Homosexual vs. Heterosexual Monogamy: Faithfulness is not the Issue

The question is asked by some, “If two people of the same gender are faithful to each other why should they not be able to get married?  What could be wrong with that? Who does it hurt?”

The problem with this line of thinking is that it equates faithfulness with righteousness.   Faithfulness, however, is not a brute virtue.  Faithfulness to something or someone provides no indication of the morality of that fidelity.   There are people who are faithful to the pro-life movement and there are people who are faithful to the pro-abortion movement.  Both of these people cannot be right:  though each be equally faithful.

The issue is not whether two people of the same gender are faithful to each other.  The issue is what they are being faithful to.  A sinner’s faithfulness to sin does nothing to legitimize sin.

Legalized or not.

 

John Calvin: Mind Numbingly Incongruous on Baptism

With this being the 500th anniversary of his birth, I have been reading through John Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion. I have enjoyed the journey thoroughly.  One thing in particular is the pastoral tone throughout the work.   It has alerted me that anyone who tries to pass off Calvin as the dour dictator of Geneva has obviously spent little time actually reading the man.  Not too surprising I suppose.

Another aspect that has been particularly edifying is Calvin’s repeated statement that we must depend on Scripture alone for faith and practice.  His constant  embrace of the text of Scripture and persistent reluctance to go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture is very instructive.  About 250 pages in I told a fellow-reader that I needed to start keeping track of all such statements.  Alas, I never started keeping the list and the statements just kept on coming.

So it was particularly dissapointing to me when I read the following:

Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church. (Institutes 4.15.19)

I have no problem at all with the last phrase, “although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.”  I have no problem with this because pretty much anyone who is honest with the evidence admits the same thing.  As Phillip Schaff has written, “Respecting the form of baptism, the impartial historian is compelled by exegesis and history substantially to yield the point to the Baptists.”  The word “baptism” means immersion.  Immersion was the practice of the NT church and the entire church for the next several centuries.

So after 1100 pages with multiple injunctions to rely wholly on Scripture for faith and practice; after stating the biblical word means immersion; after conceding that the church for centuries actually did immerse; we are told, “Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either…”

In other words, throw out the clear meaning of Scripture; disregard centuries of church practice (20+ centuries if you consider the Orthodox witness); every church is free to practice whatever is convenient.  Sobering.

I praise God for the impact John Calvin had and continues to have on the kingdom of Christ.  I am unworthy to unlatch his shoe.  But I pray that God’s Spirit would graciously continue to convict me of all my beliefs that are theological instead of Scriptural.

The Sting of Death–On the mixed blessing of modern medicine.

“O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”

I am 35 years old and relatively sting-free from that old nemesis, Death. Had I been born even 20 years earlier this would probably not be so.

At the age of 3 months our first daughter developed Pyloric Stenosis. While a relatively common ailment, and now relatively quick to remedy, had she not had the needed surgery she would have starved to death.

Our second daughter was born 7 weeks early and unable to breathe on her own. Without NICU treatment she would have suffocated herself.

Last year my dad had a heart attack caused by a 90% blockage in one of his arteries. He was treated at the cardiac center and had the artery cleared.

Last week my father-in-law was in a serious accident that led to a large blood clot in the brain that required immediate surgical attention. He (and we) are now in the very lengthy process of recovery from such an injury. An injury that the neurosurgeon told us ended the life of 40% of those who have it.

I am 35 years old and relatively untouched by the sting of death.

But I cannot help but wonder what might have been. What if I had been born in 1954 instead of 1974? I would be 35 years old and would have already “lost” to death two daughters, my father, and father-in-law. I cannot help but wonder what these stings might have done in my life. Would they have embittered me toward the Lord and giver of life? Or would they have opened up grand vistas of God’s goodness I could not otherwise have known?

At a recent conference Carl Trueman remarked that he is often asked what age of history he could live in if he had his choice. He gave a very practical answer: this one. Can you imagine living in a day when catching a cold could be fatal? When epidemics actually killed millions instead of just scaring them? Dying from an infection from a splinter?

We indeed live in blessed times. But I pray that somehow I never forget that it is Christ that has removed death’s sting. Not the anesthesiologist.

Glory be to God.

The Victory of the Cross

From one point of view the Cross was simply the product of the variegated turpitude of men: the bigotry of fanatics, the opportunism of corrupt priests, the moral astigmatism of lying witnesses, the vindictiveness of a nationalist mob demanding that an innocent man suffer the death penalty for a crime precisely because he had refused to commit it for them, the vacillation of a governor yielding against his judgment to popular frenzy, the treachery of one disciple, the denial of another, the cowardice of the rest, the taunts of callous bystanders.  But because Jesus was content to accept the role of the Lamb assigned to him by his Father, he was able to transform all this into the signal triumph of divine love.  He did not merely defeat the powers of evil; he made them agents of his own victory.

G.B. Caird, The Revelation of Jesus Christ

Am I content to accept whatever role the Father has for me?

Sunday: Karl Barth on Remission of Sins

For the Creed certainly says that forgiveness of sins or justification of the sinner by faith is the gift of the Holy Spirit by which all others, so far as they are really that, must submit to be measured; that it is the common denominator, so to speak, upon which everything that can seriously be called Christian life must be set. The Creed assuredly rejects that view which would place forgiveness of sins as a good thing for Christian faith alongside of many others. No, says the Creed, grace means forgiveness of sins. And to receive grace means to receive forgiveness of sins. No doubt we shall have to reflect that, on the Biblical view, that means more than at first glance would appear from the wording. But we must not depart from this strict conception of “grace”. Only in so far as it is forgiveness of sins through the Gospel is it regeneration also, and conversion and establishment of the law (Rom. 3:31) and therefore sanctification, gift of knowledge, gift of repentance and of obedience, gift of love, of patience and of hope, source and sum of really good works, a candle set in a candlestick, giving light to all that are in the house (Matt. 5:15). Everything, absolutely everything and to the last degree, is determined and conditioned by the fact that forgiveness of sins is gifted to man and received by him as a gift. Without that, everything else is Jewish morality or heathen idealism and in one way or another demonic magic, which, whatever the lustre of virtue and devotion and brotherliness it may invest itself with, does not help man but rather ruins him. “From this article there can be no budging nor slackening, though heaven fall and earth and all else besides” (Luther).

Karl Barth, Credo “Remissionem Peccatorum”

“Everything, absolutely everything and to the last degree, is determined and conditioned by the fact that forgiveness of sins is gifted to man and received by him as a gift.”

For what else do we have if we do not have God’s forgiveness?

William Law on Right Thinking and Living

Now to have right notions and tempers with relation to this world, is as essential to religion as to have right notions of God. And it is as possible for a man to worship a crocodile, and yet be a pious man, as to have his affections set upon this world and yet be a good Christian.
A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life ch. 1.

A Serious Call was on the initial list of suggested reading offered by Dissidens way back in March of ‘05. In fact, it was number 1 on the list. Somewhere along the way I picked up a copy and it joined the ever-growing collection of “books to get to.” His recent post, particularly the last quote, incited me to tolle lege.

Chapter one is a diatribe against the impotence of Christianity. Rather, the impotence of Christians. A pious man is not made or revealed during Sunday services. If a man is not a Christian everyday of the week he is no Christian. If a man does not manifestly have completely separate affections than the best of unbelievers around him, he is simply a better unbeliever–though only marginally so.

Even if you do not have the book, you can read it here. I do not think you can start it soon enough.

Martin Luther on the Righteous Man, Impatience, and Anger

Righteous people, however, do not hide their iniquity, do not become angry, do not grow impatient when they are wronged; for they do not feel that they can be wronged, since they find no righteousness in themselves.  These are the blessed to whom God remits iniquity and cancels it because they confess it.  Since they do not hide and cover their sin, God covers and hides it.

This is from a comment on Psalm 32:5. I appreciated the identification of the root of impatience as a sense of self-righteousness. He is certainly right. Anytime I am impatient it is because I think I deserve better than this. At the bottom of it all is the belief that I deserve to have all of my desired comforts and amenities when I desire them because I am a good enough guy to deserve such accommodations. Every public sigh and snarl is really a demonstration that I continue to suppress my own exalted opinion of my worth.  It is the public demonstration that I am clinging to my own righteousness instead of Christ’s.

I do not deserve empty check-outs at the grocery store, post office, and DMV.  I deserve the full wrath of God upon my sin.

Yet He forgave the iniquity of my sin.

Selah

Proverbs 18:1 & Lone Bloggers

Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire;
He breaks out against all sound judgment.
Proverbs 18:1 (ESV)

This verse was a good tonic for my soul today.  As I read it the Lord seemed to apply it to the world of blogdom.  Particularly the land of blogdom that I live and surf have my scorning.

The first line speaks to that man who stands apart from the congregation. Regarding this first line Keil & Delitzsch state it “denotes one who willingly (Judg 4:11), and, indeed, obstinately withdraws himself.”  As the term is used in the Old Testament it always refers to a physical separation, though an emotional separation can also be involved (Prov. 16:28; 17:9).  So the situation this Proverb applies directly to is one in which a person can be characterized as standing apart.  While it is not advisable to absolutize proverbs, even the biblical ones, the wise son is advised that men do this because of their “own desire.”

Like jealousy, the term desire is both encouraged and condemned in the Old Testament.  The easiest place to see this is Psalm 10 in which the wicked boast of a desire the LORD hates (10:3) while the LORD answers the desire of the humble heart (10:17).  The connotation in Prov. 18:1 certainly seems negative.  Hence, we cautiously may estimate a motivating factor in the actions of lone bloggers: to fulfill some sort of selfish desire.  We are not told what their desire is.  The desires are probably manifold.  Nor are we advised to probe what the desire might be.  As helpful as such an exercise might eventually prove to be.

The lone blogger has separated himself from the assembly of believers and seeks his own desires.  Two actions the Scripture speaks quite clearly against.  In a grave manner.

In so separating himself, the lone blogger breaks out against all sound judgment.  BDB gives the verb a primary meaning of “expose, lay bare, disclose, make known.”  As it is used in Proverbs it is to “break out in contention, strife.”  I admit I have seen both aspects fulfilled.  The lone blogger loves to make things known, air dirty laundry; and to do so in a contentious manner.  I confess to joying in this blood sport.  Of seeing victims thrashed like a chicken in the jaw-teeth of a lion.   But all of this is against sound judgment.

However right the cause, however accurate the diagnosis, Jesus has only promised to confirm the judgment of the two or three gathered in his name.  Whatever else the church may be, the church is also the pillar and ground of the truth.  The one who isolates himself from the assembly has also isolated himself from the Scriptural security of judgment, of loosing and binding.  It will not do to say there are no good churches in my area.  If that were true, and if it mattered that much, you would move to an area where there was a “good” church.  Or you would be an active participant in the attempt to plant one where you already are.

Please pray for me and my family.  We are looking for a church to join and fellowship with.  Pray that in these days I will not yield to the temptation of isolation.  I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord.”

Should a Christian Sing “I’m Proud to Be an American (God Bless the U.S.A.)”?

A few weeks ago asked me what I thought about the Lee Greenwood song, “Proud to be an American.”  Particularly in reference to a church choir singing it.  There were the thoughts I shared.

Proud To Be An American
The sentiment of the title violates Jer. 9:23-24; 1 Cor. 1:31; 2 Cor. 10:17; Gal 6:14 which teach that the believer boasts only in the Lord and the cross of Christ. These Scriptures apply every time the chorus is sung, and the line later, “There’s pride in every American heart.”

If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.

This verse demonstrates that the author was not living a biblically obedient, Spirit filled life.  Obedient believers are to seek first God’s kingdom (Matt. 6:33); are not to labor for the food that perishes (John 6:27); or build their lives on wood, hay, and stubble (1 Cor. 3:9-17).  An obedient Christian could not sing this lyric honestly because if he was living obediently nothing that he had worked for his whole life could ever be taken away!  I would think that a person who wanted to be obedient would not desire to sing this since it implies a life that is lived according to the world’s value system.

I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘ Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.

Well I think there is enough in Scripture about sorcery, astrology, “fate” etc. to render “lucky stars” completely un-singable.  The veracity of the next-to-last line is certainly open for debate–especially internationally.  Since Americans are increasingly losing their “freedoms,”  the last line is simply untrue on the face of it.

And I’m proud to be an American, (see comments on title)
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

What I am about to say is certainly a sentiment that would make many angry and would be rejected by most, but only one Man ever died for my freedom:  Luke 4:18, 19; John 8:36; Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; Gal. 5:1.  I have the only freedom that matters, and it was purchased for me by the eternal Son of God.  Does your freedom come from men or God?  I mean this verse is not even Constitutional: at least they recognized that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain rights!  (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.  That line is in the Declaration of Independence not Constitution, but you get the point.)

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA. (see comment on the end of song)

From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.

From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there’s pride in every American heart, (see comment on title)
and its time we stand and say.

That I’m proud to be an American, (see comment on title)
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.  (see comment on 1st refrain)

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

One has to wonder if “God bless the U.S.A.” is a line that is violating the 3rd commandment.  If God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble (Prov. 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5), how can he bless a person singing about being proud?  Considering the song as a whole, is this  the kind of attitude God blesses? I think it might be a little vain to invoke the name of God when the virtues that are extolled in the song include pride, materialism, fate, and militarism.

Bavinck on Perseverance of the Saints

Whatever apostasy occurs in Christianity, it may never prompt us to question the unchanging faithfulness of God, the certainty of his counsel, the enduring character of his covenant, or the trustworthiness of his promises.  One should sooner abandon all creatures than fail to trust his word.  And that word in its totality is one immensely rich promise to the heirs of the kingdom.  It is not just a handful of texts that teach the perseverance of the saints: the entire gospel sustains and confirms it.  The Father has chosen them before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), ordained them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29).  This election stands (Rom. 9:11; Heb. 6:17) and in due time carries with it the calling and justification and glorification (Rom. 8:30).  Christ, in whom all the promises of God are Yes and Amen (2 Cor. 1:20), died for those who were given him by the Father (John 17:6, 12) in order that he might give them eternal life and not lose a single one of them (John 6:40; 17:2); he therefore gives them eternal life and they will never be lost in all eternity; no one will snatch them out of his hand (6:39; 10:28).  The Holy Spirit who regenerates them remains eternally with them (14:16) and seals them for the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13; 4:30)… The benefits of Christ, which the Holy Spirit imparts to them, are all irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).  Those who are called are also glorified (8:30).  Those who are adopted as children are heirs of eternal life (8:17; Gal. 4:7).  Those who believe have eternal life already here and now (John 3:16).  That life itself, being eternal. cannot be lost.  It cannot die since it cannot sin (1 John 3:9).  Faith is a firm ground (Heb. 11:1), hope is an anchor (6:19) and does not disappoint us (Rom. 5:5), and love never ends (1 Cor. 13:8).

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics vol 4 pg. 269-270

Glory to God for salvation in Christ!  I appreciate the fact that Bavinck estimates eternal security as a doctrine intimately connected with the gospel itself.   “It is not just a handful of texts that teach the perseverance of the saints: the entire gospel sustains and confirms it.”  To not believe that the elect are eternally secure is to misunderstand the gospel.  And there are not many things more dangerous to misunderstand.