Theology Archives - Page 65 of 68 - Kuyperian Commentary

On August 1, 2013 By Mark Horne In Culture, Politics, Theology Like

A Life of Plunder: The First Temptation of Foolishness

Proverb begins with a promise of, and praise for, the value of wisdom. Verse 7 warns that fools despise it and/or being instructed in it.

But the first warning Proverbs gives of a specific sin seemed, at first, counter-intuitive to me:

Hear, my son, your father’s instruction,
and forsake not your mother’s teaching,
for they are a graceful garland for your head
and pendants for your neck.

My son, if sinners entice you,
do not consent.
If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood;
let us ambush the innocent without reason;
like Sheol let us swallow them alive,
and whole, like those who go down to the pit;
we shall find all precious goods,
we shall fill our houses with plunder;
throw in your lot among us;
we will all have one purse”—
my son, do not walk in the way with them;
hold back your foot from their paths,
for their feet run to evil,
and they make haste to shed blood.
For in vain is a net spread
in the sight of any bird,
but these men lie in wait for their own blood;
they set an ambush for their own lives.
Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain;
it takes away the life of its possessors. (Proverbs 1:8-19, ESV)

Why is this temptation the first concern of wisdom”

After the Fall, as we find it recorded in Genesis 3, the first big sin was brother murdering brother–the sin of Cain against Abel. One might be inclined, at first glance to associate this story with Solomon’s warning to resist the lure, “let us ambush the innocent without reason.” But I don’t think that hold’s up. Here “without reason” isn’t referring to the motivations of a psychotic thrill killer (though there is a hint in much of Proverbs that this way of life leads to an addictive thrill), but it means simply unjustly–that is, “without cause.”

Cain was motivated by resentment due to God’s approval of Abel. That is not the temptation here in Proverbs 1. Rather, the bloodshed is a means to an end. The temptation here is for a life of plunder, a shortcut to wealth:

we shall find all precious goods,
we shall fill our houses with plunder;
throw in your lot among us;
we will all have one purse…

Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain.

So of all the sins that could possibly head the list in Proverbs, why does Solomon start with the temptation to join a gang and acquire loot? Why is a life of plunder the first temptation?

A general observation: From my reading in Proverbs, I think the main concern is how people drift into sin–how they start down a wrong path. If so, it is not surprising that Cain’s sin wouldn’t be the forefront. His hatred of Abel, who had done him no harm at all, and from whose death he gained nothing, seems to go far beyond what we have here in the beginning of Proverbs.

If my instinct is right to look back at the first stories of Genesis as the background to Biblical wisdom (stories that include a contrast between God’s way and humanity’s way to “become wise”) perhaps we should go back earlier than the story of Cain and Abel. Rather than looking for a negative example of embracing a life of plunder, we might look for a corresponding positive command.

The first recorded command in the Bible is to embrace a life of productivity:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28, ESV)

So what are the alternatives. If you don’t want to take dominion over world, you survive and attempt to thrive by taking dominion over people. If you don’t live by being fruitful, you find those who have done so and cut them off, stealing the fruits of their life and labors.

Notice how rejecting God’s ways are parasitic. Someone has to work the land and produce good things by labor and exchange. Without such people, human life is impossible. But some find it tempting to let others do the work, and then take a shortcut by using violence to plunder such people.

One implication of all this which I believe Proverbs repeatedly addresses, is that it is not enough to repudiate plunder. Knowing you should not steal or rob is insufficient. You have to embrace as best you can a life of work and savings and investment. Otherwise, you will always find yourself tempted to resort to the other means of acquisition. In fact, by failing to work, you’ve taken the first step toward theft.

I can’t help but think of the national media campaigns against Wal-mart and McDonald’s for the crime of not handing over more cash to their employees. I’ve written several times about this recently:

One way to teach plunder is to rationalize it as if it was owed. While people who have truly wrecked the economy (a crime perpetrated by as many Republicans as anyone else, by the way) are only given a passing glance, or even treated as saviors, companies who have no control over the economy, and who depend on the will of consumers to live, are used as scapegoats.

If laws are passed to match these impulses, we can say of the reduced employment and/or string of bankruptcies that result: “these men lie in wait for their own blood; they set an ambush for their own lives.”<>регистрация а google

On August 1, 2013 By Luke Welch In Theology Like

Paedocommunion Series: God Really, Really Cares

Perugino, “Moses’s Journey into Egypt and the Circumcision of His Son Eliez” (c 1482).

THE CURRENT SERIES

Is about Paedocommunion, but we are slowly working our way up to it. The first two posts were about the biblical teaching that we expect covenant children normatively to have faith from the womb (Paedofaith). Now we move on to Paedobaptism – by talking about Moses and circumcision. Eventually we will get to Paedocommunion proper.

To see Part 1: A Simple Experiment

To see Part 2: Some Kinda Faith or a Nuther

——————–

I LEFT YOU HANGING WITH…

Moses.

And Pharaoh.

Both made God mad enough to kill.

BECAUSE GOD LOVES HIS CHILDREN

Israel had been promised an inheritance. A gift from their father. Israel was God’s firstborn son. As the son of the King of the earth, Israel would go out as Prince of the earth, ruling in God’s place – as a messenger, showing forth God’s image, and being a blessing to the world. God had sealed to Israel this promise of blessing all the nations of the earth eventually, but along the way, there would be some who did not treat them well. God would bless their benefactors, and curse their enemies.

I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. (Gen 12.3)

This is a story about one of Israel’s enemies, and about marking the difference in “mine” and “not mine.”

MARKING OUT

Israel had been marked as God’s son (more…)

On July 30, 2013 By Thomas Kidd In Theology Like

Bible Wars and the Origins of the Term “Inerrancy”

Over at The Gospel Coalition, Andrew Wilson recently wrote a piece called “Why I Don’t Hate the Word ‘Inerrancy’.” He explains that

when asked the street-level question, “Does the Bible contain mistakes?” I always answer, “When interpreted properly, no.” That first clause is important; after all, an awful lot of people in history have thought that the Bible says the earth is at the center of the universe, flat, and built on pillars. There is also a plethora of texts whose literal meaning cannot be their original meaning—ranging from the obviously poetic (“your breasts are clumps of dates”) to the obviously symbolic (“then I saw a beast coming out of the sea”) and the obviously hyperbolic (“cut your eye out and throw it away”)—as well as a group of other texts whose literal meaning may or may not be their original meaning…

I agree with Wilson that while facile interpretations of inerrancy can back us into some unfortunate corners, it is still a good word to use. To regular evangelicals, it connotes that which is true: the Scriptures are the fully inspired, authoritative Word of God. But I think there’s an additional reason to not use inerrancy as a bludgeon, and that is the relatively recent advent of the term’s use. Indeed, the history of the word “inerrant” is a fascinating case study in the history of language. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the words “inerrant” and “inerrancy” did not come into common use in English until the 19th century. Until the 1880s, their use in religious writing almost always concerned the authority of the pope (“inerrant” was employed by critics of the pope to describe his power).

This pattern abruptly changed in the 1880s, when higher critics of the Bible began to assail the doctrine of “inerrancy,” a term which higher critics themselves popularized. For instance, A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield’s seminal 1881 article “Inspiration” did not use the word “inerrant.” (It used “inspired or “inspiration” some 94 times, and “errorless” or “without error” 11 times.) The key figure in the inerrancy debate was Charles Augustus Briggs, a Presbyterian pastor and seminarian who was ultimately tried and convicted by the Presbyterian Church for his heterodox views of Scripture. The provocative Briggs argued that the theory that the Bible is inerrant was “the ghost of modern evangelicalism to frighten children.” The Briggs trial was one of the opening shots in what became the great Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy of the early 20th century.

The problem with Briggs – and much of the inerrantist backlash against critics like him – is that he insisted on interpreting Scripture through a very narrow lens: the lens of the late nineteenth century scientific mindset. Thus, he wrote, “we are obliged to admit that there are scientific errors in the Bible, errors of astronomy, of geology, of zoology, of botany, and of anthropology.” The Bible, to Briggs, had to be judged by contemporary scientific trends. Some fundamentalists went right along with this game, saying that the Bible would be vindicated – on the exclusive grounds of the modernist scientific worldview.

We’re on safer territory – and orthodox territory – when we affirm that the Bible, every verse of it, is true in all that it claims. We, of course, may not always completely understand what it is claiming, because we do not fathom all of God’s ways, nor is it always entirely clear, as Wilson says above, whether to interpret a passage literally, poetically, symbolically, or hyperbolically. We all struggle, moreover, to remove our blinders of time and culture when reading the Scripture. This is one of the reasons church history is so important. As I once wrote with reference to Rob Bell, “when anyone claims to discover a new biblical truth, one that almost no stalwarts of the faith have believed for 2000 years, it’s a good bet they’re wrong.”

But our caveats regarding interpretation should focus on our limitations as fallen readers of Scripture, not on the supposed imperfections of Scripture itself. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”

Originally Posted at The Anxious Bench<>online games mobi

On July 30, 2013 By Luke Welch In Theology 1

Paedocommunion? Saved by Some Kinda Faith or a Nuther

See the first post in this series:

Paedocommunion? A Simple Experiment to Test Your Views

Giusto de’ menabuoi, Adam and Eve, 1376-78

ONCE UPON A TIME GOD TOUCHED SOME BABIES
…who had been brought into his very throne room, into the heart of his holy space – and they – those nursing babes, were sat on God’s lap.

Now God’s holy space has bouncers, deacons, arrow-invested warriors who wait at the breach of the tabernacle and all around to keep the false from coming into the room. These cherubim, as they are sometimes called, are gatekeepers. The flaming sword turning each way to keep the unworthy out.

One cherub said to another, I think someone got into the holy place, someone who was uninvited. Let us guard the holiness of the Lord!

So the cherubim rebuked the intruding babies, and actually, that meant telling off their parents, because the nursing babies, even infants, could not do but what their believing Jewish parents made them do.

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN GOD WHEN HE’S ANGRY?
Sometimes he floods the place. Sometimes he rains sulfur. Sometimes he spews his blasphemous people out into Babylon. By the way, don’t forget to remind me what he almost did to Moses one time and why! Oh, but that can wait.

(more…)

On July 29, 2013 By Luke Welch In Theology 1

Paedocommunion? A Simple Experiment to Test Your Views

See other posts in this series:

Part 2: Paedocommunion? – Saved by Some Kinda Faith or a Nuther

15 C. from the Cantoria by Luca della Robbia

AN EXPERIMENT ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE BIBLE IS SAYING

Is true faith a normal expectation for Christians to have of their infant children? Today I offer you an experiment to test this question. You can find the instructions for the experiment at the last portion of this post.

If you and your wife or husband have been deliberating over the idea of paedobaptism or paedocommunion, it is likely that the question of infant-faith has arisen. Can an infant be faith-filled? Does the Bible teach us to feel a certain way about this?

I would like to help you cross a hurdle today – or to remove one significant barrier from your path. I want to show you that the Bible teaches you to teach your children that the norm in the church is for faith and salvation to belong to the children of believers. We must confess that infant faith is the norm…from the womb, no less. And we can show that from the Bible. But first, a word on where we are going.

(more…)

On July 26, 2013 By Kuyperian In Theology Like

Are You Planning on Delighting in Your Children Today?

Yesterday, I posted “Are You Planning on Yelling at Your Children Today?” and a whole bunch of people read it. I am thinking that the overwhelming majority of you are struggling with the same sour-puss attitudes in your home that my wife and I have been for many years. Not our children’s attitudes. Ours. They are picking those attitudes up from us and honing them into weapons of mass destruction.

If you read and shared the article yesterday because the Lord used me as “Nathan” in your life and you played the role of “the man,” then I would like to ask, “What are you going to do about it?” What does repentance look like? An ex-drunkard can stay away from bars, and an ex-porn participator can stay away from the pictures, but if we’re stuck with our kids, and we most gloriously are, then what are we to do? And as whiskey and nudity are not the problems in those aforementioned cases, the wicked heart of the sinner is the problem, so also it is in the case of your fits of anger with your kids. You need to be changed in order to affect any change in your routine at home, i.e. if you’ve been yelling at you kids every day for years, don’t expect one internet article to “make all the difference in the world.”

As sinners, we have a wrong view of God, a wrong view of ourselves, a wrong view of our neighbor, and a wrong view of the world around us. As Christians, it doesn’t have to stay this way; we don’t have to be the way we were, because Jesus came to shine light into darkness. He has been doing this since He originally said, “Let there be light,” (Gen 1:3); afterward He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:18), born of the Virgin Mary to be that light of the world (John 8:12); one day there will be no need of a sun when the world is put to rights, because His presence, His kingdom, will have come in its fullness (Rev 21:23). If we are serious about changing the way we are behaving around our children while we are trying to get them to behave, we need His Word to be a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.” (Ps 119:105)

As a remedy to your enraged berating of your children, you need to hear the Word of God. You are dark on the inside and need light shined in that darkness. As I said yesterday, the Lord has been using Pastor Douglas Wilson, as he preaches the Word of God, as a “Nathan” in my life for years. I referenced his sermon series, Loving Little Ones. Here’s a great quote from the first sermon:

Parents should always desire to be like God in their relationship to their children. But when we think this, we gravitate to what we think or assume God is like instead of gravitating to what God reveals Himself to be like. Here is the fundamental attitude. “The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing” (Zep. 3:17). “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” (Luke 11:13). Parents who are “evil” frequently are better to their kids than parents who think they are being good by imitating a Cosmic Slavedriver. Delight in your children. Be crazy about them. Don’t hold back. They are cuter than everybody else’s.

In order to stop yelling and start delighting, you don’t need another internet article, per se. You need to dig in to the Word of God and be cut deeply by the working of the Holy Spirit. I highly recommend ordering the sermon series, Loving Little Ones, actively listening to them with your spouse, and then start inviting other families in your church and community over to your house to listen with you. It’s not a formula or a method. It’s four hours of principles to help you restructure the way you think about childrearing. If you don’t restructure the current model, don’t expect any sort of change. However, if you humble yourself before the Lord, He will lift you up. He will forgive you your trespasses and give you a soft heart in place of the stony one you currently have toward your kids. Then you can stop yelling and start delighting for today. For tomorrow. For ever.

Here’s the link to the sermon series. It’ll be the best spent $8 that you’ve forked over in a long time.

http://www.canonpress.org/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=473&idcategory=158

<>

On July 23, 2013 By Steve Macias In Theology Like

Introducing Your Church Membership Credit Score

How Credit Scores Work

There was a time when your credit score wasn’t rated by a numerical value, your “credit” worthiness was determined by a variety of human-based interactions. A quick look into pre-FICO score ratings would reveal a world unknown to our digital report age. There once was a time when “Welcome Wagon representatives” and “mutual protection agencies” collected and sold information about your business dealings for banks and other creditors. As America grew, so did the need for precision in credit scores; this grown-up version of a permanent record now follows the responsibility of consumers in their financial commitments. It is a beautiful private system that rewards good behavior and makes us better borrowers–it tells the truth about how we behave in society.

The business world expanded its review of credit worthiness to address actual issues. The issues they were facing had been in the making for decades, mainly the growth of communities and a greater latitude in societal compositions. The early American practice of running a tab at your local general store was based on the individual’s reputation in the community. As the community grew, this became impractical: how can one general store track and lend credit to a major metropolitan area? The 20th century was also marked by tremendous advances in travel. Cars, planes, and bullet trains made it possible for families to lives cities apart, for men to pick and start a new career more than once in their lifetime. There are obvious credit-worthiness issues here: how does the creditor in the new town(s) know if someone is trustworthy if they have no reputation or history that is available? How does one handle multiple lending institutions?

Churches and Credit Worthiness

The church today has some of the same issues in dealing with church discipline. We have a precious commodity extended to those who are in good standing with the Body of Christ. The church unites those baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into a covenant contract for the blessings and benefits of the kingdom. We offer the very blood and true body of Christ to those who are worthy to receive it, feeding and nourishing their mind, body, and soul. How are these precious sacraments to be protected from wolves and the sacred table fenced from those who may take it unworthily?

The Christian church throughout the entirety of its history has used church discipline to regulate the credit worthiness of its members, but for same reasons the business world needed to expand its rating system, the church must address the needed changes in managing its membership. Imagine for a moment that a consumer were to default on his mortgage; the creditor could rightly hold the individual to his contract in repossessing property, imposing penalties, and even initiating civil litigation. Now imagine if this defaulted borrower’s next step was to go to the bank down the street and apply for another loan? How foolish would this second creditor be to not investigate the applicant’s history, or as in is the common case in the modern church, to ignore the warnings of past creditors?

A Pound of Flesh?

In an America with thousands of denominations, this becomes more difficult as we discover many have completely ignored the biblical command for formal discipline and excommunication (1 Cor. 5:5). God’s use of discipline is an act of grace and mercy to those who refuse to hear the elders’ call to repentance. Impenitence, not any individual sin, is the only outstanding debt that the church has the authority to collect on. Repossession of a member’s place at the Lord’s table is “for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved,” says St. Paul. When churches act biblically in their protection of the Lord’s table they are showing a loving-kindness, grace, and mercy to those who are caught in grievous sins. When churches ignore the Apostolic order to not recognize those who have placed themselves outside the congregation, they hurt that individual the most. Just a verse later, St. Paul goes on to explain why we need to separate the covenant keepers from the covenant breakers, “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven” (vv. 6-7)

Obviously, the first step is to reinforce the biblical commission to practice the grace of church discipline. There will always be some confusion when tackling the issue of church discipline, and attacking churches that are weak on this issue will not fix everything. We have to acknowledge that excommunication is difficult even in churches that hold it consistently. The reality of sin doesn’t prohibit our actions to kill sin, but rather it should encourage our devotion to prayer, to Christian conduct, and to utter and complete dependence on our triune God.

The Role of Shepherds

Our duly ordained ministers and elders are called to be shepherds of Jesus’s flock. John MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference is iconified by a pastor’s staff in its logo. I think this imagery is wonderful in so many ways. The pastoral staff is used to delicately wrangle sheep, and it ensures that particular ewes (mother sheep) and lambs don’t lose each other in large flocks. I’ve been told in a number of sermon illustrations that in some cases the human handling of a lamb can cause the mother to refuse to feed it.

This is why we can’t simply use our own human means, or our own human hands, to tend the flock, but must trust in God’s staff in the hands of his anointed shepherds. Too often we try to insert ourselves into disputes, and this subverts the authority of the church leadership, it shows a lack of faith in God’s biblical prescribed pastoral structure. Using human means of reconciliation is rebellion against the Holy Spirit. We need to work on trusting God more. Praying more, gossiping less. More divine intercession, less human meddling.

The second use of the shepherd’s staff is using the end to butt a sheep in the side. As sheep are moved about, they tend to wander off, and the rod is used to keep them in line. I imagine that very few sheep enjoy being poked or jabbed by the shepherd’s staff, but it’s done frequently to keep the flock moving in the right direction, for its safety. The minister does this from time to time in his sermons. Have you been offended by the minister’s righteous jabbing in his preaching? Perhaps that was his staff causing discomfort against an unruly sheep’s ribs? Or has a member forsaken the assembly by placing other pleasures over the Lord’s Day worship service? We should be thankful when the pastor pulls us aside and uses the staff to nudge us back to regular fellowship and communion with believers. Our shepherds use this gentle guidance to keep us from the jaws of wolves or an angry God’s rod of judgment.

The Hooky Hook for Hucksters

The shepherd’s staff is also used to hook a sheep for inspection. A disease in one sheep can quickly spread to a flock of thousands. This means that shepherds are constantly checking up on their flocks. A shepherd who merely puts out food and water will see his flock diminishing. This sort of animal husbandry requires the shepherd’s attention for missing sheep, for sick ones, and for the dangers in the pasture. As he practices church husbandry, the minister is to care for the Bride of Christ in much of the same way. At Church of the King, we expect regular visitations from our elders. This is a time when the elders meet with individual families in private to hear any concerns that a family may have with the church or with their own spiritual life. I know my wife and I look forward to having our elders visit us. It gives us a chance to express any questions we have with them or others in our flock.

At a recent visitation, I expressed our difficulty with the cost of some of the meals we were assigned to bring for our church’s fellowship meals. This is a conversation that would be difficult and even inappropriate to corner an elder with at church, but talking out little problems regularly like this helps develop a healthy relationship between the members and elders. Having the elders over also helps give them a glimpse into our home life. Is Steve Macias giving his wife the respect and honor she deserves? It can be hard to tell during the few hours we meet together throughout the week, but one-on-one with the elders can help them be more prepared if issues do arise. It also gives the elders a time to get a snapshot on how the family is doing in daily life.

My elders ask about our finances. There are no spreadsheets or 1040 forms, but they need to be involved if a family is in need of diaconal assistance. Is this man in need of pastoral guidance in his vocation or even in seeking employment? Are they practicing good Christian stewardship? This is not to place the church at the head of a man’s finances, but rather to recognize that the church is here to serve all of the man. What good is the good news of Jesus, if the families in your church are starving or being abused? The elders ask about marriage. They did this before we were married and check in often to keep in front of marital hardships that will inevitably come to some degree in all unions between sinners. The elders ask about our devotion. Are we growing in the Lord? Is the husband leading the family in home worship and devotion? They can then help shepherd out issues that need to be addressed.

The Problem of Camp Followers

Last March, Rev. R.C. Sproul Jr tweeted, “Those who refuse to join a local church are not soldiers in the Lord’s army, but camp followers.” Developing a proper view of church discipline requires us to take our vows and commitments to the body of Christ seriously. Too many Christians are in open rebellion to their husband Jesus by refusing to subject themselves to a local body in the Bride of Christ. Their resistance to shepherding is, as we’ve seen above, to their own disservice. The Bible explicitly commands believers to submit to a local church’s elders (Heb. 13:17). The Scriptures warrant no such title as “member-at-large” or “long-term visitor,” and these camp followers are refusing to either serve the local body or submit to elders, or both. Camp followers who find themselves connected to weekly bible studies, church events, worship services, and even leadership roles are required to covenant their membership with that local church.

Refusing to submit to a church that you are regularly communing at, fellowshipping with, and benefiting from is a sin. This is a sin that good shepherds will recognize and deal with in accordance with the Gospel. (Matt. 18:15-20) A pastor should explain to the camp followers that they are expected to submit to the Bible’s standard of church membership and privately shepherd them into their calling for the body of Christ.

Camp followers who refuse to submit to the elders should be removed from the Lord’s table for impenitence. The bar for receiving communion is set at the child-like faith of baptism. As First Corinthians 12:13 says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” By our baptism we are made to drink in unity, but the camp follower who refuses to submit to the elders will, as St. Paul declares, “eat and drink judgment on themselves. (1 Cor. 11:29). To protect these straying sheep, the shepherd removes them from communion and toward the hope of repentance in excommunication. Camp following should be called out for the sin it is: church harlotry. The bride of Christ deserves our full allegiance, not just a series of one night stands.

More From The Merchant of Venice

In the famous play, Shakespeare’s Shylock extended credit to the reckless Antonio knowing his full credit report, knowing that he wasn’t likely to keep his financial commitments. The Christian minister is to extend the sacraments of baptism and communion liberally, without regard of whether the individual will be able to perfectly keep their covenant. Much like Shylock, the minister extends those means of grace knowing that his sheep will fail to uphold their side of the covenant. This is not an invitation for a legalistic guarding of the table, but rather an understanding that the table is a place of confession and forgiveness. Each Lord’s Day, the forgiveness of the Gospel is to be offered to all who would confess and forsake their sins, clinging only to the blood of Jesus. Shylock demanded a pound of flesh when Antonio couldn’t pay, but in Christ we are forgiven our debts and we are nourished on the new riches of Christ’s flesh. The “fleshly” demands of the enemy are consumed like wine swallowed in the grace of our Lord’s blood. While we suffer through the uncertainty of excommunication, through the real pain, and broken relationships–there is a hope that amid the storms of sin in our life, that by church discipline Christ will bring our ships home.

A Sanctuary From Sanctification

Credit ratings fail to mean anything if other lenders refuse to heed their warnings, and church discipline is the same. If a church refuses to recognize the legitimate discipline of an individual who attempts to join their congregation, they make their house of prayers into a sanctuary away from sanctification. Not only do they open their congregation up to a toxic leaven left to the buffeting of Satan, but this also prevents this sinner from reconciliation and repentance with Christ’s church, which they have spurned. Welcoming excommunicated Christians to another church is harmful to the individual, to the body, and the unity of the Church.

Excommunications aren’t perfect, and everyone has a story about some mistakes or abuses. But the key point is, because the church is God’s biblical model, we should strive to reform our churches to better serve our members. There is also a shield in place to fix errors: the Holy Spirit. No pastor wants to excommunicate a father or mother of a family he loves or have a false accusation on his conscience when he is promised to be judged more strictly by God Himself (James 3:1).

Christian Credit Score System

When a member moves to another church, which happens for a number of valid reasons, he should have his membership transferred to the care of the new church. The old and new pastors should discuss the move and ensure that it was done with the best intentions, communicating any pastoral knowledge that would help the next minister in his shepherding duties. He should mention if this member had been disciplined in the past, what the elders noticed during visitations, and so on. This is just like Bank of America communicating with Wells Fargo about how you kept up with your mortgage, before they give you a bank loan for a new car. Christians should expect something like a permanent record to follow them throughout their care from a pastor to the next pastor that ministers to them.

Imagine if each of our ministers kept a record of members’ status in the church; we wouldn’t have to include much, just 1. Good Standing since xx/xx/xxxx [Church] or 2. Excommunicated on xx/xx/xxxx [Church]. Remembering of course that FICO is a private credit rating system, the same would be true of a Christian credit score system. When an individual seeks membership in a new church they simply have their name run through our newly conjectured “Christian Faithfulness Index.” And so, if you are in good standing, it is noted. If you skipped out on your last church, it is noted. If you are under discipline, the minister knows you need to reconcile with a previous church, and it is there in black and white.

Sure, at first it sounds a bit strange to our modern sensibilities. But it is nearly the same as we imagine it will be once we stand before the great throne of judgement. Do you chafe at the idea that then all deeds will be exposed? Shouldn’t we welcome the kind of covenant community that not only involves the “fun” parts of fellowship, but also dealing properly with sin, including our own? This system would tell the truth, which could go well for you, or not, depending on what is true. All that a negative report that is accurate can do is to encourage you to repent. This is entirely reasonable. We can hold more conferences on church membership, write more books on repentance, give lectures on character, but if we fail to uphold the Bible’s prescribed means of discipline, it will all be for naught.

Reformed Christians can take the lead and build a reformed network accepting submissions for a “Christian Faithfulness Index.” Incrementally, the Kingdom will incentivize and consistently apply church discipline by preventing ”Joe-Bob” from escaping discipline from First Presbyterian Church by showing up at Second Reformed Church down the street. Churches that practice discipline will see the fruit of Christ’s mercy. Those who find no sanctuary from Satan in anti-sanctification churches will have no choice but to look for new life in our risen Savior.

As a Christian with Bible-based optimism, I believe we will see unity of believers, of denominations, of schisms, of sects, under the present reign of King Jesus. And I believe discipline is a vital part of the sanctification of the bride of Christ.

In closing, I am reminded of a hymn we sing often at Church of the King. As you read the lyrics of “How Sweet and Awful is the Place,” pray that the Lord brings the strangers home.

How Sweet and Awful is the Place

by Isaac Watts

How sweet and awful is the place

With Christ within the doors,

While everlasting love displays

The choicest of her stores.

While all our hearts and all our songs

Join to admire the feast,

Each of us cry, with thankful tongues,

“Lord, why was I a guest?”

“Why was I made to hear Thy voice,

And enter while there’s room,

When thousands make a wretched choice,

And rather starve than come?”

‘Twas the same love that spread the feast

That sweetly drew us in;

Else we had still refused to taste,

And perished in our sin.

Pity the nations, O our God,

Constrain the earth to come;

Send Thy victorious Word abroad,

And bring the strangers home.

We long to see Thy churches full,

That all the chosen race

May, with one voice and heart and soul,

Sing Thy redeeming grace.

Like Steve on Facebook and follow @SteveMacias on Twitter.

<>

On July 20, 2013 By Kuyperian In Theology Like

Of Creeds and Fleeting Speculation

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

+++

I 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 only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

+++

If these two creeds–known as the Apostles’ and the Nicene–be examined as to their place in comparative religious ideas and literature, it will be at once apparent that the faith that they proclaim is not Greek, speculative, philosophical, but historical, biblical, Semitic, eschatological, a faith that does not make general propositions about the nature of God, but that looks back to certain events in history wherein God has acted and that looks forward to God’s own consummation of these acts “for us men and for our salvation.” In the light of early Christian history the character of the Creeds is indeed very striking. Christianity has entered the Hellenic atmosphere, it has used the Greek tongue, its theologians have largely been Greeks–and yet its Creeds show that it has baptized its Greek adherents into a Messianic faith in a God who reveals Himself through acts in history. The biblical Gospel has overcome the speculative mind. And the simple, pictorial language of “he came down,” “he ascended,” is not the language of a time or of a school of thought, but the inescapable language of the human race and of common life. Language less “mythological” in form is less permanent. A creed that substituted for these pictorial phrases the language of “modern thought” or of any scheme of thought would be the Creed of an ephemeral scholasticism , and not the Creed of a Gospel before which all scholasticisms must bow.

The Gospel and the Catholic Church by Michael Ramsey<>for mobile

On July 11, 2013 By Luke Welch In Theology Like

Tithe Your Beer: Is Teetotalism Biblical?

by Luke A Welch

Wiki: J Amman – “The Brewer” – 16th C. engraving.

Many Christians believe that the Bible opposes the consumption of alcohol. Contrary to the thinking of these Christian abstainers, the Scriptures actually promote the wide cultural and individual use of alcohol. This is most evident in the command to drink wine in the Lord’s Supper, but today I want to take a fun little trip back to tithing laws in the Old Testament.

And what a fun topic! Partly because it is fun to get to release people from false laws and ungodly guilt. And partly because beer is designed to be fun, in and of itself; wine, indeed, maketh the heart merry (Ps 104.15). I may try to write several posts about this, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. For now, let’s start with something you missed in the Sunday School of a Teetotalling church.

(more…)

On July 8, 2013 By Uri Brito In Theology, Worship Like

A Short History of the Wearing of Clerical Collars in the Presbyterian Tradition

By Contributing Scholar, Timothy LeCroy

Introduction
There does not seem to have been any distinctive everyday dress for Christian pastors up until the 6^th century or so. Clergy simply wore what was common, yet muted, modest, and tasteful, in keeping with their office. In time, however, the dress of pastors remained rather conservative, as it is wont to do, while the dress of lay people changed more rapidly. The result was that the dress of Christian pastors became distinct from the laity and thus that clothing began to be invested (no pun intended) with meaning.

Skipping ahead, due to the increasing acceptance of lay scholars in the new universities, the Fourth Lateran council (1215) mandated a distinctive dress for clergy so that they could be distinguished when about town. This attire became known as the vestis talaris or the cassock. Lay academics would wear an open front robe with a lirripium or hood. It is interesting to note that both modern day academic and clerical garb stems from the same Medieval origin.

Councils of the Roman Catholic church after the time of the Reformation stipulated that the common everyday attire for priests should be the cassock. Up until the middle of the 20^th century, this was the common street clothes attire for Roman Catholic priests. The origin of the clerical collar does not stem from the attire of Roman priests. Its genesis is of Protestant origin.

The Origin of Reformed Clerical Dress
In the time of the Reformation, many of the Reformed wanted to distance themselves from what was perceived as Roman clerical attire. Thus many of the clergy took up the attire of academics in their daily dress or wore no distinctive clothing whatsoever. Yet over time the desire for the clergy to wear a distinctive uniform returned to the Reformed churches. What they began to do, beginning in the 17^th century as far as I can tell, is to begin to wear a neck scarf, called a cravat, tied around the neck to resemble a yoke. Thus common dignified attire was worn by the pastor, supplementing it with this clerical cravat. This style can be seen in many of our famous Reformed divines, one of the more famous of whom being Charles Hodge.

Charles Hodge pictured with clerical cravat

When Reformed pastors would enter the pulpit, they would add what is known as a “preaching tab” or “neck band” to their clerical dress. This type of dress is nearly ubiquitous among 17^th and 18^th century Reformed pastors. Here are a few examples:

Jonathan Edwards featuring clerical cravat and preaching tabs

George Whitfield

John Owen – 17th century Reformed pastor

In the following picture we see more clearly the use of both the clerical cravat and the inserted preaching tabs by one Thomas Chalmers.

Thomas Chalmers, 19th century. Notice both the cravat and tabs clearly visible.

The reader will note that the men depicted here were of great eminence as Reformed pastors and theologians. They are all well known for their commitment to Reformed theology and biblical teaching and practice. These are not obscure men who sported clerical attire.

One might ask whether this sort of attire was universal among the Reformed. The answer is, no. Upon perusing several portraits included in the Presbyterian Encyclopedia of 1880, published by Presbyterian Publishing Co. of Philadelphia, I found that there was diversity of clerical attire chosen by Presbyterian pastors of the 19^th century. Some wore clerical cravats. Some wore what looks like a modern rabat with a collarette (a black vest which closes at the top with a bit of white collar revealed all around). Others wore bow ties or neck ties. The conclusion to be drawn is that in the Presbyterian tradition, there has been diversity of clerical dress without any type enforced over the other.

Another objection that might be raised is whether or not this neck band or cravat, such as we see Charles Hodge wearing, was in any way distinctive clerical garb. Several 19^thcentury sources reveal that these cravats were, in fact, considered distinctive clerical garb. The following quote is from a 19^th century source called The Domestic Annals of Scotland, Volume 3:

In the austerity of feeling which reigned through the Presbyterian Church on its reestablishment there had been but little disposition to assume a clerical uniform or any peculiar pulpit vestments. It is reported that when the noble commissioner of one of the first General Assemblies was found fault with by the brethren for wearing a scarlet cloak he told them he thought it as indecent for them to appear in gray cloaks and cravats. When Mr. Calamy visited Scotland in 1709 he was surprised to find the clergy generally preaching in neckcloths and coloured cloaks. We find at the date here marginally noted that the synod of Dumfries was anxious to see a reform in these respects. The synod – so runs their record – “considering that it’s a thing very decent and suitable so it hath been the practice of ministers in this kirk formerly to wear black gowns in the pulpit and for ordinary to make use of bands do therefore by their act recommend it to all their brethren within their bounds to keep up that custome and to study gravitie in their apparel and every manner of way.”

Here we see several members of the 18^th c. Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) having their hackles raised over some ostentatious clergymen wearing scarlet cloaks and cravats. Later they hold a Synod where they decide that they ought to wear black gowns and to make use of neck bands. This paragraph shows us two things: the wearing of cravats was considered to be distinctive clerical garb, and the synod of the kirk decided ultimately that modest use of neckbands was permitted. (There are many more such examples in 19^th century sources which can easily be researched on Google Books. I invite the reader to see for himself.) Thus when we see all manner of 17^th-19^th century Reformed pastors sporting preaching tabs, neck bands, and cravats, we should interpret them to be intentionally sporting distinctive clerical garb. We should also gather that the author of these annals, one Robert Chambers, included this anecdote in his work in order to promote the modest use of bands and clerical garb in his day.

The last bit of history to cover regards the origin of the modern clerical collar. According to several sources, including one cited by the Banner of Truth website (no Romanizing group), the modern clerical collar was invented by a Presbyterian. In the mid 19^th century heavily starched detachable collars were in great fashion. This can been seen up through the early part of the 20^th century if one has watched any period television shows or movies. If we observe the collar worn by Charles Hodge we can see that at first these collars were not folded down as they are today, but left straight up.

Charles Hodge revisited. Notice the upturned collar protruding from the top of the cravat.

Yet in the mid to late 19^th century it became the fashion of the day to turn these collars down. You and I still wear a turned down collar. The origin of the modern clerical collar is simply then to turn or fold the collar down over the clerical cravat, leaving the white cloth exposed in the middle. According to the Glasgow Herald of December 6,1894, the folded down detachable clerical collar was invented by the Rev Dr Donald McLeod, a Presbyterian minister in the Church of Scotland. According to the book Clerical Dress and Insignia of the Roman Catholic Church, “the collar was nothing else than the shirt collar turned down over the cleric’s everyday common dress in compliance with a fashion that began toward the end of the sixteenth century. For when the laity began to turn down their collars, the clergy also took up the mode.”

Yet two questions arise: how did the clerical collar then fall out of use among Presbyterians and how did it come to be so associated with Roman Catholic priests? The answer is that up until the mid 20^th century the prescribed dress for all Roman Catholic priests was the cassock, a full length clerical gown. Yet during the 20^th century it became custom for Roman Catholic priests to wear a black suit with a black shirt and clerical collar, which collar they appropriated from Protestant use. Owing to the large number of Roman Catholic priests in some areas, and due to the fact that some sort of everyday clerical dress was mandated for all priests at all times when outside their living quarters, the clerical collar became to be associated more with the Roman Catholic Church than with the Protestant churches. It stands to reason that once again a desire to create distance between the Reformed and Roman Catholics and the increasing desire throughout the 20^th century for ministers to dress in more informal ways has led to the fact that barely any Reformed pastor wears any distinctive clerical dress these days, though plenty of examples show that our eminent forbearers desired to do so.

Sources
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2^nd Edition, 2003
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 1996
The Presbyterian Encyclopedia, Alfred Nevin, 1880
Wikipedia: Clerical Collar
Wikipedia: Bands (neck wear)
Wikipedia: Clerical Clothing
Clerical dress and insignia of the Roman Catholic Church, Henry McCloud, 1948
Domestic Annals of Scotland, From the Revolution to the Rebellion of 1745, Robert Chambers, 1861, pp. 147-148.
Google Images
Google Books
Wikimedia Commons
Ken Collins’ Website – Vestments Glossary
Banner of Truth Website
Pastor Garrett Craw’s Blog