Douglas J. Douma's Blog, page 23

Review of “Henry J. Kuiper, Shaping the Christian Reformed Church, 1907-1962.”

Henry J. Kuiper, Shaping the Christian Reformed Church, 1907-1962, James A. DeJong, Eerdmans, 2007, 270 pp.

One should first note that the subtitled years, 1907-1962, are just those years Henry J. Kuiper was involved in “shaping the Christian Reformed Church.” His full years are 1885 to 1962.

I read this book among others in a quest to understand the drastic shift in theology in the Christian Reformed Church in the mid-20th century. While the last book I read, Summonining Up Remembrances by Henry Stob, provides an example of the type of theology the CRC became in the second half of the century, this book on Henry J. Kuiper provides an example of what the CRC theology was in the first half of the century. But while the contrast is evident to this reader, I found little comment in the present book on the drastic changes toward liberalism and neo-orthodoxy in the CRC in Kuiper’s later years.

One of Kuiper’s major theological drives was to crusade against “worldliness,” including dancing, card playing, and theatre and movie attendance.  But, having supported the CRC’s position on “common grace,” (including the idea that Christians should transform culture through cooperating with it) the Protestant Reformed churchmen today might point out Kuiper’s view inevitably led to a far deeper worldliness in the CRC.

Kuiper lived through a period where the “americanization” of the church was a major issue. In this reader’s understanding, he came to fairly good conclusions on how to proceed. Kuiper had no issues with the church transitioning from Dutch to English language services, and he welcome Reformed hymns to be added to the Psalter. His support of Christian schooling at both the high school level (where he helped start a number of schools in Grand Rapids) and at the college level (where he helped start the Reformed Bible Institute, today Kuyper College) are admirable.

Kuiper should best be remembered for his long stint as editor of The Banner which he helped grow the circulation of, and through which his views helped shape the mind of the CRC. But he should also be remembered for his role in The New Christian Hymnal and in supporting uniformity in worship in the CRC.

DeJong makes an error on page 60 when he calls R. B. Kuiper [no relation to H. J] the “President of Westminster Theological Seminary.” To my knowledge, there was no president at WTS until Edmund Clowney decades later. Rather, R. B. was a only a professor at WTS.

Some things I found interesting:

1. Kuiper’s pastor growing up was J. H. Vos, the father of Geerhardus Vos.

2. I learned of CRC minister Harry Bultema who was deposed in 1919 for promoting dispensational premillennialism.

3. Kuiper was an ardent anti-socialist, but favored controls on capitalism.

4. Kuiper was for a time the pastor of a young Harry Jellema.

5. Families were admonished as “oncers” if they attended church only once and not twice on Sundays.

6. Rousas J. Rushdoony wrote articles for Torch and Trumpet starting in 1958.

7. I most certainly agree with Kuiper’s opposition to retirement. DeJong writes that Kuiper “bluntly opposed retiring to Florida to wile away winter days at shuffleboard and evenings visiting with similarly disengaged but misguided believers over board games.”(p. 124)

The book itself was well-written and well-researched. I would have preferred a more chronological approach, rather than the repetition of some things as DeJong went more topic-by-topic in Kuiper’s life, sometimes circling back many years in doing so. DeJong is honest in pointing out both Kuiper’s achievements and his flaws. Overall, this was a fairly solid book.

Dancing at Phi Alpha Kappa in 1936

“When a Grand Rapids Press article reported on a fraternity house homecoming dance at the University of Michigan, it named six of the church’s young people as participants. The consistory immediately dispatched two elders to Ann Arbor to investigate this public blot on the congregration’s [Neland Avenue Christian Reformed Church] reputation. Their report the next week at two special consistory meetings, held four days apart, yielded absolutions for four of the young people, confessions of wrong-doing by two others, and a warning against worldliness to the congregation. The episode kindled [Rev. H. J.] Kuiper’s and Neland’s interest in matters at the state’s premier university sufficiently that the consistory submitted an overture to the next classes meeting asking the classes to request the Phi Alpha Kappa fraternity not to schedule dances and to cease the practice of hazing, since so many Christian Reformed young men were members, and since these practices militated against the values of the Ann Arbor Chapel.” – James A. DeJong, Henry J. Kuiper, Shaping the Christian Reformed Church, 1907-1962, p. 73-74.

This is the first time I’ve come across a reference in a book to my college fraternity, Phi Alpha Kappa. In 1936 the fraternity would have been only 7 years into its existence, as I recall it began in 1929, taking its name after the first letters of “Fellowship of Alumni of Calvin [College]” where many of the members had previously studied. By the time I lived in the house [2002-2004] there was no concern at the Christian fraternity about the worldliness of dancing. We managed, to my knowledge, not to have alcohol, but only a keg of root beer. One party brought in about 500 people, if I remember correctly. And while the parties themselves remained well-regulated, in a fit of youthful exuberance I joined (or instigated) a few of my brothers in soaping ourselves up and sliding for distance across the great room floor on our chests during late-night mopping of the dance floor. It is a good thing that didn’t make the Grand Rapids Press.

Review of “Summoning Up Remembrances” by Henry Stob

Summoning Up Remembrances, Henry Stob, Eerdmans Publishing, 1995, 354 pp.

This book is a partial auto-biography of Henry Stob (1908-1996), a philosophy professor at Calvin College and later Calvin Seminary. I say “partial” because the book inexplicably ends in 1952 with just a passing note saying, “I remained in the seminary for the next thirty years.” (p. 338)

I read this book in order to increase my understanding of the theological shifts at Calvin College, Calvin Seminary, and the Christian Reformed Church in the mid 20th century. For that purpose the book was valuable though by no means conclusive or exhaustive on the topic.

The book has frequent forays into national and international news to provide context. While this was helpful, I was primarily interested in the theological and more focused historical sections of the book.

Though the setting of the book begins in the Dutch communities around Chicago,  it later moves to Grand Rapids where Stob attended college and lived most of his adult life. This latter setting provided me with fond feelings of familiarity as I grew up in the same area, though a few generations later.

Comparing the era of the events in the book with today’s world, I noted some profound changes. For one, I’m sure dancing, cards, and movie-watching are no longer forbidden at Calvin College. Also, I found myself quite jealous of the financial cost of Stob’s schooling. The tuition was either low or non-existent for the schools he attended including Calvin College, Harftord Seminary, Gottingen University, and the Free University in Amsterdam. In fact, in some cases Stob received a stipend, and while he borrowed some money for his post-doctoral work, it was later forgiven him. Also, a far cry from the difficulties of today’s doctoral students, Stob was chosen to be the professor of philosophy at Calvin before he even finished his studies!

The previous philosophy professor, Harry Jellema, had left for Indiana University and Cornelius Van Til had turned down Calvin’s offer of the position. And so Stob was hired. It seems that the Calvin College administration must have considered Stob – then only 29 years old – to be an orthodox Dutch Reformed thinker, matching his upbringing in the hypocritically legalistic (anti-dancing, anti-card playing, anti-movie watching, but cigar and alcohol favoring) midwestern Dutch communities of Chicago and Grand Rapids. But Stob confirms that even at a young age he “had problems with … reprobation and … limited atonement” (p. 130) and later came to find himself largely agreeing with the theology of Karl Barth. (p. 138-9) In fact, in college, Stob relays, he regularly skipped Henry Meeter’s course in Calvinism and nearly failed it. (p. 99)  It seems that Stob, who was studying in Germany when he was surprised with a letter offering him the position at Calvin, was never interviewed by the college to find out what his theology actual was.

Some things I learned:

Harry Jellema did not like H. Evan Runner, or at least didn’t like his philosophy.
Many students at Calvin complained of William Hendriksen’s teaching.
Stob counted among the students in his Plato Club in 1951-1952, Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff.
Cornelius Van Til taught at Calvin in the Winter of 1952 and had a debate with William Masselink about “Common Grace.”

Interestingly, the book relays, a petition from “concerned citizens” said of some professors at Calvin, “they stress common grace far more than the antithesis.” (p. 319) It seems that the students were more keen on Barthianism than the professors! (p. 321)

Stob comments considerably on the shake-up at Calvin Seminary in 1952, but I’ll probably need to read it again to understand the nuances of the disagreements between the professors. Perhaps the other book I have on my list – Henry J. Kuiper, Shaping the Christian Reformed Church, 1907-1962 will shed further light.

As for Stob post-1952, one of the sources available online is a collection of his “thoughts” upon retirement. Though I guess they are “thoughts,” they are poor ones, with very strong Barthian and liberal leanings. It is sad to consider his what his influence was in teaching at Calvin Seminary for thirty years.

Review of “The Westminster Assembly” by Robert Letham

The Westminster Assembly, Reading Its Theology In Historical Context by Robert Letham, P&R, 2009, 399 pp.

As the subtitle of the book indicates, The Westminster Assembly is not so much about the history of the period (i.e. the 1640s in England) but is focused on the historical development of the theology present at the Westminster assembly. Letham’s focused study brings him to conclude that much of the criticism of the Westminster Confession of Faith from mid-20th century theologians like Karl Barth and T. F. Torrance was anachronistic; critiquing Westminster using forms of thought which had not yet emerged in that period.

Though the book was interesting to read in places, if often was fairly dry and read more like a reference text book as it analyzed the confession point by point.

I found Letham’s tone at times to sound somewhat arrogant. Most of his references to theologians who have commented on the Westminster Confession were in order to disagree with them. This includes not only Barth and Torrance, but orthodox theologians including A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield. This is all well-and-good and within Letham’s right to do so. But, I was less forgiving of some of Letham’s references to his own works. He writes, for example, “I have argued elsewhere for the balancing of legal and judicial focus of Western soteriology by the Eastern doctrine of deification.” That is a lot to process and a somewhat surprisingly claim to then be passed over. In the margin of my copy of the book I noted “Letham likes Letham.”

I did learn a number of things from this book.  Letham shows that while there was some diversity of thought among the divines at Westminster, the overall tenor of the assembly (and of the Church of England leading up to it) was strongly Calvinistic. Quoting MacCulloch, he writes, “Cranmer’s ‘middle ways’ was not a midpoint between the Reformation and Rome, but ‘between Wittenburg and Zurich.'” (p. 52) Also, I was intrigued in learning of “English hypothetical universalists” who predated Amyraldianism.

While this book was a worthwhile read, I have to imagine there are better books on the subject.

Sermon on Romans 2:12-16

Sermon on Romans 2:12-16 – The Only Escape From Judgment

Jan. 7, 2018 at Dillingham Presbyterian Church

Sermon Text:

[Rom 2:12-16 ESV] 12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Introduction:

In my last sermon we learned from Paul’s letter to the Romans that there will be a day of judgment. Today we hear more about this day in which God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

And for those who have a fear of God, knowing that He is just and all-powerful, and for those who know that they are sinners, both in their actual deeds and in the secrets they keep, the first question will likely be, “How can I escape the judgment of God?” “How can I escape the judgment of God?”

Should we run from God? Should we bury our heads in the sand and ignore the Word of God hoping that our ignorance will get us off the hook?

Or is hearing the Word of God all we need? Like a doctor, should I just say “Take two sermons and see me next Sunday?”

And are they who know not the law given a free pass?

To these five questions Paul answers … No, No, No, No, and …. No.

Ignorance is not the path to salvation. Neither is merely hearing the Word and ignoring it. We cannot escape the judgment of God by ignoring him. Nor can we escape the judgment of God by hearing his word then ignoring what it says. Whether one is ignorant of God’s law or can recite the whole Bible from memory, all people are sinners in need of God’s grace. And this, the grace of Jesus Christ, as Paul contends in the book of Romans, is our only escape from God’s judgment. THE GRACE OF JESUS CHRIST IS OUR ONLY ESCAPE FROM GOD’S JUDGMENT.

To help understand Paul’s conclusion we will look at each verse of this passage in turn.

We’ll form the following outline of points from this passage:

1. IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS

2. HEARING IS NOT BLISS

3. ALL ARE AWARE OF GOD’S LAW

4. JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY ESCAPE FROM JUDGMENT

First, we see that Ignorance is Not Bliss.

Paul writes …

1. IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS (v. 12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.)

Paul’s statement here in verse 12 answers a number of common questions about Christianity.

For one, it answers the question “Do those who have never heard the Law get a free pass to salvation?” This is the question of those in far off lands. The deserted island scenario. They have not heard the Law. Are they therefore innocent? This question is one of the most frequent brought up against Christianity and the Gospel. Is the person in a far off land who has never heard of God’s law, is that person free from God’s judgment?

Christianity, however, is exclusivisitic. That is, the Bible teaches that ONLY those who have faith in Jesus Christ will be saved. None other. And so the world cries, “that is not fair.” It is these same people who cry “not fair” that themselves do not avail themselves of the Grace of God. We’ll see later in our passage today why it is fair that God condemns those who have never even heard the Gospel. The reason is that even though they have not received the written law of God, they know of a certain amount of law naturally, and so stand condemned for not obeying it.

But to the question. “Do those who have never heard the Law get a free pass to salvation?”

Paul says “for all who have sinned WITHOUT THE LAW will also perish without the law.” That is, those who have not received the verbal or written law of God still will receive the consequences of breaking the law. They will perish. Ignorance of the law does not give them a pass. Ignorance is not bliss.

Paul’s statement in verse 12 also answers the question “Is there an age of accountability under which children get a free pass to salvation?” Some churches teach this idea – that children under a certain age are not accountable to God for their sins, and that if they die before this age of accountability they are guaranteed salvation.

The Bible however does not teach this doctrine, and it certainly does not provide an age (5?, 6?, 7?) of accountability. Rather, David, in Psalm 51:5 says “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” See, there is no age of accountability. David says he was sinful from birth! Even before birth! He was sinful from conception. There can be no age under which a person is free from the guilt of sin.

Paul says “for ALL who have sinned without the law with also perish without the law.” Ignorance of the law does not give anyone a pass. Ignorance is not bliss.

Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is not a second path to salvation. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. The ONLY way is Christ. You must believe in him, not merely NOT REJECT him. [Repeat]

It is sad to say that some in the church in which I grew up – the Lutheran Church – taught that salvation is the default, and it is only lost when we reject God. It is only some who hold this view, not all. An example of one who did believe that salvation is the default and is only lost when we reject God was one of the founders of the Lutheran Church here in America who wrote, “We preach faith, and any person not willfully resisting obtains faith.” This makes man’s choice the deciding factor. It is like Arminianism, but with a subtle shift. The Arminian argues that damnation is the default and man must choose God to be saved. Some Lutherans argue that faith is the default and man must simply chose not to reject God in order to be saved. We hold that both of these positions are in error, for it (salvation) is not of man’s will (neither dependent on man’s accepting nor rejecting of God) but salvation is of God’s will, fully dependent on God to give us faith as a gift, as we sinners cannot come to faith on our own. All men are willfully resisting and need the grace of God to be regnerated.

How would you feel if your spouse, or your parent, or your child merely did not reject you? Do you not desire that they POSITIVELY love you? Is God satisfied that I do not actively protest against him? Or does He desire that I actually have a relationship of prayer and reading his Word? To ask these questions is to answer them – you must believe in Christ, not merely NOT REJECT HIM.

These two questions we looked at – the deserted island scenario, and the age of accountability for children – if we were to answer these two questions in the opposite way, we would come to some strange conclusions. If ignorance is bliss, then we would stop sending missionaries overseas. For in preaching to the unreached we’d be risking that they learn the law and therefore run the risk of them being guilty of it. And if children were to have an “age of accountability” one might conclude that ending a child’s life before he comes to know of the law would be doing him a favor – ensuring that he gains entrance to heaven. But certainly the Bible commands us to do evangelism, and certainly the Bible commands us not to murder. So much for ignorance.

Since ignorance is not a path to salvation, we must teach our children God’s word. In fact, one of the few things the Bible explicitly says about the parent-child relationship is that parents must teach their children the Scriptures. For example, in Proverbs 22:6 – “train up a child in the way he should go.” and in Ephesians 6:4 – “Father’s do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”

And since ignorance is not a path to salvation, we must preach the word of God and we must teach and evangelize the world. In the Great Commission of Matthew 28, Jesus says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, TEACHING them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Teaching is a critical part of evangelism because ignorance is not bliss.

We must raise up our children in knowledge of the Lord. And we must go out into the world and preach the good news of God. Both of these are necessary because, as Paul contends in verse 12, ignorance is not bliss.

2. HEARING IS NOT BLISS (v. 13)

 

So then, is hearing the Law bliss? That is, is having been preached to sufficient for salvation? Or is having once or twice or hundred times read the Bible sufficient for salvation?

Just as Paul concludes that ignorance is not bliss, so he concludes that hearing is not bliss either.

He writes in verse 13, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

So neither not hearing the law, nor hearing the law is salvific! Whether a person sinned in ignorance of the law or sinned while knowing the law, he is still a sinner.

Just as Paul was saying that the Jews were not saved merely because they had the law, so we must say that we are not saved merely by attending church, or merely because we heard a sermon, not merely because we have been baptized. Hearing is not bliss.

What good is it if you never get beyond hearing the law, and never do the law itself?

Hearing the Word of God is the not the end goal. The Word is preached so that we may have faith and with faith go out and do the things of the law.

Paul so beautifully puts the importance of preaching later in his epistle to the Romans, in the 10th chapter. He writes, “How then will they call on him who they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us? So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

So even though hearing alone is not bliss, hearing does have an important role. We must hear the Word of Christ so that we may be led to faith in him. We do not preach merely for hearing sake. We preach so as to provide the content of belief. And we believe so that we may live in conformity with God’s law. “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

Paul says, “The doers of the law will be justified” – This connects with earlier in chapter 2 where Paul wrote that “ He[God] will render to each one according to his works.” This, as we learned last week, is not in defense of work righteousness – that erroneous idea that we can appease God through our works, but rather it means that … good works are evidence of the believer’s union with Christ. And it is on this account – union with Christ – that believers will be pronounced righteous. And so, neither being ignorant of the law nor hearing the law will bring salvation. Only Christ Jesus bring salvation by God’s Grace, through the gift of faith, and this faith and union with Christ are evidenced in the good works we do.

Our passage today continues on the theme Paul has developed in these first chapters – the fact that the Jews have the law does not make them any better off than the Gentiles. When Paul speaks of those “with the law” he is referring to the Jews. When he speaks of those “without the law” he is referring to the Gentiles who did not have the written law of God revealed to them. Paul has already warned that God is not a respecter of persons. He is not impressed that you are rich, or influential in the world, or from a certain family, or from a certain ethnicity. It is not any of these things that are correlated with salvation. But, rather, “the DOERS of the law will be justified.”

3. ALL ARE AWARE OF GOD’S LAW (v. 14-15)

So whether a person has heard the law or is ignorant of the law, all are under some law. But how can it be that those who have never heard the law are guilty? Paul explains that while some people may not know the specially revealed laws that God gave to the Israelites, all people by nature know of some law.

Paul writes, “14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.”

Thus John Calvin contends, “ignorance is in vain pretended as an excuse by the Gentiles, since they prove by their own deeds that they have some rule of righteousness.”

While the Israelites have (or had) the law of God written on stone in the 10 commandments, all people have the “work of the law written on their hearts.”

This, our translators have properly called “the conscience.” The conscience is that inner sense of right and wrong with which all men are equipped. Thus, when people – even those who do not know the law of God – when they sin, they feel ashamed, they feel guilty, they know they have done something wrong.

Because of this innate sense of right and wrong, there is no nation and no society completely devoid of laws. People all have some notion of justice.

And thus all men are guilty. Not because they have heard the law and ignored it, but because the law written on the heart was disobeyed.

The text tells us that the Gentiles — those who have never heard the law — they yet have some understanding of the difference between good and evil. Because of this an unbeliever might be honest in business, he might contribute to his society, and he might provide for his family. And unbelievers also have an understanding that evil brings consequences. This is understood in their conscience. They ignore God’s law, but they can never ignore their own conscience.

Surely you have experienced the guilt of the conscience. You’ve committed a sin, and it is not easy to get that out of your mind. It may be years or decades later, and you still think about that poor choice, that evil choice. Even though you’ve asked God for forgiveness, that sin is still finds its way back at times in your conscience.

The conscience can be a great tormentor when you have done wrong. This fact is probably displayed in no place better than the famous novel Crime and Punishment by the Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky. In Crime and Punishment the protagonist, or main character, is an impoverished former student named Roskolnikov. Well, in order to solve his own financial troubles and to help out some other people as well, he convinces himself that it would be right to murder his evil pawnbroker, and take her valuables. Roskolnikov convinces himself, against his better judgment, that this this murder and theft will solve not only his problems, but will be a benefit to society, all of whom hate the evil pawnbroker. But after committing the murder and theft he finds himself in a far worse place – tormented by his conscience and looking over his shoulder at ever moment for the Police inspector he fears will catch up with him. Even though Roskolnikov does not believe in God, he feels guilty. Guilty to whom we may ask, but guilty nonetheless. Crime and Punishment thus displays what Paul said 1800 years earlier – that the work of the law is written on the heart, and the conscience bears witness with conflicting thoughts in the mind regarding what one has done. So, we see that even those who do not have the written law still have some law.

MORAL RELATIVISM

We might also note that Paul’s teaching displays the folly of moral relativism. Moral relativism is a significant prevailing trend in today’s world. It is the teaching that nothing is objectively right or wrong; that morality is in the eye of the beholder, a subjective judgment. Each person should, in this view, form their own opinion on what is right and wrong by they own feelings on the matter. Now, the proponents of this view, do contend that at least 1 thing is objectively right – their own view! Relativism is always stated absolutely.

Paul’s appeal to the conscience embarrasses the moral relativist, for they know that they do in fact hold certain things to be right and wrong. There is an objective law, it is what God determines it to be, and all men know at least some of this objective law because man was originally made in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

Paul appeals to the conscience because it is universal. Whether a man is a believer or an unbeliever, he has a conscience. This can be considered a “common ground” upon which a Christian can in evangelism and with the work of the Holy Spirit make an appeal to the unbeliever to believe the truth.

And this truth is that the guilt of the conscience evidences man’s knowledge of some law, and evidences man’s knowledge of the reality of the Creator, the one to whom they have guilt, and the one whom will one day judge all of mankind.

4. JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY ESCAPE FROM JUDGMENT (v. 16)

And so we return to our original question, “How can I escape the judgment of God?”

In the last sermon we saw that there will be a day of Judgment, and so we cannot ignore it.

Of this judgment, Paul says of “those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness” “there will be wrath and fury.” “There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek.”

Because ignorance is not bliss, and because hearing is not bliss, and because all are aware of God’s law, there is no escape from judgment but in Jesus Christ. [REPEAT]

Jesus Christ is our judge but he is also our savior. Paul writes, “on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” And those who have faith in Jesus Christ are made by the Holy Spirit to do good works. And thus when the judgment comes, those good works done in us and through us give evidence of our renewed status, our reborn nature, our being elect in Christ.

The only safety is faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the only escape from Judgment. We cannot hope for salvation outside of Christ. Ignorance is not bliss, and ignoring what we hear from God’s word does not lead to bliss either.

So you may ask, “WHAT AM I DO TO?”

Because ignorance is not bliss, it is important that you read the Bible yourself, that you teach your children the Bible, and that you find ways to reach the world with the Gospel – including praying for and supporting missions. And because hearing the message alone does not make one a Christian, you are to evidence your faith by good deeds, showing that Word of God has renewed your life. But, more than anything else, put your faith and hope in Jesus Christ, for it is in Him alone, and nowhere else that there is salvation.

The greatest thing about this great salvation in Christ, this good news of the Gospel, is that salvation is a free gift of God. Because we are sinners, sinning against the Law of God, and can do nothing of our own to merit salvation, God saw it fit to give us salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. So that it is not something we do, but something that God does, so that He deserves all the glory, and honor, and praise.

So let us not be ignorant, for it is in hearing the word of God that we come to faith in Christ. And let us not only hear the things of God, but let us do those things as well. And in doing these things we evidence God’s salvation in us and thank Him for Jesus Christ bringing us an escape from Judgment.

 

A Review of “Letters of A. W. Pink, During the Period 1924-1951”

[image error]

Letters of A. W. Pink, During the Period 1924-1951, Banner of Truth Trust, 1978, 135 pp.

For those who don’t know anything about A. W. Pink (1886-1952), I might note briefly that he was a Christian minister who largely left preaching to take up a writing ministry –  a newsletter he founded called Studies in the Scriptures. These writings were also published as commentaries (titled “Gleanings”) of various Biblical books. Pink is known for his thoroughgoing Calvinism (which he came to accept after rejecting his earlier training in dispensationalism).

You cannot read Pink and not be moved by his Christian humility, learnedness, and outright dedication to the Scriptures. He maintained a strict practice of reading and studying the Bible. With his library “weighing over half a  ton” (p. 48), I must conclude as accurate his own assessment of having read “1 million pages of religious literature.” (p. 74)

Yet, from what little I know of Pink, I must be concerned about him as an example of a Christian’s relationship to the church. Pink pastored a number of churches, but never for a very long period. When he finally settled back in the U. K. (after years in the U.S.A. and Australia) he struggled to find any church with which he could associate. His relative retreat from the world to a life of study and writing was made possibly by an inheritance he received from his father.

Lack of church attendance and membership is a concern I have for many Christians today. Like Pink, they often believe virtually all the churches are corrupt and on that basis excuse their lack of attendance. My opinion is that since all people are sinners, and the church is a gathering of people, then there naturally will be corruption in the church too. But this does not mean that one should scorn church anymore than one should scorn their own family which also is made up of sinners. All the more do people need church because they are sinners. (Yet, lest anymore misinterpret my meaning here, I am not claiming that church attendance or membership is necessary for salvation.)

Now, some “gleanings” from the book itself …

AGAINST PREMILLENNIAL DISPENSATIONALISM

“It is the ‘premillennial’ doctrine which I am now considerably out of love with. … As I studied the lives of early ‘pre’s’ and observed those of the present day—comparing most unfavorably with the godly Puritans—my suspicions became more and more aroused. … the next thing which struck me most forcibly was the total absence in the four Gospels of any reference to a millennial reign of Christ on earth.” (p. 29)

“With few exceptions, all of the notes and comments in the Scofield Bible are unreliable and unsound.” (p. 38)

“The Plymouth Brethren originated about 1830 through J. N. Darby. For fifteen years I was misled by much in their writings, but after I began to study the Puritans, I soon discovered how far they were astray on almost every doctrine; and today I have no hesitation in saying that the writings of J. N. D. and C. H. M. [Mackintosh] are full of error, although in a very subtle form, which can only be detected by one having a deep and wide grasp of the truth.” (p. 65)

FOR SUPRALAPSARIANISM

“I have finished reading through the volume you kindly brought me by Thornwell and later, D. V. would like to see the companion volumes. There are some excellent things therein, yet some I do not like. He is faulty, to say the least, in his discussion of Repentance—pages 37-39. I will not enter into detail about his analysis of supra- and sub-lapsarianism; his last sentence of his first paragraph on page 24 exhibits the weakness of his system—a purpose to glorify himself, rather than ‘a purpose to save‘ was the starting point of God’s decrees! The supralapsarian system makes God the beginning, centre and end thereof; whereas sub-lapsarianism makes Man the centre and circumference.” (p. 55)

“I trust you will not be pained should I take exception to, or differ from, any of the positions taken by Dr. Girardeau. I fear this is likely, for I am a strong supra-lapsarian, and in my humble judgment, any one who is not firmly fixed there is bound to go astray in his subsequent thinking and postulates. I have not arrived at that conclusion hurriedly, in fact was not confirmed therein till after twenty years of continuous study.” (p. 74)

ON GOD’S WILL

“What then am I to do? Wait on God and ask him to make his ‘will’ clear? But what good would that do? We are only brought back to our first query of ‘How is his will to be ascertained by me?’ Perhaps you reply, ‘Suppose after such praying I was unexpectedly to receive a gift of $50 or a rise in salary, would not that be clear intimation that God wanted me to buy the suit, and was here providing the money for it? Not necessarily; he might thereby be testing you! No, the better way would be to ask him to give you good judgment, and act on it.” (p. 90-91)

REVIEW

Though the book is subtitled “During the period 1924-1951” a majority of the letters are from the far narrower period of 1934-1937. Thus, while Pink’s pastoral counseling is evident in each letter, the collection is from too limited of a window of time to make much biography of the man himself.

As the book was published by “The Banner of Truth Trust,” which has proven itself neither truthful nor trustworthy in butchering a later edition of Pink’s The Sovereignty of God, one wonders whether the letters in this collection were also culled to avoid printing that with which the publisher disagreed.

Even if the publisher is suspect, Pink’s theology is solidly Biblical and Calvinistic. His letters are a valuable addition to his published writings all of which so often contend for the importance of each and every word of the Scripture “selected with divine discrimination and precision.” (p. 115)

Filed under: Uncategorized

From Hodge to hodge-podge, A Review of “Princeton Seminary in American Religion and Culture”

[image error]

Princeton Seminary in American Religion and Culture, by James H. Moorhead, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI. 2012. 548 pp.

While I must disagree with and vehemently oppose the theological perspective of James Moorhead as evidenced in Princeton Seminary in American Religion and Culture, I believe he has here written an excellent book.

For those, like myself, who have read the history of Princeton seminary (and the Presbyterian churches intertwined with it) mostly from the perspective of the conservatives of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (including Machen, Rian at the time of his writing, Stonehouse, Dennison, Hart, and Muether) Moorhead’s book tells the other side of the story. Or, at least, it provides another perspective.

Part of this perspective I must agree with – Princeton seminary post-1929 (that is, post split with Westminster Theological Seminary) was not a modernist school. Many of those who opposed Machen’s formation of WTS and the OPC were conservatives. They just merely were not controversialists or separatists. One might contend that they weren’t therefore fully conservatives. But, realizing that the OPC drew away less than 1% of the churches and ministers of the PCUSA helps to put into perspective Moorhead’s description of Machen as an “ultra-conservative.”

But the arguments of Cornelius Van Til against Karl Barth (and against Princeton Seminary) prove true as Princeton further and further departed from the historic Presbyterian faith. From Machen and company’s departure in 1929 until about 1936 it might be said that Princeton was still a conservative institution. But with the hiring of John Mackay as President in 1936 and his subsequent hiring of professors nearly all of whom were sympathetic to Karl Barth, it is evidenced in Moorhead’s book (opposed to his actual contention of “continuity” with Old Princeton) that Princeton went not liberal, but neo-orthodox. Later the seminary moved from neo-orthodoxy to a pluralism, an almost anything-goes approach to theology. The horror of the anti-Biblical approach is seen, for one, in this statement from Moorhead: “[Professor James E.] Loder sought to correlate the theories of human development by psychologists such as Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson, and Jean Piaget with theologians such as Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Thomas F. Torrance.” (p. 483) What a cast of characters!

I admit that this was my goal in reading Moorhead’s book – to understand how we got from conservative Old Princeton to today’s theological hodge-podge there. My suspicions of Barthianism’s influence were verified by explicit Moorhead statements about professor’s who had studied with and largely agreed with Barth on various doctrines. My suspicions were further verified in Moorhead’s descriptions of the various professors positions which I found to be heavily Barthian.

But to return to the book itself, here were some of my observations …

1. The book was very well written. As evidence, I’d like to quote from the beginning of chapter 2:

“IN ITS FIRST years, the seminary was the lengthened shadow of two men who had led the movement to create a theological seminary. They were products of two very different worlds. Archibald Alexander came from the Shenandoah Valley and counted rural Virginia as home even after he had gone elsewhere. … Samuel Miller, though reared in rural Delaware as the son of a preacher who also farmed, nevertheless seemed less a man of the country than of the city.” (p. 28)

2. The book is front-heavy. That is, Moorhead spends far more time on the early Princeton professors than on the modern era. The first 5 chapters, in fact, get us only from 1812 to 1837. From my perspective this is all well-and-good, for it is enjoyable to read about the 19th century saints, and painful to read about the 20th century departures from historic orthodoxy.

3. Moorhead takes too many opportunities to criticize Scottish Common-Sense Realism. But while often pointing out problems with that philosophy (and here I generally agree with Moorhead’s criticisms) he does a fantastic job in explaining the philosophy itself. In fact, Moorhead is really the first source I’ve read that explains Common-Sense Realism rather than just using the term. So I found the book valuable for that.

4. I greatly appreciated the history of William Henry Green. I had previously considered 19th century Princeton to be primarily the chain of Alexander-Hodge-Hodge-Warfield. But now I would definitely put Green in the mix for his important place in the history.

5. I found interesting the account of the battle (c. 1910) over whether to have elective courses at the seminary. I had previously read nothing about this. This situation perhaps foreshadows the later controversies of the 1920s/30s in seeing a conservative faction develop in arguing for the existing curriculum and a more liberal faction desiring greater freedom of electives. Regarding this battle, I must only say that those who disparage “theory” in favor of “practice” often fail to realize that theory is “theory of practice.”

6. As mentioned above, Moorhead tries to show continuity between Old Princeton and modern Princeton. I found this to be a grasping at straws. He writes, “this brief overview underscores why he [Mackay] could boast that ‘strong tides of thought are running in the direction of Princeton’s historic position.’”(p. 401) And “Mackay’s vision for the seminary stood in continuity with that of the older Princeton.” (p. 419) Nonsense. I’d argue that modern Princeton is 20% like Old Princeton, but that Westminster Theological Seminary is perhaps more like 70% like Old Princeton. (Westminster departed from Old Princeton as well, especially in apologetics.)

7. Machen is virtually vilified, while Mackay is given honor in multiple chapters. It is here in particular that Moorhead’s bias shows, and the “history” becomes less so.

The history of Princeton seminary is an indispensable topic for the Presbyterian student. Reading Princeton Seminary in American Religion and Culture (a commitment at over 500 pages) provides the history of the seminary along with the parallel history of both the Presbyterian Church and America as well. Moorhead’s scholarly work, even with inevitable bias showing significantly, is a valuable book to read.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Review of “Princeton Seminary in American Religion and Culture”

[image error]

Princeton Seminary in American Religion and Culture, by James H. Moorhead, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI. 2012. 548 pp.

While I must disagree with and vehemently oppose the theological perspective of James Moorhead as evidenced in Princeton Seminary in American Religion and Culture, I believe he has here written an excellent book.

For those, like myself, who have read the history of Princeton seminary (and the Presbyterian churches intertwined with it) mostly from the perspective of the conservatives of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (including Machen, Rian at the time of his writing, Stonehouse, Dennison, Hart, and Muether) Moorhead’s book tells the other side of the story. Or, at least, it provides another perspective.

Part of this perspective I must agree with – Princeton seminary post-1929 (that is, post split with Westminster Theological Seminary) was not a modernist school. Many of those who opposed Machen’s formation of WTS and the OPC were conservatives. They just merely were not controversialists or separatists. One might contend that they weren’t therefore fully conservatives. But, realizing that the OPC drew away less than 1% of the churches and ministers of the PCUSA helps to put into perspective Moorhead’s description of Machen as an “ultra-conservative.”

But the arguments of Cornelius Van Til against Karl Barth (and against Princeton Seminary) prove true as Princeton further and further departed from the historic Presbyterian faith. From Machen and company’s departure in 1929 until about 1936 it might be said that Princeton was still a conservative institution. But with the hiring of John Mackay as President in 1936 and his subsequent hiring of professors nearly all of whom were sympathetic to Karl Barth, it is evidenced in Moorhead’s book (opposed to his actual contention of “continuity” with Old Princeton) that Princeton went not liberal, but neo-orthodox. Later the seminary moved from neo-orthodoxy to a pluralism, an almost anything-goes approach to theology. The horror of the anti-Biblical approach is seen, for one, in this statement from Moorhead: “[Professor James E.] Loder sought to correlate the theories of human development by psychologists such as Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson, and Jean Piaget with theologians such as Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Thomas F. Torrance.” (p. 483) What a cast of characters!

I admit that this was my goal in reading Moorhead’s book – to understand how we got from conservative Old Princeton to today’s theological hodge-podge there. My suspicions of Barthianism’s influence were verified by explicit Moorhead statements about professor’s who had studied with and largely agreed with Barth on various doctrines. My suspicions were further verified in Moorhead’s descriptions of the various professors positions which I found to be heavily Barthian.

But to return to the book itself, here were some of my observations …

1. The book was very well written. As evidence, I’d like to quote from the beginning of chapter 2:

“IN ITS FIRST years, the seminary was the lengthened shadow of two men who had led the movement to create a theological seminary. They were products of two very different worlds. Archibald Alexander came from the Shenandoah Valley and counted rural Virginia as home even after he had gone elsewhere. … Samuel Miller, though reared in rural Delaware as the son of a preacher who also farmed, nevertheless seemed less a man of the country than of the city.” (p. 28)

2. The book is front-heavy. That is, Moorhead spends far more time on the early Princeton professors than on the modern era. The first 5 chapters, in fact, get us only from 1812 to 1837. From my perspective this is all well-and-good, for it is enjoyable to read about the 19th century saints, and painful to read about the 20th century departures from historic orthodoxy.

3. Moorhead takes too many opportunities to criticize Scottish Common-Sense Realism. But while often pointing out problems with that philosophy (and here I generally agree with Moorhead’s criticisms) he does a fantastic job in explaining the philosophy itself. In fact, Moorhead is really the first source I’ve read that explains Common-Sense Realism rather than just using the term. So I found the book valuable for that.

4. I greatly appreciated the history of William Henry Green. I had previously considered 19th century Princeton to be primarily the chain of Alexander-Hodge-Hodge-Warfield. But now I would definitely put Green in the mix for his important place in the history.

5. I found interesting the account of the battle (c. 1910) over whether to have elective courses at the seminary. I had previously read nothing about this. This situation perhaps foreshadows the later controversies of the 1920s/30s in seeing a conservative faction develop in arguing for the existing curriculum and a more liberal faction desiring greater freedom of electives. Regarding this battle, I must only say that those who disparage “theory” in favor of “practice” often fail to realize that theory is “theory of practice.”

6. As mentioned above, Moorhead tries to show continuity between Old Princeton and modern Princeton. I found this to be a grasping at straws. He writes, “this brief overview underscores why he [Mackay] could boast that ‘strong tides of thought are running in the direction of Princeton’s historic position.’”(p. 401) And “Mackay’s vision for the seminary stood in continuity with that of the older Princeton.” (p. 419) Nonsense. I’d argue that modern Princeton is 20% like Old Princeton, but that Westminster Theological Seminary is perhaps more like 70% like Old Princeton. (Westminster departed from Old Princeton as well, especially in apologetics.)

7. Machen is virtually vilified, while Mackay is given honor in multiple chapters. It is here in particular that Moorhead’s bias shows, and the “history” becomes less so.

The history of Princeton seminary is an indispensable topic for the Presbyterian student. Reading Princeton Seminary in American Religion and Culture (a commitment at over 500 pages) provides the history of the seminary along with the parallel history of both the Presbyterian Church and America as well. Moorhead’s scholarly work, even with inevitable bias showing significantly, is a valuable book to read.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Sermon on Romans 2:5-11

God’s Righteous Judgment [A Sermon I preached at Dillingham Presbyterian Church, Barnardsville, NC on Dec. 31, 2017]

[Rom 2:5-11 ESV] 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

Introduction:

This, I believe, is a difficult passage. It is a type of passage that one might even have some inclination to skip over. As I preach through the book of Romans I believe I am obligated to preach ALL of it. So, we will not skip over this passage.

Review:

I have been preaching through the book of Romans now for a number of sermons. But, since it has been some weeks since I last preached, it should be of benefit to review briefly where we have been in the text.

We began the book of Romans with Paul’s introduction to the church there at Rome. And in this first passage we learned about the identity we should take as Christians – slaves of God, loved by God, and set apart – called to be saints living holy lives in the Lord.

In the second passage in Romans we learned of “two types of Christians growth” – growth in the Church through mutual encouragement of one another, and growth of the church through fruit-bearing evangelism.

The third passage of Romans spoke of the “righteousness of God” which justifies believers as it is credited to us on behalf of righteousness of Jesus Christ. This serves as the key purpose statement for the entire epistle.

Then, fourth, we saw that the wrath of God is revealed in the negative consequences of sin. And thus sinners bring down punishment upon themselves.

But then, in the 5th passage, it was made clear that sinners are not just other people “out there,” but includes all people. We too are sinners. And to judge others as sinners is to condemn ourselves at the same time.

Now, we move on to today’s passage, the righteous judgment of God coming upon all men.

As we look at the passage today we want to focus on three points:

Point 1. THERE WILL BE A DAY OF WRATH

Point 2. THE JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO WORKS IS NOT WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS

Point 3. GOD IS NOT A RESPECTER OF PERSONS

And, for each of these, the focus needs to be on explanation. We need to explain Paul’s meaning from the text before we can apply it to ourselves.

These three points, we will see, fit under the more general discussion of “the righteous judgment of God.” That is, each point points to the fact that God’s judgment is righteous.

1. There will be a Day of Wrath.

(Verse 5: But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.)

Now, the focus of this verse is that evildoers are storing up wrath which will be revealed at the day of judgment. It is a warning to turn away from sins. [REPEAT] And though this warning itself is the point of the verse, I want to focus on a slightly different point that should get the same idea across. We see here that this wrath of God is being stored up for evildoers for the day of wrath, the day of judgment. But perhaps it is just as well to note that THERE IS A DAY OF JUDGMENT. THERE WILL BE A DAY OF JUDGMENT.

That there was coming a day of judgment was not at issue for those Jews in Paul’s time, for they had read the Scriptures and knew that such an event had to occur. Some of them just perhaps thought that they’d get a pass because they were physical descendants of Israel. Paul is thus warning them that their deeds are leading towards their own judgment.

But we, not having the same society as the Jews and therefore perhaps not being as well-versed in the Old Testament, might forget that there will be a day of judgment. BUT THERE WILL BE SUCH A DAY. THERE WILL BE A DAY OF JUDGMENT! And is this itself not enough to bring concern? This alone should persuade us to turn away from our sins!

What is the day of judgment? What is the day of wrath?

This Judgment day is also called “the last day.” Paul is not referring to just merely some earthly calamity like the fall of Jerusalem, but to the very end of the world when Christ shall return and judge all mankind.

This judgment day, as you might imagine, is ONE DAY. It is a single short period of time. It is not, like some Christians contend, two separate periods of a time, a judgment of the Godly and a thousand years later a judgment of the evildoers. Rather, this is a once-for-all, all-at-once, powerful appearing of the Lord in glory to judge all men.

You might know this intellectually – that there is a day of judgment, but have you considered the meaning and importance of there being such a day?

I want the children here to think of it this way. You were supposed to clean your room. But you didn’t. And your mom or your dad is coming soon to inspect it. Are you in trouble? Are you going to clean your room or just hope that your parents don’t come to inspect it? Maybe this is a bit like judgment day, though the judgment of God is far more to be feared.

For adults and children alike, all who have been trained in the Bible, I have no doubt that you have heard of the day of judgment. Both the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed say Christ “will come again to judge the living and the dead.” The less-often recited Athanasian Creed goes into more detail. It says “He [Christ] ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.”

Note that the historic Athanasian creed definitely takes the position that there is this judgment at one point in time, not two judgments – one for the good and one for the evil, but just a single judgment. ALL men, it says, will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And, at this one time, the creed says “they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.”

The Scriptures themselves often speak of the day of wrath:

Jesus Christ himself speaks of the DAY of judgment a number of times in the Gospel of Matthew. He says, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak.” (Matt. 12:36)

Luke in the book of Acts 17:30-31: “Now [God] commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

And the author of the book of Hebrews 9:27–28 (ESV) says: 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Application: Since there IS a day of wrath we should NOT live as if there isn’t.

Perhaps you have heard a term Pastor Hicks has used – “practical atheist.” The practical atheist believes in God; He just lives as if there isn’t a God. He makes up his own rules, ignoring the laws of God as if there is no consequence of doing so. The practical atheist is oblivious to the fact that there will be a day of judgment. Let us not fall into this practical atheist lifestyle by forgetting that there will be a day of judgment. Rather, because there will be a day of judgment, we should have a fear of God that leads to repentance. REPEAT

Transition: As we continue in Paul’s passage from Romans, we see that he tells us that on that day of Judgment ALL men will be judged, “according to their works.” What does this mean?

2. The Judgment according to work is not works righteousness!

We read:(Verses 6-10: 6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.)

When I mentioned at the outset that the passage today is difficult, I primarily had this section in mind. Paul at first sight might seem to be preaching works righteousness!

Works righteousness is that atrocious doctrine of the ancient heretic Pelagius who taught that we can become righteous by doing good works. For Pelagius it was as if Jesus Christ had never died for our sins.

The teaching of works righteousness continues in the Catholic church and elsewhere, but in a different sense than the teaching of Pelagius. No church today is explicitly Pelagian, but many are what is called Semi-Pelagian. That is, while the Catholic church and other churches as well admit that works alone are insufficient for salvation, they allow for man’s works to gain merit towards our salvation to add what what Christ has earned for us. But by including, or adding man’s works into the equation, these churches make man’s works the deciding factor in salvation. So works, for them, are not the only factor as for Pelagius, but they are still the causal factor. This robs God of his glory and gives glory to man for supposedly earning salvation.

And though you might think at first that Paul is teaching works righteousness, he definitely is not.

The entire epistle of the Romans is a treatise on salvation by grace alone, by faith alone. Paul is not sneaking in works here! He says in this letter,

“the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith (1:17),”

and “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the Law (3:21),

and “we hold that one is justified apart from works of the law” (3:38)

and “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (5:1)”

Nor is works righteousness taught elsewhere in the Scriptures.

In fact, when Paul here says “He will render to each one according to his works” he is repeating a line from the Psalms. It is from Psalm 62:12 where David says: “to you, O Lord, belongs steadfast love. For you will render to a man according to his work.”

Is David promoting works righteousness? (when he says that God will render to man “according to his work”)

Let us read the rest of the Psalm, because context kills heresy. Context will clear up your theology.

 

[Psa 62:1-12 ESV] 1 A Psalm of David. For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation. 2 He alone is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be greatly shaken. 3 How long will all of you attack a man to batter him, like a leaning wall, a tottering fence? 4 They only plan to thrust him down from his high position. They take pleasure in falsehood. They bless with their mouths, but inwardly they curse. Selah 5 For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from him. 6 He only is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be shaken. 7 On God rests my salvation and my glory; my mighty rock, my refuge is God. 8 Trust in him at all times, O people; pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us. Selah 9 Those of low estate are but a breath; those of high estate are a delusion; in the balances they go up; they are together lighter than a breath. 10 Put no trust in extortion; set no vain hopes on robbery; if riches increase, set not your heart on them. 11 Once God has spoken; twice have I heard this: that power belongs to God, 12 and that to you, O Lord, belongs steadfast love. For you will render to a man according to his work.

How many times in this Psalm do we hear that salvation is of the Lord alone?! (rather than of works righteousness)

1. from him comes my salvation.

2. He alone is my rock and my salvation

3. For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from him

4. He only is my rock and my salvation

5. On God rests my salvation

Our works are of no avail. Salvation is of the Lord alone.

So, then, what does David mean when he says “you will render to a man according to his work.” And what did Paul mean when he repeated David’s saying “He will render to each one according to his works”?

I believe the best way to understand this is to say “The good works believers do are not themselves the basis for acquittal, but good works are evidence of the believer’s union with Christ. And it is on this account – union with Christ – that believers will be pronounced righteous.”

Good works are not themselves the basis for receiving eternal life, but are evidence of our changed lives, having been united with Christ in his death and resurrection. [REPEAT]

Works do not make you righteous, but evidence whether you have faith.

I think the key to understanding this judgment is found in the passage itself. The judgment is NOT presented to be like a weighing scale. God does not judge one person to have 51% good works and another to have 90% bad works. Rather, in today’s passage, there are only those with “patience in well-doing” and those who “obey unrighteousness.” That is, at the judgment there are some who are seen to be 100% righteous and others who are seen to be 100% unrighteous. The difference in the righteousness of the elect and the unrighteousness of the reprobate is a matter of God’s grace. This grace then produces good works in the elect, and the lack of Grace leaves the reprobate in their sin doing only evil works. Good works give outward testimony, they bear witness, to the inward renewed status of the elect – the forgiven believers in Christ.

Application:

So I must ask you, and you must ask yourself, do you have that evidence? Do you have that evidence in your life; those good works that proceed of necessity from being renewed in Christ? You should not rest content in a faith that does no good work for Jesus. You cannot have a saving faith in Jesus and live like the devil. If one has a saving faith in Jesus he will hate living like the devil. You are to do good works, not in order to merit salvation, but you are to do good works as a result of the Holy Spirit working in you both to will and to do good works.

Maybe you ask, What are good works? In addition to following God’s commandments, good works include patience, listening, visiting and fellowship, prayer, Bible reading, doing physical work for someone else, taking care of others in various ways, treating your own body in a healthy way, and being a good steward of the things of the world of which God has given you temporary ownership and control. These are just some of many possible good works.

If these things do not describe you, you should be very fearful for the day of judgment.

If these things do describe you, you should praise the Lord for what he has done in you.

It is this same message which is prominent in the Epistle of James. Faith without works is dead. That is, it is not real faith. It is hypocritical faith. Real faith in Jesus Christ – believing in Christ, trusting in Christ, necessarily leads to good works.

Let’s read the relevant section from James:

James 2:14-26 (ESV) – Faith Without Works Is Dead

14What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

This passage is often referred to by those Semi-pelagians who wish to argue against the Biblical view of salvation by Faith alone. That is, they say this passage teaches that salvation of faith plus works. But that is not what the passage teaches. James’s teaching matches that of Pauls. Salvation is alone by faith; a faith that produces good works.

James does not say that “Faith is insufficient for salvation” but “THAT Faith is insufficient for salvation.” That is, a Faith that does not have works is not a robust true faith in Christ.

This must suffice for our second point: Paul is not teaching work’s righteousness. Let us return to our passage in Romans.

Transition: Following these verses about the “judgment according to works” Paul concludes “For God shows no partiality.”

And so this is our third point, “God shows no partiality.” Or said another way, “God is not a respecter of persons.

3. God is a not a respecter of persons.

Again, we ask, what does this mean?

Twice in the passage Paul has noted “for the Jew first and also the Greek.” He includes all people in the judgment. Jews should not and cannot rely on their status as descendants of Abraham. And so God is not partial to the Jews over the Greeks. Nor is He partial to anyone based on their earthly status.

This message is frequent in Scripture:

Deut. 10:17 – For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.

Job 34:19 – who shows no partiality to princes, nor regards the rich more than the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?

Acts 10:34 – So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Galatians 2:6 – And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.

Ephesians 6:9 – Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

From these verses we have it that God is not partial, he shows no favor upon a person because of their (1) bribes, (2) nor because they are rich, (3) nor because they are of a certain nation, (4) nor because they are influential in the world, nor (5) because they are masters rather than slaves. These mean nothing to God.

The purpose of this is to return to the great theme Paul is developing: no one is righteousness. If you think you are without sin, you are mistaken. If you think that your status will save you, you are mistaken. Your only hope is the righteousness of God credited to you so that will be renewed by the Holy Spirit and produce works judged to be good.

GOD’S RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT

Our text today can be summarized by noting one phrase used within it: “God’s Righteous Judgment.” God’s judgment is always just. It is righteous. Naturally, it must be righteous because He is righteous. Since we are unrighteous and he is righteous we cannot complain of his judgment. Nor can we hope that God will respect us because of what we do, for as sinners our works cannot bring righteousness.

THEREFORE.

Because God is not a respecter of persons, but there will be a judgment day when our deeds will be seen, what should we do?

Some conclude that they should live it up while they can. But what foolishness and short-sightedness. God’s judgment is eternal. For those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, there will be wrath and fury resulting in tribulation and distress.

What should we do to avail ourselves of God’s mercy and avoid His judgment? First, we should not rely on our status. Nor should we think that the judgment will never come. But we must repent of our sins, believe in Christ who alone is righteousness and will credit us as righteous. Knowing this – that Jesus Christ has forgiven our sins – we should go forth in joy, doing good works, which will be judged as good by God who, through his Holy Spirit, works in us to do good works. Thus, to God be the glory.

Conclusion:

Let us conclude by again reading from the Psalms and meditating upon these words: [Psa 62:5-7 ESV] For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from him. 6 He only is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be shaken. 7 On God rests my salvation and my glory; my mighty rock, my refuge is God.

PRAYER

Lord we pray that the message today from your holy Word does convict us that our faith in you is to be bearing fruit. We pray for your work in us to lead us unto good works. And we thank you for the righteousness credit to us so that on that great day of judgment we will be given that which you have promised – glory, and honor, and peace. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Filed under: Sermons

Books I Read in 2017, and a Favorite Declared.

The Sagas of the Icelanders, c. 9th – 13th centuries.

– Everyone knows of Erik the Red and Leif Erikson, but the real Viking personality is found in Egil Skallagrimson who could drink and fight with the best of men.

Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1 by Francis Turretin, 1679.

– A Reformed classic but not on par with the language and theology of Calvin himself.

What is Faith? by J. Gresham Machen, 1925.

Machen hardly answers his own question. The best answer I’ve found remains Faith and Saving Faith by Gordon H. Clark.

Experiences in Mountain Mission Work by Robert Perry Smith, The Presbyterian Committee of Publication, Richmond, VA, 1931.

– Written by the founder of my current church. Interesting to learn of the old days in Appalachian.

Knowing Your Trees by G. H. Collingwood and Warren D. Brush, 1937.

– An identifying guide to about 50 of the most common American trees. It has been useful, but insufficient for the diversity of trees present where I live in North Carolina.

The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth by G. C. Berkouwer, Eerdmans, 1956.

– A book of historical importance showing the previously Reformed author change his approach.

Diary of an Early American Boy 1805 by Eric Sloane, Dover, 1962.

– Interesting and informative.

Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology by Morton H. Smith, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962.

-Although informative, this book focuses too heavily on the issues of the day it was written (including Biblical inerrancy) as so lapses over other important doctrines. Smith, a leading figure in the Presbyterian Church in America, died this year before I was ever able to meet him. I was able, however to attend his funeral.

Karl Barth’s Theological Method by Gordon H. Clark, 1963.

– I finally read through this book on my third attempt. Difficult to read, but worth the effort.

The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur Pickering, Thomas Nelson, 1977.

– This book has helped convince me of the superiority of the Majority Text over the Eclectic Text.

Scripture and Truth edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, Baker, 1983.

– Contains an excellent essay against the “Sandeen Hypothesis.”

The Road Unseen by Peter and Barbara Jenkins, Guideposts, 1985.

– The third of the “Walk Across America Series” this books shifts the focus from the walking adventures themselves to the spiritual journeys of the authors. It was difficult to read the rather water-downed Americanized Christian attitudes of the authors knowing that they later divorced.

Discovery on the Katmandu Trail by Marc Mailloux, Quill Publications, 1987.

– Mailloux is an excellent writer. I particularly liked the recollections of L’Abri in the 1970s. This book caused me to read his other listed later in this post.

Evangelicalism and Karl Barth by Phillip R. Thorne, Pickwick, 1995.

– By far the most informative of the “Barth & Evangelicalism” genre.

Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier, Vintage, 1997.

– This books deserves the praise that it has received. The authors thorough research into the civil war era is apparent. But it is hard to know whether the language and graphic scenes are a reflection of the truth of the times, or the depravity of the author and our own times.

The Lord’s Day by Joseph A. Pipa, Christian Focus, 1997.

– Not the deepest treatise on the topic, but useful for lay Christians.

My Quest for the Yeti by Reinhold Messner, St. Martin’s Press, 2000.

– A fun book to read of adventures in the Himalayas.

Evangelicalism Divided by Iain H. Murray, Banner of Truth, 2000.

– An informative account of evangelical developments primarily in Britain in the years 1950-2000. It is going to take a second reading of this to get a good grasp of it.

Nothing To Do But Stay by Carrie Young, University of Iowa Press, 2000

– An interesting account of life on the Dakota prairies in the generation or two after they were settled. The character development was lacking and so I had some challenge recalling who was who.

Christianity and Neo-Liberalism by Paul M. Elliott, The Trinity Foundation, 2005.

-This book draws attention to some of the “Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond” as it’s subtitle notes, and for this it ought to be commended. But, on the other hand, the research and writing seemed quite poor to me. Unfortunately these faults will prevent it from being taken as seriously as it ought.

Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology edited by Sung Wook Chung, Baker, 2006

– Unremarkable.

God Still Loves the French by Marc Mailloux, Xulon Press, 2006.

– Mailloux does it again with another enjoyable book.

American Chestnut, The Life, Death, and Rebirth of a Perfect Tree by Susan Freinkel, University of California Press, 2007

– A well-researched and well-written account. The cast of characters, however, is quite large so it was difficult to keep them distinguished.

Punic Wars & Culture Wars: Christian Essays on History and Teaching by Ben House, Covenant Media Press, 2008.

– Full of interesting information. It could have been improved by including a unifying theme. The author is a cool dude, and my online friend.

The Legacy of John Calvin by David W. Hall, P&R, 2008.

– I was disappointed that this was only slightly over 100 pages. With all that has been written on Calvin, this book does not stand out as notable.

Imagining a Vain Thing by Steven T. Matthews, The Trinity Foundation, 2008.

– Like just about everything from the Trinity Foundation this book is a well-written argument against a pseudo-Christians view. It was an eye-opener to the unbelief growing in seminaries; in this case at Knox Theological Seminary. Though I read the book in May, I met the author himself in October at the Trinity Foundation conference.

God’s Battalions, The Case for the Crusades by Rodney Stark, HarperOne, 2009.

– An excellent popular-level correction to modern politicized views of the crusades.

Karl Barth and American Evangelicalism edited by Bruce L McCormack and Clifford B. Anderson, Eerdmans, 2011.

– George Harinck’s essay on “The Dutch Origins of Cornelius Van Til’s Appraisal of Karl Barth” was work the price of the book.

97 Orchard, An Edible History of Five Immigrant Families in One New York Tenement by Jane Ziegelman, Harper, 2011.

– Enjoyable. And I learned quite a bit.

Our Southern Zion, Old Columbia Seminary (1828-1927) by David B. Calhoun, The Banner of Truth Trust, 2012.

-An excellent account. Well researched.

Recovering Classic Evangelicalism, Applying the Wisdom and Vision of Carl F. H. Henry by Gregory Alan Thornbury, Crossway, 2013.

– It is hard to recall much noteworthy in this book. In my lukewarm thoughts on this book I might be unduly influenced by my lack of response from the Carl Henry folks. As the author of the biography of Gordon H. Clark, Carl Henry’s revered professor, I thought I would get good discussion or even collaborative efforts from Carl Henry scholars like Thornbuy and Owen Strachan. But neither of them responded to my emails, nor thanked me for the free copies of my book which I sent them.

An Explorer’s Guide to Karl Barth by David Guretzki, Intervarsity, 2016

– Most of the information in this book is available for free on Wikipedia.

On the Trail, A History of American Hiking by Silas Chamberlin, Yale, 2016

– Fascinating, well-researched, account emphasizing the historic role of American hiking clubs.

Hiking to Beer, A Memoir by Lloyd L. Fink Jr., 2016.

– Written by my friend “Uke” of his hike on the Appalachian Trail, this was a fun account. And bonus is that I (Banzai) am mentioned in the book.

Luther’s Augustinians Theology of the Cross by Marco Barone, Resource, 2017.

– See: https://douglasdouma.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/review-of-luthers-augustinian-theology-of-the-cross/

Theology of My Life by John Frame, Cascade Books, 2017.

– See: https://douglasdouma.wordpress.com/2017/09/17/notes-on-john-frames-theology-of-my-life/

Clark and His Correspondents: Selected Letters of Gordon H. Clark edited by Douglas J. Douma and Thomas W. Juodaitis, The Trinity Foundation, 2017

– This is the single greatest edited collection an editor (or two) has ever collected.

MY FAVORITE BOOK OF THE YEAR 2017:

Eiger Dreams: Ventures Among Men and Mountains by Jon Krakauer, Pan Books, 2011.

– I learned a lot from this book about the climbing world; a world quite distinct from the hiking world in which I’m more familiar. My favorite line, a joke the author’s hiking partner made when they were snowed-in in their tents and in growing peril on a mountain: “If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs.”

Filed under: Uncategorized