Evangelizing the World

By Lane Keister 6/1/2009

     All people are supposed to hear the good news of Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected from the dead. Not only are all people supposed to hear that salvation has been accomplished in history, they are to hear that any who repent of their sin and turn in faith to Jesus will actually possess the benefits of that accomplished salvation as well. In other words, those who offer the gospel are to sow the seed personally and indiscriminately, and are not to be discouraged when many people reject the message. While it would be hasty to say that three quarters of those who hear the message will reject it, it is certainly fair to say that of the various kinds of heart-soil that hear the gospel, three quarters will reject the message. Sowers of the good seed should rejoice in the positive results that do occur (and that God has promised!), rather than sulk about all the bad results or lack of results. The fact is that the outcome of the sowing is not dependent on us. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:6: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” It is our business to be planting, not digging up the seeds to see if they have sprouted yet.

     The biblical thinking outlined above runs counter to all the various kinds of evangelism that put pressure on the one sowing to make the growth happen. Thoughts such as these — “if only I had been a little more eloquent”; “if only I had kept going a little longer”; “if only I had used a different illustration” — are stultifying to the evangelist. Why put pressure on oneself to provide the growth he is incapable of providing? What motive remains for the evangelist if he pressures himself thusly, but has no visible results? If, however, the evangelist depends on God’s grace for the growth and merely concerns himself with presenting clearly the Word of God (which also happens by the grace of God), the proper relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in evangelism will be maintained.

     Anyone who thinks this way can be an evangelist. One of the main problems that churches are facing today in the area of evangelism is the idea that the pastor is the only person qualified to evangelize. They might think that the pastor must be the only one to do evangelism because the pastor is paid to do it. Or they might think that only seminary-trained individuals can evangelize. Ultimately, that kind of thinking stems from the idea that the growth depends on us. The real problem is not a lack of education. The real problem is that we seldom love people as we ought. We don’t love people enough to tell them they are going to hell without Jesus Christ. We fear the consequences (men) more than we fear the Consequence (God). Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, help us to repent of our unloving hearts!

     The application to sowers of the seed is only half the picture. The other half has to do with the hearers of the seed. Most applications of this parable focus on evangelism, and rightly so. What kind of soil do you have? How are you listening to the Word of God? Are you hard-hearted, such that the Word of God bounces and skitters along the surface, never penetrating? The Word is then gone before you even know it is there. Are you shallow, driven with every mad craze of the age, such that the Word of God is just one more fad that will be replaced with yet another, much in the same way as Toad in The Wind in the Willows? Oh, you might receive it well initially, but the next thing to come along withers it. Or, is your heart distracted? The Word might have some penetration in your heart, but you want so many other things alongside the Word. Eventually, those other things crowd out the Word.

     The most wonderful thing about God’s grace is that God is the gardener who can change your heart-soil. He can take out the hard heart, the shallow heart, the choked heart, and give you a first-rate topsoil heart, infused with the fertilizing energy of the Holy Spirit, the watering efficacy of the blood of Christ, the sun of the Father’s powerfully enlightening Word, all of which together plow the tough soil, remove the underlying rock layers, and weed out the distractions.

     One last thing bears mentioning. Christians can respond to the Word in one of the three bad ways just as much as the unbeliever does. There are areas of our lives that are hard, shallow, or choked. By God’s grace, using the means He has provided for us, we must tend our gardens, using the plow of the Law to prick our hardened consciences, levering out the rocky soil by means of serving one another, and weeding out those worldly idols that so easily entangle us. God’s grace accomplishes this just as much as in the conversion of the unbeliever. However, that does not mean that we sit back and do nothing. As Paul said in Philippians 2:12–13: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

Click here to go to source

     Rev. Lane Keister is pastor of both Hull Christian Reformed Church and Hope Reformed Church in Hague, North Dakota, and is author of the weblog Green Baggins. 

Farmers and the Rest of Us

By Gene Edward Veith 6/1/2009

     Might there be a time when readers of the Bible will not understand — without a host of reference books — what a sower is? For most of the world’s history, the majority of people made their living from the land. Today the number of family farms is dwindling. Farms have turned into factories. Tractors pulling seeders and tilling machines have replaced the figure of the sower who throws out seed from a bag. But whatever their agricultural techniques, we cannot do without farmers. Perhaps more clearly than any other profession, farmers exemplify the Reformation doctrine of vocation.

     Every time we thank God for the food we are about to eat, we are confessing the doctrine of vocation. God gives us each day our daily bread. He does so through the vocation of the farmer who grew the grain as well as all of the other vocations who turned the grain into flour, then into bread, and eventually bring it to our table.

     According to Luther, vocation is all about how God providentially works through human beings: bringing children into existence through the vocations of fathers and mothers; protecting us through the vocations of government, including judges, magistrates, and soldiers; proclaiming Christ through the vocations of pastors and others in the church who, like the sower, disseminate His Word. God grants healing through the work of physicians and nurses; He creates beauty through artists; He gives the blessings of technology through scientists and engineers.

     Though God sometimes works without means, He generally chooses to give His gifts through the agency of ordinary people. He often does so through non-believers who, however, do not discern God’s presence and so work out of sinful motives rather than as the fruit of faith. Christians, however, see their lives — with all of their different roles and tasks — in terms of God’s personal callings.

     While their relationship to God is based solely on His grace and on their justification through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, they know that God has called them into the world to live out their faith in love and service to their neighbors. Such service takes place in vocation, specifically in the multiple vocations that the Christian is called to in the family (marriage, parenthood, and childhood), the workplace (master and servant), the church (pastors, elders, and members), and the state (rulers and citizens).

     A farmer sows the seed but is dependent on God working through the natural order for the plant to grow, to produce the grain, and to bring the harvest. The same holds true for other vocations — parents raising their children, pastors preaching the gospel — that we perform the duties of our calling, trusting God for the increase.

     According to classical philosophers and theologians, human beings must make their living through some combination of art and nature. “Art” refers to human creativity, craft, knowledge, and skill, all of which are God given. “Nature” refers to objective, God-created reality. Again, farmers provide the model. Nature makes the crops grow, but there can be no crops unless someone applies to nature “the art of farming.” Some professions — such as that of the governor, the lawyer, the teacher — consist mainly of art but still must work with the nature of the state or of human nature.

     In Dante’s Inferno, the Seventh Circle is inhabited by those who sinned against art and against nature. This meant, specifically, usurers and sodomites. Today, the similarity between those two staples of modern culture — lending money at interest and homosexuality — may not be evident, much less why they should be punished together on a barren plain with fire raining down. Dante saw homosexuality as a sin against nature, since it violates the natural purpose of sexuality, which is to engender children. He saw usury as a sin against art, since it makes money from money, rather than from applying art to nature. As Charles Williams explains it, homosexuality makes barren what God intends to be fertile, while usury makes fertile what God intends to be barren.

     Actually, though, in our modern economy, lending money can be a fertile means of shaping nature. Lending and borrowing leads to the building of houses, the establishment of new businesses, and even the financing of farms. The parable of the sower could even apply to some investments falling on rocky ground, businesses springing up quickly but then dying because they had no root, and others falling on good soil, yielding a hundred fold.

     Dante would probably point out that some of our financial dealings — hedge funds, derivatives, short selling — are not so productive, using money to make nothing more than more money. He would probably observe that the recent woes of our banking and financial system stem largely from Seventh Circle economic practices in which money was allowed to grow on its own, apart from the value of tangible goods. He might apply another parable, showing what happens to a house built without a solid foundation.

     Still, today farmers cannot farm without bankers, not to mention the people who work in tractor factories, oil refineries, scientific labs, and grocery stores. All vocations are necessary and interdependent.

     We are not all called to be farmers. But whatever our vocations, we can all be sowers who go out to sow.

Click here to go to source

     Dr. Gene Edward Veith is provost emeritus and professor of literature emeritus at Patrick Henry College and director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Ind.

     Gene Edward Veith Books |  Go to Books Page

Plowing in Hope

By R.C. Sproul Jr. 6/1/2009

     The kingdom of God is at war. The promise from the beginning was that the seed of the woman, our King, would come and crush the head of the seed of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). Jesus’ first step out of the tomb at Gethsemane crushed that ancient and wily serpent’s head, and from that time forward we, the bride of Christ, created to be a help suitable for our Husband in His dominion calling, have been engaged in what theologians call a “mopping up” operation. The enemy has been defeated, but he doesn’t yet have the sense to give up.

     That our Lord has secured the victory ought to encourage and empower us. That the serpent hasn’t yet given up ought in turn to put us on our guard. That the battles yet rage, despite the glorious truth that the war has been won, ought to inspire us to discern the times. If we were wise, we would seek not only to predict how and where the serpent might attack, but we would also think strategically about where we might attack. Consider, for instance, those culture warriors who aspire to do the work of “pre-evangelism.”

     Evangelism, of course, is the proclaiming of the good news of Jesus Christ. It is sowing seed, casting forth the Word of God about the victory of the Son of God. Pre-evangelism is an attempt to make ears more ready to hear, eyes more ready to see. To borrow from the parable of the sower, pre-evangelism is an attempt to till the ground, to make rocky soil more fertile, that the seed might take root and flourish. Often pre-evangelism takes the form of “worldview” studies. Here we spend less time and energy declaring the truth about Jesus, and more time and energy defending the truthfulness of truth. In a modern age we proclaim that Jesus is the truth, against the truth claims of other religions or naturalism. In a postmodern age we cannot argue for the truthfulness of the Christian faith until we first establish that truth is even real, that it can be known, and that it transcends that which is merely “true for me” or “true for you.”

     Sometimes “pre-evangelism” takes the form of artistic expressions in sundry forms. Here we may, instead of affirming the glory of Jesus, seek to depict the gloom and vanity of a life lived under the sun. We may tell stories of redemption that, while not exactly telling the story of Jesus, are signposts toward His story. We may simply affirm the dignity of man, as we bear the image of God. Here again we are tilling the ground, preparing it for when the seed is cast, prayerfully hoping our labors might be used to bring in the elect from the four corners of the globe and that His reign might be made manifest.

     These sundry forms of “pre-evangelism” have advantages and disadvantages. They certainly can be effective for some. They can, however, sometimes create exactly the wrong kind of soil. That is, when we simply assault the foolishness of the world and leave out the heart of the matter, we might be making more “converts” who will wilt under the pressure of the sun. Worse still, sometimes we may miss out on the real issue. In other words, we may be so focused on the “pre” that we miss the “evangelism.” It is far easier to talk around the gospel than it is to say to our family, our friends, and the broader world: “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.”

     What we often find, however, is that when our strategies work, even just a little, it’s usually because we have stumbled onto something God has already commanded. There is a form of “pre-evangelism” that God calls us all to do that will work and has worked far more effectively than our worldview wonkery or our high-concept cultural artifacts. It is, in the end, the kingdom itself that brings in the lost. That is to say, we live faithful lives in covenant community, for we, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (1 Peter 2), are a light shining upon a hill. This light does indeed condemn the darkness (a victory we ought to celebrate, even as we likewise rejoice when the elect are brought in), but it is also a beacon.

     If we were smart, we would know that the lost are rarely brought in by how smart we are. Instead, it is our love one for another that invites them in. This is what Jesus told the disciples (John 13:35) — that it is in and through our love for each other that all men will know that we are His disciples. Our witness, then, in the end, isn’t about our clever arguments. Our witness shines through by our love for each other. This is both pre-evangelism and evangelism, for it softens the heart, even as it intrigues the mind as pre-evangelism. It is also the evidence of the redeeming power of Jesus Christ; it is the reality of the coming of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Once again, in the upside down economy of our Lord, the more we love one another within the kingdom, the more we bring in those who were outside the kingdom. We seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things are added to us.

Click here to go to source

     R.C. Sproul Jr. has served previously as a pastor, professor, and teacher. He is author of numerous books. Some are listed below.

     R.C. Sproul Jr. Books |  Go to Books Page

A Teachable Spirit

By Justin Taylor 6/1/2009

     Only one book is absolutely essential to save us, to equip us to obey God’s will, and to glorify Him in whatever we do. Only one book gives us undiluted truth — the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Only one book serves as our ultimate and final authority in all that it affirms. That book, of course, is the Bible, God’s Holy Word. No wonder John Wesley once exclaimed, “Let me be homo unius libri” — a man of one book!

     And yet the irony is that if we use only this book, we may in fact be in disobedience to it. We should count good teaching about the Bible — whether through commentaries, books, sermons, study Bibles, and so on — to be a gift from God for the good of His church (see Eph. 4:11; James 1:17). So what may look pious on the outside (“Just me and my Bible!”) can actually mask pride on the inside.

(Eph 4:11) 11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,   ESV

(Jas 1:17) 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.   ESV

     Acts 8 describes a story that might help us think through this. An Ethiopian eunuch — a God-fearing Gentile who served as treasurer to the Ethiopian queen — had made a five-month journey by chariot to Jerusalem in order to worship God. During his return trip he was puzzling out loud over the Isaiah scroll that he held in his hands. And the Holy Spirit appointed Philip to help him understand the meaning of the Bible.

     Philip first asked this man if he understood the passage that he was reading (Isaiah 53). The Ethiopian responded, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” (v. 31). After inviting Philip to sit in his chariot, he asked him about whom this passage spoke. “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus” (v. 35). Soon after, the eunuch insisted they stop the chariot in order to be baptized by Philip in obedience to his new savior and king, Jesus Christ.

     To be sure, this is a historical narrative recounting an event. The purpose is not necessarily to guide believers today in how to read their Bibles or how to think about the teaching of God’s Word. But the elements within it nonetheless correspond to some wise principles we can adopt as our own. So let’s work through the passage again, letting the various points serve as triggers for our own reflection on understanding the Word of God and those who teach it.

     First, the Ethiopian wrestles with and labors to understand the meaning of God’s Word. He doesn’t wait for help; he first tries on his own to figure out what the text is saying. He is not content merely to skim the Scriptures, putting a check mark next to his reading in the scroll for that day. And so it is with us — we must spend time in the Bible, working hard and trusting God for insight into its meaning. Paul expressed this as a command followed by a promise: “Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything” (2 Tim. 2:7).

     Second, the eunuch humbly acknowledges his own insufficiency and lack of understanding. He desires to understand what the Word says, he admits that he needs help, and then he asks for it. We should approach God first remembering that He wants to be asked and that He promises to assist us: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him” (James 1:5). And what should we pray? Psalms 119 provides many examples of how to pray for understanding and application. For example, verses 33–36:

33  Teach me, O LORD, the way of your statutes;
and I will keep it to the end.
34  Give me understanding, that I may keep your law
and observe it with my whole heart.
35  Lead me in the path of your commandments,
for I delight in it.
36  Incline my heart to your testimonies,
and not to selfish gain!   ESV

     Third, the eunuch asks a good, clear, relevant question based upon his own wrestling with the meaning of the text. Asking good questions is evidence of good thinking. If you don’t ask good questions about the text, you won’t engage your mind and you won’t be able to evaluate the answers.

     Fourth, he listens carefully to the Christ-centered, gospel-focused teaching before him. Jesus warned that we must take care how we listen (Luke 8:18), and the Ethiopian eunuch does just that. For many of us, our inclination is to talk first and listen second, but Christ-followers must be “quick to hear” and “slow to speak” (James 1:19).

     Finally, he puts into practice what he has just learned from the Word and from his commentator. Philip had told him “the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35), which probably included the teaching that members of God’s covenant community will publicly identify with Christ in the act of baptism. So the Ethiopian official models for us James’ command to “be doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1:22).

     So let us be the sort of people who prayerfully and carefully immerse ourselves day and night in God’s Word (Josh. 1:8; Ps. 1:2). Let us also be the sort of Berean-like people who receive good teaching about God’s Word “with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Click here to go to source

     Justin Taylor is executive vice president of book publishing and book publisher for Crossway and blogs at Between Two Worlds. You can follow him on Twitter.

Atheism Remix

By Keith Mathison 6/1/2009

     In 2004, Alister McGrath published a book entitled The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World in the Modern World. Although the book did not suggest that atheism was dead, its publication may have been a bit premature. For in 2006, atheism scored a propaganda coup with the media attention given to three best-selling books promoting a new and aggressive form of atheism: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett, and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. Not to be outdone, Christopher Hitchens published the best-selling God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything in 2007. Dubbed the “New Atheists” for their belligerent tone and militant intolerance, these authors have declared war on theism in general and Christianity in particular, and they have emboldened a new generation of skeptics.

     Although Christians may have been taken off guard by the seemingly sudden popularity of these books, they have not been slow to respond. In the last two years, Christians and others have published a number of responses to the so-called new atheism. There have been responses by evangelicals (Alister McGrath, David Robertson, Ravi Zacharias, David Marshall, John Lennox, David Aikman, and Douglas Wilson), Roman Catholics (Scott Hahn, Thomas Crean, and Thomas Williams), liberals (Tina Beattie, and John Haught), an agnostic Jew (David Berlinski) and even an unrepentant Marxist (Terry Eagleton). Among the most recent responses is Albert Mohler’s Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists).

     Based upon lectures delivered at Dallas Seminary in 2008, Atheism Remix is an instructive and readable guide to the major personalities and issues associated with the new atheism. In his first chapter, Mohler traces the rise of atheism from the Enlightenment to the present, noting in particular the contributions of Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin, and Freud to the worldview that paved the way for the new atheism. Mohler argues that the new atheism is the “endgame of secularism.” Because its proponents see religion in merely functional terms, secularization theory assumed that as humans advanced there would be less need for belief in God. Although this view seems to be validated in certain regions (for example, western Europe) and in certain circles (among the cultural elite), it is contradicted by other phenomenon (for example, strong religious beliefs in the U.S. and the resurgence of religious belief in other parts of the world).

     In chapter two, Mohler introduces the reader to the four most well-known proponents of the new atheism: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. After looking briefly at the backgrounds of each of these men, Mohler distills from their works eight characteristics that distinguish the new atheism from the old atheism: 1) An unprecedented boldness; 2) A clear and specific rejection of the Christian God of the Bible; 3) An explicit rejection of Jesus Christ; 4) A specific grounding in scientific argument; 5) A refusal to tolerate moderate and liberal forms of belief; 6) An attack on toleration; 7) A questioning of the rights of parents to inculcate belief in their children; and 8) The claim that religion itself must be eliminated in order to preserve human freedom.

     The bulk of chapter three is an examination of two Christian responses to the new atheism. First, Mohler looks at McGrath’s response in his book The Dawkins Delusion. He then examines a briefer critique of Dawkins written by the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga. He concludes that Christians need to do more than offer a negative critique of atheism. They also need to positively present and defend Christian theism. In particular, the Christian doctrine of revelation must be defended.

     In his final chapter, Mohler looks at the challenges that lie ahead for Christians. He argues that believers cannot respond to the new atheism by accommodating their beliefs to these new views. Accommodating Christian belief to non-Christian assumptions does not impress the new atheists in any case. To show the problems with such accommodationist approaches, Mohler carefully critiques two recent liberal responses to the new atheism.

     Mohler concludes by noting that the new atheism presents the church with an opportunity for clarification. The new atheism presents the church with a new version of an age-old challenge. Christians should not be intimidated by these challenges. We should not cower in the face of those who set themselves against God. We must respond with courage and conviction, proclaiming the gospel to all, knowing that we too were once enemies of God.

Click here to go to source

Per Amazon, Keith A. Mathison (MA, Reformed Theological Seminary; PhD, Whitefield Theological Seminary) is dean of the Ligonier Academy of Biblical and Theological Studies and an associate editor of Tabletalk magazine at Ligonier Ministries. He is editor of When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism and associate editor of The Reformation Study Bible. He lives in Lake Mary, Florida, with his wife and children.

Keith Mathison Books:

• 1     Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope
• 2     The Shape of Sola Scriptura
• 3     Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
• 4     From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology
• 5     Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?
• 6     A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture
• 7     Not a Chance: God, Science, and the Revolt against Reason
• 8     When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism

Don’t Be Fooled: The Left Doesn’t Care About Morals; It Cares About Power

By D.C. McAllister 12/1/2017

     Is America undergoing a great awakening in light of the deluge of sex scandals that are now coming to light? Are we seeing a revival of that old-time religion of chastity, purity, and self-control? One would think so as liberals, who once laughed at sexual improprieties, clapped as sinners danced in the streets, and pointed fingers at accusers on national television, are now offering mea culpas and purging all ranks with the fervor of medieval inquisitors.

     It certainly looks like a change for good. But don’t be fooled. This couldn’t be further from the

     Whether it's stripping Matt Lauer of his former glory or firing up the torches in the Roy Moore election, the goal of the Left is not purity, but power. This fact does not negate the reality of transgressions or the possibilities of criminality in individual cases, but anyone who values both goodness and freedom in this country needs to be wise as serpents. We’re not seeing a revival of virtue in America. We’re seeing a resistance to it.

     For true national repentance, there needs to be recognition of objective standards that allow for any of these judgments to be made in the first place. There’s not. We’re not seeing careful consideration of how we got to this point — the abandonment of God as the source of all moral authority or, at the very least, a common recognition of natural law and traditional social norms.

     Instead, we are seeing navel-gazing about how to rethink sex, what to do about the brutality of masculinity, and how to delegitimize conservatives who have been accused of abandoning character for political expediency.

Click here to go to source

Denise C. McAllister is a cultural and political commentator based in Charlotte, NC. She is a senior contributor at The Federalist and her work can be found at several outlets, including PJ Media where she’s a contributor, Real Clear Politics, Hot Air, and Ricochet. She has been a guest on Fox News, CNN, Newsmax TV, Sean Hannity Radio, NPR, BBC Radio, and many other radio programs across the nation. Her book, “A Burning and Shining Light,” is a dramatic narrative about the life and ministry of David Brainerd. She is also a pro-life speaker, advocating for the rights of unborn children. In addition to being a writer, she is a musician and visual artist.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 68

God Shall Scatter His Enemies
68 To The Choirmaster. A Psalm Of David. A Song.

7 O God, when you went out before your people,
when you marched through the wilderness, Selah
8 the earth quaked, the heavens poured down rain,
before God, the One of Sinai,
before God, the God of Israel.
9 Rain in abundance, O God, you shed abroad;
you restored your inheritance as it languished;
10 your flock found a dwelling in it;
in your goodness, O God, you provided for the needy.

11 The Lord gives the word;
the women who announce the news are a great host:
12 “The kings of the armies—they flee, they flee!”
The women at home divide the spoil—
13 though you men lie among the sheepfolds—
the wings of a dove covered with silver,
its pinions with shimmering gold.
14 When the Almighty scatters kings there,
let snow fall on Zalmon.

ESV Study Bible

By Gleason Archer Jr.

Song of Solomon

          THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION

          Allegorical          Christ and His church
          Literal          Secular love songs
          Typical          Historical incident elevating love to a holy level

     This all the more noteworthy because, as we have already pointed out, there is a considerable similarity in vocabulary and syntax between the  Song of Solomon and  Ecclesiastes (the Solomonic authorship of which all the above named have denied). Liberal scholars have usually classed these two works together as representing approximately the same period of Hebrew literature. Certainly this relationship is favored by the standard Hebrew dictionaries, which tend to group the two together lexically. It is a striking fact that neither of them refers to God as Yahweh; the Tetragrammaton does not appear in either of them. There is a significant number of words which occur only in these two books, so far as the Hebrew Scriptures are concerned. There would seem to be, therefore, a basic inconsistency in denying authenticity to  Ecclesiastes on linguistic grounds and yet affirming it for the  Song of Solomon despite linguistic factors. Liberal scholars uniformly deny Solomonic authorship of Canticles and assign the composition of the books to a period considerably later than the tenth century B.C. Moderates like W. R. Smith and S. R. Driver favored a pre-exilic date, that is, before 600 B.C.; such radicals as Kuenen, Cornill, Cheyne, Budde, Kautzsch, and Eissfeldt confidently dated it in the post-exilic or even in the Hellenistic period. W. Baumgartner assigns it to the late third century (cf. OTMS, p. 223).

     It is principally on linguistic grounds that the case for late composition is based. The following phenomena are most conspicuous:

     1. The prevalence of še- instead of ˓šer as the relative pronoun. But as we have seen in the discussion of  Ecclesiastes, the relative še- is not per se a proof of late authorship. A cognate of the Akkadian relative ša, which is as old as the third millennium, it appears in the song of Deborah ( Judg. 5 ) and elsewhere in  Judges; also in  Job 19:29; 2 Kings 6:11; once in  Jonah; in  Lamentations, and various  Psalms. It seems to have been a very acceptable substitute for ˓šer in Hebrew poetic style. It was probably characteristic of the dialect of northern Israel. The abundant use of še- in later Hebrew may simply reflect a common use in the vernacular which literary Hebrew shied away from until the post-exilic period. In the intertestamental age, of course, the frequent use of the corresponding particle dɩ̂ in Aramaic tended to encourage the Jews, who were naturally well versed in Aramaic as their colloquial tongue, to employ še- in their Hebrew compositions.

     2. The presence of various Aramaisms like nāṭar (cognate with nāṣar, Hebrew, “guard, watch over”), berōṯ (cognate with berōš, Hebrew, “cypress”) and setāw (“winter”) is taken to indicate post-exilic authorship. Yet, as has already been observed in chapter 7 of this work, they may have been brought into the Hebrew language at an early date, or else they may indicate a North Israelite coloring. (Note that if the Shulamite came from Shunem, as the LXX transliteration Sounamitis indicates, then the bride would have come from the territory of the northern tribe of Issachar.) Significantly enough, even the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon labels berōṯ as North Palestinian rather than as an Aramaism.

     3. It is alleged that the book contains two words derived from Greek, ʾappiryôn ( 3:9 ) or palanquin, from the Greek phoreion, and pardēs ( 4:13 ) meaning “orchard,” from either the Greek paradeisos or the Persian pairideca, meaning “enclosure.” Yet as already pointed out in connection with  Ecclesiastes, such words as these could have come to Solomon from his trade contacts with India, since the Sanskrit word for palanquin is paryama or the diminutive parynka, and the Sanskrit for “enclosure” is paridhis (cf. pardɩ̄su, “park, preserve,” late Assyrian).

     A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

Grace Alone

By R.C. Sproul 6/1/2009

     Soli Deo gloria is the motto that grew out of the Protestant Reformation and was used on every composition by Johann Sebastian Bach. He affixed the initials SDG at the bottom of each manuscript to communicate the idea that it is God and God alone who is to receive the glory for the wonders of His work of creation and of redemption. At the heart of the sixteenth-century controversy over salvation was the issue of grace.

     It was not a question of man’s need for grace. It was a question as to the extent of that need. The church had already condemned Pelagius, who had taught that grace facilitates salvation but is not absolutely necessary for it. Semi-Pelagianism since that time has always taught that without grace there is no salvation. But the grace that is considered in all semi-Pelagian and Arminian theories of salvation is not an efficacious grace. It is a grace that makes salvation possible, but not a grace that makes salvation certain.

     In the parable of the sower we see that regarding salvation, God is the one who takes the initiative to bring salvation to pass. He is the sower. The seed that is sown is His seed, corresponding to His Word, and the harvest that results is His harvest. He harvests what He purposed to harvest when He initiated the whole process. God doesn’t leave the harvest up to the vagaries of thorns and stones in the pathway. It is God and God alone who makes certain that a portion of His Word falls upon good ground. A critical error in interpreting this parable would be to assume that the good ground is the good disposition of fallen sinners, those sinners who make the right choice, responding positively to God’s prevenient grace. The classical Reformed understanding of the good ground is that if the ground is receptive to the seed that is sown by God, it is God alone who prepares the ground for the germination of the seed.

     The biggest question any semi-Pelagian or Arminian has to face at the practical level is this: Why did I choose to believe the gospel and commit my life to Christ when my neighbor, who heard the same gospel, chose to reject it? That question has been answered in many ways. We might speculate that the reason why one person chooses to respond positively to the gospel and to Christ, while another one doesn’t, is because the person who responded positively was more intelligent than the other one. If that were the case, then God would still be the ultimate provider of salvation because the intelligence is His gift, and it could be explained that God did not give the same intelligence to the neighbor who rejected the gospel. But that explanation is obviously absurd.

     The other possibility that one must consider is this: that the reason one person responds positively to the gospel and his neighbor does not is because the one who responded was a better person. That is, that person who made the right choice and the good choice did it because he was more righteous than his neighbor. In this case, the flesh not only availed something, it availed everything. This is the view that is held by the majority of evangelical Christians, namely, the reason why they are saved and others are not is that they made the right response to God’s grace while the others made the wrong response.

     We can talk here about not only the correct response as opposed to an erroneous response, but we can speak in terms of a good response rather than a bad response. If I am in the kingdom of God because I made the good response rather than the bad response, I have something of which to boast, namely the goodness by which I responded to the grace of God. I have never met an Arminian who would answer the question that I’ve just posed by saying, “Oh, the reason I’m a believer is because I’m better than my neighbor.” They would be loath to say that. However, though they reject this implication, the logic of semi-Pelagianism requires this conclusion. If indeed in the final analysis the reason I’m a Christian and someone else is not is that I made the proper response to God’s offer of salvation while somebody else rejected it, then by resistless logic I have indeed made the good response, and my neighbor has made the bad response.

     What Reformed theology teaches is that it is true the believer makes the right response and the non-believer makes the wrong response. But the reason the believer makes the good response is because God in His sovereign election changes the disposition of the heart of the elect to effect a good response. I can take no credit for the response that I made for Christ. God not only initiated my salvation, He not only sowed the seed, but He made sure that that seed germinated in my heart by regenerating me by the power of the Holy Ghost. That regeneration is a necessary condition for the seed to take root and to flourish. That’s why at the heart of Reformed theology the axiom resounds, namely, that regeneration precedes faith. It’s that formula, that order of salvation that all semi-Pelagians reject. They hold to the idea that in their fallen condition of spiritual death, they exercise faith, and then are born again. In their view, they respond to the gospel before the Spirit has changed the disposition of their soul to bring them to faith. When that happens, the glory of God is shared. No semi-Pelagian can ever say with authenticity: “To God alone be the glory.” For the semi-Pelagian, God may be gracious, but in addition to God’s grace, my work of response is absolutely essential. Here grace is not effectual, and such grace, in the final analysis, is not really saving grace. In fact, salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. Yes, I must believe. Yes, I must respond. Yes, I must receive Christ. But for me to say “yes” to any of those things, my heart must first be changed by the sovereign, effectual power of God the Holy Spirit. Soli Deo gloria.

Click here to go to source

Robert Charles Sproul, 2/13/1939 – 12/14/2017 was an American theologian, author, and ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America. Dr. R.C. Sproul was founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian education and discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was also copastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., chancellor of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. Dr. Sproul has contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, has spoken at conferences, churches, and schools around the world, and has written more than one hundred books. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible.

     R.C. Sproul Books |  Go to Books Page

Inconsistent Christian Living - Psalm 51

By Sinclair Ferguson

Psalm 51:18  Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;
build up the walls of Jerusalem;
19  then will you delight in right sacrifices,
in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

     Inconsistent Christian living leads to lack of assurance. At least, it leads to a lack of true assurance (although, alas, not necessarily to a lack of self-assurance). Where there is no actual obedience to Christ, there will be no evidence of present love for him as Savior. Where salvation is not actualized, and a person has no consciousness of Christ’s saving mercy, assurance will inevitably be hindered. Thus the Christian who has developed a pattern of disobedience in his or her life will lose assurance.

     David’s anguished cry of penitence in Psalm 51 illustrates this. As a consequence of his disobedience he confesses, “My sin is ever before me.” Psalm 51:3 His consciousness of forgiveness is clouded. He does not “hear joy and gladness.” Psalm 51:8 He fears the complete loss of the Spirit’s witness in his life. He loses all sense of the joy of salvation. Psalm 51:3, 8, 11, 12 He has become like the double-minded man of whom James writes, full of doubt and unstable in all his ways. James 1:8 Where consecration is in question, secret doubt must ultimately flourish and assurance wane. Such inconsistencies of life grieve the Holy Spirit and cause a loss of the sense that he dwells in us as the seal, the security of our redemption. Ephesians 4:30

     The remedy? What is required here is an emetic labeled “Repentance.”

The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance

     Dr. Sinclair B. Ferguson is a Ligonier teaching fellow and distinguished visiting professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.      Sinclair Ferguson Books |  Go to Books Page

The Continual Burnt Offering (Mark 2:3, 5)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

June 23

Mark 2:3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.

Mark 2:5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”   ESV

     The primary purpose of our Lord’s ministry as the Servant of Jehovah was to bring people into right relationship with God. What availed it if the sick were healed of physical ailments but continued on in their sins, unrepentant and unbelieving? The paralytic condition of the man who was saved and healed pictures the real state of men generally — “without strength” (Romans 5:6), and therefore unable to deliver themselves from the dire results of their sins.  But Jesus came not to help men save themselves, but to deliver them Himself from their lost estate.  It is not when we have done our best that His grace comes in to make up full weight, as it were. But when we realize that we are utterly helpless and look to Him alone for salvation, He does for us what no one else could do.

     It is all of grace through faith, that the glory might be His alone. The faith of the four men who brought their paralytic friend to Jesus is a beautiful example of fellowship in the glad service of bringing others to Christ. But he too believed, and so the faith of all five was rewarded.

Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.   ESV

Forgiveness! ‘twas a joyful sound
To guilty sinners doomed to die:
We’d publish it the world around,
And gladly shout it through the sky.

‘Twas the rich gift of love divine;
‘Tis full effacing ev’ry crime;
Unbounded shall its glories shine,
And know no change by changing time.
--- Gibbons

The Continual Burnt Offering: Daily Meditations on the Word of God

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 14.

OF THE SACRAMENTS.

This chapter consists of two principal parts,--I. Of sacraments in general. The sum of the doctrine stated, sec. 1-6. Two classes of opponents to be guarded against--viz. those who undervalue the power of the sacraments, sec. 7-13; and those who attribute too much to the sacraments, sec. 14-17. II. Of the sacraments in particular, both of the Old and the New Testament. Their scope and meaning. Refutation of those who have either too high or too low ideas of the sacraments.

Sections.

1. Of the sacraments in general. A sacrament defined.

2. Meaning of the word sacrament.

3. Definition explained. Why God seals his promises to us by sacraments.

4. The word which ought to accompany the element, that the sacrament may be complete.

5. Error of those who attempt to separate the word, or promise of God, from the element.

6. Why sacraments are called Signs of the Covenant.

7. They are such signs, though the wicked should receive them, but are signs of grace only to believers.

8. Objections to this view answered.

9. No secret virtue in the sacraments. Their whole efficacy depends on the inward operation of the Spirit.

10. Objections answered. Illustrated by a simile.

11. Of the increase of faith by the preaching of the word.

12. In what way, and how far, the sacraments are confirmations of our faith.

13. Some regard the sacraments as mere signs. This view refuted.

14. Some again attribute too much to the sacraments. Refutation.

15. Refutation confirmed by a passage from Augustine.

16. Previous views more fully explained.

17. The matter of the sacrament always present when the sacrament is duly administered.

18. Extensive meaning of the term sacrament.

19. The ordinary sacraments in the Church. How necessary they are.

20. The sacraments of the Old and of the New Testament. The end of both the same --viz. to lead us to Christ.

21. This apparent in the sacraments of the Old Testament.

22. Apparent also in the sacraments of the New Testament.

23. Impious doctrine of the Schoolmen as to the difference between the Old and the New Testaments.

24. Scholastic objection answered.

25. Another objection answered.

26. Sacraments of the New Testament sometimes excessively extolled by early Theologians. Their meaning explained.

1. Akin to the preaching of the gospel, we have another help to our faith in the sacraments, in regard to which, it greatly concerns us that some sure doctrine should be delivered, informing us both of the end for which they were instituted, and of their present use. First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men. We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him. You may make your choice of these definitions, which in meaning differ not from that of Augustine, which defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of an invisible grace, but does not contain a better or surer explanation. As its brevity makes it somewhat obscure, and thereby misleads the more illiterate, I wished to remove all doubt, and make the definition fuller by stating it at greater length.

2. The reason why the ancients used the term in this sense is not obscure. The old interpreter, whenever he wished to render the Greek term muste'rion into Latin, especially when it was used with reference to divine things, used the word sacramentum. Thus, in Ephesians, "Having made known unto us the mystery (sacramentum) of his will;" and again, "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to you-wards, how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery" (sacramentum) (Eph. 1:9; 3:2). In the Colossians, "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but is now made manifest to his saints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery" (sacramentum) (Col. 1:26). Also in the First Epistle to Timothy, "Without controversy, great is the mystery (sacramentum) of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). He was unwilling to use the word arcanum (secret), lest the word should seem beneath the magnitude of the thing meant. When the thing, therefore, was sacred and secret, he used the term sacramentum. In this sense it frequently occurs in ecclesiastical writers. And it is well known, that what the Latins call sacramenta, the Greeks call muste'ria (mysteries). The sameness of meaning removes all dispute. Hence it is that the term was applied to those signs which gave an august representation of things spiritual and sublime. This is also observed by Augustine, "It were tedious to discourse of the variety of signs; those which relate to divine things are called sacraments" (August. Ep. 5. ad Marcell.).

3. From the definition which we have given, we perceive that there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it. In this way God provides first for our ignorance and sluggishness, and, secondly, for our infirmity; and yet, properly speaking, it does not so much confirm his word as establish us in the faith of it. [613] For the truth of God is in itself sufficiently stable and certain, and cannot receive a better confirmation from any other quarter than from itself. But as our faith is slender and weak, so if it be not propped up on every side, and supported by all kinds of means, it is forthwith shaken and tossed to and fro, wavers, and even falls. And here, indeed, our merciful Lord, with boundless condescension, so accommodates himself to our capacity, that seeing how from our animal nature we are always creeping on the ground, and cleaving to the flesh, having no thought of what is spiritual, and not even forming an idea of it, he declines not by means of these earthly elements to lead us to himself, and even in the flesh to exhibit a mirror of spiritual blessings. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. 60, ad Popul.). "Were we incorporeal, he would give us these things in a naked and incorporeal form. Now because our souls are implanted in bodies, he delivers spiritual things under things visible. Not that the qualities which are set before us in the sacraments are inherent in the nature of the things, but God gives them this signification."

4. This is commonly expressed by saying that a sacrament consists of the word and the external sign. By the word we ought to understand not one which, muttered without meaning and without faith, by its sound merely, as by a magical incantation, has the effect of consecrating the element, but one which, preached, makes us understand what the visible sign means. The thing, therefore, which was frequently done, under the tyranny of the Pope, was not free from great profanation of the mystery, for they deemed it sufficient if the priest muttered the formula of consecration, while the people, without understanding, looked stupidly on. Nay, this was done for the express purpose of preventing any instruction from thereby reaching the people: for all was said in Latin to illiterate hearers. Superstition afterwards was carried to such a height, that the consecration was thought not to be duly performed except in a low grumble, which few could hear. Very different is the doctrine of Augustine concerning the sacramental word. "Let the word be added to the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence can there be so much virtue in water as to touch the body and cleanse the heart, unless by the agency of the word, and this not because it is said, but because it is believed? For even in the word the transient sound is one thing, the permanent power another. This is the word of faith which we preach says the Apostle" (Rom. 10:8). Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles, we have the expression, "Purify their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). And the Apostle Peter says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience)" (1 Pet. 3:21). "This is the word of faith which we preach: by which word doubtless baptism also, in order that it may be able to cleanse, is consecrated" (August. Hom. in Joann. 13). You see how he requires preaching to the production of faith. And we need not labour to prove this, since there is not the least room for doubt as to what Christ did, and commanded us to do, as to what the apostles followed, and a purer Church observed. Nay, it is known that, from the very beginning of the world, whenever God offered any sign to the holy Patriarchs, it was inseparably attached to doctrine, without which our senses would gaze bewildered on an unmeaning object. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us understand the promise which, proclaimed aloud by the minister, leads the people by the hand to that to which the sign tends and directs us.

5. Nor are those to be listened to who oppose this view with a more subtle than solid dilemma. They argue thus: We either know that the word of God which precedes the sacrament is the true will of God, or we do not know it. If we know it, we learn nothing new from the sacrament which succeeds. If we do not know it, we cannot learn it from the sacrament, whose whole efficacy depends on the word. Our brief reply is: The seals which are affixed to diplomas, and other public deeds, are nothing considered in themselves, and would be affixed to no purpose if nothing was written on the parchment, and yet this does not prevent them from sealing and confirming when they are appended to writings. It cannot be alleged that this comparison is a recent fiction of our own, since Paul himself used it, terming circumcision a seal (Rom. 4:11), where he expressly maintains that the circumcision of Abraham was not for justification, but was an attestation to the covenant, by the faith of which he had been previously justified. And how, pray, can any one be greatly offended when we teach that the promise is sealed by the sacrament, since it is plain, from the promises themselves, that one promise confirms another? The clearer any evidence is, the fitter is it to support our faith. But sacraments bring with them the clearest promises, and, when compared with the word, have this peculiarity, that they represent promises to the life, as if painted in a picture. Nor ought we to be moved by an objection founded on the distinction between sacraments and the seals of documents--viz. that since both consist of the carnal elements of this world, the former cannot be sufficient or adequate to seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and eternal, though the latter may be employed to seal the edicts of princes concerning fleeting and fading things. But the believer, when the sacraments are presented to his eye, does not stop short at the carnal spectacle, but by the steps of analogy which I have indicated, rises with pious consideration to the sublime mysteries which lie hidden in the sacraments.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion