reformed blogging.

The acceptance or rejection of a degree of reprobation, therefore, should not be explained in terms of a person’s capacity for love and compassion. The difference between Augustine and Pelagius, Calvin or Castellio, Gomarus and Arminius is not that the latter were that much more gentle, loving, and tenderhearted than the former. On the contrary, it arises from the fact that the former accepted Scripture in its entirety, also including this doctrine; that they were and always wanted to be theistic and recognize the will and hand of the Lord also in these disturbing facts of life; that they were not afraid to look reality in the eye even when it was appalling. Pelagianism scatters flowers over graves, turns death into an angel, regards sin as mere weakness, lectures on the uses of adversity, and considers this the best possible world. Calvinism has no use for such drivel. It refuses to be hoodwinked. It tolerates no such delusion, takes full account of the seriousness of life, champions the rights of the Lord of lords, and humbly bows in adoration before the inexplicable sovereign will of God Almighty. As a result it proves to be fundamentally more merciful than Pelagianism. How deeply Calvin felt the gravity of what he said is evident from his use of the expression “dreadful decree.” Totally without warrant, this expression has been held against him. in fact, it is to his credit, not to his discredit. The decree, as Calvin’s teaching, is not dreadful, but dreadful indeed is the reality that is the revelation of that decree of God, a reality that comes through both in Scripture and in history. To all thinking humans, whether they are followers of Pelagius or Augustine, that reality remains completely the same. It is not something that can in any way be undone by illusory notions of it
- Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, 394-5.

In Christ in His Sufferings, the first part of the Schilder Trilogy, Klass Schilder presents this antithesis as he compares Matthew 26:14-15 and Zechariah 11:12-13, the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding Christ’s being sold for thirty pieces of silver.

Self-Redemption:

1. Man can save himself.
2. Redemption is a limited thing.
3. Man does God’s work.

Free Grace:

1. Redemption is eternally beyond our own capacity. God must justify and sanctify us anew each day. We cannot live without the Shepherd of our soul one moment.
2. Redemption transcends the possibility of compensation. We cannot by drawing on the resources of the whole world amass money enough to pay God. His gifts are inestimable worth. And the gift cannot be separated from the Giver, who is infinite.
3. We can never put ourselves in God’s position. We want to remain the sheep of His care, following, believing, and listening to the Shepherd’s voice.

In light of Christ’s being sold for the price of a slave, Schilder comments:

The roof did not crash down upon these merchandisers. That it did not is not due to any “semen religionis” still hidden in some corner of the arid souls of these traitors to God, to prophecy, and to Christ. That is because of the will of God which selects these dark ways to the redemption of His people. God deliberately lets the thirty pieces of silver roll through the ages over the market place of the world. He does that in order that men may choose between free grace and self-redemption.
That choice is still the liveliest option of men. The conflict between those two contenders is uncompromising. The way of a legalistic, “good works” salvation leaves that of the preaching of free grace: the way of the Judaistic, pharisaic “earning” of salvation is incompatible with the New Testament Pauline Gospel of redemption by faith. On this question Rome and the Reformation part company too. For Catholicism, though but in part, would buy salvation, and, though not intentionally so, would by its system of absolution again put thirty pieces of silver upon the table. Luther and Calvin, in bidding farewell to the Roman Tetzel, must protest: by faith alone; by faith, not by works, lest any should glory.
Klass Schilder, Christ in His Sufferings, 78.

Notice, however, that He, who in sovereign goodness and love has chosen you without being moved to such a decree by your good works or faith; who never deviates in His goodness and love; who concluded you in sin that He might have mercy upon you (Rom. 11:33); and who most certainly glorifies those whom He has elected unto salvation, will therefore not reject you for your remaining sin over which you grieve. Therefore, stand firm in faith, do not succumb to the multitude of remaining enemies, but rather focus upon this eternal decree, the perfect atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the covenant of grace. Rest in these, and although sin must continue to grieve you, do not let it cause you to be discouraged. - Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service (Volume I), 249.

“Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”
- Abraham Kuyper

Perhaps the most deceiving sins are those that we deem small. What I mean is this, there are many sins which we commit daily, as Christians, which we generally do not delight in, but since these, “realistically” are not so bad (without any immediate, negative consequences to us or the people around us) we pass over it. Whether these things are outbursts of anger, prideful thoughts, lustful thoughts, covetousness, white lies, stealing (downloading mp3s), etc. we may not outright approve of them, but we don’t necessarily condemn them, at least not in the same way we would condemn adultery, homosexuality, robbery or many other more blatant sins.

Why are these “small” sins so deadly? Because Adam and Eve ate a fruit.

The point is this: if we obey/disobey God’s commands based on how important they seem to us, rather than, by faith, obeying the whole counsel of God, we commit no small sin. Ultimately we are placing ourselves above the word of God rather than subjecting ourselves to it. What was wrong with eating a fruit? Nothing, in itself, no one was killed (at least by the eating of fruit in itself) but the main sin was this, God’s word was disobeyed. The question, then, is not whether we are doing relatively good or moral things, but whether we are submitting to the word of God. To submit only to those things that we find agreement with really means nothing. Just because I agree with some of someone’s views, does that make me their disciple or follower? By no means! How much less, then, for Christ, who demands completely obedience. Those who love Him will obey Him (John 14:15). Christ’s lordship is not limited to where we draw the boundaries. Unless, by faith, we die to ourselves and become “slaves of righteousness” in Christ through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, thus seeking obedience to all of God’s commands out of love for Him, we will not see the kingdom of God. Those who refuse to submit every part of their lives to Scripture (whether they are successful is another story, the issue is the heart) have no reason at all to hope in Christ.

The Thessalonians accepted the gospel of the apostles not as the word of men, but as the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13), and because of this Paul had confidence that they were chosen by God (1:4). As a result of their faith in the message of the gospel as the word of God they are described as producing work of faith, labor of love and steadfastness of hope (1:3). The Reformers were well aware that the doctrine of sola fide might be misapprehended and turned into license to sin, for this reason they made it clear that we are “justified by a faith alone, but a faith that is not alone.”

We must take seriously and submit to all of God’s word. There is no such thing as “small” sin in the sight of God.

Objection. But it may be said, “Surely this course of procedure can never be acceptable to Jesus Christ. What! shall we daily come to him with our filth, our guilt our sins? May he not, will he not, bid us keep them to ourselves? they are our own. Shall we be always giving sins, and taking righteousness!”
Answer. There is not any thing that Jesus Christ is more delighted with, than that his saints should always hold communion with him as to this business of giving and receiving. For,–
This exceeding honours him, and gives him the glory that is his due. Many, indeed, cry, “Lord, Lord,” and make mention of him, but honour him not at all. How so? They take his work out of his hands, and ascribe it unto other things; their repentance, their duties, shall bear their iniquities. They do not say so; but they do so… Herein, then, I say, is Christ honoured indeed, when we go to him with our sins by faith, and say unto him, “Lord, this is thy work; this is that for which thou camest into the world; this is that thou hast undertaken to do. Thou callest for my burden, which is too heavy for me to bear; take it, blessed Redeemer Thou tenderest thy righteousness; that is my portion.” Then is Christ honoured, then is the glory of mediation ascribed to him, when we walk with him in this communion.
- John Owen, Works, Vol. 2: Communion With God, 195.

It is sometimes represented as if the moving cause of the atonement lay in the sympathetic love of Christ for sinners. He was so good and loving that the very idea that sinners would be hopelessly lost, was abhorrent to Him. Therefore He offered Himself as a victim in their stead, paid the penalty by laying down His life for transgressors, and thus pacified an angry God. In some cases this view prompts men to laud Christ for His supreme self-sacrifice, but at the same time, to blame God for demanding and accepting such a price. In others it simply causes men to overlook God, and to sing the praises of Christ in unqualified terms. Such a representation is certainly all wrong, and often gives the opponents of the penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement occasion to say that this doctrine presupposes a schism in the trinitarian life of God. On this view Christ apparently receives His due, but God is robbed of His honour. According to Scripture the moving cause of the atonement is found in the good pleasure of God to save sinners by a substitutionary atonement. Christ Himself is the fruit of this good pleasure of God… It was the love of God that provided a way of escape for lost sinners, John 3:16. And it was the justice of God which required that this way should be of such a nature as to meet the demands of the law, in order that God “might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,” Rom. 3:26.
- Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 367-8.

Started going through Berkhof’s Systematic Theology recently and I must say that it is an excellent read. The relation between doxology and theology becomes apparent in Berkhof, not because he explicitly states it, but experientially this seems to be the case. Here’s an excerpt that sounds more like Edwards than anything else:

God did not create first of all to receive glory, but to make His glory extant and manifest. The glorious perfections of God are manifested in His entire creation; and this manifestation is not intended as an empty show, a mere exhibition to be admired by the creatures, but also aims at promoting their welfare and perfect happiness. Moreover, it seeks to attune their hearts to the praises of the Creator, and to elicit from their souls the expression of their gratefulness and love and adoration. The supreme end of God in creation, the manifestation of His glory, therefore, includes, as subordinate ends, the happiness and salvation of His creatures, and the reception of praise from grateful and adoring hearts… The infinite God would hardly choose any but the highest end in creation, and this end could only be found in Himself. If whole nations as compared with Him, are but as a drop in a bucket and as the small dust of the balance, then, surely, His declarative glory is intrinsically of far greater value than the good of His creatures, Isa. 40:15,16… No other end would be sufficiently comprehensive to be the true end of all God’s ways and works in creation… The supreme end which He had in view, was not to receive glory, but to manifest His inherent glory in the works of His hands.- Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 136,7. 

Peter Van Mastricht’s Theoretico-Practica Theologia was considered by Jonathan Edwards to be “much better than Turretin or any other book in the world, excepting the Bible.” Currently, however,  A Treatise on Regeneration is the only section translated into English. Here’s an excerpt from the work of one of Edwards’ favorite divines:

We may hence determine that regeneration is irresistible, and in what sense this is to be understood. For if you consider what the person who is to be regenerated is–a child of wrath who is dead in sin–he certainly has depravity enough to resist (Acts7:51). But if you consider that it is God who regenerates and quickens, the subject of regeneration can no more resist God than Lazarus of old could have resisted Christ when He raised him to a natural life (John 11:43-44). Nor does he have a will to resist, for, by the spiritual life instantaneously produced, all inclinations or desire of resisting are suppressed or taken away (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Jeremiah 32:39-40; cf. Galatians 1:13; Acts 9:2-6; 22:5, 10; 26:9-10, 14, 19).
- Peter Van Mastricht, A Treatise on Regeneration, 29.

Hence, the test of Christian knowledge is not how much we understand, but how far our knowledge is affecting our lives.
It is one thing to possess a clear intellectual grasp of the doctrines of grace, it is quite another to experience the grace of the doctrines in a spiritual way. It is one thing to believe the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God, it is another for the soul to live under the awe of their Divine authority, realising that one day we shall be judged by them. It is one thing to be convinced that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the King of kings and Lord of lords, it is another to surrender to His sceptre and live in personal subjection to Him. What does it profit me to be convinced that God is omnipotent, unless I am learning to lean upon His mighty arm? What avail is it to me that I am assured of God’s omniscience unless the knowledge that His eye is ever upon me acts as a salutary restraint to my actions? What does it advantage me to know that without holiness no man shall see the Lord, unless I am making the acquirement of holiness my chief concern and aim!
… see to it that your hearts are duly affected, so that the truth will regulate all your conduct.
- A.W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, 982-3.