At one of the very first Banner of Truth ministers conferences in Leicester (I think in the 1970's), England a sermon was preached called "Preaching and the danger of compromise". It was delivered by Rev Kenneth McRae and I have listened to it on CD many times. However, it is not only preachers who compromise, Christians also compromise and it causes much harm in the body of Christ. Compromising Christians may support para-church ministries that may support their own unbalanced emphases or support churches that have long since compromised sound doctrine. Sometimes excuses are made, such as the "people are lovely", but all the while compromised patterns of worship are practiced. We need to be discerning and also we must all avoid the danger of compromise. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:33 "Do not be deceived: 'Bad company ruins good morals' ".
In the Book of Revelation there are seven letters to seven churches and it is clear that compromise had entered some of those congregations. The dictionary definition of compromise is: "an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions". Now we need to be flexible and not stubborn, but there are certain matters that can never be traded off through compromise. Sadly, much pragmatism prevails in many parts of the professing church, instead of sound doctrinal principles. Pragmatism asserts that "if something works, then the end justifies the means". However, this was never the principle established by the Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles and the prophets on the Old Covenant.
In the church at Pergamum, compromised teaching was being tolerated by Christians. In Revelation 2:14-16, Jesus Christ tells the church: "But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. 15 So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth". This is very serious. To tolerate false teaching regularly means that if people do not repent then Jesus will fight against that church. This should fill us all with a sense of the fear of God.
In the church at Sardis, the Lord Jesus Christ gives a penetrating critique and he tells them: “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you" Revelation 3:1-3.
This is written to the whole church and we need to ask ourselves some searching questions. Have we compromised the plain truth of the Bible? Have we wilfully turned a blind eye to biblical truth for the sake of a life of comfort? Are we tolerating false teaching when we should be running to find a place where sound doctrine is upheld?
Monday, 22 February 2016
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Should the women's Bible study movement be evaluated in the light of the teaching of Scripture?
This blog question is deliberately construed by me, so that we can only answer "yes". Indeed all things should be rightly evaluated in the light of Scripture. However, it appears that in the UK and even more so in the USA, that there is a growing movement of women's Bible studies (usually in the daytime). These are only for women and they are led by women and often with the use of Bible teaching aids and books. It may seem harmless. Surely studying the Bible together is a wholesome thing. The answer to my blog title question needs careful and sensitive evaluation.
Here are some considerations.
1). Our understanding of Titus 2:3-5 will probably direct much of our behaviour. Here Paul writes:
Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
If we give attention and note two words, which are "to teach what is good" and "so train young women" this will help us. "To teach" is not in a doctrinal sense in its widest sense, because we know that doctrinal and biblical instruction is upon the shoulders of elders (Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3). Elders are men who are godly, able, competent in the Scriptures and appointed by other elders for the task. The teaching curriculum then in Titus 2 for women is a narrow one and it is for older women to be modelling by example, precept and with reference to Scripture, to be a godly wife and mother. Likewise to "train" means to "encourage of advise". Therefore, such a passage does not support women leading regular Bible studies to women.
Regular Bible studies led by women, could mean that some women receive more doctrinal instruction through women, than through ordained elders. This is something to ponder, evaluate and pray about.
2). The teaching of the church is to be primarily through the office of men who are trained and ordained for the task. The church (and not just a single congregation) have to train, test and evaluate a man, hands have to be laid upon him, so that he can give himself to the task of Titus 1:9: "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it".
3. There can be the danger of dividing up the body, something the Apostles' did not permit.
The whole of 1 Corinthians handles this matter. Division must not take place along lines of age, gender, culture, language and so on. Paul insisted that worship must be in Koine Greek in Corinth, so that all peoples could understand what was being said. This is why culture directed congregations are biblically flawed, in my view. We should not splinter off into Chinese, Korean, Nigerian, Syrian, American or British churches when these people groups are living in a different land. Yes, it may help for a season, but all peoples must be integrated together to represent the Triune God in a local church.
Similarly, regular women's Bible studies has the danger of dividing up the body. My wife is not a big fan of them on different grounds. She has found over the years that women together and with a woman teaching, has lacked the spiritual quality which she desires.
I am very happy for blog comments so that we can think through this important matter.
Yours for the good of the church,
Kevin Bidwell
Here are some considerations.
1). Our understanding of Titus 2:3-5 will probably direct much of our behaviour. Here Paul writes:
Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
If we give attention and note two words, which are "to teach what is good" and "so train young women" this will help us. "To teach" is not in a doctrinal sense in its widest sense, because we know that doctrinal and biblical instruction is upon the shoulders of elders (Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3). Elders are men who are godly, able, competent in the Scriptures and appointed by other elders for the task. The teaching curriculum then in Titus 2 for women is a narrow one and it is for older women to be modelling by example, precept and with reference to Scripture, to be a godly wife and mother. Likewise to "train" means to "encourage of advise". Therefore, such a passage does not support women leading regular Bible studies to women.
Regular Bible studies led by women, could mean that some women receive more doctrinal instruction through women, than through ordained elders. This is something to ponder, evaluate and pray about.
2). The teaching of the church is to be primarily through the office of men who are trained and ordained for the task. The church (and not just a single congregation) have to train, test and evaluate a man, hands have to be laid upon him, so that he can give himself to the task of Titus 1:9: "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it".
3. There can be the danger of dividing up the body, something the Apostles' did not permit.
The whole of 1 Corinthians handles this matter. Division must not take place along lines of age, gender, culture, language and so on. Paul insisted that worship must be in Koine Greek in Corinth, so that all peoples could understand what was being said. This is why culture directed congregations are biblically flawed, in my view. We should not splinter off into Chinese, Korean, Nigerian, Syrian, American or British churches when these people groups are living in a different land. Yes, it may help for a season, but all peoples must be integrated together to represent the Triune God in a local church.
Similarly, regular women's Bible studies has the danger of dividing up the body. My wife is not a big fan of them on different grounds. She has found over the years that women together and with a woman teaching, has lacked the spiritual quality which she desires.
I am very happy for blog comments so that we can think through this important matter.
Yours for the good of the church,
Kevin Bidwell
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
The Trinity and Justification
It is interesting how little is often said and written about baptism or indeed justification in reference to the Three Persons of the Trinity. In baptism, the centrepiece is not us, but the name of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). In justification, in the Westminster Confession of Faith a Trinitarian doctrine is presented for this cornerstone truth which we should learn from.
Look with me at this statement in Chapter 11:4 (Of Justification) in the Confession:
God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,245 and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:246 nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.
Can you see that this is a Trinitarian statement on justification? How and in what way you may ask?
1. God the Father decreed to justify the elect in eternity.
2. God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of the elect and rose from the dead for their justification.
3. The Holy Spirit in due time applies Christ to them.
To God be the glory for this work of redemption accomplished and applied by the Triune God.
Here are three Bible verses to undergird this truth.
1. The work of God the Father.
1 Peter 1:20 "He [the Lamb of God] was foreknown [by God the Father] before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you.
2. The work of God the Son
Romans 4:24-25 "It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification".
3. The work of God the Holy Spirit
Titus 3:4-7 "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life".
My desire is that all sections of the church would think in far more Trinitarian terms than they currently do. After all this is the One True, Living and Only God, Amen.
Look with me at this statement in Chapter 11:4 (Of Justification) in the Confession:
God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,245 and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:246 nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.
Can you see that this is a Trinitarian statement on justification? How and in what way you may ask?
1. God the Father decreed to justify the elect in eternity.
2. God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of the elect and rose from the dead for their justification.
3. The Holy Spirit in due time applies Christ to them.
To God be the glory for this work of redemption accomplished and applied by the Triune God.
Here are three Bible verses to undergird this truth.
1. The work of God the Father.
1 Peter 1:20 "He [the Lamb of God] was foreknown [by God the Father] before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you.
2. The work of God the Son
Romans 4:24-25 "It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification".
3. The work of God the Holy Spirit
Titus 3:4-7 "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life".
My desire is that all sections of the church would think in far more Trinitarian terms than they currently do. After all this is the One True, Living and Only God, Amen.
Monday, 25 January 2016
The Doctrine of the Trinity: Order and Unity among the Three Persons
There are seven tents of the doctrine of the Trinity which need to be all held with equal ultimacy if we are to uphold an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? What are they? They are:
1. One Being-Three Persons
2. One Essence (homoousios)
3. The Three Persons are Distinct (hypostases)
4. The Mutual Indwelling of the Persons (perichōresis)
5. There is an order among the Persons (monarchia, autotheos, taxis)
6. Three Personal Communion (koinōnia)
7. Knowable and yet unknowable
It is point 5 that is the object of this blog post.
The notion of an order (taxis) requires some clarification because within this trinitarian context it does not imply an idea of rank or hierarchy within the Triune God, but rather an ordered constitution. The clear pattern of order is: from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit; and this order pervades everything. Cyril understood that the Father is said to be greater than the Son only economically, and therefore he allowed no foothold for subordination in the Holy Trinity. Likewise John Calvin again comes to our aid in his description of this trinitarian orderliness: ‘To the Father is attributed the beginning of activity, and the fountain and wellspring of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the ordered disposition of all things; but to the Spirit is assigned the power and efficacy of that activity.’
If you want further reading on this you can refer to Calvin's Institutes 1:13:18, p 142-3 or my books on the Trinity which are thus far "The Church as the Image of the Trinity" or a Chapter on the Trinity in the book "Engaging with Keller".
There are many theologians who want to accept orthodoxy on many points of the doctrine of the Trinity and yet they reject that there is an eternal order among the Three Persons of the Trinity. This notion is used to support egalitarianism and the ordination of women bishops and women ministers in the church. This is something plainly rejected by Scripture.
These theologians include:
Kevin Giles
Jürgen Voltmann
Miroslav Volf
Catherine Mowry LaCugna
Rowan Williams (and many of the Western Episcopal/Anglican leaders)
Judith Gundry-Volf
(To name a few.)
Though Tim Keller may not explicitly state a concurrence with a rejection of ordered relations in the Trinity, he effectually supports this with his flawed "dance metaphor" for the Trinity.
The invasion of feminist ideas has washed over the bows of certain constituencies of the evangelical world. What are some of the lessons? Kevin Giles firmly upholds the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son and we support him in this, however, his understanding of an eternal order among the Three Persons of the Trinity is wrongly labelled by him as "subordinationism". He uses this in a pejorative and a wrong sense. It is most dangerous to be right in most parts of the doctrine of the Trinity and yet wrong in others. We must all ensure that we work hard in understanding the doctrine of the Trinity so that we worship our God rightly. To go wrong on this doctrine, can lead to serious implications on our ecclesiology and our Christian faith.
1. One Being-Three Persons
2. One Essence (homoousios)
3. The Three Persons are Distinct (hypostases)
4. The Mutual Indwelling of the Persons (perichōresis)
5. There is an order among the Persons (monarchia, autotheos, taxis)
6. Three Personal Communion (koinōnia)
7. Knowable and yet unknowable
It is point 5 that is the object of this blog post.
The notion of an order (taxis) requires some clarification because within this trinitarian context it does not imply an idea of rank or hierarchy within the Triune God, but rather an ordered constitution. The clear pattern of order is: from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit; and this order pervades everything. Cyril understood that the Father is said to be greater than the Son only economically, and therefore he allowed no foothold for subordination in the Holy Trinity. Likewise John Calvin again comes to our aid in his description of this trinitarian orderliness: ‘To the Father is attributed the beginning of activity, and the fountain and wellspring of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the ordered disposition of all things; but to the Spirit is assigned the power and efficacy of that activity.’
If you want further reading on this you can refer to Calvin's Institutes 1:13:18, p 142-3 or my books on the Trinity which are thus far "The Church as the Image of the Trinity" or a Chapter on the Trinity in the book "Engaging with Keller".
There are many theologians who want to accept orthodoxy on many points of the doctrine of the Trinity and yet they reject that there is an eternal order among the Three Persons of the Trinity. This notion is used to support egalitarianism and the ordination of women bishops and women ministers in the church. This is something plainly rejected by Scripture.
These theologians include:
Kevin Giles
Jürgen Voltmann
Miroslav Volf
Catherine Mowry LaCugna
Rowan Williams (and many of the Western Episcopal/Anglican leaders)
Judith Gundry-Volf
(To name a few.)
Though Tim Keller may not explicitly state a concurrence with a rejection of ordered relations in the Trinity, he effectually supports this with his flawed "dance metaphor" for the Trinity.
The invasion of feminist ideas has washed over the bows of certain constituencies of the evangelical world. What are some of the lessons? Kevin Giles firmly upholds the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son and we support him in this, however, his understanding of an eternal order among the Three Persons of the Trinity is wrongly labelled by him as "subordinationism". He uses this in a pejorative and a wrong sense. It is most dangerous to be right in most parts of the doctrine of the Trinity and yet wrong in others. We must all ensure that we work hard in understanding the doctrine of the Trinity so that we worship our God rightly. To go wrong on this doctrine, can lead to serious implications on our ecclesiology and our Christian faith.
Monday, 18 January 2016
Whatever happened to two church services on Sunday?
I use the word Sunday rather than the biblical term which is the "Lord's Day" or the theological and pastoral term "the Christian Sabbath" for good reason. Why? Well, once ignorance sets in regarding the idea of Sunday being the Lord's Day, this then opens the door to a multiplicity of changes. One of these is to never teach that the Lord of the church has a claim upon his people to worship him on this Day. It is most usually churches that refer to Sunday who do this and I want to appeal to that audience in this blog post.
It is so easy for pragmatism to set in and to begin to ask the wrong questions regarding the doctrine of the church. Questions such as "what do people want?"; "How should we grow our church?"; and other such things get asked, instead of a thorough consultation of Scripture. I wanted to call this blog post after a chapter in a book by R. Scott Clark on "Recovering the Reformed Confession"; the chapter is called "Whatever Happened to the Second Service". However, in the UK today, many evangelical church's have moved their Sunday programme to a single service and often it is at a time in the mid-late afternoon, commonly it seems at the moment at 4.00PM. Therefore the question here in the UK is: "whatever happened to two church services".
Quite frankly, it is not a biblical imperative to have two church services on the Lord's Day, but neither is it discouraged to have two, but it is prohibited to have none on that Day. But, why would a church want to starve the sheep and only have one service? Psalm 92 has long been sung and preached for around 3000 years because it is a Psalm for the Sabbath. Let us hear what it says.
A PSALM. A SONG FOR THE SABBATH.
"It is good to give thanks to the LORD, to sing praises to your name, O Most High; to declare your steadfast love in the morning, and your faithfulness by night" (Psalm 92:1-2).
Psalm titles, though they are often in italics, form part of the inspired text of holy Scripture and they should be read. Here we learn that the people of God sing praises to the Most High God morning and at night. Should not the church do the same and desire to do the same in our day?
I think that what is connected to this downgrade in the doctrine of the church, is that a man-centred pragmatism creeps in, and before you know it the convenience of people is placed above the Command of God. In congregations that move to a single service on the Lord's Day, there is commonly a down-playing of the moral law, an influx of an emphasis on musical instruments for singing and the rest of the church calendar in the week begins to get loaded with activities. Instead, the Christian Sabbath is intended to be a Day of entering into God's rest, being fed spiritually, worshipping God as he expects us to do, and not least in honouring his Day.
I would not go to a church with my family which only has one service; this is not primarily or only based on my commitment to the Lord's Day. But, because of my spiritual hunger. I got converted in a church that was committed to two services on Sunday and it was also committed to preaching. From day one as a Christian, if the church had three services, I would have gone to them all, such was and is my spiritual hunger. How about you? Are you spiritually hungry? If you go to one service on the Lord's Day, is that really enough to equip you to live righteously and godly in this present age (Titus 2:11-14)?
"If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honourable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken (Is 58:13–14)".
It is so easy for pragmatism to set in and to begin to ask the wrong questions regarding the doctrine of the church. Questions such as "what do people want?"; "How should we grow our church?"; and other such things get asked, instead of a thorough consultation of Scripture. I wanted to call this blog post after a chapter in a book by R. Scott Clark on "Recovering the Reformed Confession"; the chapter is called "Whatever Happened to the Second Service". However, in the UK today, many evangelical church's have moved their Sunday programme to a single service and often it is at a time in the mid-late afternoon, commonly it seems at the moment at 4.00PM. Therefore the question here in the UK is: "whatever happened to two church services".
Quite frankly, it is not a biblical imperative to have two church services on the Lord's Day, but neither is it discouraged to have two, but it is prohibited to have none on that Day. But, why would a church want to starve the sheep and only have one service? Psalm 92 has long been sung and preached for around 3000 years because it is a Psalm for the Sabbath. Let us hear what it says.
A PSALM. A SONG FOR THE SABBATH.
"It is good to give thanks to the LORD, to sing praises to your name, O Most High; to declare your steadfast love in the morning, and your faithfulness by night" (Psalm 92:1-2).
Psalm titles, though they are often in italics, form part of the inspired text of holy Scripture and they should be read. Here we learn that the people of God sing praises to the Most High God morning and at night. Should not the church do the same and desire to do the same in our day?
I think that what is connected to this downgrade in the doctrine of the church, is that a man-centred pragmatism creeps in, and before you know it the convenience of people is placed above the Command of God. In congregations that move to a single service on the Lord's Day, there is commonly a down-playing of the moral law, an influx of an emphasis on musical instruments for singing and the rest of the church calendar in the week begins to get loaded with activities. Instead, the Christian Sabbath is intended to be a Day of entering into God's rest, being fed spiritually, worshipping God as he expects us to do, and not least in honouring his Day.
I would not go to a church with my family which only has one service; this is not primarily or only based on my commitment to the Lord's Day. But, because of my spiritual hunger. I got converted in a church that was committed to two services on Sunday and it was also committed to preaching. From day one as a Christian, if the church had three services, I would have gone to them all, such was and is my spiritual hunger. How about you? Are you spiritually hungry? If you go to one service on the Lord's Day, is that really enough to equip you to live righteously and godly in this present age (Titus 2:11-14)?
"If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honourable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken (Is 58:13–14)".
Monday, 4 January 2016
How do you view tradition in terms of rightly interpreting Scripture?
2 Thessalonians 2:15-17 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word".
How do we rightly interpret Scripture? It is by the Scripture being compared with Scripture, tradition and also reason. We do not conduct our search for the understanding of the Bible text in a vacuum and yet that is how many Christians view things. We bring ourselves under the authority of the written Word of God, but a sound interpretation is also needed. Sadly, many Christians view all tradition with suspicion and this is an error. The upholding and teaching of historic creeds, such as the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed (381), Athanasian Creed, Creed of Chalcedon and Confessions such as the Westminster Standards are essential to sound doctrinal principles for the church. It is never me and my Bible alone.
There has arisen a minority, but vocal group who have begun to challenge the church's doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son as outlined in The Nicene Creed. This Creed is upheld by the whole church and it is a non-negotiable in terms of orthodoxy. Some men come along to deny this doctrine. Sometimes younger men training for the ministry may have two very different attitudes; One says "I will accept the Nicene Creed (church tradition), only when I am personally convinced"; another says "I receive the church's teaching on this agreed statement and I desire to understand how the church reached this position". Can you see the radical difference in these two approaches? The former is flawed the latter is healthy.
The Nicene Creed on the Eternal Generation of the Son
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:
Despite this clear doctrinal standard, there are some men, and theologians, who have arisen to suggest that we delete this doctrine from our church's Creeds and Confessions. This list of men includes, according to Kevin Giles who has written an excellent book "The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Tradition":
Wayne Grudem
Bruce Ware
Robert Reymond
Mark Driscoll
Paul Helm
Wiliam Lane Craig
John S Feinberg
Millard Erickson
Lorraine Boettner
John Frame is skeptical of this doctrine
What do we make of the teaching of such people on this matter? Well we uphold the church's orthodox position, we uphold the biblical tradition of the church on the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, instead of the assertions of biblicists who seek to introduce a novel hermeneutic; this is one which mainly seeks to interpret the Bible though a lens that either minimises or dismisses historic confessions and creeds on key points.
We must remember Paul's healthy exhortation in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "But test everything; hold fast what is good".
How do we rightly interpret Scripture? It is by the Scripture being compared with Scripture, tradition and also reason. We do not conduct our search for the understanding of the Bible text in a vacuum and yet that is how many Christians view things. We bring ourselves under the authority of the written Word of God, but a sound interpretation is also needed. Sadly, many Christians view all tradition with suspicion and this is an error. The upholding and teaching of historic creeds, such as the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed (381), Athanasian Creed, Creed of Chalcedon and Confessions such as the Westminster Standards are essential to sound doctrinal principles for the church. It is never me and my Bible alone.
There has arisen a minority, but vocal group who have begun to challenge the church's doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son as outlined in The Nicene Creed. This Creed is upheld by the whole church and it is a non-negotiable in terms of orthodoxy. Some men come along to deny this doctrine. Sometimes younger men training for the ministry may have two very different attitudes; One says "I will accept the Nicene Creed (church tradition), only when I am personally convinced"; another says "I receive the church's teaching on this agreed statement and I desire to understand how the church reached this position". Can you see the radical difference in these two approaches? The former is flawed the latter is healthy.
The Nicene Creed on the Eternal Generation of the Son
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:
Despite this clear doctrinal standard, there are some men, and theologians, who have arisen to suggest that we delete this doctrine from our church's Creeds and Confessions. This list of men includes, according to Kevin Giles who has written an excellent book "The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Tradition":
Wayne Grudem
Bruce Ware
Robert Reymond
Mark Driscoll
Paul Helm
Wiliam Lane Craig
John S Feinberg
Millard Erickson
Lorraine Boettner
John Frame is skeptical of this doctrine
What do we make of the teaching of such people on this matter? Well we uphold the church's orthodox position, we uphold the biblical tradition of the church on the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, instead of the assertions of biblicists who seek to introduce a novel hermeneutic; this is one which mainly seeks to interpret the Bible though a lens that either minimises or dismisses historic confessions and creeds on key points.
We must remember Paul's healthy exhortation in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "But test everything; hold fast what is good".
Wednesday, 30 December 2015
The Writings and Sermons of Rev John E. Marshall
Have you ever heard of John E. Marshall? For most Christians the answer will be a resounding "no!". Let me introduce this lesser known both gospel minister, one from the 20th Century and just into the 21st Century (he died on the 29th August 2003). A faithful pastor and preacher.
I was introduced to his writings some months ago by a fellow minister in the same denomination as I serve. He pointed me to a valuable essay called "The Puritan Woman" by Marshall and this essay is found in a book published by the Banner of Truth called "John E Marshall: Life and Writings". It includes a biographical sketch of the man who ministered in the same church for over 40 years (Alexandra Road Congregational Church, Hemel Hempstead, UK).
Over the Christmas break, I read the transcript of his last sermon that he preached at the Banner Ministers Conference in Leicester called "Slaying Giants: A Sermon on 1 Samuel 17:42-47). I then read another transcribed sermon in his writings called "The Prophet Balaam". What struck me was that these sermons were distilled wisdom from a man of God who had walked with God over decades. How we need the wisdom of seasoned men of God in the church in our own day!
If you are interested in listening to sermons by this man, there is a website and the address is: http://jemarshall.org.uk/sermons/
1 Corinthians 4:15 "For though you have countless (ten thousand) guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel".
Though I never met John Marshall, my impression is that he was a spiritual father in the church and how we need such men. Let us pray for the Lord to raise up quality men who are valiant-for-the-truth in our own generation.
I was introduced to his writings some months ago by a fellow minister in the same denomination as I serve. He pointed me to a valuable essay called "The Puritan Woman" by Marshall and this essay is found in a book published by the Banner of Truth called "John E Marshall: Life and Writings". It includes a biographical sketch of the man who ministered in the same church for over 40 years (Alexandra Road Congregational Church, Hemel Hempstead, UK).
Over the Christmas break, I read the transcript of his last sermon that he preached at the Banner Ministers Conference in Leicester called "Slaying Giants: A Sermon on 1 Samuel 17:42-47). I then read another transcribed sermon in his writings called "The Prophet Balaam". What struck me was that these sermons were distilled wisdom from a man of God who had walked with God over decades. How we need the wisdom of seasoned men of God in the church in our own day!
If you are interested in listening to sermons by this man, there is a website and the address is: http://jemarshall.org.uk/sermons/
1 Corinthians 4:15 "For though you have countless (ten thousand) guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel".
Though I never met John Marshall, my impression is that he was a spiritual father in the church and how we need such men. Let us pray for the Lord to raise up quality men who are valiant-for-the-truth in our own generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)