Jared Longshore's Blog, page 32

Fervent in Spirit

Amid a string of rapid-fire exhortations in Romans 12, the Apostle Paul says to be fervent in spirit. This particular command is wedged between two others. Just before, Paul said not to be slothful in business. Just after, he said to serve the Lord. So this fervent spirit isn’t simply some emotional buzz that never moves the feet and hands. It motivates us to get down to business. Neither does this fervent spirit simply make a man busy. The business you are to be up to, driven by a fervent spirit, is the business of serving the Lord.

It is not hard to see that if we would fulfill this command, we need something foreign or alien. Our own hands can’t stir our spirit. We can’t see our spirit or touch our it. What, are we to grab our spirit like a top and spin it to get it whirling? What’s more, our own spirit can’t stir our spirit. It is our own spirit that must be stirred in the first place. If we are going to obey this command it is quite plain that we must be visited. We are left praying like Augustine when he said, “Command what you will, God; and grant what you command.”

Our Father loves to hear and answer that prayer. Our God is a rushing wind. He is the Great Visitor. His Word, the One who visited Mary, is living and active. That is why you must be active. You must be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect. If you find yourself a bit worn out, perhaps in need of a rest. That’s more than OK. Rest in Christ. Trust Him. You’ll find your youth renewed like the eagle’s. And that youthful vitality will run all the way down to your soul.

The post Fervent in Spirit appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Doug Wilson, Phil Johnson, and the Regeneration Ruckus

There was a bit of a stir recently online when Doug Wilson posted the following quote with the title “Discuss Among Yourselves”—

“What is regeneration? That is an existential and experimental reality. God takes away a heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. Now, when does regeneration occur? According to the traditionalordo . . . regeneration is first, then repentance, then faith, then justification. Imputation arrives with justification. what is the righteousness that this new heart has, both experientially and practically? It is an infused righteousness. Regeneration is not imputed, right? Regeneration is a change of heart, from an unrighteous heart that hates God to a righteous (but still imperfect) heart that loves Him, repents of sin, and believes in Him . . . At the end of the day, this means . . . infused righteousness as the instrument of imputed righteousness.” (The Auburn Avenue Chronicles, pp. 60-61)

Phil Johnson replied to Doug, “I know you formally affirm the Confession. But IMO the paragraph you put up for discussion affirms precisely what the WCF denies–namely, that “infused righteousness” is instrumental in justification.”

Doug replied that he is not affirming that infused righteousness is instrumental in justification but rather highlighting a tension: “Phil, no. I am highlighting a tension between the WCF on infused/imputed and the traditional stopwatch ordo as developed by Perkins. In stopwatch world, regeneration > repentance > faith > justification.”

Phil insisted upon the important difference between infused grace and infused righteousness: “It’s a serious mistake to suggest that righteousness is “infused” at all. Leading Reformers DID speak of “infused grace.” But _grace_ and _righteousness_ are not synonyms.”

Doug agreed, but insisted that there is still a point here that signals a tension that warrants discussion amongst ourselves: “And Phil, I think we agree. A righteousness-fluid is not poured into me. But my new heart, unlike the old one, is righteous. And it was put into me.”

By way of summarizing the matter, Doug raises the question, “According to the commonly held ordo salutis, how is it that we get a righteous heart (regeneration) before we get the righteousness of Christ (justification)?”

Many may believe the question is answered by the simple affirmation that this “order” is not chronological but logical, “We do not affirm that regeneration precedes justification temporally, but only logically.” That is all very well and good. But does it truly resolve the tension? The question still remains, “How is it that we receive a righteous heart logically prior to the imputed righteousness of Christ via justification?”

I will not shake a stick at the man who says, “I don’t know, but I am not worried about it. I accept it because it is revealed, and ‘the secret things belong to God and the things revealed belong to us’ (Deuteronomy 29:29). While I’m at it, let me say with David, ‘Neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me’ (Psalm 131:1)”. If that is your inclination, I will simply say amen, all is well, and let’s go have some lunch. But there are others who can be righteously concerned with the question. This particular question is not some irrelevant theological musing or guilty of the “curiosity” that Augustine warns us about.

Indeed, the Reformed have had a good bit to say about it. And, at least for me, I find great help from Herman Bavinck’s covenantal resolution to the matter. I am downright suspicious that a covenantal resolution to the matter is what Doug was up to when he posted his “Discuss Among Yourselves” quote in the first place. One final note before quoting a whole heap of Bavinck. The quotes that follow may indeed raise many questions. The covenantal background Bavinck provides is quite foreign, not only to our American evangelical context. But it is foreign to much of our Reformed and Evangelical context, which has very strong Credobaptist assumptions even among a good bit of the Presbyterians. An old Scottish Presbyterian, a top-shelf theologian, once told me in a deep and compelling Scottish accent, “Oh, Jared, the American Presbyterians have lost their heritage.” 

Yes, I know Bavinck is not a Scotsman or an American. But, he is quite helpful and we have a good bit of recovery work to do. So here is some Bavinck to that end:

The Covenant of Grace Precedes the Order of Salvation

One of Bavinck’s main points is that the covenant of grace is not an item to be placed along others within the order of salvation, but rather prior to the order of salvation and the ground of it: “The true and genuinely Reformed idea [is] that the covenant of grace does not first arise as a result of the order of salvation but precedes it and is its foundation and starting point. While it is true that the believer first, by faith, becomes aware that he or she belongs to the covenant of grace and to the number of the elect, the epistemological ground is distinct from the ontological ground” (emphasis mine) (Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 3, pg. 524)

Now, there are different conceptions of the covenant of grace within our reformed and evangelical context, so I imagine many can get behind this simple assertion that the covenant of grace precedes the ordo. But a controversy is already starting to broil with Bavinck saying that the true believer by faith “becomes aware that he or she belongs to the covenant of grace.” He distinguishes between the “epistemological ground” (by faith we become aware that we belong to the covenant of grace) and the ontological ground (the reality that we belong to the covenant of grace).

Covenantal Benefits

A closely related point is that the benefits of grace are covenantal benefits. They are not benefits that fall out of the sky to the individual. They are benefits acquired by Christ in a covenantal way: “On the Christian position there can be no doubt that all the benefits of grace have been completely and solely acquired by Christ; hence, they are included in his person and lie prepared for his church in him. Nothing needs to be added to them from the side of humankind, for all is finished. And since these benefits are all covenant benefits, were acquired in the way of the covenant, and are distributed in the same covenantal way, there is no participation in those benefits except by communion with the person of Christ, who acquired and applies them as the mediator of the covenant” (emphasis mine) (Ibid, 591).

Here a resolution to Doug’s rightly acknowledged tension begins to arise. Bavinck says, “there is no participation in those benefits except by communion with the person of Christ.” In other words, we do not come to participate in the benefits of grace (regeneration being one of those benefits) apart from “communion with the person of Christ.” Along these lines, Bavinck explicity states that the covenant of grace precedes regeneration, “The covenant of grace precedes and is the foundation and starting point for the work of salvation. Regeneration, faith, and conversion are not preparations for but the benefits of covenantal fellowship of believers with God in Christ imparted to us by the Holy Spirit” (Ibid, 487).

That last line may sound upside down to some. When I as a preacher announce good news to the lost, am I not offering the covenantal terms to those who are outside and strangers to that covenant? Well, yes, that much is true. But there is more here, and that more is signaled by Bavinck. When I do that preaching, I am not simply offering covenantal terms to the lost, and the lost man is not simply responding by his free will (the Arminian position here). “But, I’m not an Arminian, I’m a good Calvinist,” you say. OK, then let’s go this way. When I do that preaching, I am not simply offering covenantal terms to the lost, and the lost man is not simply responding by the sovereign grace of God that strikes him like a lightning bolt from the sky. No, God strikes him from within the covenant, not from outside the covenant. As both the Westminster and 2nd London Baptist Confessions state: “Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe” (emphasis mine) (WCF 7.3).

The Lutheran Center of Gravity

Bavinck contrasts the Reformed Covenantal understanding with the Lutheran understanding, which in part captures the problem plaguing our 21st-century reformed and evangelical community. That problem is seen in that many view regeneration as a preparatory function and neglect that it is a benefit of the covenant of grace. The whole misguided approach moves the center of gravity from Christ to man. Bavinck writes,

“More precisely, [for the Lutheran] the center of gravity in the order of salvation is located in faith and justification. Calling, contrition, and regeneration only have a preparatory function. Actually they are not yet benefits of the covenant of grace; they, as it were, still operate apart from Christ and serve to lead the sinner to Christ. Only when people believe and by that faith embrace the righteousness of Christ does God accept them in Christ, forgive their sins, make them free from the law, adopt them as his children, incorporate them into fellowship with Christ, and so on. Everything depends on faith, specifically, on the act of believing. If a person exerts this power of faith, that person has everything and has it all at once: peace, comfort, life, and blessedness. But if that person neglects to exert it, everything becomes shaky, uncertain, amissible. The whole focus, therefore, is on keeping that faith. But just as Lutheran believers fail to understand the work of grace as arising from God’s eternal election and covenant, so they also fail to relate it to nature, the world, and humanity” (emphasis mine) (Ibid, 522).

Now Bavinck is just poking us in the eye. He says, “Only when people believe and by that faith embrace the righteousness of Christ does God accept them in Christ, forgive their sins . . . incorporate them into fellowship with Christ, and so on. Everything depends on faith.” The evangelicals among us say, “You better believe it, Bavinck, and you better tread lightly . . . you’re walking on holy ground.” 

“But,” says Bavinck

But, while Bavinck resonates with our evangelical spirit, he would caution us in the other direction. “I’m trying to explain the covenant here,” he says, “and it is really important. If you lose this covenant, you will lose the gospel you love and the faith alone by which man is justified.” Here’s the direct quote from Bavinck: 

“Now if the righteousness of Christ is acquired and applied not in the way of a covenant but realistically, then in the case of Christ it consists in the fact that he assumed our nature, and in that case the satisfaction and salvation accrues to all humans, for Christ assumed the nature of them all. Or it consists in the fact that everyone first acquires this physical and realistic unity with Christ only by regeneration or faith, and then it is impossible to see how Christ could make satisfaction in advance for those with whom he does not become one until they believe in him; then regeneration and faith run the risk of losing their ethical character, the focus is shifted from Christ to the Christian, and the benefits of the covenant are realized only after and by faith” (emphasis mine) (Ibid, 103).

These last words from Bavinck are important. If the righteousness of Christ is not acquired and applied in the way of a covenant, then “the benefits of the covenant are realized only after and by faith.” Without covenant, “everyone first acquires this “physical and realistic unity with Christ only by regeneration or faith.” In that case “it is impossible to see how Christ could make satisfaction in advance” for such people. Bavinck insists that by covenant, the saints have a “realistic unity” with Christ that precedes active regeneration and faith. Here it is important to distinguish between the benefits of the covenant (such as regeneration and justification) being “realized” and the benefits of the covenant being “appropriated” to a man. Bavinck insists that the benefits of the covenant are realized in Christ first, not in us. 

The Imputation of Christ to His Church Objectively Realized in Time in the Person of Christ

Bavinck writes, “The covenant of grace, the mystical union, the imputation of Christ to his church and of the church to Christ, all of which are rooted in eternity, are first of all objectively realized in time in the person of Christ, who was crucified, buried, raised, and glorified for and with his church” (emphasis mine) (Ibid, 591).

While regeneration and justification are objectively realized in Christ’s person, along with our mystical union with Him and His imputation to us, active faith is still essential for the appropriation of regeneration and justification. We can make a distinction between these two dimensions of our salvation, but we should not separate them—”Yet, just as earlier we made a distinction between the decree and its fulfillment, so here we must distinguish between the acquisition and the application of salvation. Kaftan is admittedly correct when he remarks that the doctrines of objective and subjective salvation may not be split up. But . . . that distinction is something very different from separation” (emphasis mine) (Ibid, 591).

Summing It Up

In summary, if you do not have salvation (i.e., regeneration, justification, faith, etc.) in covenant, and if you do not have the realization of Christ imputed to His church by means of that covenant in the person of Christ, then you indeed have a problem with justification (and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness) following logically after regeneration. But, Bavinck demonstrates that these things are precisely what we have: salvation in covenant and the realization of Christ imputed to His church by means of that covenant in the person of Christ. 

To put it another way, regeneration is found in Christ in the first place; it is objectively realized in Christ to whom we have been bound by the covenant of grace, which itself was realized in the person of Christ and established in eternity. A mystical union binds Christ and His church prior to active faith,which is not a preparation for entrance into the covenant of grace but a benefit that flows from it.

The Imputation of Christ Precedes Regeneration

In Bavinck’s own words,

“Regeneration, faith, and conversion are not preparations that occur apart from Christ and the covenant of grace nor conditions that a person has to meet in toto or in part in his or her own strength to be incorporated in that covenant. Rather, they are benefits that already flow from the covenant of grace, the mystical union, the granting of Christ’s person. The Holy Spirit, who is the author of these benefits, was acquired by Christ for his own. Hence the imputation of Christ precedes the gift of the Spirit, and regeneration, faith, and conversion do not first lead us to Christ but are taken from Christ by the Holy Spirit and imparted to his own” (emphasis mine) (Ibid, 525).

Now we see where the line is drawn. My sense is that this statement from Bavinck, “the imputation of Christ precedes the gift of the Spirit, and regeneration,” would split a room, with the majority disagreeing with him. And my suspicion is that the reason for said disagreement is that we do not have the same covenantal understanding and instincts that Bavinck possesses. Here he is one final time on the matter:

“The bestowal of Christ on the church, therefore, also in this sense precedes the church’s acceptance of Christ by faith. How else could we receive the Holy Spirit, the grace of regeneration, and the gift of faith, all of which after all were acquired by Christ and are his possession? It is therefore not the case that we first repent or are reborn by the Holy Spirit and receive faith without Christ, in order then to go with them to Christ, to accept his righteousness, and are thus justified by Christ. But just as all the benefits of grace come to us from the good pleasure of the Father, so they now proceed from the fullness of Christ” (emphasis mine) (Ibid, 591).

The post Doug Wilson, Phil Johnson, and the Regeneration Ruckus appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

On the Sexual Superiority of Women

There was a bit of a ruckus online in the wake of Canon Press republishing George Gilder’s book Men and Marriage. It has taken me a minute to get up to speed on just what people are upset about. I’m suspicious that the flak is one part folks spending too much energy on Twitter, one part folks upset who don’t read broadly, and one part young men who don’t yet have a lot of time in the game yet being a little quick on the trigger. Regarding this last group, I should add that I am thirty-eight years old, which means I am young enough to be called a young man by the grayheads; and I am old enough to have seven children, teenagers, and tall tales about what an athlete I was back when I played college ball.

As a quick aside, I think I upset some within this group with a recent post in which I discouraged the excessive sharing of workout pics while calling your fellow gym mate a “king.” I am suspicious that there is some overlap between the group that was upset with me about that recent post, and the group that is upset with Canon for publishing George Gilder. I’m still getting my bearings. But I was told recently that there is a zealous young cohort that is even bringing back having nothing for breakfast but cigarettes and coffee. If my intel is solid, I will just say that I am impressed. And I encourage you to keep that kind of thing up as long as it keeps working for you. While I cannot swing the cigarettes for breakfast, and I can’t get on board with all the workout pictures, as far as I am aware, I’m with you on all of the important things. I am on team. 

I bring up this younger generation because that is where I think much of the heat is coming from on the Gilder book. This kerfluffle does not seem to be all smoke. There is something worth getting nailed down here. Before attempting to get it nailed down, I recommend the following three links to pieces from Scott Yenor, Doug Wilson, and Toby Sumpter. They are all quite good on the Gilder shakeup. 

Now for that item I think we need to nail down, namely the sexual superiority of women. Much of the concern arose from the following quote from Gilder: 

“The difference between the sexes gives the woman the superior position in most sexual encounters. The man may push and posture, but the woman must decide. He is driven; she must set the terms and conditions, goals and destinations of the journey. Her faculty of great natural restraint and selectivity makes the woman the sexual judge and executive, finally appraising the offerings of men, favoring one and rejecting another, and telling them what they must do to be saved or chosen. Managing the sexual nature of a healthy society, women impose the disciplines, make the choices, and summon the male efforts that support it.”

It is not surprising to me that a generation of men who are fed up with feminism balk at this quote. We have all had enough of Disney’s depiction of a numb-skull father being disrespected by his daughter, who lives under his yoke of bondage as she looks for liberty in all of the wrong places. But I do think that there may be something in the water if this quote has you so hot under the collar that you can’t see the truth in it. 

Put simply, woman is more glorious than man. Paul says, “Man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man” (1 Corinthians 11:7). We do not need biblical revelation for this point. Just look at the two creatures standing side by side. This is not a difficult observation. Man has his strength, woman her beauty.

“But,” you ask, “Gilder sure seems to put the lady in charge of sexual matters.” OK, I will bite. In the first place, I wouldn’t have said it just like Gilder did. In the second place, don’t take all the fun out of the world. The husband is the head of his wife, yes. And this certainly applies to sex. Wives submit themselves to their own husbands, and this certainly applies to sex. And the Bible also says that a wife has the right to control her husband’s body. That’s right, the right to control. And that power—to control your own body—is a power that you do not have: “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife (1 Corinthians 7:4). So you have power over her body, and she does not have power over her own body. At the same time, she has power over your body, and you do not have power over your own body. This is the point where you are to laugh like a good Chestertonian and say something like, “The foolishness of God confounds the wisdom of this age.”

Here’s another thing. If a young man finds himself dumbstruck by the beauty of a lady, and in order to take her as a wife he must get the nod from her father (the way to go of course), then his interest in the fair lady does him all sorts of good. He really shapes up, which is a good thing for society. That basic principle is what Gilder is driving at in the quote above.

If I might throw a bit more salt into this soup that may now be at a rolling boil, Solomon tells us that the woman’s sexual glory is “more terrible than an army with banners” (Song of Solomon 6:4, 10). Habakkuk uses this same language to talk about the armies of the Chaldeans who were dreadful with “horses swifter than leopards” and “more fierce than evening wolves” (Habakkuk 1:8). Now, I’m not recommending that you tell your wife she is more fierce than an evening wolf. Use the Solomonic poetry at your own risk.

But I am saying that you should appreciate what Gilder is driving at: Women are sexually superior to us. That’s why many of us have gone to stealing them, and then we have fought wars over them. Read your Herodotus, man. That is why the angels once came down and tried to steal the women from us—and yes, that is another story to be told at another time. 

For now, the sexual superiority of women is why, when men act as they ought, they go to war to protect women and the children that crop up in their wombs. I have taught the principle of male leadership many times. Men who understand that God simply wired a patriarchal world are not thrown off by acknowledging the ways in which women are superior. In fact, acknowledging that very thing can motivate many men to marry one of these creatures and become her head. We need to see more of that kind of thing so go ahead and go get a copy of Gilder’s book: Men and Marriage at dadsareback.com.

The post On the Sexual Superiority of Women appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

They Shall Plant Vineyards and Eat the Fruit

If you want to know how much trouble we can get into for disbelieving very good news from the LORD, then look no farther than Zacharias, John the Baptist’s father. The angel Gabriel told him that his barren wife, Elizabeth, would have a child even in her old age. His son would be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from the womb, and turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. Zacharias, surely overwhelmed at such a prospect, responded with something like, “Are you sure? Because my wife is very old.” For his unbelief, he was not able to speak until after John’s birth.

We shouldn’t think, “Oh, that naughty Zacharias, we wouldn’t do that.” He was a priest. He was called a righteous man. And he was burning incense in the temple, much like we are now when this whole affair took place. The tidings from Gabriel weren’t just medium-grade glad. They were cosmic glad. So are ours today from Isaiah’s prophecy. 

Summary of the Text: Isaiah 65:17-25

God declares that he will create new heavens and a new earth (v. 17). He will create Jerusalem, rejoice in her, and banish her tears (v. 18-19). The child shall die at a hundred years old in this new creation, and sinners will be cursed (v. 20). But His chosen people will work and enjoy the labor of their hands (v. 21-22). The fruit they produce will not spoil because they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their children with them (v. 23). In this new creation, God will answer their requests before they even have the prayer meeting (v. 24). In this new heavens and new earth, peace reigns on the holy mountain of the LORD; the serpent eats the dust (v. 25).

I Create Jerusalem 

Many saints are quite familiar with the truth that God makes us new. He washes us. He replaces our heart of stone with a heart of flesh. In this, we rejoice and will continue to rejoice. But Isaiah tells us that God not only makes us new, but He also makes our surroundings new. He makes above us and below us new. He also makes a New Jerusalem.

Some want to push these new surroundings and the promises associated with them out to the end of the world at Jesus’ final coming. But we have sinners being accursed in this new heavens and new earth. We also have death. That signals to us that the new heavens and new earth which God creates have already come upon us with the first advent of our Lord Jesus Christ.

When Jesus came to earth, He came to cut a new covenant. The blood of that new covenant is like new wine. Christ said new wine requires new wineskins. Due to fermentation, old wineskins will burst if you put new wine in them. The old age could never handle what Christ came to do. He has come to save us, yes. And so look at yourself in the mirror and rejoice. And He has come to save the whole world. So take a look around and rejoice at just how widespread the glad tidings are.

Planting Vineyards, Eating Fruit

In this new age, the promise is that we will build houses and inhabit them, plant vineyards, and eat their fruit. This is a potent promise, an AR-15 promise. So we really should make sure we know how to operate this one.

We are not permitted to take this promise and test God. “Ah, God said I will plant and eat the fruit, so I will plant in winter and reap in spring.” That is not faith talking. And faith is always the way the promises of God are appropriated.

Also, we may not mistake God for a cosmic vending machine. God’s promises are not fulfilled robotically. And they are not fulfilled impersonally. The promises we trust are not random road signs that we spot without knowing who hammered them into the ground. We trust the words of our Father.

With that said, He has told us that we will reap what we sow. We should labor with that confidence. “You will not be blessed in your doing,” is a lie. “Maybe you will be and maybe you won’t be but you just need to work anyway” is a more subtle form of the lie. You are not to simply work. You are to work in faith. And God has said that the fruit of your hands will not be eaten by your enemies. 

And Their Offspring With Them

In this new Jerusalem that God creates, He blesses His elect and their children. This is one of the clearest and most invigorating promises in a book full of promises—”they [mine elect] are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them” (v. 23). 

There are two basic ditches to parenting. On one side, you abdicate your responsibility to train them, letting them run wild without instruction, correction, and parental intercession through prayer. On the other side, you attempt to assume the responsibility of teaching and discipline, but you do so as worried as a squirrel in a nutless world facing the encroachment of a long winter.

Both of these ditches are marked by the same lack of faith. Has God really said that your children are with you as seed of the blessed of the LORD? Why yes, yes He has.

Before They Call

In this new creation in which we find ourselves, God meets our needs before we ask. Where were you when the LORD came to you? In the grave. What were you asking Him for when you were six feet under in your sins? Nothing. The same sovereign grace that met us back then, keeps meeting us in this new heavens and new earth. The Christ who gave you life keeps giving you life. The Christ who saved you keeps saving you. Your job is to grow to expect this without ever getting quite used to it. Look around, you are chest deep in the blessings of God. When you are standing there in the days to come neck deep in the blessings of God, go ahead and ask Him, “Lord what I have done to deserve this? I didn’t even ask for this much” His reply will be, “Be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create” (Isaiah 65:18).

The post They Shall Plant Vineyards and Eat the Fruit appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Manhood Is Made, Not Born: A George Gilder “Men and Marriage” Favorite

Canon Press is doing a George Gilder documentary and republishing his classic, Men and Marriage. In honor of this delightful occasion, here is one of my favorites from Gilder’s Men and Marriage with a few thoughts scattered in the wake—”Throughout the literature of feminism there runs a puzzled complaint: ‘Why can’t men be men and just relax?’ The reason is that, unlike femininity, relaxed masculinity is at bottom empty, a limp nullity. While the female body is full of internal potentiality, the male is internally barren (from the Old French bar, meaning man). Manhood at the most basic level can be validated and expressed only in action . . . In all its specific expressions, manhood is made, not born.” (Gilder, Men and Marriage)

This is simply some good old horse sense. This is three yards and a cloud of dust teaching on masculinity that can only be lost on our lazy, inflated, on the dole generation. Ask your grandfather if he is still around. Men are made to work. We work, or we die. 

The guild of soft evangelicals may fear I’m going Jesus and John Wayne on them. My first reply is: we can use a good bit more of Jesus and John Wayne. My second reply is that there is nothing superficial or machismo to this point about manhood being expressed in action. Men are made to act and lead in a way that is distinct from women. This purpose is baked throughout man’s nature and it runs all the way down to his soul. 

The command God gave our father Adam in the garden was to work it and keep it. This command was not contrary to his nature. He delighted to do that which God commanded. His constitution was suited to the job assignment of leadership and carrying the primacy of responsibility. Things are a bit different with the female. I am not saying that women are not hard workers. Anyone who has even glanced at Proverbs 31 knows the flurry of goods that flows from the fingertips of a woman who fears the LORD. She is suited for work like the man. But God fashioned the fairer sex as a helper. This quality is seasoned throughout her nature, and this too runs all the way down to her soul. She was made to be planted. She was made soil. And in her grows fruit that will live on forever. As Gilder said, her very body is full of internal potentiality.

The man, however, is not the one who is planted, but the one who plants. He can and does help of course. You could list several examples of men not always being in the captain’s seat. But that does not discard the point that to lead is of men’s nature, and to help is of women’s nature. Things have gone topsy turvy and the men have either grown limp or frozen up unsure of how to operate in this feminized society. As Wodehouse once put it, the men have stiffened from head to foot like somebody in the Middle Ages on whom the local wizard had cast a spell.

Earlier generations shake their heads in laughter at just how confused we have become. This point regarding the natural distinction between male and female was nothing extraordinary to them. Here is C. S. Lewis for example, 

“‘There are no servants here,’ said Mother Dimble, ‘and we all do the work. The women do it one day and the men the next. What? No, it’s a very sensible arrangement. The Director’s idea is that men and women can’t do housework together without quarreling. There’s something in it. Of course, it doesn’t do to look at the cups too closely on the men’s day, but on the whole we get along pretty well.’ ‘But why should they quarrel?’ asked Jane. ‘Different methods, my dear. Men can’t help in a job, you know. The can be induced to do it: not to help while you’re doing it. At least, it makes them grumpy.'”

Lewis has a way of getting moderns to swallow down his historic Christian ideas. But my bet is several people will still choke on this one. They will say, “Do you mean to tell me that a man is not to help out around the house?” But you who ask this question have seen just what Clive describes. 

The present structure of our society is cockeyed. The various waves of feminism have washed over us such that we don’t realize just how far we have strayed. Gilder rightly says manhood is made, not born. But how do you build men in a culture where everyone gets a medal? How do you raise up men to be godly rulers when their political and military opponents wear skirts? We live in a society where women have assumed power and authority that simply was not designed for their taking. This is not a knock to the women. As it was in the garden, so it is today, “The degree to which women take power seems to depend on the extent to which the men are absent.” (George Gilder, Men and Marriage)

So a message to the men: It is time to rebuild. A good place to start would be Gilder’s Men and Marriage. Get your copy at dadsareback.com

The post Manhood Is Made, Not Born: A George Gilder “Men and Marriage” Favorite appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

How to Stand Before Kings

It is one thing to make great plans, and it is another to execute the steps. You have seen this before. A man dreams of being generous while walking by a person in need. A student stays up late into the evening, doodling her path to graduation, then she sleeps in the following morning, missing class. A couple imagines what it would be like to have a healthy marriage, but they don’t work through and settle their latest conflict. We want to finish the race, and that is commendable. But the finish line only materializes when you put your feet to pavement. 

Proverbs 29:29 says, “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings.” But it does not say that you will stand before kings if you merely think about standing before them. It is not the man who hears the word which is blessed but the man who does the word.

Diligence requires that you show up on time and labor skillfully at your assigned task. The kind of work varies. It may be shopping for groceries, going for a run, attending a faculty meeting, or answering e-mails. It may also be the work of confessing sin, interceding in prayer for a friend, or leading a time of family worship. Whatever the work, the key is to do it without delay. 

When we get down to our business, then others see our faith. James says, “Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works” (James 2:18). Diligence, then, is not some good old-fashioned legalism as if we leave off faith in order to get on with labor. No, it is our faith that works. By faith we live in the moment, rejoice in our station, and do the word believing that the hand of the diligent shall rule.

The post How to Stand Before Kings appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Table of Peace

There are all sorts of things that can trouble us. Paul said he was “troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears” (2 Corinthians 7:5). But this trouble does not only come upon us as individuals. Trouble comes upon the one bride of Christ, the body of the Lord Jesus, and we are that body. Sin doesn’t only churn up the otherwise clear waters of your mind and your sense of well-being. It also troubles our unity.

You have seen these snarls, and not only at a distance. You can recall times of great peace with other saints. But you can also recall the discord that arose when people coveted but did not obtain their heart’s desire. You can find Christians falling into quarrels in every season. And these divisions can come quickly. Proverbs 17:14 says, “The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: Therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.” 

One of the chief ways we leave off contention is by coming to this table together. We come to one bread as one bread. We come to partake of one body for we are one body. Before His departure, Christ said to his disciples, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you” (John 14:27). That peace is manifest here. Christ made peace, reconciling us to Himself and reconciling us to one another. He made this peace by the blood of His cross. We drink that cup of peace now. We take His body which was broken for us so that all of our fractures would be healed. So as you come to this table, come receiving the peace of God. Come in faith and welcome to Jesus Christ. 

The post Table of Peace appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

A Call for Normal Manly Men

It is fair to conclude that there has been a much-needed resurgence of masculinity of late. Our culture’s drift towards effeminacy has so infiltrated the church that a limp wrist seems a requirement for the pulpit. For this reason, I applaud recent works like Michael Foster’s It’s Good to Be a Man. We need straightforward, no-chaser teaching on masculinity like a compass needs the north, like Romeo needs his Juliet, like Fox News needs Tucker Carlson back. As the kids say, we need it real bad, no cap.

So my intention here is not to discourage the rising generation of men from the pursuit of manliness. Rather, it is to encourage them to run even faster toward that goal. We need men to obtain the prize; pulling a hamstring halfway down the track will not a champion make. In this spirit, I offer some signs of weird man to avoid, followed by indicators of normal man strength which we should all embody post haste.

Go West, Not Weird, Young Man

A notable sign of weird man masculinity is the relentless sharing of workout photos and videos on social media. Worse yet, when another man ardently likes and shares such images, adding that string of fire emoticons. Note well. Lifting weights—commendable and ordinary. Telling your friend that he put in good work today on that lift—perfectly normal. Drooling over your buddy’s gym pics, retweeting them, and calling him a “king”—go ahead and pump the breaks right there.

Another bad sign is being a he-man-woman-hater. Yes, it was good fun when Spanky and the boys from the Little Rascals founded that club back in the day. But you must grow up to actually like women. You need to find one that you like enough to protect her all the way to the grave. I am thoroughly acquainted with how many false charges of misogyny are leveled in these parts. But that doesn’t give you the right to actually be misogynistic. Signs of this kind of thing would be calling women idiots, talking bad about your mother, or visiting those dark pornographic sites on the internet.

Likewise, don’t set up the likes of Andrew Tate as a paragon of masculinity. Young men are looking in every direction for what it means to be a man. But the guy who admits that he tries to get multiple women to fall in love with him so that he can get them to prostitute themselves and make him money, that guy is not the pristine example of manhood. In fact, this kind of thing is an example of when misguided attempts at manliness go around the bend and become effeminate. It is of the nature of women to woo a man who will work for her and bring home the bacon. It is of the nature of men to work and provide for women. 

A final sign of weird man is all of the chest-puffing. If you keep that up, you end up looking like one of those birds of paradise shaking his tail feather in the rainforest of Papua New Guinea. It is quite fun watching them do it. And it is fun enough if you are teasing. But if you are the least bit serious about your boasting, you simply look like a buffoon. It is true that even among our species, men compete for women’s approval. This is natural and as it should be. However, the kind of lady you really want to win doesn’t look for a man who points to himself but puts points on the scoreboard. 

Marks of  a Normal Manly Man

First, find profitable work that people appreciate enough to pay you for. Then do your job well. After you have been at it for a while, stay at it even more until someone could honestly call you skillful. Proverbs 29:29 says. ” Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men.” Wanting to stand in the king’s court isn’t enough. You have to show up on time and get to work.

Second, marry a woman and have a lot of kids. Die for the well-being of your household. Leave it all on the field. Pray for them. Lead, protect, provide. Give your kids the best education you can find.

Third, worship God with your family. This comes before everything else. You will never be the man you should be if you do not appear before your Creator on the Lord’s Day.

Fourth, stop griping about your problems and start solving them. Yes, things are going to rot. So do something to fix it. Read a book. Understand the times. Find some other men who are actually laboring for reformation and join them. Build something so that your grandsons will have it better than you and be better than you.

Fifth, place your trust in the truest man that ever lived. Adversity is unavoidable. Without Christ as your Lord, you will be forced to choose one of two bad paths. 

The first is to surrender. You will flake out and flame out. You will call it quits, phone it in, and grow resentful that you fell short of the standard. In the worst forms of this, you will abandon your wife and neglect your kids. You will follow in the footsteps of Olympic gold medalist Bruce Jenner, who after a considerable display of natural or animal masculinity, didn’t finish the race and ended up soft, effeminate, and gay.

The other bad route is to respond to adversity with uncontrolled anger. You will kick lawnmowers and throw hammers. The challenges of life will stir anger in you such that you will repel your children like a magnet. Your household will walk on eggshells around you until they walk away from you altogether.

The curse that fell on our father Adam has fallen on us. We now work by the sweat of our brow. It is a tough road. The only way to endure is by faith in the Second Adam. He works patience, fortitude, and courage in us. The true form of these qualities can’t be found anywhere else.

The post A Call for Normal Manly Men appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Mark Dever, Regenerate Babies, and Gospel Protectors

So Mark Dever recently said a little something at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He went hard in the paint on the Paedobaptist brethren. He went to dunking on them in the style of a Southern Baptist Lebron James. After descending from the rim, he even extended the right hand to them, lifting them from the floor with an altar call invitation by which the Reformed Paedobaptists of the world could come down and enter the baptismal waters for the first time.

Many of you know that I stumbled my way from the Second London Baptist Confession to
the Westminster a little while back. And while that journey has its bumps, it is nice to discover that one can go through the whole Shabang without ever leaving London. One of the benefits to this particular trip is that you really do know what is happening over there in Baptistville. And it also makes one appreciate how someone like Dever is working out his theological system. I loved Baptists when I was a Baptist. And in the weirdest and most delightful way, I love them even more now that I baptize infants.

Now Mark said a number of things so there are multiple toppings on this slice of pie. I would like to isolate two of them and offer some commentary. Before doing so, I should note that I count Mark a friendly acquaintance. Over the years of my ministry, I have learned things from him. I have made a couple of trips to Capitol Hill Baptist Church over the years. I enjoyed one of those weekenders back in the day. Now Mark’s practice at Capitol Hill is to not baptize until the age of eighteen. I never agreed with that practice. But Mark preaches the gospel and for that I am grateful. All that to say, my commentary here is the friendly kind with a brotherly kick in the pants at the end. I got quite tickled watching Mark go full Baptist. I’m summarizing here, but you should watch and enjoy lines like, “Paedobaptists I love you, you are welcome in our pulpits. You are smarter than us, but I get quite tired of being condescended to on this regenerate church membership point.” So Dever’s vent at SEBTS is worth a good laugh in my opinion and there are a couple of important points in there to boot.

First, we should say something about regenerate little ones and regenerate church membership. A very dicey topic indeed. So I would just remind you that I didn’t bring it up. Mark did. In the second position, I’d like to consider Mark’s claim, a widespread Baptist claim— indeed a hallmark Baptist claim—that we must get rid of infant Baptism if we would protect the gospel.

Little Regenerate Babes

The topic of regenerate church membership came up. And Mark made the point that he, as a Baptist mind you, is cozied up right there next to Rome and the East on the matter. Yes, I am having a bit of fun with that last sentence. But Mark is making what appears to be a solid point: “You Reformed Paedobaptists claim that the church includes regenerate and unregenerate. But the Baptists along with Rome and the East maintain a regenerate church membership.” Mark jumps up and down on this point, saying that the Reformed Paedobaptists are the weird ones in the room claiming a church full of unregenerate people.

His statement brings up the question about the relationship between regeneration and the little Christian babes who Paedobaptists of course baptize and acknowledge as members of the visible church (WCF 25.2). If a Paedobaptist were to stand up and say, “Now, Dever, we’re not that strange. Historically, the Reformed Paedobaptists generally believe in a regenerate church,” he is locked and loaded with his next question, “Oh, so do you think those little infants you baptize are regenerate?” And now we have a controversy on our hands. I understand that in our current climate, one can get in trouble for even putting the word “regenerate” and “infant” in the same sentence. But, I repeat: Mark brought this up. And I am simply going to point to the well-beloved and trusted Geerhardus Vos who might shed a bit of light into our times which are in great need of that particular substance.

Vos himself writes, “Another point of difference concerns the time when the promises of the covenant are usually realized by regeneration in the children of the covenant. Three schools of thought can be identified: the first school (including Ursinus, Polanus, Junius, Walaeus, Cloppenburg, Voetius, and Witsius) not only assumes that the children of the covenant who die before they reach the age of discretion, possess the Holy Spirit from their earliest childhood and so are born again and united to Christ, but also maintains this thesis as generally valid for the seed of the promise without distinction. They use it as an argument in defense of infant baptism in their polemics with the Anabaptists.”

Then Vos delivers several quotes, many of which follow.

Reformed Paedobaptists Respond

Polanus, the 16th century German Reformed theologian, wrote that the children of believers must be baptized “because they have been purchased by the blood of Christ, have been washed from their sins, and possess therefore by the work of the Holy Spirit the thing signified.… Because the Holy Spirit is promised to them, they possess the Holy Spirit” (Syntagma, VI, 55).

Antonius Walaeus, the 16th century Dutch Calvinist minister wrote, “we require with the Scriptures antecedent faith and repentance in the one who is baptized, at least according to the judgment of love, both in the infant children of covenant members, and in adults. For we maintain that in infants too the presence of the seed and the Spirit of faith and conversion is to be ascertained on the basis of divine blessing and the evangelical covenant.”

The 16th century Italian Reformed theologian Peter Martyr Vermigli wrote, “because we must not curiously investigate the hidden providence and election of God, we assume that the children of believers are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estranged from Christ. We do not exclude them from the church, but accept them as members, with the hope that they are partakers of the divine election and have the grace and Spirit of Christ, even as they are the seed of saints. On that basis we baptize them. We do not need to respond to those who object and ask whether the minister is deceived, whether perhaps the infant is in truth no child of the promise, of divine election and mercy. Similar diatribes could be adduced with regard to adults.” (Loci Communes, IV, 8, 7).

Ursinus, the 16th century Reformed German theologian wrote, “This is sure and certain, that God instituted his sacraments and covenant seals only for those who recognize and maintain the church as already made up of parties of the covenant, and that it is not His intention to make them Christians by the sacraments first, but rather to make those who are already Christians to be Christians more and more and to confirm the work begun in them.… 

Hence, if anyone considers the children of Christians to be pagans and non-Christians, and damns all those infants who cannot come to be baptized, let him take care on what ground he does so, because Paul calls them holy (1 Cor. 7), and God says to all believers in the person of Abraham that He will be their God and the God of their seed.… Next let him consider how he will permit them to be baptized with a good conscience, for knowingly to baptize a pagan and unbeliever is an open abuse and desecration of baptism. Our continual answer to the Anabaptists, when they appeal to the lack of faith in infants against infant baptism, is that the Holy Spirit works regeneration and the inclination to faith and obedience to God in them in a manner appropriate to their age, always with it understood that we leave the free mercy and heavenly election unbound and unpenetrated.”

Then there is Junius, the 16th century Reformed theologian who studied in Geneva under Calvin: “We call it false to argue that infants are completely incapable of faith; if they have faith in the principle of the habitus, they have the Spirit of faith.… Regeneration is viewed from two aspects, as it is in its foundation, in Christ, in principle, and as it is active in us. The former (which can also be called transplanting from the first to the second Adam) is the root, from which the latter arises as its fruit. By the former elect infants are born again, when they are incorporated into Christ, and its sealing occurs in baptism” (Theses Theologicae, LI, 7).

Voetius, the 16th century Dutch Calvnist, wrote, “The seventh opinion is the general point of view of Reformed teachers, in which regeneration is acknowledged in each of the children of the covenant in particular, namely those who are elect, whether they die in infancy or are brought to faith when growing up, etc.” (Selectarum Disputationum, II, 410–412)

Each of these men would obviously raise an objection to Dever’s comments at Southeastern Seminary. And it would be fun to watch how things unfolded from there. Their objection would run along the lines of, “Mark, you have us wrong on the unregenerate church thing.” Now, Mark’s fellow Baptists on stage were already slightly uncomfortable with Mark saying that they were all closer to Rome and the East on this subject than the Reformed Paedobaptists. So if someone of the likes of Polanus stood up and said, “Mark, you know, we’re really all together on this. You, us, Rome, and the East,” I can’t tell you what would happen. But I, my friend, would pay for admission. 

I know that I have not answered all of the questions one might ask about a regenerate church and infant baptism. This was merely a little resourcement exercise, demonstrating that Mark left a large swath of Reformed Paedobaptists out when he dropped the proverbial hammer at Southeastern. 

Gospel Protectors

Mark pivoted from his regenerate church membership comments to ones about protecting the gospel, making the widely held Baptist claim that you must be done with infant baptism if you want to protect the gospel. 

Much could be said, but I only have time for a brief word here. If Mark is right that God has not brought the Christian’s children into covenant with Himself, then he has a point. If they are no different than a pagan when it comes to the covenant of grace and church membership, then his logic holds up. On the other hand, if God has brought the Christian’s children into covenant with Himself, then Mark’s point gets turned around on him. Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Before noting the gospel-protecting power of Paedobaptism, let me say that there is such a thing as protecting the gospel in the wrong way. Some seem to try to protect the gospel, forgetting that it is the gospel that protects them. They glory in their administration of the sacraments more than the sacraments. And what Spurgeon said of the Scripture applies just the same to the gospel, “Scripture is like a lion. Who ever heard of defending a lion? Just turn it loose; it will defend itself.”

With that qualification in mind, I would turn around Mark’s gospel-protecting statement. If God has said, “I will be God to you and your children after you in their generations” (Genesis 17:7), and if God has said, “Believe on the Lord and you will be saved and your house” (Acts 16:31), and if God has said that His elect are, “the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their offspring with them” (Isaiah 65:23), then, you are simply fumbling things like the disciples, stiff-arming the children so they can’t get to the Lord Jesus. He has given them access, but you stand in the way. Christ has a body and welcomes them to it. But you will not let them be a part of His body. He gives them cleansing water. But you will not allow them to be washed. He gives them bread and wine. But you won’t let them be nourished. He gives them a house, His very own temple, but you insist that they stay out in the court of the Gentiles until their papers of credible profession are in order. Christ gives them the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the mother of us all (Galatians 4:26). But you won’t let the little babes who have the Holy Spirit, according to the testimony of the Reformed tradition, be nurtured by their mother. 

Knock, and the Lord will answer when you are eighteen is not a strategy for the church militant.

The post Mark Dever, Regenerate Babies, and Gospel Protectors appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

A Quick Guide on Dealing With Marriage Bumps

Martin Luther once said, “There is a lot to get used to in the first year of marriage; one wakes up in the morning and finds a pair of pigtails on the pillow which were not there before.” Family is rightly called “the school of character.” You will get all sorts of opportunities to confess your sin and put on new virtues. But, there are also plenty of opportunities to get out of fellowship with one another. So here is some practical instruction so that you can deal with marriage bumps: 

First, determine whether the offense should be addressed in love or covered in love. He overcooked the steaks; let love cover it without mention. He’s swearing and cursing the barbeque gods in the backyard because he overcooked the steaks; go ahead and bring that one up with him.

If a sin needs to be addressed, then confront it simply, forgive immediately, and get on with your day.

Remember that you’re both justified, even amid a conflict. This is a truth that stables the emotions and frames the disagreement.

There is a place for addressing mid-grade shortcomings in a mid-grade manner. On the one hand, don’t nitpick. On the other hand, you don’t have to wait until she’s gone full white witch of winter before you bring up her demeanor toward the kids.

Related, when you identify a shortcoming in your spouse, ask the Lord to address it with your spouse before you do so. He often straightens things out, and a spouse is won without a word.

When you are out of sorts, get back into fellowship before you do anything else. Keep short accounts.

The post A Quick Guide on Dealing With Marriage Bumps appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.