world.

Two other volumes dealing with recent challenges to the biblical and confessional doctrine of justification by faith alone are Cornelis P. Venema's Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Banner of Truth) and J. Ligon Duncan's Misunderstanding Paul?: Responding to the New Perspective (Crossway) are due out in May/June and October, respectively. Both appear to be written with both pastors and laymen in view, and should be of tremendous service to confessional Reformed Christianity.

Happy reading.

The Work of the Pastor

2006-05-10T11:59:00.000-07:00

I realize I have posted very little here, and it is perhaps the case that very few are keeping up with what little I say. The ministry has been quite demanding of late, and I don't pretend that will stop any time soon. Nonetheless, it is my hope to post more theologically and ecclesiastically poignant material on this site -- in particular I have some thoughts on the doctrine of the covenant of works in relation to the ongoing controversies regarding the doctrine of justification, and I have some thoughts on preaching and the pastoral ministry as that relates to theological prolegomena (viz., the doctrine of the Word of God).

In the meantime, I give you a quote from William Still's fine volume The Work of the Pastor:

"It is to feed sheep on [the] truth that men are called to churches and congregations, whatever they may think they are called to do. If you think that you are called to keep a largely worldly organisation [sic], miscalled a church, going, with infinitesimal doses of innocuous sub-Christian drugs or stimulants, then the only help I can give you is to advise you to give up the hope of the ministry and go and be a street scavenger; a far healthier and more godly job, keeping the streets tidy, than cluttering the church with a lot of worldly claptrap in the delusion that you are doing a job for God. The pastor is called to feed the sheep, even if the sheep do not want to be fed. He is certainly not to become an entertainer of goats. Let goats entertain goats, and let them do it out in goatland. You will certainly not turn goats into sheep by pandering to the goatishness. Do we really believe that the Word of God, by his Spirit, changes, as well as maddens men? If we do, to be evangelists and pastors, feeders of sheep, we must be men of the Word of God."

I say, "Amen!"

The Ministry We Need

2006-03-10T14:48:00.000-08:00

Calvin, commenting on Galatians 3:1, writes, "Let those who would discharge aright the ministry of the gospel learn, not merely to speak and declaim, but to penetrate into the consciences of men, to make them see Christ crucified, and feel the shedding of his blood. When the Church has painters such as these she no longer needs the dead images of wood and stone, she no longer requires pictures; both of which, unquestionably, were first admitted to Christian temples when the pastors had become dumb and been converted into mere idols, or when they uttered a few words from the pulpit in such a cold and careless manner, that the power and efficacy of the ministry were utterly extinguished."

Clearly, Calvin does not intend to stir ministers of the gospel to a kind of emotional excitement in the pulpit. Instead, his exhortation underscores the church's need for the clear and unequivocal proclamation of Christ crucified. Calvin is right. The church needs not practitioners of the latest church growth methodology (even that of the emergent church); rather, she needs faithful servants of Christ who will open the word of God, declaring nothing more or less than what God himself has revealed and disclosed in his only begotten Son. Or, do we think ourselves wiser than God? The church needs not props, but the proclamation of Christ! The church needs not a few words of encouragement from Lord's Day to Lord's Day, but the word of Christ explained and applied in all its detail and glory. May God grant his churches ministers who will eschew the latest and the greatest, and instead labor to declare the perfect and sufficient word of Christ by the power of the Spirit of Christ.

No One Really Cares, But...

2006-02-10T15:15:00.000-08:00

For the five of you who occassionaly check this web masterpiece, I am back online. After our move, and the addition of our second daughter, I should have some new posts for your reading pleasure in the near future.

So, stay tuned...

Intelligent Thoughts on Intelligent Design

2006-01-17T09:36:00.000-08:00

Editor's Introduction

Upon reading this post, you might ask, "what does this have to do with Reformed Baptist faith or practice?" Reformed Christianity, on the whole, has usually recognized the need for thoughtful, intelligent, and faithful interaction with the culture around us (not adaption, not accommodation, but interaction). The following, written as a letter to the editor for the Washington Post by Walter J. Chantry, editor of the Banner of Truth Magazine, does just that. This is a clear, well-argued, and thought-provoking piece that interacts with the current debate on Intelligent Design from the perspective of the philosophy of science (which, is a perspective often ignored by evangelicals, to their own peril). The careful reader, however, will notice something more: namely, Reformed theology and anthropology at work. Although he does not put the matter in precisely these terms, by decrying lawyers and school-boards for crying "religion, religion!" against this particular theory of origins, Walt pinpoints the real reason Intelligent Design has sparked so much debate: fallen man's innate, but irrational, suppression of the truth of natural revelation in all unrighteousness and ungodliness (Rom 1:18ff.). Here is a helpful reminder, then, that all things are in fact disciplined by theology. Bad theology produces bad fruit; Reformed theology produces thoughtful interaction with the cultured despisers of the revealed truth of God. With that said, read on...

Cultural Dogmatism against Intelligent Design

Walter J. Chantry

Much of the media seems to be pleased that lawyers and judges in government courts may outlaw discussion of “intelligent design” in science classrooms. To others of us it is chilling that thought police have limited the discussion of ideas within schools.

If a decision were taken to teach in science classes only scientific methods of observation, experimentation and measurement, then there would be no place for discussion of “intelligent design”. However, there would be no place for discussion of any philosophy of science. Yet the philosophy of science, which does not arise from observation, experimentation and measurement, is of vital concern to science.

Science has always rested upon philosophical assumptions. Its set of philosophical assumptions changes through history. At the end of the 20th century most serious scientists had to read The Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas S. Kuhn. Kuhn’s work noted radical changes in the philosophy of science. In fact the most productive scientists have thought outside the accepted norms of the scientific philosophy of their day and consequently have advanced our civilization. Newton and Einstein come to mind as changing philosophical direction in science and thereby making science enormously more productive. It is to be expected that great scientists will amend present thinking in the philosophy of science to make future advances in science (but the courts have ruled that no new philosophical paradigms are to be admitted to the classrooms of science).

By its methodology (empirical or sensual investigation) science has limited itself to examining and discussing material reality. This is either a metaphysical assumption that all reality is material, or it is an a priori admission that science has no knowledge of non-material reality…if any such exists.

The idea of “creation” is that all material reality was brought into existence by an entirely non-material Being. In other words, all that is material had a spiritual first cause and has a continuing spiritual management. By its chosen methodology science is incapable of proving or disproving this viewpoint. Science refuses to discuss what most of humanity past and present considers to be by far the more important reality—the spiritual. Most men think themselves to be an amalgam of both material and spiritual reality. Science is not all. For example, there are fine arts.

Yet science, with its empirical and therefore necessarily material outlook, cannot keep itself from speculating about origins of the material universe. In doing this it jettisons its own principles of reporting only upon the empirically observed facts. No man was present at the beginning of the universe to make sensual observations.

Darwin has become the darling of a majority of scientists, and now, we suppose, of the lawyers as well. What Darwin gave us as a philosophy of science was a materialistic determinism. In chromosomes or DNA or genetic code or in some yet-to-be-discovered element of material there lies an inevitable upward (improving) force of development from within material itself. This is claimed although in a world of merely the material there is no ground for judging improvement! Strangely, this predestinarian view of physical development is not thought to be inbuilt or directed by a personal intelligence. It is the worst of all predestinarian views, because it presents the idea that there are inevitable, purely material impulses creating change that gains dominance by destruction of all competing forms.

When those who believed in such materialistic determinism employed “The survival of the fittest” politically and militarily in the last century, we had Bolshevism and Nazi Fascism. This was hardly a cultural advance. Ideas have consequences!

The media has recently focused on school board members who may have introduced the teaching of “intelligent design” for religious reasons. Horrors! Lawyers have cried, “Religion! Religion!”, and have frightened a nation. Religion does have a philosophy of “Intelligent design” wrapped into its view of creation. Religion teaches intelligent (spiritual, personal) design as opposed to impersonal, unfeeling predestinarian materialistic forces. Should there be a discussion of philosophy or merely the imposition of Darwin’s philosophy?

What is worse, from the point of view of the media, “intelligent design” did not originate with religiously motivated school board non-scientists. Many of our finest scientists do not share Darwin’s philosophy of science (one wonders if there is money to be made by lawyers in silencing them all). Some who began their scientific work assuming Darwin was correct have changed their minds as a result of science itself.

Only since the 1950’s have we had microscopes powerful enough to give us images of cells of the human body. Scientists using these microscopes have observed and described the complexity and marvel of the operations within one human cell. After recording their findings, some sat back and pondered their results. A number of them have concluded from their studies that the existence of a human cell does not fit into Darwin’s philosophy. They could not conceive of cells evolving through the “survival of the fittest” scheme. Nor could they imagine such development from impersonal materialistic determinism. Some scientists are thinking that a change of paradigm is needed in science itself. This did not have religious origins, but it might encourage religious opinions. However, there is the great “bugbear” again—religion! Run for your life!

Are students to be ordered not to read scientists who are suggesting a change in the philosophy of science? What would the courts have done to a theory of relativity before Einstein? I am afraid that the pontifical courts and the lawyers are all “emperors without clothes” on this one; they are for suppression of thought.

A Little Humor from the Good Doctor

2006-01-11T10:30:00.000-08:00

A little ecclesiastical humor, courtesy of Jim Renihan. This would be funnier, however, if it weren't true of many present day churches.

http://tinyurl.com/9fmfm

p.s. if it wants you to download Quick Time or iTunes, you don't have to. You can change the format (right above the "screen") and it should play in Windows Media Player or your default media player. If it doesn't work, sorry. I repeat, I am not computer savvy.

A Baker's Dozen (+1)

2006-01-10T22:10:00.000-08:00

The idea was simple: pick what I deem to be the best 10 books out of my small library and say a few words about them. This proved to be more difficult than anticipated, because I quickly realized I have some mighty fine books. Choosing between them necessitated cracking the cover of several volumes, and I quickly became lost in biblical, theological, and historical thought. I also had a hard time narrowing the list to 10. Hence, what follows is a baker's dozen list of the best 13 books in my library (you'll see why the list goes to #14 when you get there). The list is confined to my library, so I'm not pretending to speak authoritatively about the best books of all time. Also, these books are in no particular order, and the list does not include any Confessional documents or Bibles, English or otherwise.

Much of this list is predictable, but hey, it's my list.

1. Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. A wealth of theological wisdom, but in a concise and accessible package.

2. Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd edition, 4 volumes. Yes, a set counts as one on my list, and this is a critical work in historical theology.

3. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 volumes. I know, obvious.

4. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Important, both theologically and historically. The inability to distinguish properly between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace has crippled much of modern Reformed theology. Fisher's dialogue would be helpful in rectifying that problem.

5. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology. Vos, in my opinion, had to be on this list, and it was between this volume and his Biblical Theology. This is less accessible than Biblical Theology, and more specific in scope, but a gem for setting forth the basic structure of Paul's thought. If you aren't familiar with Vos, but you are familiar with the modern milieu of eschatological thought, don't be fooled by the title (and shame on you!). Neither Paul's eschatology nor Vos's conception of it deals exclusively with 'last things' narrowly considered.

6. D. G. Hart and John Muether, With Reverance and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship. The most important book on the most important subject.

7. John Brown, Galatians. The Old Perspective on Paul -- and the biblical perspective on Paul. Needs to be read alongside Calvin's commentary and sermons on Galatians.

8. John Owen, The Works of John Owen. No, it isn't cheating to include a massive set like this on a short list; but, if I had to pick one volume, it would either be vol. 4 or vol. 5.

9. Nehemiah Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants That God Made with Men Before the Law. Recently republished in Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. The original title is much longer, and gives the reader insight into the book's substance and intent. Not just another book on covenant theology; the most important on the subject. Coxe, a 17th century Particular Baptist, argues for credo-baptism (and against paedobaptism) on the basis of covenant theology. Quite frankly, this is brilliant. I thank God every day for Nehemiah Coxe, and for the man who introduced me to this volume, Dr. James M. Renihan, professor of the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies (at Westminster Seminary California).

10. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: A Complete Body of Divinity, 2 volumes. Very fine, especially on the covenant of works with Adam, and the intratrinitarian covenant of redemption.

11. Francis Turretin, The Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 volumes. Meaty.

12. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism. Arguably the most important book written in the 20th century, by arguably the most important confessional Presbyterian of the 20th century.

13. Carl Trueman, The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historic & Contemporary Evangelicalism. I've only had this little book for less than 6 months, but I've read it cover to cover and I find myself returning to it often. Well worth the price of admission.

14. James M. Renihan, Things Most Assuredly Believed Among Us: A Commentary on the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689). THIS IS NOT A REAL BOOK, BUT IT SHOULD BE. This author has not (yet) written this book, but he is the world's leading expert on the theology and the history of the Confession of Faith. He needs to write this book, and when he does, it will be at the top of this list. I'm simply reserving the space in advance. [By the way, I have no idea what his title would be, or if he is currently working on this project; this is purely hypothetical and fictional on my part -- don't ask Jim if he is working on this, or if he has decided this is his title, he will never forgive me for it.]

I'll probably revise this list several times before I die (or before February, whichever comes first). Nevertheless, enjoy...

My Maiden Voyage...

2006-01-09T15:33:00.000-08:00

There are some in this world who are computer savvy -- I am not, even though I own multiple PCs.

There are some in this world who are blog savvy -- I am not, even though I have responded to posts on a friend's blog (http://zoomstick.blogspot.com).

There are some in this world who seem to have countless hours to devote to this (mediocre, and often self-aggrandizing) form of publishing -- I do not, even though I am mediocre in many of my pursuits (e.g., golf, texas-hold-'em, etc.). As a man, a husband, a father, and a minister of the gospel, I do not have that kind of time. I have no intention of becoming a slave to this blog.

There are some in the ecclesiastical world (particularly the Reformed and Protestant world) who seem to think that blogging is a helpful tool for advancing biblical and theological acumen amongst God's people -- I'm skeptical, at best. Often blogging ends up being nothing more than a bunch of strangers sharing their collective ignorance. Instant publishing, in fact, is much like light beer when compared to a finely crafted cask conditioned ale -- less filling, no taste. While there may be profit in internet banter, especially when the subject is the living God and his inspired Word, as a general rule of thumb internet research is no safe guide, and for the Christian it is a far cry from the outward and ordinary means of grace God has appointed for his church (more on that in a future post).

So, then, why have I started this blog? Mob mentality, I guess. Everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn't I? Admittedly, that is very poor reason, and I already regret having posted such an admission in my very first entry.

Nevertheless, as the title and description of this blog would suggest, I am a confessional Reformed Baptist (again, more on that in a future post) -- and I am a minister in a confessional Reformed Baptist church. As such, I have created this blog so that I (and invited ministerial cohorts) might have a forum to address certain matters theological and ecclesiastical that might not appear in printed format, either in a book or theological journal.

Enjoy. And don't forget to come back.