In Jesus Christ is Sinai and Zion, Bethel and Jerusalem

Here’s a nice quote from Barth on the Church’s relationship to “holy places” (i.e., Israel, the temple, tabernacle, etc.):

[. . .] Special places can no longer exist in this sense. If Christianity, for its part, tries to proclaim and accept holy places in this sense, it will mean always a relapse into Judaism, or more correctly, into a pagan self-misunderstanding of Judaism, or even ore accurately, a rejection of the true Judaism of Solomon and Jeremiah. Theologically, then, we cannot expect anything for the Jews from a return to Palestine as the holy land; and recent propaganda for the gathering of all Christian Jew to Palestine as the place of the promise which avails for all who are baptised out of Israel involves a twofold error. Now that Israel’s Messiah has appeared, and has been rejected by Israel, and manifested as the Saviour of believers from both Jews and Gentiles, there does not exist any more a holy mountain or holy city or holy land which can be marked on a map. The reason is not that God’s holiness in space has suddenly become unworthy of Him or has changed into a heathen ubiquity. The reason is that all prophecy is now fulfilled in Jesus, and God’s holiness in space, like all God’s holiness, is now called and is Jesus of Nazareth. This holiness is certainly to be encountered in the created space that can be represented on maps. But in this space it only where Jesus Himself, having entered heaven (in fulfilment of the entering of the high priest into the tabernacle, Heb. 9.24), is now present in the world from heaven and therefore from the throne of God in such a way that He calls and quickens men to faith in Him by His Word and His Spirit, and therefore calls and quickens them for worship in spirit and truth desired by the Father. In Him is Sinai and Zion, Bethel and Jerusalem.
(CD, II.1 p 482)

New Book on Images of Christ: In Living Color by Rev. Danny Hyde

Rev. Danny Hyde’s new book on images of Christ is out. Here’s a link to his blog. Click here to purchase his book from Amazon. And if you haven’t done so already, make sure you check out his commentary on the Belgic Confession here.

Some endorsements:

Danny Hyde has written an excellent piece on a very misunderstood subject. Through effective combination of biblical, theological, and confessional discussions, he has presented the Reformed view of the second commandment winsomely and attractively. He helpfully emphasizes not the negative prohibition of making images of God but the positive facts that God has revealed himself now so generously in Word and Sacrament and will one day reveal himself visibly in the most perfect and authentic way.

—David VanDrunen, Robert B. Strimple Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics, Westminster Seminary California

In these pages, Danny Hyde argues with great clarity against all images of Jesus as man-made media. He shows that all such images are abominated in Scripture and roundly rejected by the Reformed confessional heritage without exception. Hyde goes on to argue, however, that God does provide us with His “media”—the preaching of His Word and the administration of His sacraments.

—Joel R. Beeke, President, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

The Word that Acts

. . . You know, the prophetic words and actions actually bring things about. And of course the Word of God, famously in Isaiah 55, does things – my word shall not return to me empty but shall accomplish that which I send it forth to do. So to the Hebrew – a word is not a mere word; words, words, words, batter us from advertising and that sort of stuff all the time; these are words that actually bring about light. It is interesting that for the fourth gospel the devil is described somewhere as the father of lies; so even in a sense is the lie – and lies of course can only be overcome by the truth, and that is, I think, the point behind it. And similarly, of course, in Romans, by their wickedness they shall suppress the truth, that is almost Paul’s definition, one of Paul’s definitions of sin. And if there is a clear meaning to Jesus’ saying about sin against the Holy Spirit, you know, the only sin that isn’t forgiven, it probably means those who see the good and call it evil. You see, that is what the Pharisee does, you cast out evil by the prince of demons; you see they saw good happening and call it evil. You see, that seems to be the point, those who are enthralled to the lie are simply unable to see the world as God made it. And so Jesus’ prophetic office overturns this lie by the truth. And I think that this is an enduring and valuable insight. Luther used to end with the phrase a word shall quickly slay him, you know, in Luther’s great hymns. And I think that is right; Luther famously threw an inkbottle at the devil, very symbolic.
- Colin E. Gunton, The Barth Lectures, ed. P.H. Brazier (New York, NY: T&T Clark International), 211-12.

Preaching Law & Gospel: Either/Or?

When it comes to the content of Christian preaching there are, in the most general sense, two options: (1)  preaching either law or  gospel, vs. (2) preaching both law and gospel. Obviously, within option (1) law and gospel are viewed as two mutually exclusive options, whereas in option (2) they are distinct, but are neither separated nor confused. Let’s see how this works out in the details:

(1) Preaching Either Law Or Gospel

(1a.) Preaching Law Without Gospel
There are several ways that this is done. Sometimes law (“do”) and gospel (“done”) are so fused together that to preach imperatives is seen as really just preaching the gospel. The failure to distinguish between the event of the gospel from the rest of Scripture leads this group to believe that the preaching of any portion of Scripture is preaching the gospel. As a result of hearing imperatives (law) apart from the indicative (gospel) the law is ironically relativized. The law, rather than being a pedagogue that leads us to Christ, becomes an end in itself. Rather than drive sinners to absolute despair in themselves, the law is a source of gracious self-improvement that helps sinners to become “better”. The preaching ends up being moralistic without anything explicitly Christian (except the vocabulary). While the intention of (1a) is commendable for seeking to show God’s holiness, the problem is that, ultimately, the law of God is muted. The thundering voice from Sinai that caused Israel to fear and tremble is transformed into a manageable to-do list. The sinfulness of sin is misunderstood, the goodness of the good news is lost, and messages become inherently semi-Pelagian.

(1b.) Preaching Gospel Without Law
Here, the gospel is preached exclusively without the law. Any preaching of God’s commandment is seen as legalistic. While the previous group fails in distinguishing law and gospel, this latter group errs by failing to see any relationship between the two. The consequence of preaching gospel without law is that the holiness of God is undermined. No longer are Christians aware of their sinfulness in light of God’s law. People here know/think that they are saved and that they are loved by God, but they have little idea why this is good news. Ironically, despite the fact that (1a.) and (1b.) are always reactions against one another, they function on the same ground: neither side is able to see how both law and gospel can be preached together. The results of (1b) is similar to (1a): the sinfulness of sin is misunderstood, the goodness of the good news is lost, and messages become inherently semi-Pelagian. In both, the holiness of God in the law and the grace of God in the gospel are hushed.

(2) Preaching Both Law And Gospel

This group functions on different assumptions from both (1a) and (1b). While seeing a necessary distinction between law and gospel, the relation between the two is neither severed nor confused. The voice of God thunders as his perfect law is proclaimed and it is preached in such a way so as to point despairing sinners to Christ. Like the Sermon on the Mount, hearers are told that God requires perfection, not simply good intentions. The law is not relativized but preached as it is in order to humble proud sinners. The pharisee who boasts in group (1) is unable to stand here. All are shut up by the law, and like the publican, we can only beat our breasts and plead Christ’s righteousness. Unlike group (1a) sinners are not pointed to the law as an end in itself, but are pointed to Christ through the law. And obviously unlike (1b) the gospel is not some random message about a loving God, but a message of redemption from sin and death. And rather than obeying out of fear, the motivation is gratitude in light of the gospel. The errors of the moralist (1a) and the antinomian (1b) are thereby avoided as well as the error of snatching passages of Scripture from their canonical context and preaching only bits and pieces (left to the preacher’s discretion). The choice is not either preaching the gospel or preaching the law, nor is it a balancing act between the two. Rather, both are preached to their fullest extent.

If the voice of God is to be heard, then both his law and gospel must be preached. The utter holiness of God’s law must not be suppressed, for when this is done the glorious grace of the gospel of Christ is inevitably silenced.

God’s Grandchildren: The Biblical Basis for Infant-Baptism

An excellent article by Mike Horton on infant baptism here.

His eight compelling arguments are also helpful.

Examining Ourselves Before the Supper

Some have difficulty with the words of the Form: “Let every one examine his heart whether he also believes this sure promise of God that all his sins are forgiven him only for the sake of the passion and death of Jesus Christ.” The question is then whether someone who is not sure of this may celebrate the Lord’s Supper. We must pay close attention to how the word “sure” is used in this context. It is not asked whether we believe with certainty or whether we have a sure faith. The key is that we truly believe God’s promise to be sure and definite. The crux is not what we believe with respect to ourselves but what we believe with respect to God’s promise. The liturgical form itself points out that we must see it this way and not otherwise. After all, it is said further along “that we do not have a perfect faith and that we must daily strive with the weakness of our faith.” Nevertheless, “desirous to fight against our unbelief and to live according to all the commandments of God we rest assured that no sin or infirmity which still remains in us against our will can hinder us from being received of God in grace.”
This is completely in line with Calvin’s pastoral guidance. When we sense an imperfect faith within us and our conscience accuses us of many shortcomings, this should not hinder us from approaching the Lord’s Table. The sacrament is precisely intended for such people! “If to stay away from the Lord’s Supper we maintain that our faith is still weak and our life imperfect, we would resemble someone who excuses himself from taking medication because he is sick.”
- J. van Genderen, W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics trans. Gerrits Bilkes and Ed M. van der Maas (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 812-13.   

“Experiencing” Justification

While nothing is inherently wrong with experience, problems arise when experience becomes primary, especially in our assurance of justification. Faith is not experience, but a hoping in things unseen and often un-”experienced”:

There are indeed people who for the first time in their lives quite consciously experience God’s justification in a very personal and profound way. It is, however, not right to prescribe the experience of a few as a model for all. Others then await this special, overpowering experience, while–for a shorter or longer span of time that precedes it–they keep themselves far from the acceptance of the promise that Christ will be our righteousness. Faith in this promise is impeded by the thought that justification must first be experienced in a dramatic way before one can speak of Christ as “my righteousness.” In this scheme the significance of Christ is then identified with the experience of this special moment. This actually leaves no room for hesitant contemplation of God’s promise and growth for hope in Christ. There is only this indeterminate waiting for that one special moment. All contact with Christ in faith is marked by the liberating force of justification. Assurance of justification is not restricted to a unique form of experience, but characterizes all contact with Christ, who wants to be our righteousness. The danger is that this special (type of) experience is made into a prerequisite for justification. In this way faith is assigned much more than a functional (facilitating) role. 
. . . one can only experience justification through the preaching of the gospel. In this preaching salvation, including justification, is mediated. 
- J. van Genderen, W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics trans. Gerrits Bilkes and Ed M. van der Maas (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 622-23.   

What the Law Could Not Do… Christ Did.

During the free-will controversy between Pelagius and Augustine, the argument was repeatedly lodged against the latter that too much grace would render good works void. During the Reformation, also, Rome’s charge against the Reformers was similar: if justification is by faith alone, what happens to works? What will motivate men to obedience? The Reformers replied that genuine faith could not be divorced from truly good works but that one who was truly justified would, by faith in Christ, also be sanctified. Of course, the Roman Catholics didn’t buy this, and they still don’t. What was the problem? Well, it just didn’t make sense to the Roman Catholics. How could hearing justification by faith apart from works cause sinful people to obey? Rome knew well that what was needed was some incentive. And they did not fail to produce such incentives as we have seen throughout the course of Church history. 

Today, however, many protestants seem to oversimplify the Roman Catholic position, accusing them of justification by works apart from grace. In practice this may very well be the case. It behooves us, however, to hear what Rome really said. Did they ever say that anyone could be saved apart from grace? No! They called down fire on pelagianism for neglecting grace. They believed and confessed that God’s grace was absolutely necessary for anyone to be saved. So did the semi-pelagians, so did the Arminians, and so do many today.

What was the difference? Well, the Reformers believed that it was grace alone. Indeed, the believer does not have to cooperate with grace (that’s semi-pelagianism), but it is God who justifies and sanctifies the believer who looks to Christ alone for righteousness. The Reformers realized that sin was not merely an act (actus), but a habit (habitus). It was not through eliminating individual acts of sin that one was cleansed, but a divine intervention was necessary. So it would not be through preaching the law, but preaching the gospel of Christ, the object of our faith, that would cause believers to grow. It was not through exhorting man to obedience through the law, but by proclaiming the gospel. They preached that Christ’s active obedience, rather than their own, was what made them righteous before God. This is where Rome and Geneva split ways. Rome preached grace, but it was conditional. Geneva, on the other hand, proclaimed the free justification through Christ alone. 

The accusation made against the Reformers, was also brought against Paul. When Paul preached the gospel of free grace in Christ, the objection was made: “Are we to sin that grace may abound?” What does Paul say? Like the Reformers following him, he responded, “By no means!” (Rom 6:1-2). That believers who have been shown mercy and grace in Christ should continue to live in sin, is explicitly denounced by the apostle. Behind the question posed and the answer given by Paul, we can deduce two things. First, the apostle was not an antinomian. He did not think that free justification by grace meant license to sin. Second, however, it is implied that the apostles’ gospel did not follow the logic of the legalist–which went something like this: threats produce obedience, but grace will only produce laxity. It boggled the minds of the legalists that preaching a gospel of what Christ has already accomplished could possibly produce any obedience.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones has this to say regarding Romans 6:

‘The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some peoplemight misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does notmatter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel.

‘If our preaching does not expose us to that charge and to that misunderstanding, it is because we are not really preaching the gospel. – it was brought frequently against Martin Luther. … It was also brought against George Whitefield two hundred years ago. It is the charge that formal dead Christianity - if there is such a thing – has always brought against this startling, staggering message, that God ‘justifies the ungodly’, and that we are saved, not by anything we do, but in spite of it, entirely and only by the grace of God through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

‘ … I would say to all preachers: If your preaching of salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had better examine your sermons again, and you had better make sure that you really are preaching the salvation that is offered in the New Testament to the ungodly, to the sinner, to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to those who are enemies of God. There is this kind of dangerous element about the true presentation of the doctrine of salvation … ‘
- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans. Exposition of Chapter 6: The New Man, 8-10 

Therefore, to lodge the accusation of antinomianism against those who desire to hear the gospel preached purely, is nothing new. Paul was accused of it, the Reformers were accused of it, but they all held firmly that it was not our own method of justification or sanctification, but only the free gospel of Christ that could and would produce genuine fruit in us. God has promised to work through the preached Word (i.e., the gospel), not through our own performance.

Berkouwer comments on the connection between faith in the gospel of Christ and sanctification:

. . . Hence the sanctification of believers is never an independent area of human activity. The supposed antinomy is supplanted by the idea, clearly advanced in Scriptures, that the sanctification of the believer is a corollary of his faith.
. . . The immediate consequence of the “sola-fide” doctrine was exactly this indissoluble bond between faith and sanctification. And we speak of faith, not as a point of departure for a fresh emission of power, or as a human function or potency producing other effects, but of faith as true orientation toward the grace of God and as the life which flourishes on this divine grace, on the forgiveness of sins. 
- G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Sanctification (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952), 26-8.  

Holiness is important, and it is precisely to maintain God’s holiness that we must preach the gospel. For, no one who thinks that they can do anything apart from faith in the gospel is going to please God. It is only in light of the gospel that we can offer any real obedience (and even then it’s imperfect). Any obedience that comes from our own self-willed righteousness is not obedience at all.

To hold sola-fide in one hand, and justification by works in the other may be illogical and unbiblical, but it is not impossible. It is, perhaps, acceptable that Rome would consistently preach faith and works, but for a protestant church to preach a legalistic scheme of justification or sanctification is unacceptable:

. . . Many people still acknowledge that we must be justified by the righteousness that Christ has acquired but believe or at least act in practice as if we must be sanctified by a holiness we bring about ourselves. If that were the case, we would not–contrary to the apostolic witness (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 4:31;  5:1, 13)–live under grace and stand in freedom but continue always to be under the law. Evangelical sanctification, however, is just as distinct from legalistic sanctification as the righteousness that is of faith differs from that which is obtained by works. For it consists in the reality that in Christ God grants us, along with righteousness, also complete holiness, and does not just impute it but also inwardly imparts it by the regenerating and renewing working of the Holy Spirit until we have been fully conformed to the image of the Son.
- Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 248.  

Ursinus on the Ministry of the Church

Questions 264-273 from Ursinus’ Larger Catechism:

264 Q. What is the ministry of the church?

 A. It is the public preaching of God’s Word, the administration of the sacraments and church discipline–instituted by Christ for bringing to completion the salvation of the elect.

265 Q. Why did God institute the ministry of the church?

A. So that through it he might receive us into his covenant, keep us in it, and really convince us that we are and forever will remain in it.

266 Q. Why do you say that we are received and kept in God’s covenant through the ministry?

A. Because it is the instrument of the Holy Spirit by which he works and confirms in the hearts of the elect the faith and conversion that God requires of us in his covenant.

267 Q. Isn’t the Holy Spirit’s own honor taken away when sanctification is attributed to the ministry? 

A. No, for the strength and power by which we are sanctified are all from the divine Spirit; the ministry is merely his instrument by which he moves the souls and hearts of the elect whenever and however it seems right to him–not because he could not do otherwise but because it pleased the divine wisdom, through the foolish preaching of the cross, to save those who believe.

268 Q. What should ministers preach?

A. Nothing but the Word of God contained in the law and the gospel.

269 Q. But how can we be certain that the Word of God is being proclaimed by ministers?

A. If they proclaim the teaching recorded in the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if what they say conforms to the Articles of the Faith and the commandments of God; in short, if they teach us to seek our entire salvation in Christ alone.

270 Q. Isn’t it enough to learn God’s Word privately?

A. It is indeed necessary for our salvation to meditate on it day and night, but if we want to be Christians, we must also make use of the public ministry when we are not prevented by circumstance.

271 Q. Why is this necessary?

A. First, because of God’s command. Second, so that God may be publicly glorified by the whole church in the sight of all people and creatures. Third, so that the unity of the church might be preserved and displayed.

272 Q. What does the Holy Spirit bring about through the preaching of God’s Word?

A. First, he teaches us what God promises us in his covenant and what he in turn requires from us. Next, he persuades us to believe and obey him more and more each day.

273 Q. But how does the Holy Spirit work in us through hearing and meditating on God’s Word?

A. When we learn it for the purpose of believing and obeying him in all things.

- Zacharius Ursinus, The Larger Catechism, trans. Lyle D. Bierma, from Lyle D. Bierma, An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism  (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 211-13.

Reformed-Baptist: An Oxymoron?

. . . they [Reformed Christians] cannot remain faithful to their theology while ceasing to regard infant baptism as legitimate and scriptural. When we are desired to believe the contrary, and when it is asserted that “some thousands of the Baptist Churches lay claim to Calvinist doctrine, like the Reformed Churches in the United States,” we at once demand that they should read the texts and study closely the confessions of faith, and they will then see whether these churches have remained “Calvinist” and whether their doctrine differs from “Calvinist doctrine” only on the question of baptism. Such assertions are not confirmed by facts. We are sufficiently well placed to know the gulf which separates the doctrines of those who “lay claim to Calvinist doctrine” and this “Calvinist doctrine” taken in its real and precise scientific sense. It is one thing to lay claim to a doctrine, and quite another to profess it!
- Pierre-Charles Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism: Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, trans. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (Cambridge, England: James Clarke Co., Ltd, 2002), 250-51.