’nuff said
I’m planning to join some friends from a local church who are planning to read through a few books in the coming year. Now that the New Year has come around the bend, it’s time for me to be obtaining the first in the series, procrastinator that I am. The first book we’re going to be reading through and blogging about at their church’s blog is called, Jesus: Made In America, by Steve Nichols. The publisher’s description describes the content in the following way:
Beginning with the Puritans, he leads readers through the various cultural epochs of American history, showing at each stage how American notions of Jesus were shaped by the cultural sensibilities of the times, often with unfortunate results. Always fascinating and often humorous, Jesus Made in America offers a frank assessment of the story of Christianity in America, including the present.
Sounds pretty entertaining as well as enlightening. But since I’ve yet to order a copy of the book, I thought I might check the websites of one of the major Christian booksellers who have locations in my area, in case I can just swing by and pick up a copy on my way home from work tonight. I went to the site for Family Christian Stores and entered “jesus made in america” in the search engine to see if they carry it.
You’ll never guess what the top result was:
Need I say more?
Guess I’ll order it from Westminster Seminary’s bookstore anyway.
Does “Every Member Ministry” Contribute to “Christless Christianity”?
An “every member ministry.” The name should be self-explanatory. This is a staple of modern American Evangelical and Fundamentalist discipleship, and likely of the
Reformed, as well. We probably all can hear the echoes of pastors past and present who’ve clearly proclaimed that they are not the only “ministers” in the local church. Every member, not just the pastor, is here to exercise his gifts for the building up of the body of Christ. Might this be a “fifth rail” of American Christianity that the believer in his right mind dare not touch, lest he be accused of attempting to take us back to Roman Catholicism with its clearly defined gap between the clergy and the laity? Don’t worry, my personal intention is not to state anything to the contrary of those who believe they are gifted to perform any of a myriad of tasks in the local church. Some of us are gifted to teach, though we’re not ordained pastor/teachers; some are gifted to serve the physical needs of the least of the congregation; some are gifted to aid in the musical operation of the local church; some are gifted to do any myriad of other things that are indded vital activities that ought to take place in the context of the local church, and by the members of the congregation, not just the ordained pastors, elders and deacons. I’m not out to overturn the apple cart of an “every member ministry” as it happens to currently be manifest in American churches. But I would like to address, or rather, cite Michael Horton’s remarks regarding, one passage of Scripture that is famously associated with the idea of an every member ministry, and in fact, serves as part of the Scriptural basis for such activity.
But first, let’s look at the passage: Ephesians 4:1-16, as it is translated in the King James Version. And let us pay special attention to where the punctuation falls in verse twelve, which I’ve highlighted.
1I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
Now let us see what Michael Horton has said about this passage in his latest book, Christless Christianity, on pages 248-249, in the final chapter, “A Call to the Resistance.”
And now, as we are reminded in Ephesians 4:8-16, the ascended King moves his gifts of this subversive revolution down to us; we do not have to climb up to him. Here the apostle Paul teaches that the same one who descended to the uttermost depths for us and ascended “far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things” (v. 10), does not keep the treasures of his conquest to himself but liberally distributes them to his liberated captives below. The original Greek emphasizes, “The gifts that he himself gave . . . .” They originate with Christ, not with individual members or the body as a whole. The gifts he gives are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (v. 11). They are not given as a hierarchy of control, like “the rulers of the Gentiles” who “lord it over” their subjects instead of serving (Matt. 20:25; see vv. 25-28). Rather, Paul says they are given . . . (here he cites Ephesians 4:12-15, which we’ve just read above). More recent translations typically render the clasuse in verse 12, “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (e.g., ESV, NRSV, RSV), which has been used as the chief proof-text for every member ministry. For various reasons, I am persuaded that the older translations (especially of verse 12) are more accurate and also capture better the logic of the argument.
This does not mean, of course, that the official ministry of the Word (now exercised by pastors and teachers) is the only gift or that ministers rank higher in the kingdom of Christ than everyone else. Rather, this gift of the ministry of the Word is given so that the whole body may be gifted: brought together in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. Only then can each member receive the additional gifts that make them function together as one mature body with Christ as its living Head (Eph. 1:15-16). The gifts flow down from Christ; the Great Shepherd serves his flock through undershepherds who minister his gospel through preaching and sacrament. Of course in other places Paul expands the list of gifts that are exercised by the wider body (see Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12). A church that is lacking in generosity, hospitality, and other gifts of mutual edification is unhealthy; a church that lacks the Word is not a church. Therefore we come to church first of all to receive these gifts, realizing more and more our communion with Christ and therefore with each other as his body. (emphasis mine)
I always wondered if there was something up with this difference in punctuation between the KJV and many, if not all, modern translations (I haven’t checked). I know just bringing up the matter will draw criticism as if I’m out to tell everyone in the church to stop doing stuff for Christ, and just sit and listen to the preacher. This is the great fear of those who zealously proclaim this passage as it is translated and punctuated in modern translations (even if they’re KJV onlyists!) Rather, the point I want to make is the same simple point I always make. For ministry to be Christ-centered, the cart must not go before the horse. The Law and Gospel preached and the sacraments properly administered is the horse, and this and only this, is what makes the cart of our fruitful service go. The Law and Gospel preached and the sacraments properly administered turns some goats into sheep, and then the same Law and Gospel preached also feeds the sheep and strengthens them to love one another, not only as a congregation, but also as sojourners and strangers among our unbelieving neighbors in the world. Profound in its simplicity; simple in its profundity!
The cart may be getting put before the horse sometimes when our focus on the “priesthood of the believer” somehow turns into the “ministryhood” of the believer, as Horton frequently says. Hear me clearly, brethren: don’t give up your Sunday School class, don’t drop out of the choir or praise band (or whatever your church calls it), don’t stop helping in all the little, unnoticed ways you do. Just don’t make your primary focus–don’t make these activities your main purpose for being there. If you do, you may be living a Christless Christianity, intending to earn God’s grace by your good works. Rather, first look to being served by Christ through the ordained ministry of Word (Law & Gospel! Not just Law and not just Gospel!) and sacrament as your source of grace and faith and strength . . .
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:13-16, ESV).
Which Came First?
It is commonly reported, and accurately, I might add, that in the fourth century the Western Church either replaced the 
pagan festivities surrounding the phenomenon known as the winter solstice, or the pagan Roman holiday called “The Birth of the Unconquered Sun.” Almost any resource you consult will yield this information. For example, Encarta reports that “most scholars believe that Christmas originated in the 4th century as a Christian substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.” Wikipedia builds on this fact with, “December 25 is not thought to be Jesus’ actual date of birth, and the date may have been chosen to correspond with either a Roman festival, or with the winter solstice.” And even the Evangelical “The Theology Project” sponsored website “Theological Word of the Day” concurs in their current entry on “Christmas.”
But is this all there is to know about the origin of the Christian association of the date December 25 with the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ? The Roman Catholic Associate Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania writes in the Touchstone Magazine article, “Calculating Christmas,” that . . .
“the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals. Rather, the pagan festival of the ‘Birth of the Unconquered Son’ instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.”
Intrigued yet? How about this?
“It is true that the first evidence of Christians celebrating December 25th as the date of the Lord’s nativity comes from Rome some years after Aurelian, in A.D. 336, but there is evidence from both the Greek East and the Latin West that Christians attempted to figure out the date of Christ’s birth long before they began to celebrate it liturgically, even in the second and third centuries. The evidence indicates, in fact, that the attribution of the date of December 25th was a by-product of attempts to determine when to celebrate his death and resurrection.”
What does the date of Christ’s death have to do with that of his birth?
“At this point, we have to introduce a belief that seems to have been widespread in Judaism at the time of Christ, but which, as it is nowhere taught in the Bible, has completely fallen from the awareness of Christians. The idea is that of the “integral age” of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.
“This notion is a key factor in understanding how some early Christians came to believe that December 25th is the date of Christ’s birth. The early Christians applied this idea to Jesus, so that March 25th and April 6th were not only the supposed dates of Christ’s death, but of his conception or birth as well. There is some fleeting evidence that at least some first- and second-century Christians thought of March 25th or April 6th as the date of Christ’s birth, but rather quickly the assignment of March 25th as the date of Christ’s conception prevailed.
“It is to this day, commemorated almost universally among Christians as the Feast of the Annunciation, when the Archangel Gabriel brought the good tidings of a savior to the Virgin Mary, upon whose acquiescence the Eternal Word of God (“Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten of the Father before all ages”) forthwith became incarnate in her womb. What is the length of pregnancy? Nine months. Add nine months to March 25th and you get December 25th; add it to April 6th and you get January 6th. December 25th is Christmas, and January 6th is Epiphany.”
Very interesting, don’t you think? If you want to read more about it here.
“Santa Claus is Comin'” Next Year
Keep in mind that next year they’re finally going to release the St. Nicholas movie! At least that’s what they’re saying this year. I’ve been waiting for it since last year.
Merry Christmas!
Pecuniary Satisfaction and Peculiar People, part 2
All I want to do today to complete this focus on the contrivance of “applications” based on the misinterpretation of an
archaic translation of a Scriptural word is to show the definition of “peculiar” as presented in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. The choice of this dictionary is significant in that it is this volume which is recommended to advocates of the superiority of the King James Version of the Bible to all modern translations. It often features the biblical usage of words, with numerous quotations from Scripture as well as classic English literature. You’d think such a resource would irradicate foibles like the one under consideration, but tradition dies hard!
PECU’LIAR, a. [L. peculiaris, from peculium, one’s own property, from pecus, cattle.]
- Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only. Almost every writer has a peculiar style. Most men have manners peculiar to themselves.
- Singular; particular. The man has something peculiar in his deportment.
- Particular; special. “My fate is Juno’s most peculiar care.” Dryden.
Definition 1 is the relevant definition. Considering the given usages, when it comes to 1 Peter 2:9, God has a people that is peculiar to himself, as opposed to being the people of any other god or ruler. I repeat, the church is to be peculiar to God, not peculiar to the world. That means we are his and only his. This simply cannot legitimately “apply” to how strange believers ought to seem to the world. Granted, the immediate context of the passage does explicitly include some imperatives (that is, “applications”) that are to be performed because of the fact that we are peculiarly the Lord’s people, and I submit these are the imperatives intended by the human and divine authors of Scripture to be applied to believers.
“They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. (Notice the reference to God’s sovereign reprobation of those who never come to faith–that was for free!)
“9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
“11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.” 1 Peter 2:8b-12.
The imperatives we have are based on the indicative of believers in Christ being a people who are peculiarly God’s, as opposed to any other god or ruler. Here’s where Christ-centeredness enters the picture. No exposition of the text is genuinely made in light of the full context, if the work of Christ for sinners is passed over and given little attention. It’s the indicatives of the Gospel, what God says about what he’s done for us in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and about how it has affected us by his grace alone, that contains the power to call people out of darkness into his marvelous light. To focus the majority of our attention on the behavior that is to result from Scripture’s Christ-centered, Gospel cause is to miss the power to live out the behavior and actually perform the “application.”
So here are the results of God’s showing mercy to us, calling sinners from every nation, race and class out of the darkness and into the marvelous light, making us who were not a people a chosen generation and a holy nation and a people for his own possession–a people who are peculiarly his and no one else’s:
- proclaim the excellencies of him who brought us out of darkness into his marvelous light. Then Peter inserts another indicative statement that builds on and emphasizes on our being peculiarly God’s–once we weren’t a people, but now we are God’s people by virtue of his having shown us his mercy.
- Therefore, since we are citizens of God’s nation, we should view ourselves as exiles who are merely sojourning through this world (in the world, not of it), and we should abstain from fleshly passions, which wage war against our souls.
- In addition, since we are God’s people, our conduct (behavior) should be honorable (not “peculiar” or strange or goofy) as we sojourn among the “Gentiles” (unbelievers who are citizens of the world, rather than citizens of God’s kingdom), our motive being that when we are falsely accused of evil-doing, others will realize the falsity of such accusations and God will be glorified.
See? There’s plenty of application, explicitly given by the apostle. There’s no call for intentionally misinterpreting one word in the indicative portion of the passage in order to turn it into an imperative to “look goofy to the world.” Rather, proclaim the excellency of Christ as you abstain from fleshly passions and otherwise conduct yourself in an honorable manner as you continue to sojourn in this lost and dying world for the glory of God. Now that’s preaching that will strengthen the faith of believers! Thanks for spelling it out for us, Peter!
Now, going back to the Bible study at which I originally brought up this topic. You know how after you have a conversation, you think of things you should have, or could have said? Well, after I made my comments in the Q&A session after the lesson, the teacher thanked me for “showing us how much smarter I am than the rest of us.” If I’d had the presence of mind at the time, I would have, or could have, and indeed, should have, replied that it’s not about how smart I am; it’s about whether or not the minister of the Word is actually communicating what God is saying in the text.
“Those who don’t learn the lessons of history . . . “
Back on December 3rd, Todd Wilken interviewed Dr. Larry Rast, of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana 
on the Lutheran radio show, “Issues, Etc.” Dr. Rast explains that American Evangelicalism ascribes little relevance to the lessons of Church history, or the wisdom of building theologically on the efforts of those who’ve gone before us in the faith. Please listen and consider Dr. Rast’s words, and learn the lessons of history, lest you, too, join the ranks of those who are “doomed to repeat them.” He also reinforces the axiom that is sometimes repeated on this blog: “If you don’t know where you come from, then you don’t know where you are, and you can’t see where you’re going.”
Listen to “American Evangelicalism: Ahistorical.”
Pecuniary Satisfaction and Peculiar People, part 1
A week ago, on Dr. James White’s The Dividing Line webcast, I was listening to his coverage of the SBC’s John 3:16 conference, the effort of “moderate Calvinists” or perhaps more accurately, four point Arminians, to combat the rising tide of five point Calvinists who are graduating from SBC seminaries and ministering in SBC churches. Some discussion was made about a “pecuniary debt” being paid by Christ on the cross for every individual, as distinguished in the lecture being discussed, a “moral debt” which is paid by the believer who receives Christ by his own free will. This is only the second time since I’ve become a five point Calvinist myself, that I’ve heard reference made to this concept of “pecuniary debt.” Previous to this, I had a discussion with a few four-point Calvinists (which are predestinarians who deny that Christ died only for the elect) at Contend Earnestly. The term came up then, too, but, the discussion never moved toward exploring all the ins and outs of the concept. Indeed, the “pecuniary” view of Christ’s atonement, is a concept begging for my attention in the future. The reason I bring it up is to simply point out the fact that the word “pecuniary” was freshly bouncing around in my head before one Southern Baptist Bible study I attended last week.
In this Bible study, we happen to be studying Romans 12. But as is so often the case in Southern Baptist Bible study, the subject at hand often yields to the current events of the church, whether they have any bearing on the passage being studied or not. In this case, the current event under consideration was the semi-contemporary praise chorus, “A Chosen Generation,” which is a musical version of 1 Peter 2:9. This verse is very well-known even among Christians who generally deny the Calvinistic emphasis on God’s sovereign choice in election, or the covenantal unity of Israel and the Gentile Church as one chosen people, contrary to the dispensational “wrongly dividing” of the two groups into two separate chosen peoples. The thing that endears this verse to non-Reformed Southern Baptists is one particular phrase: “a peculiar people.” The King James Version translates the verse this way, and given the tendency to read the KJV in terms of today’s definitions and connotations, rather than remaining carefully on the look-out for archaisms, the phrase, “peculiar people,” lends itslef to a deeply engrained tradition of springboarding past exegetically-informed exposition to practical, relevant application to the Christian life.
I can’t reproduce verbatim what was said about the phrase, but I can characterize it or at least summarize it. God, in calling us a “peculiar people,” is implying that the church is different from the world; indeed, at times, the world may even consider what the church believes and does “peculiar,” or strange. This is the traditional moderate Calvinistic Baptist commentary on this whole verse. Rarely does anyone hear anything different in my experience. As I sat through the recitation of this unwritten creed, it struck me that the root word for “peculiar” is similar, if not the same as, the root for “pecuniary.” If pecuniary is associated with money or commerce, or wealth, it seemed possible that in the KJV of 1 Peter 2:9, we have another case of an archaic word being misread according to the twentieth century meaning of the word “peculiar.”
I held my tongue through the remainder of the class, but raised my hand to comment when so invited to at the end of the hour. I prefaced my concerns in my usual, self-depracating manner, telling the teacher I’m going to “nit pick” the word “peculiar.” Then I stated my concerns that when compared to the modern translation of 1 Peter 2:9, the traditional interpretation and application of “peculiar people” doesn’t seem to be the point of the text. Modern translations render the Greek here, “a people for his own possession,” so it’s not about believers seeming odd to the world, but rather about believers being God’s property. It’s not an imperative to be obeyed, but an indicative to be believed: the church is God’s possession.
. . . to be continued . . .
In Defense of “Xmas”
Last Friday night I went to a sizeable seeker-sensitive church which was hosting an elaborate “Journey to Bethlehem.” It was
a really impressive set up. Groups of a couple dozen each would be lead on a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem by a fictitious Jewish man and his wife and daughter. Along the way were intimidating Roman soldiers (some on horseback), lots of sheep, goats, ponies and even camels on hand. We were even held up by bandits on the road before we reached our destination: the stable offered by the keeper of the already booked “Bethlehem Inn.”
So many people turned out this year to go on the journey, that before we began, we spent a good 30-45 minutes being entertained in the sanctuary of the church–which I suppose they prefer to call the worship center. We enjoyed a Christmas version of “Don’t Forget the Lyrics,” a couple of puppet shows, and a few videos. One of the videos was a kind of spoof of a football player who wanted to make sure everyone around him kept Christ in Christmas–if they didn’t, he’d tackle them! It was a funny video. However, as usual, one of the football players’ poor victims was sporting the widely misunderstood holiday abbreviation, “Xmas.” She got tackled. How many times per Christmas season do you hear Christians around you complain whenever they see or hear someone use the word “Xmas”? I’ve personally lost count.
Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language has this short and helpful explanation. Among other uses of the the letter x, it reads, “As an abbreviation, X. stands for Christ, as in Xn. Christian; Xm. Christmas.” Why, you ask, does x stand for Christ? The letter x is not only the third from the last letter of the English alphabet, it is also the Greek letter, chi (pronounced “key”), which corresponds to the English “ch.” Chi is the first letter of the Greek name for Christ. Yes, Virginia, it is that simple. Here’s a simple Greek alphabet for your orientation.
If you’ve ever gotten nervous or felt someone was demeaning Christ by using the abbreviation “Xmas,” may I be the first to reassure you that such is not the case. Wikipedia has a very informative entry about the history of the use of Xmas, as well as the How Stuff Works website. Learn it, love it, live it.
Merry Xmas!!!
Mega-Churches Respond to Reveal Study
This week on the White Horse Inn, the topic is the response of American
mega-churches to the survey conducted by Willow Creek’s leadership (REVEAL) which concluded that the solution to dissatisfaction among faithful church members is less dependence on the organized church’s ministries, focusing on making individual Christians self-feeders.
For the record, here and here were my responses back when the survey originally made the headlines.
Listen to The White Horse Inn: learn what you believe and why you believe it.
Baptists & them “Whiskeypalians”
Sorry, Anglicans. Just a little Baptist humor, there. Just wanted to bring to the attention of my readers a couple of interesting psots: one by R. Scott Clark on the fallout from the SBC’s recent “John 3:16 Conference,” and another from Christianity Today with an update on the continuing drama in the schism of the Anglican Communion over the ordination of openly unrepentant “homosexuals.”
Commentary on “The First Prohibition”
The following is an addendum to Theological & Doxological Meditation #47, containing commentary on the
Scripture proofs which provide the basis for the answers to the questions of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. From now on, each Theological & Doxological Meditation will contain such commentary. They are offered with a view to the edification and instruction of believers and the calling of unbelievers to repentance and faith.
47. Q. What is forbidden in the first commandment?
A. The first commandment forbids the denying (Psalm 14:1), or not worshiping and glorifying the true God as God (Romans 1:21), and our God (Psalm 81:10-11); and the giving of that worship and glory to any other, which is due to him alone (Romans 1:25-26).
Question #47 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism focuses on the prohibitions implied by the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me.” Here’s what answer #47 looks like when you break down the various concepts and pair them up with the Scripture proofs provided, on which the language is based:
1. The first commandment forbids the denying . . . the true God . . . . (Psalm 14:1);
2. The first commandment forbids not worshiping and glorifying the true God as God (Romans 1:21);
3. The first commandment forbids the denying, or not worshipping the true God as God, and our God (Psalm 81:10-11);
4. The first commandment forbids . . . the giving of that worship and glory to any other, which is due to him alone (Romans 1:25-26)
Denying the True God
Psalm 14:1 – “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.”
The fool of verse one is the one who not only does not call upon the Lord (v.4), but he is also an “evildoer” who actively opposes those who do acknowledge the only true God. The fuller description of the fool of verse one is contained in verses two and three, which the Apostle Paul would quote in Romans 3 as a general description of all, whether Jew or Gentile, who are “under sin” (Romans 3:9), having not been justified by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone to the glory of God alone.
Not Worshiping and Glorifying the True God as God
Romans 1:21 – “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
Fools who deny and refuse to worship and glorify the true God know that he exists, and that they ought to worship and glorify him; but knowing this with futile minds and darkened hearts, they were unwilling and unable to express gratitude and honor to him. This is what happens when “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge” are not informed by, and obediently mindful of, God’s revelation. God reveals himself in the world and in his Word, and with darkened hearts and futile minds, Jew and Gentile alike does that which is prohibited by the first commandment—he does not worship and glorify the true God as God.
Our God
Psalm 81:10 – “I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt . Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it. 11 “But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me.”
As initiator of the covenant, God embraces the Israelites as “his people” and calls on them to “receive the covenant as an expression of his grace, believe in him and live as he directs (ESV Study Bible note on Ps. 81:8-10), embracing him as “our God.” This clearly implies the exclusivity which is so unpopular in pluralistic societies such as ours—such exclusivity is the solemn command of God. As Christians, if the Lord is our God, then the gods of non-Christian religions are to be excluded as “legitimate object(s) of worship” (Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith; Presbyterian & Reformed Publishers).
The Worship and Glory of Other Gods
Romans 1:25 – “because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;”
Finally, the crass outward exchanging of the only true God for false gods, or rather, in the terms of the catechism, “the giving of that worship and glory to any other, which is due to him alone.” Each command of the Decalogue (the “Ten Words”, aka, Ten Commandments) is written in terms of the most harmful outward expression of a whole range of sins, all of which are violations of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Law. Such a range is partly what the Westminster Shorter Catechism seems intending to convey in its repeated examination (as we shall notice in the weeks to come)of that which each command prescribes and prohibits.
As our Lord demonstrates in his commentary regarding some of God’s commands in the Sermon on the Mount, there are more ways than one to violate the commandments of God. Reformed theologians tend to categorize these ways in the following terms: each command implies the opposite prohibition, and vice versa (which the catechism expressly spells out); and every day we break God’s Law in thought, word and deed. Truly, God’s commands condemn us all in ways we will never be able to fully comprehend.
This is the reason it was necessary for God to take on a human nature untainted by the curse of original sin, that he might keep all of the commands and their implied prohibitions (and vice versa) in thought, word and deed perfectly every day of his life. This is called “the active obedience of Christ.” Christ obeyed the Law perfectly, which the first man, Adam, failed to do, and thus Christ earned eternal life by his flawless works. The righteousness accrued by the active obedience of Christ is freely available and offered to all who will believe, for when Christ was crucified, his unjust death was a sacrifice that propitiated, or turned away God’s furious wrath onto himself from the sins of all those God the Father gave to him before the world was made.
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24). Trust Christ today, and be saved from God’s wrath against all sins, chief among them being the giving of worship and glory to any other, that is due to him alone!
You Have Not Because You Ask Not!
- Introducing the All-New Captain Headknowledge!
Professional Clown Caricaturist, Angel Contreras is from Chicago, and he’s here to help! The beautiful new portrait of Captain Headknowledge you see to the right was a gift from the immensely talented artist whose artwork some of you may have noticed enhancing James White’s Alpha & Omega Ministries website (http://aomin.org). Well, you know, email is indeed one of God’s good gifts in this new electronic media! Need I say more?
Misadventures Around the Blogosphere
Attention: Commenter Kevin Moon–You’ve recently been expressing a serious desire (here and here)to observe me handle a blog topic with Scripture. Well, here you go, Brother! Whaddaya think?
In other news, I had a thing or two to say about the validity, or lack thereof, of Henry Morris’ brand of evangelical scientific creationism over at Fundamentally Reformed. Some of you may find this exchange challenging. If so, be sure to let me hear about it.
Theological & Doxological Meditation #47
The First Prohibition
Q. What is forbidden in the first commandment?
A. The first commandment forbids the denying (Psalm 14:1), or not worshiping and glorifying the true God as God (Romans 1:21), and our God (Psalm 81:10-11); and the giving of that worship and glory to any other, which is due to him alone (Romans 1:25-26).
As With Gladness, Men Of Old
#226, Trinity Hymnal (© 1990)
William C. Dix, 1860
As with gladness, men of old
Did the guiding star behold
As with joy they hailed its light
Leading onward, beaming bright
So, most glorious Lord, may we
Evermore be led to Thee.
As with joyful steps they sped
To that lowly manger bed
There to bend the knee before
Him Whom Heaven and earth adore;
So may we with willing feet
Ever seek Thy mercy seat.
As they offered gifts most rare
At that manger rude and bare;
So may we with holy joy,
Pure and free from sin’s alloy,
All our costliest treasures bring,
Christ, to Thee, our heavenly King.
Holy Jesus, every day
Keep us in the narrow way;
And, when earthly things are past,
Bring our ransomed souls at last
Where they need no star to guide,
Where no clouds Thy glory hide.
In the heavenly country bright,
Need they no created light;
Thou its Light, its Joy, its Crown,
Thou its Sun which goes not down;
There forever may we sing
Alleluias to our King!
Bob Memed Me
Bob memed me. Apparently, this is some blogging game. Guess I’ll play along. But first, of course, I had to
check out Wikipedia on “meme.” Did you know it’s roots lie in evolutionary theory, ala Richard Dawkins (you know, the famous atheist?–boy, this stuff is begging for the right uptight Christian blogger to step up on the nearest soapbox!) 😉 This recent theory got applied to the internet to create the phenomenon of the “internet meme.”
Okay, Bob says the rules are find the nearest book; open to page 123; count the first five full sentences; post the following three sentences; tag five other bloggers. Okay, here goes. The book I found is called Theodosia Ernest Or, The Heroine of Faith (you can read it online here), by nineteenth century Baptist Successionist A. C. Dayton at the suggestion of J. R. Graves (the father of modern Baptist Successionism in America). The story of Theodosia Ernest is a fictitious debate sparked by the discovery of a young Presbyterian lady that the Bible seemed to her to better support “Baptist baptism” than it does the Presbyterian infant baptism which she’d received herself. A debate ensues between her pastor and a Baptist preacher (I think one or two others, but I forget) about what the Bible and church history (read the Baptist Successionist theory of church history) reveal about baptism. Anyway, here’s the quote:
“It is embapto, bapto, or baptizo, young gentlemen. Why did you not refer to your English and Greek Lexicon? That would have enabled you to answer the question for yourselves.”
So, there you have it. Hope that was worthwhile. Now, Alan, Matthew, Kyle, Christian, Sean–tag! You’ve been memed!
Did I do it right, Bob?
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 