Is Jesus the Only Way?

Friday’s Pet Peave…

A proposed New Ground Rule for the phrase semper reformanda. It is not a call to reform the church to look like culture. It is the Reformational redux of the Renaissance’s Ad fontes. When the Reformers used it, it meant a return to the Source for all knowledge of Christianity, i.e. the inerrant, verbally, plenary inspired Word of God, i.e. the Bible. Semper Reformanda is not a license to change for change’s sake. It is a rejection of neophilia in all its incarnations! In fact it was the inovations that had come into the Church in the Middle Ages the provoked semper reformanda. The church has a tried and true word to describe innovation in theology = HERESY! The role of the pastor-teacher is to guard the good deposit, and to pass on the faith once for all delivered in exactly the same way that it was given in Scripture with no additions or accretions!

Ursinus on Law - Gospel

Creed:or:Chaos has a section from Ursinus’ Commentary Heidelberg Catechism HERE.

John Hendryx: 2 Views of Regeneration

John Hendryx, owner of Monergism, has a helpful chart comparing 2 views of regeneration and shows the equivocal manner in which the word is used by monergists and synergists (same word but both have a completely different apprehension of it).

Blog Rating

Who wrote this?

No Google!

Hence, it was not from a multitude of engagements, nor from the difficulty of the undertaking, nor from the greatness of your eloquence, nor from a fear of yourself; but from mere irksomeness, indignation, and contempt, or (so to speak) from my judgment of your Diatribe, that my impetus to answer you was damped. Not to observe, in the mean time, that, being ever like yourself, you take the most diligent care to be on every occasion slippery and pliant of speech; and while you wish to appear to assert nothing, and yet, at the same time, to assert something, more cautious than Ulysses, you seem to be steering your course between Scylla and Charybdis. To meet men of such a sort, what, I would ask, can be brought forward or composed, unless any one knew how to catch Proteus himself? But what I may be able to do in this matter, and what profit your art will be to you, I will, Christ cooperating with me, hereafter shew.

Where did the author write this? To whom was the author responding?

WordPress and “Possibly Related” Feature

After WordPress decided a political post was related to the Warfield article I turned off the feature. It has had a few helpful links, but by and large I have found them troubling in their selection. Tony Reinke at the Shepard’s Scrapbook did a piece on this a while back.

B.B. Warfield– Faith and Life: Sound Distinctions and the Importance of Preaching

Faith & Life

by Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921)

The following short essay was originally published in the The Presbyterian, Feb. 3, 1916, pp. 10-11. The electronic edition of this article was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink. It is in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed.

---

A recent writer opens his book with the words: “The present generation is impatient of theological distinctions.” He lets the cat out of the bag when he begins the next paragraph with the words: “There is a good deal of common sense in this reaction against the theological hair-splitting of former times.” He has, perhaps not unnaturally, mistaken his own opinion for the general judgment of the day. The truth is that the world, even in this generation, is made up of a good many people; and a good many varying points of view may be found represented among them. Some are very impatient of theological distinctions, and some are very patient of them: the most are patient to a fault with those they themselves wish to make, and quite impatient of those made by others. The fact is, of course, that everybody makes and must make theological distinctions. Men differ only as they make sound or unsound distinctions, and through these distinctions embrace and live by truth or error.

It is easy to say: “We refuse to believe that a man’s opinions on the minute details of history or metaphysics are sufficient either to admit or to exclude him from the Kingdom of grace and glory.” But when we have said that, we have already expressed a portentous opinion. We have also made a tremendous theological distinction; we have made it most unsoundly; and, as a consequence, we have cast ourselves into the arms of the grossest error, which must mar all our life. The truth is that a man’s opinions on matters of historical fact or of metaphysical truth—call them opinions on minute details or not, as you choose—are absolutely determinative of his whole life. It is a matter of metaphysical opinion whether there is a God or not; or whether there is such a thing as right or such a thing as wrong. We cannot adopt even so simple a maxim as David Crockett’s famous “Be sure you are right and then go ahead,” without having committed ourselves to many very deeply cutting metaphysical opinions, and many of these are capable of being represented as opinions on very minute details. It is a matter of metaphysical opinion whether we worship a fragment of bone or the God of heaven and earth; what separates the fetish-worshipper from the Christian here is a little matter of metaphysical opinion. It is a matter of historical opinion whether such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed, and surely whether any given man ever existed or not is a very small historical detail. And if we are of the opinion that he existed, it is still a matter of historical opinion whether he was the Son of God who came into the world on a mission of mercy to lost men, and died for our sins and rose again for our justification; or was merely a man who suggested to us as his opinion, which it was his opinion it would be well that we also should adopt, that God is a good fellow, and it is all right with the world. We cannot get along without metaphysical delimitations and historical judgments. We cannot go one step without them. And what we call Christianity is bound up with a very definite set of both.

He who adopts this definite set of metaphysical and historical opinions is so far on his way to being a Christian. He who rejects them, or treats them as indifferent, is not even on his way to being a Christian. This is not to say that Christianity is just a body of metaphysical and historical opinions. But it is to say that Christianity is, among other things, a body of metaphysical and historical opinions. It is absurd to say that a man can be a Christian who is of the opinion that there is no God; or that no such person as Jesus ever lived: or who does not believe very many very definite things about the really existing God and the actually living Jesus. Some of these things may be represented as very “minute details.” Gibbon, for example, made himself merry, or made himself miserable, as the case may have been, over the spectacle of Christianity split to its foundations in violent dispute over a mere diphthong—whether Christ should be said to be homo- ousios or only homoiousios with God: whether, that is, he should be conceived as all that God is, or only in some greater or less degree, more or less like God. The whole substance of Christianity was involved, however, in this controversy; the issue was nothing less than whether the world should be Christian or heathen. To represent it as a dispute over a “minor detail,” a mere diphthong, were as sensible as to say that as “gold” and “god” differ in but a single letter, it cannot be of importance whether we serve God or mammon;; and there surely can be no reason (despite what Jesus says) why we should not serve both.

No less a man than John Wesley is appealed to, however, to support this minimizing of the value of truth. And certainly John Wesley did say—he surely was speaking unadvisedly with his lips-something which lends itself too readily to this bad use. “I am sick of opinions,” he writes; “I am weary to bear them; my soul loathes the frothy food. Give me solid substantial religion; give me a humble gentle lover of God and man, a man full of mercy and good fruits, a man laying himself out in the work of faith, the patience of hope, the labor of love. Let my soul be with those Christians wheresoever they be and whatsoever opinions they are of.” John Wesley’s righteous soul had evidently been vexed by men who had nothing but “opinions” to show for their Christianity. But did he ever see such a man as he here paints for us: “a humble gentle lover of God and man, a man full of mercy and good fruits, a man laying himself out in the work of faith, the patience of hope, the labor of love,” who was without the opinion that there is a God to love? No man can have faith, or hope, or love, who is not consciously in the presence of an object on which his faith and hope and love can rest. He must be of the opinion that the object exists, and that it is such as to justify or even to command his faith, hope, or love. It sounds very well to rail at “opinions” in contrast with “solid substantial religion.” Did “solid substantial religion” ever exist apart from the “opinions” which lie at its basis? A man who is of the opinion that there is no God will not manifest “solid substantial religion” in his life. A man who is of the opinion that Christ, if he ever existed-which he may doubt or deny-was a mere man among men, a peasant of Galilee of the first century of the era absurdly called Christian, who still sleeps his unbroken sleep beneath the Syrian sky, will not entrust his soul’s welfare to his keeping. “Faith” in Jesus-in his blood (Rom. iii. 37) and his righteousness (2 Pet. i. 1) —cannot possibly get itself born except on the basis of quite a body of very definite and very definitely held “opinions.” No man can live a Christian life who is not first of “the Christian persuasion.”

That is the reason why Christianity is propagated by preaching. There may be other ways in which other religions are spread. The propagation of Christianity has been very definitely committed to “the foolishness of preaching”-not to foolish preaching, however, which is something very different. It is fundamentally “faith”; and faith implies something to be believed and therefore comes of hearing; while hearing implies something presented to the apprehension of the intelligence- the “Word of God.” Whatever we may say of a so-called Christianity which is nothing but “opinions,” there is no Christianity which does not begin with opinions, which is not formed by opinions, and which is not the outworking of these opinions in life. Only we would better call them “convictions.” Convictions are the root on which the tree of vital Christianity grows. No convictions, no Christianity. Scanty convictions, hunger-bitten Christianity. Profound convictions, solid and substantial religion. Let no man fancy it can be otherwise. Ignorance is not the mother of religion, but of irreligion. The knowledge of God is eternal life, and to know God means that we know him aright.

(HT: IRBS)

Michael Mckinley: The Problem with Evangelicalism

In a nutshell: “In the words of Double Down Trent, we’re like a bear with claws and fangs. But we’re just gently batting the bunny around…” That is we are a bunch of kids playing with the Riches of the Kingdom as if they were legos. Here

Jonathan Edwards on the Demerits of Sin

I am currently reworking my earlier blog post on Leviticus 18:5 and Romans 3:20. I am currently reworking the segment concerning Draco. As part of the preparation I re-read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.” After reading Trueman’s article I thought one segment from the sermon would be appropriate. It sets on its head one of the common misunderstandings of sin as of graded value, such that anger is better than murder, not because these acts in themselves are equivalent, but because it is against an infinite God. So as elementary school arithmetic tells us anything times an infinite is infinite. Here it is in Edwards much more cogent words:

Every crime or fault deserves a greater or less punishment, in proportion as the crime itself is greater or less. If any fault deserves punishment, then so much the greater the fault, so much the greater is the punishment deserved. The faulty nature of any thing is the formal ground and reason of its desert of punishment; and therefore the more any thing hath of this nature, the more punishment it deserves. And therefore the terribleness of the degree of punishment, let it be never be so terrible, is no argument against the justice of it, if the proportion does but hold between the heinousness of the crime and the dreadfulness of the punishment; so that if there be any such thing as a fault infinitely heinous, it will follow that it is just to inflict a punishment for it that is infinitely dreadful. A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.

Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience.

But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him. So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.- Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind, than that sins committed against any one, must be proportionably heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused; as it is also agreeable to the word of God, I Samuel 2:25. “If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him;” (i.e. shall judge him, and inflict a finite punishment, such as finite judges can inflict “but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?” This was the aggravation of sin that made Joseph afraid of it. Genesis 39:9. “How shall I commit this great wickedness, and sin against God?” This was the aggravation of David’s sin, in comparison of which he esteemed all others as nothing, because they were infinitely exceeded by it. Psalm 51:4. “Against thee, thee only have I sinned.”-The eternity of the punishment of ungodly men renders it infinite: and it renders it no more than infinite; and therefore renders no more than proportionable to the heinousness of what they are guilty of.

If there be any evil or faultiness in sin against God, there is certainly infinite evil: for if it be any fault at all, it has an infinite aggravation, viz. that it is against an infinite object. If it be ever so small upon other accounts, yet if it be any thing, it has one infinite dimension; and so is an infinite evil. Which may be illustrated by this: if we suppose a thing to have infinite length, but no breadth and thickness, (a mere mathematical line,) it is nothing: but if it have any breadth and thickness, though never so small, and infinite length, the quantity of it is infinite; it exceeds the quantity of any thing, however broad, thick, and long, wherein these dimensions are all finite.

You can read the whole sermon HERE.

Carl Trueman on the Missing Element of Modern Theology

Trueman speaks of two different encounters that started him thinking. First running in to Joe Frazier at the YMCA, and second he had a conversation with a former student concerning the New Perspective. Want the answer? Think of what was present in Baxter’s Neo-Nomianism and what is largely absent in the New Perspective…

Here is an important snippet:

Yet there is also a deeper reason for the loss of this disciplinary unity: the loss of a high view of the Bible as the word of God, spoken by the one God through human authors, and thus possessing an inherent, personal, theological unity and authority. Once we have turned away from the notion of the one divine, holy author of an authoritative and ultimately unified biblical revelation, we have lost the foundation upon which we can build our theology in any coherent, unified way; and that move is a profoundly profane one. Once God has, in effect, been prevented from speaking to us, we lose our ability to speak about him. Thus, this loss of a doctrine of scripture involves the downplaying, if not the ignoring, of the voice of the awesome and holy God; and such a move can only be made when we lose sight of God himself. In other words, the persistent way in which modern theologians allow context to determine content and the kaleidoscopic nature of human existence to drive a theology committed to an aesthetic of creative chaos, is itself both symbolic and constitutive of human rebellion.

And Trueman’s conclusion is not to be missed:

Theology, whether that of the high-powered scholar or the average church member, is to be shot through with holiness. The trivial way in which theology is pursued in church, but especially in the evangelical academy, is a sign that hard times are ahead. Indeed, it is a sign that the God with whom we have to do in these places is certainly not the God of the Bible. Woe to those who treat the word of God as a light thing; woe to those who argue theology as if it were merely one more area of academic interest where scholars can disagree; woe to those whose books and articles on God or his Bible leave give no sense of his awesome holiness. We who aspire to be teachers and yet who tread on the holiness of God as if it were a light thing: beware, for we stand in danger of leading little ones astray and it would be better for us if we had never been born. Pray that God grant us all an overwhelming sense of who he is.

James Renihan on Why Reformed Baptists Love John Owen

Here

Piper on Having the ‘Ticket’ But Missing the Gospel

Lucas on the Doctoral Temptation at Seminary

Here

Schleiermacher as the Macdaddy of the Emergent Church?

Here is a worthy read on the debt that the Emergent Church owes to Friederich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834).