Author Archive: John D. Chitty

A Primer for Fantasy-Phobes

By John D. Chitty on | 3 Comments

Over at the Modern Reformation website, a very helpful article is posted by Dr. Donald Williams, Director of the School of Arts and Sciences and Professor of English at Toccoa Falls College, in which Dr. Williams gives his reflections on the literary and philosophical basis of the now complete Harry Potter series of novels and how they intersect with the biblical teachings that erect the proper boundaries between good and bad fantasy. It’s the kind of intelligent analysis that could do the hearts and minds of fantasy-spooked fundamentalists and evangelicals a great deal of good.

How is it biblically justifiable to portray characters who use magic?

Do fantasy stories ever convey a moral or point which can benefit Christian readers, or should we focus on, and boycott, externals?

How did Harry Potter author, J. K. Rowling, do in keeping within the bounds of biblically-regulated fantasy?
Questions like these are at least indirectly addressed in Dr. Williams’ essay.

Posted in: Current Evangelical Trends, Saluting Real Captains Headknowledge, Theological Issues, Toward a Modern Reformation

Theolgical & Doxological Meditations #37

By John D. Chitty on | 4 Comments


Q. What benefits do believers receive from Christ at death?

A. The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness (Hebrews 12:23),
and do immediately pass into glory (Philippians 1:23);
and their bodies, being still united to Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:14),
do rest in their graves (Isaiah 57:2) till the resurrection

I Know That My Redeemer Lives

I know that my Redeemer lives,
and ever prays for me;
a token of his love he gives,
a pledge of liberty.

I find him lifting up my head;
he brings salvation near;
his presence makes me free indeed
and he will soon appear.

He wills that I should holy be:
who can withstand his will?
The counsel of his grace in me
he surely shall fulfill.

Jesus, I hang upon your Word:
I steadfastly believe
you will return and claim me,
Lord, and to yourself receive.
Posted in: Theological and Doxological Meditations

End Time Redux

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, Pastor of Christ Reformed Church, Anaheim, California, Co-Host of The White Horse Inn Radio Show and Author of A Case For Amillennialism, and Man of Sin, posted a notice about a third revision of the late, leading dispensational scholar, John Walvoord’s book originally entitled Oil, Armageddon and the Middle East. The post is called, “Old Dispensationalists Never Die . . . And They Never Seem To Fade Away.” I share his opinion that the reason books like Walvoord’s must be continually revised, updating the facts of current events, is because Dipsensational Premillennialism is fundamentally flawed as a way of interpreting Scripture in general and end-times prophecy (eschatology) in particular.
For the record, as the biblical alternative to Dispensationalism, I am learning how Scripture is correctly interpreted along the lines of what is today called Covenant Theology, or Covenantal Hermeneutics.
Posted in: Christocentricity, Current Evangelical Trends, Saluting Real Captains Headknowledge, Theological Issues, Toward a Modern Reformation

Second Creation, Second Adam

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

1. Noah is the earthly Second Adam. God used him to recreate a world in which the people to whom he promised salvation would be able to find it in the spiritual Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ.

a. The Earth was created by being brought out from under the water (Gen. 1:1-2, 6-10), and it was recreated by being brought out from under the water (Gen. 8:13-19).

b. When God created the world, he made a creation covenant which detailed how things were to be done on the Earth, and after the flood, he made a new creation covenant that built on the original one (9:1-17).

i. Repeats the command to multiply (vs. 1, 7).
ii. Allows man to eat meat for the first time (vs. 2-4).
iii. Institutes death sentence for those who commit murder (vs. 5-6).
iv. God promises mercy with a covenant sign, the rainbow (vs. 8-17).

2. Jesus was the spiritual Second Adam because Adam was the photographic negative of Jesus(Romans 5:14-19).

a. All whom Adam represented were condemned to die as sinners because of his one sin; All whom Jesus represented are justified to live righteous because of his one act of obedience.

b. Jesus, the spiritual Second Adam, is the Seed of the Woman (Genesis 3:15) whom Noah trusted and obeyed; like Noah, we are called to trust and obey Jesus (John 3:16).

Posted in: Christocentricity, Misadventures in Exposition

The God-Given Righteousness of Noah

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

“This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. And Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” Genesis 6:9-12

The God who promised to send the Seed of the Woman to crush the Serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15) gave Noah the faith to believe this promise. God was the ultimate basis of Noah’s righteousness. The way in which the Seed of the Woman would crush the Serpent’s head, destroying Satan’s power through sin over God’s chosen, had not yet been revealed. Noah did not know how God’s promised Seed would save him from sin, he just believed that he would. As we study through the Old Testament, we’ll learn that God reveals his plan to save sinners progressively, a little bit at a time.

Our lives are like that. We set goals, but we don’t know everything we’ll need to do yet, or what will happen to us before we reach our goal, but these details become clear to us day by day. This is the way it works with the history of God’s work of redemption from sin. First we learn the big picture: God had announced his plan to send Someone to defeat the great enemy of our souls; then, bit by bit, who this Someone is, and how he’s going to defeat this enemy slowly became clear to people like Adam, Seth, Enoch and Noah one detail at a time. A few of these details are revealed to us in the righteous life of Noah.

By his grace, God promised to deliver Noah from the flood of judgment which he and the entire world deserved (Genesis 6:18), and Noah believed God’s promise, so one of the factors of Noah’s righteous life was faith. This faith in God’s promise was the basis for Noah’s righteous life, but it was not his faith that saved him, it was the gracious, promise-keeping God who chose to save him that was the ultimate basis of his righteousness and his salvation. Noah was a righteous man because God made Noah a righteous man.

The other factor that adds up to righteousness for Noah was his obedience to God’s commands. God gave Noah very specific instructions to build an ark (Genesis 6:14-16), what size to build it, what to build it with, how to build it and how many of the various beasts, birds and bugs to gather into the ark (Genesis 6:19-20). The testimony of Moses was that Noah obeyed all that God commanded him to do (Genesis 6:22). Yet this obedience by itself did not earn for Noah his status as a righteous man. Remember he was righteous by God’s grace through the faith granted to him by God (see Ephesians 2:8-9) with which he believed the God of the promise of salvation from sin, Satan and the flood. Noah’s faith was the root of Noah’s obedience. Noah’s obedience was the fruit of Noah’s faith. Therefore Noah’s faith evidenced by his obedience was what Moses was talking about when he wrote that Noah was a righteous man (Genesis 6:9).

God saves us the same way. All of us were born with Adam’s guilt legally imputed to us (Romans 5:12-14) by virtue of the fact that Adam represented us in the covenant with God which he violated when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3; cf. Hosea 6:7). In addition to this, we were born, having inherited a corrupt human nature that wants nothing but sin (Romans 3:10-18), unable to do anything (Romans 8:7) that will please him (Hebrews 11:6) and save ourselves. As things stand, we deserve death and an eternity of suffering the wrath of God.

But out of the mass of condemned humanity, a remnant finds favor with God (Genesis 6:8; cf. Romans 11:5-7). Because of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection for sinners, God looks on this remnant with grace and gives them the faith (Acts 13:48; 18:27) to trust the work of Christ that is preached to everybody (Mark 16:15). We then rely on his grace to give us the obedience with which we show our thanks and love for the work of Christ on the cross (John 14:15). So we learn how God saved us in the Bible, and we also learn how to respond to this good news in grateful love by learning the commands of God—because true faith works by love (Galatians 5:6). That’s how we can be remembered as a righteous man or a righteous woman after our story has been told, just like Noah, by a God-given faith in Christ that obeys God’s commands.

Posted in: Christocentricity, Doctrines of Grace, Misadventures in Exposition, Theological Issues

In The Even You Are Seated Next To A Calvinist

By John D. Chitty on | 4 Comments


Click on the image above and you can read your anti-Calvin safety procedures. . .

Fortunately, I wasn’t aware of these procedures when I was cornered by Calvinists.
What invokes such fear in the hearts of non-Calvinists? The fear that they aren’t in control?
I fear what would happen if I was in control!

Acts 13:46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
“‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 18:27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed . . . .

Romans 11:1-10
11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,eyes that would not seeand ears that would not hear,down to this very day.”
9 And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,a stumbling block and a retribution for them;10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,and bend their backs forever.”

Romans 9:14-18
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

To God Alone Be the Glory!

Posted in: Christocentricity, Doctrines of Grace, Theological Issues, Toward a Modern Reformation

Kingdom Coffers: Rabbit Trail on Government and Reformation

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Yesterday, I concluded my post by promising to give you “more on the government’s ability to inhibit Reformation later . . . ” Well, it’s later. The following passage from the following book, coupled with the interesting historical summary on tithing in the Wikipedia entry I recommended yesterday, is the source of my thinking in yesterday’s post. Tell me what you think. For until someone gives me better info to correct my thinking, that’s what I’m going to think. Happy reading!

By Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., LL. D. Principal, The United Free Church College, Glasgow, Scotland.

Introduction

4. The Reformed Ideal of Ecclesiastical Government.

This similarity of published creed was the one positive bond which united all those Churches; but it may also be said that all of them, with the doubtful exception of the Church of England, would have nothing to do with the consistorial system of the Lutheran Churches, and that most of them accepted in theory at least Calvin’s conception of ecclesiastical government. They strove to get away from the medieval ideas of ecclesiastical rule, and to return to the principles which they believed to be laid down from them in the New Testament, illustrated by the conduct of the Church of the early centuries. The Church, according to Calvin, was a theocratic democracy, and the ultimate source of authority lay in the membership of the Christian community, inspired by the Presence of Christ promised to all His people.

But in the sixteenth century this conception was confronted and largely qualified in practice, by the dread that it might lead to a return to the clerical tutelage of the medieval Church from which they had just escaped. Presbyter might become priest writ large; and the leaders of the Reformation in many lands could see, as Zwingli did in Zurich and Cranmer in England, that the civil authorities might well represent the Christian democracy. Even Calvin in Geneva had to content himself with ecclesiastical ordinances which left the Church completely under the control of les tres honnores seigneurs syndicques et conseil de Geneve; and the Scottish “Supreme Governor of this realm as well in things temporal as in the conservation and purgation of religion.” The nations and principalities in Western Europe which had adopted and supported the Reformation believed that manifold abuses had arisen in the past, directly and indirectly, through the exemption of the Church and its possessions from secular control, and they were determined not to permit the possibility of a return to such a state of things.

The scholarship of the Renaissance had discovered the true text of the old Roman Civil Code, and one of the features of that time of transition–perhaps its most important and far-reaching feature, for law enters into every relation of human life–was the substitution of civil law based on the Codes of Justinian and Theodosius, for canon law based on the Decretum of Gratian. These old Roman codes taught the lawyers and statesmen of the sixteenth century to look upon the Church as a department of the State; and the thought that the Christian community had an independent life of its own, and that its guidance and discipline ought to be in the hands of office-bearers chosen by its membership, was everywhere confronted, modified, largely overthrown by the imperious claim of the civilian lawyers.

Ecclesiastical leaders within the Reformed Churches might strive as they liked to draw the line between the possessions of the church, which they willingly placed under the control of civil law, and its discipline in matters of faith and morals, which they declared to be the inalienable possession of the Church; but, as a rule, the State refused to perceive the distinction, and insisted in maintaining full control over the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it came about that in every land where the secular authorities were favourable to the Reformation, the Church became more or less subject to the State; and this resulted in a large variety of ecclesiastical organisations in communities all belonging to the Reformed Church. While it may be said with perfect truth that the churchly ideal in the minds of the leaders in most of the Reformed Churches was to restore the theocratic democracy of the early centuries, and that this was a strong point of contrast between them and Luther, who insisted that the jus episcopale belonged to the civil magistrate, in practice the secular authorities in Switzerland, the Netherlands, the Palatinate, etc., kept almost as tight a hold on the Reformed national Churches as did the Lutheran princes and municipalities. In one land only, France, the ecclesiastical ideal of Calvin had full liberty to embody itself in a constitution, and that only because the French Reformed Church struggled into existence under the civil rule of a Romanist State, and, like the Christian Church of the early centuries, maintained itself in spite of the opposition of the secular authorities which persecuted it (pages 7-9).
Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History, Toward a Modern Reformation

Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 3

By John D. Chitty on | 2 Comments

The History of the Relationship Between Church, State and Tithing

I highly recommend that everyone read the Wikipedia entry on the Tithe. It gave me some very interesting insight into the way in which the historically blurred line between church and state has helped to seal in our minds the assumption that giving ten percent of one’s income (at least) is a New Covenant principle.

It seems that the Roman Catholic Church adopted tithing from the Old Testament as a workable, pragmatic model to ensure a regular income for their growing heirarchy. As you know, Rome during the middle ages exerted enormous influence over the nations of Europe, during which millennium, the concept of tithing became well ingrained. Thus, when the Reformation began, the governments of Europe seized the opportunity to protect themselves from similar influence from the diverse Protestant churches, by themselves exerting influence over the church, rather than allowing the status quo to continue at the hands of these upstart Protestants.

Part of this influence was in the various ways the governments of Europe extracted “tithes” from the people and supported their various state churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, etc.), which trend has just in the past couple of hundred years begun to diminish. Here’s an example of how America “dun good!” (for once, if you consider Americanism’s various other less than fortunate influences on American Christianity–no nation is exempt from syncretism) in refusing to take money from the church and give money to the church (the current President excepted–I wonder what other Presidents have likewise contradicted this national emphasis in other ways? That would be an interesting history lesson . . . ). Another way the government prevented complete Reformation was on the issue of the Lord’s Supper (at least in “Calvin’s Geneva”). But I’m done with that topic for now, but the comments apparently keep rolling in, much to my glee!

More on the government’s ability to inhibit Reformation later . . .

Posted in: Current Evangelical Trends, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History, Toward a Modern Reformation

Kingdom Coffers: “Flat Tax” or “Love Offering”? Part 2

By John D. Chitty on | 4 Comments

Abram, Melchizedek and “Christian Tithing”

Is it, or is it not, appropriate to call our giving to God in the church “the tithe,” applying Mosaic principles regulating the giving of it (“Will a man rob God?”), and stressing its importance (“The tithe is the LORD’s!!!”), or would it be more biblical to simply “purpose” in one’s own heart how much he ought to give, in order to ensure that it is given with love (1 Corinthians 13:3) or, as Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians, as a “cheerful giver?”

It is held by many that tithing is only a part of the civil/ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law and it is, therefore, assumed to be abrogated in the New Testament, in which Paul gives a New Covenant principle of “cheerful giving.” In light of this argument, Christian tithing is defended on the grounds that Abram’s tithing to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:20b) precedes the Mosaic Law and thus ought to be retained after the civil/ceremonial parts of the Mosaic Law are abrogated. For example, consider the Statement of Faith of the World Baptist Fellowship, International. In Section 20 on “The Grace of Giving,” it reads, Under grace we give, and do not pay, the tithe – “Abraham GAVE a tenth part of all” – “Abraham GAVE the tenth of the spoils” – Hebrews 7:2-4 – and this was four hundred years before the law, and is confirmed in the New Testament; Jesus said concerning the tithe, “These ye ought to have done” – Matt. 23:23.

This was the view with which I had been raised. In fact, the Statement of Faith I just cited was the one adopted by the church in which I was saved and baptized. Ever since I’ve been earning money, I’ve been striving to be faithful to this principle. My current church is the first to which I have belonged which specifically denies this concept of some kind of eternal principle about tithing that ought to be retained, even though the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Law have been abrogated. I have been considering the relative merits of both views for the last few years.
If tithing is an eternal principle which transcends the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace by virtue of Abram’s tithing to Melchizedek, then tithing ought to be retained in Christian worship, further informed, I would say, above and beyond the letter of tithing by Paul’s teaching on evidencing one’s love for the Lord and the people of God by the cheerful giving of that which the believer purposes in his heart in gratitude for the Lord’s blessings (2 Corinthians 8-9).

But if it is a mere aspect of the temporary civil/ceremonial laws, then it is abrogated by Christ and the Pauline giving principle is the only rule for the people of God today. So the challenge for me has been to evaluate whether or not the Abram/Melchizedek tithe in Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7 is a valid basis for the idea that tithing is demanded outside the Mosaic Law.

One of the points that got me thinking about this issue is the claim that the New Testament does not expressly command tithing, therefore it ought not be retained. This argument that there is no explicit New Testament command to tithe was coming off as another application of the same argument invalidly used (in my mind, with all due respect) by Baptists when they argue against pedobaptism. It did not sit well with me to hear pedobaptists using this line of reasoning. So the question is raised in my mind as to just what it is about the New Testament that abrogates the practice of tithing?

There are New Testament Scriptures abrogating everything from sacrificing animals (Hebrews 10:9) to eating unclean animals (Acts 10:9-16); but nothing was surfacing as I searched the Scriptures in my mind that explicitly abrogates the principle of giving ten percent of one’s income to the church. In my mind, this pointed to the perpetuity of tithing as a New Covenant principle.

So that’s what helped me think to scrutinize the Abram/Melchizedek tithing account. How does the New Testament treat this passage? Does its treatment affect the tithing question? Simple answers:

The New Testament treats the Abram/ Melchizedek tithing account as a type fulfilled by Christ. The very same New Testament book which gives the apostolic interpretation also warns us against reinstating Christ-fulfilled types and shadows. So if the account of Abram tithing to Melchizedek typifies the superiority of Christ to the Levitical priesthood, then this Old Testament passage is irrelevant to the question of giving in Christian worship. Therefore, I conclude that the New Testament treatment of that Old Testament account does affect the tithing question by taking this event off the table as a passage to be considered in the context of Christian giving. To do so would be tantamount to returning to Old Testament types and shadows.

Therefore, it is not a misguided baptistic argument to say that New Covenant believers don’t tithe because the new Testament doesn’t command us to tithe but does command us to give cheerfully that which we purpose in our hearts to give as we have been blessed. This is an offering made in the context of New Covenant worship that is pleasing to the Lord!

An IFB associate pastor friend of mine counters this argument with the principle, “There is one interpretation, but there are many applications,” as justification to take this passage about how much greater Christ is than Levi and apply it to the doctrines of giving in New Covenant worship. While it may be true that there are (at least some of them) many applications, those applications are accountable to the one interpretation, rightly exegeted. Does the application of the Abram/Melchizedek type to “Christian tithing” meet this exegetical standard?

Posted in: Baptist, Christocentricity, Current Evangelical Trends, Misadventures in Exposition, Theological Issues, Toward a Modern Reformation

Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 1

By John D. Chitty on | 7 Comments

I think the controversy between Paul and the Judaizers in Galatia and the subsequent church council may be relevant to the question of how biblical the concept and practice of tithing is. As we all know, the apostles who actually walked and talked with Jesus during his earthly ministry stuck around Jerusalem and did little in the way of what Jesus said they’d do in Acts 1:8 as far as being his witness not only in Jerusalem and Judea, but then to move over to preach to the Samaritans and then extend the preaching of Christ to the “uttermost parts of the earth.” It took the providence of God through the unpleasant means of persecution at the hands of, among other Jewish leaders, one Saul of Tarsus. This persecution chased the First Church of Jerusalem to begin “planting” churches in Gentile lands for the sake of their very skins (after all, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”). Then, as he was on his way to Damascus to continue persecuting Christians, Saul is confronted by, and converted to, the very one he was ultimately persecuting, the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 9:1-6). In this event, the Lord informs Paul of his plan to send him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 26:16-17). Among the churches born out of this foundational missionary work came the churches of Galatia.
These Galatian churches are the ones which were plagued by the Judaizing heresy, in which Gentile Christians were taught by their elder Jewish Christian brethren, that now that they were following the Jewish Messiah, they needed to take things a step further and begin receiving the sign of the Mosaic covenant (circumcision). The Judaizers became so influential that even the apostle Peter was motivated to endorse their dangerous emphasis (Galatians 2:11-14). This is what sparked the controversy. Paul confronted Peter about how they shouldn’t be teaching Gentiles to incorporate the types and shadows of the Mosaic Law into their faith and practice, because this tendency is compromising the gospel, and endangering the eternal souls of Gentile professing believers. The controversy became so significant that the apostles decided to deliberate about this issue in what we now know as the Jerusalem church council. This apostolic council’s conclusions are recorded in Acts 15. Considering just what, if any, practices based on the civil, ceremonial and dietary laws of Israel ought to, or can profitably, be imposed on Gentile Christian converts, they resolved to reduce the burden to four things, three dealt with food (Acts 15:29), its preparation and its relevance to unbelieving religious customs, and one issue relevant to the purity of the New Testament temple of the Holy Spririt (sexual immorality, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:12-20). Notice, here, what Mosaic Covenant practices are not included. The one that applies to this writing is the laws regarding the tithe (Numbers 18:24-28). The apostles thought about it, and decided (in so many words) that, among other things, they didn’t need to teach Gentile Christians to give specifically (or even at least) ten percent of their produce or income in whatever form it may exist.
But the question may be raised: did the tithe not predate the Law, since Abram tithed to Melchizedek? We’ll examine this issue next time.
Posted in: Current Evangelical Trends, Misadventures in Exposition, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History, Toward a Modern Reformation

The Reason for the Flood (Genesis 6:1-8)

By John D. Chitty on | 2 Comments

Cainites population swelled–they had many “daughters of men.”

Just as Eve, one of the priests of the Garden/Temple, saw how good was the forbidden fruit and took it, so do professing believers follow the same pattern into apostasy. As Eve fell, so did the Sethites fall away.

God annoucned that the days were numbered for the world as they knew it.

4) Giants on earth then, before and after Sethites apostatized with Cainites (my paraphrase) Giants were mighty men of renown who dominated the world and probably persecuted the Sethites (See Kline, Meredith, Kingdom Prologue). In those days there was no government to restrain evil, so it flourished and the church suffered.

5) “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Man hated God and struck out against God’s image through murder. God was angry with man, because man only ever wanted to sin. Man is so sinful that there is nothing we can do to gain God’s favor. We were unable to save ourselves from our state of sin and misery into which the race of man fell when Adam sinned and God cursed the earth. This state of sin and misery had only been getting worse and worse until the point that God announced his great disfavor for them and his great anger with them.

6) The LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. One thing you have to understand about God is that he reveals himself to us in ways that we can understand. Moses portrays God as experiencing human-like emotion of sorrow and grief, but this does not mean that God does not always know what he is doing and he never makes mistakes. God’s disfavor for the children of Cain and the apostate children of Seth was so great, he no longer wanted to allow them to live on the earth. Gill, “that is, he resolved within himself to destroy him.”

7) So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
God reveals his plan to wipe out the race because he is so angry with them. If God was a man, he’d regret having made them. But God is infinitely wise and is working according to his eternal plan. God is doing things this way because he is revealing to us what it will be like at the end of the world. The events in God’s world history happen to teach us something about what it will be like when Christ returns to judge the world once and for all (see 2 Peter 3:3-7).

8) But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Noah was the one exception of all the people in the world who deserve God’s wrath. It was true that Noah was born with the guilt of Adam’s sin imputed to him; it is true that Noah naturally rebelled against God and committed sins for which he, like the Cainites and apostate Sethites, deserved to be blotted out of the face of the land; but for a reason that has nothing to do with Noah’s behavior or spiritual condition and everything to do with God’s faithfulness to his promise to defeat the Serpent’s seed through the Woman’s Seed. Even though God was so angry with Noah’s generation, God still intended to keep his promise to save sinners, so he granted that Noah alone should believe this promise (Hebrews 11:7). When people believe God’s promises about salvation, God chooses to see these people as if they have always obeyed God and never sinned against him or anyone else. By grace (God’s favor) we are saved through faith which has been given to us by God (Eph. 2:8-9), so Noah didn’t earn God’s favor for God’s grace allowed Noah to believe and God alone deserves glory for the salvation of all who believe his good news!

The above outline was the basis for what I taught my 4th-6th graders at Shady Grove Baptist Church in North Richland Hills, Texas yesterday, July 15, 2007. Thoughts? Questions? Critiques?
Posted in: Christocentricity, Misadventures in Exposition

Why Weekly Communion?

By John D. Chitty on | 9 Comments

A few years ago, the church Dr. Tom Browning used to serve as Associate Pastor, lead their congregation to adopt the practice of weekly communion. Following is the text of a brochure that was printed to make the case for weekly communion in a series of concise statements, referring to the relevant Scriptures and historical sources. I find it a very helpful resource, so I wanted to share it with you.

WHY WEEKLY COMMUNION?
While the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not common in Protestant churches, we at Arlington Presbyterian believe it to be the biblical and preferred practice for the following reasons:

THE PRACTICE OF THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH
Although we do not have any clear-cut command, the New Testament evidence does seem to point in the direction of weekly communion, especially if one understands “the breaking of bread” to be a reference to the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-20; cf. 14:26).

EVIDENCE FROM CHURCH HISTORY
There are very clear and early (second century) allusions to the practice in the Didache and Justin Martyr’s The First Apology. While the history of the Church does not have the authority of God’s Word, it at least ought to interest us that the Christian community observed this practice, apparently without much discussion, so shortly after the time of the Apostles.

CONSISTENCY WITH OUR USE OF OTHER ELEMENTS OF WORSHIP
Why should the Lord’s Supper be the only regular element of worship which does not find a place in each Lord’s Day worship service? To be consistent, any argument against weekly communion would be an equally valid argument against weekly hymn-singing, weekly praying, weekly preaching, and so on.

BRINGING US BACK TO BASICS
Regardless of the sermon text or topic, the congregation is always brought back to the fundamentals—the death and resurrection of Christ (Matthew 26:26-28).

APPEAL TO THE WHOLE MAN
Since the Lord’s Supper is the only element of worship that appeals to all five senses, its weekly observance helps to prevent an “intellectualizing” of the worship service. If we do not celebrate the Sacrament frequently, we should not be surprised when our members leave Reformed worship for something more “stimulating.”

OPPORTUNITY FOR COVENANT RENEWAL
The Lord’s Supper is the ideal means of meditating on God’s Word and renewing our faith and repentance so that we may serve the Lord in the upcoming week (Acts 20:7).

PROVIDING ASSURANCE, PERSONALIZING THE GOSPEL
Every week the believer receives tangible and visible assurance that Christ died for him (Matthew 26:28).

IDENTIFICATION WITH THE PEOPLE OF GOD
This Sacrament stresses the corporate dimension of the Church, thereby promoting unity and the restoration of broken relationships. Don’t we need this every week (1 Cor. 10:16-17)?

CHURCH DISCIPLINE
One of the stages of discipline in many Reformed churches is suspension from the Lord’s Table. One of the purposes of this is to make the unrepentant sinner aware of his sin that he might be restored. But how effective can this be if the Lord’s Supper is not celebrated frequently? Even once a month would not seem to constitute effective suspension (1 Cor. 5:11-13).

VISIBLE MARK OF A DISCIPLE OF CHRIST
There is always the need to distinguish believer from unbeliever (Eph. 5:6-8). Since one of the purposes of the Sacraments is to make this difference visible, we should produce this visible difference often.

NATURAL PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL TO UNBELIEVERS
By setting forth so plainly the work of Christ on the cross, and especially by fencing the table, any unbelievers present are called to faith and repentance. Weekly communion thus provides a natural and regular opportunity to present the claims of Christ to visitors.

SPIRITUAL NOURISHMENT
Since the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace, through faith it provides us with what we need to grow in grace. Thus, the frequent partaking of the bread and the wine for our spiritual nourishment is as necessary as the frequent partaking of food for our physical nourishment (1 Cor. 10:16).

CALL TO SELF-EXAMINATION AND REPENTANCE
Such should be our daily practice. Weekly communion reminds us of this and gives us opportunity to actually do so on a regular basis (1 Cor. 11:27-32).

REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
One of the problems with an infrequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper is that it tends to produce unrealistically high expectations as to what should “happen.” People expect something magical and exciting to happen at quarterly communion, but are often disappointed; they go away wondering what they missed and why they missed it. By celebrating the Lord’s Supper each week our expectations become realistically high; we look forward to and enjoy it much as we do prayer, preaching, singing, and the other elements of Christian worship.

TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD!

Prepared by the Staff and Session of Arlington Presbyterian Church
1320 West Pioneer Parkway, Arlington, Texas 76103
Phone 817-261-8938; Fax 817-459-1136; Email mailto:info@apcweb.org

Posted in: Current Evangelical Trends, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History, Toward a Modern Reformation

Observant Protestantism and "True Christianity"

By John D. Chitty on | 2 Comments

The emphasis upon the indispensible nature of the church’s ministry in creating and nurturing faith in the hearts of God’s people gives rise to an interesting linguistic phenomenon to which D. G. Hart alludes in his book Recovering Mother Kirk: Why is it that Jews and Roman Catholics are usually described as observant or nonobservant while Protestants are classified either as true, genuine Christians or formal, dead ones?
This type of nomenclature betrays the latent pietism of much of evangelical Protestantism, for rites and practices such as baptism, church membership, corporate worship, and communion are all dismissed as incidental, if not inimical, to “true Christianity.” “The fact that American Protestants do not use the nomenclature of observance,” writes Hart, “demonstrates just how complete the triumph of evangelicalism has been.” (D.G. Hart, Recovering Mother Kirk (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003)).
But if being Reformed is more than just a state of mind and actually involves participating in certain corporate, religious ceremonies, then perhaps formal, observant, churchly Christianity is not the bane of Protestantism after all. In fact, the insistence on the part of proponents of confessional, Reformed Christianity that our faith not be divorced from its ritualistic practice means that the sharp division between creed and deed made by church leaders like Rick Warren is unthinkable for us.
The divorce of “true Christianity” from its corporate practice is dangerous and unwarranted, particularly when the so-called “essence” of the faith is so mystical, personal, and romantic that it defies definition. To be sure, “I Wanna Know What Love Is” may still be the heart’s cry of many, but the love that Jesus demonstrated for his people, and the love they return to him, is more concrete than what is evoked by much of the “Jesus Is My Boyfriend” sentiment that is equated with genuine Christianity in the contemporary American church.
My point, then, is that the faith-once-delivered is also the faith-corporately-practiced. Ironically, the evangelical penchant for identifying the locus of “real Christianity” in some internal experience or “religious affection,” or in the practice of an extra-canonical sacrament such as quiet times or afterglows, is to fall prey to the Jesus of History/Christ of Faith dilemma so characteristic of early twentieth-century liberalism. After all, removing true Christianity from its objective, liturgical (see also “leitourgia“, e.g. Philippians 2:17) context leaves us with nowhere else to put it but into a realm that we can only hope to understand by playing God (and he hates it when his creatures do that…).
Like their evangelical brethren, confessional Reformed believers desire to see the Christian faith demonstrated in the lives of those who profess it. But rather than the litmus test being one’s devotional life, voting record, or collection of Left Behind novels, it should be sought in the fact that those who confess Christ gather together each Lord’s Day around Word and sacrament, confessing their sins, singing his praises, and hearing, eating, and drinking the gospel of Jesus Christ.

from the article, “Where Grace is Found,” in the July/August, 2007 issue of Modern Reformation Magazine.
Posted in: Current Evangelical Trends, Toward a Modern Reformation

Read the Captain’s Reformation Diary Entry!

By John D. Chitty on | 2 Comments

Have you seen the new website at modernreformation.org? One of their new features is the Reformation Diary, where ordinary folks like myself may submit an entry.

You can read how the Lord worked in my life over the years until he got me in position to finally relent to the truth of the sovereign grace of God in election, as well as reforming my views on church government, the sacraments, eschatology, and on and on.

Mine is the June 21, 2007 entry.

Reformata, Semper Reformanda!
Posted in: Captain Headknowledge: The Early Years, Toward a Modern Reformation

The Fall and Curse

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Here’s your chance to critique my Sunday School notes! Did I miss the mark? Share your comments, questions, critiques. . .

The Fall and Curse (Genesis 3)


3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”
2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

· Serpent/Satan: A liar (John 8:44); disguises as good to work bad (2 Cor. 11:14)

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths

· 1 John 2:16 “desires of the flesh, eyes, and pride”
· on shame, see Heb. 4:13; Rev. 3:18

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” (Opportunity for Adam to Confess)
10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”
11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

· Fig leaves fail to cover sin, next try—pass the buck! We must accept responsibility for our actions and we must confess our sins honestly to God.

14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,cursed are you above all livestockand above all beasts of the field;on your belly you shall go,and dust you shall eatall the days of your life.15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring; (Heb. 2:14; Revelation 12:13-17; 20:1-3, 10)he shall bruise your head,and you shall bruise his heel.”

· From Eve’s offspring will come Abraham’s Offspring—Jesus!
· The first time the gospel is preached in the Bible!
· New Testament Perspective: 1 John 3:4-10—Jesus has destroyed the Devil’s works; believers are born of God, gaining ability to learn to obey God.

MISERY ENTERS THE EXPERIENCE OF MAN
16 To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be for your husband,and he shall rule over you.”

· “Battle of the sexes” Originally, man lovingly lead, woman voluntarily submitted; since Fall, woman works to take control and man forces his leadership.
· New Testament Perspective: 1 Timothy 2:8-15—Minor on outward beauty; major on inner beauty through good works; women shouldn’t pastor, taking authority over man; “childbearing”? Ephesian false teachers dissed marriage; “c/b-ing” represents whole of married life by its product, Paul encouraging women to accept their proper role and through believing the gospel, gratefully loving their family, church and neighbor, devoting themselves to God & avoiding sin and generally controlling yourself, you’ll be saved.

17 And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
(didn’t lovingly lead, but followed the misguided leadership of his wife)and have eaten of the treeof which I commanded you,‘You shall not eat of it,’cursed is the ground because of you;in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;and you shall eat the plants of the field.19 By the sweat of your faceyou shall eat bread,till you return to the ground,for out of it you were taken;for you are dust,and to dust you shall return.”

· Fruitlessness added to man’s work; God’s good gifts, now not so good.
· I.E., God says, “You won’t die yet, but will live with misery to humble you, reminding you to guard against sin
· New Testament Perspective: Romans 5:12-21

20 The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. 21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

· Animals for man’s use—new need arises: God covers their shame with animal skins.
· Leviticus 17:11—Death required to cover sin; Salvation through Christ’s death is like being clothed in the righteousness of Christ.

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

· Garden was like God’s temple—God cleanses his garden-temple of sinners.
· In Adam & Eve’s expulsion, God shows mercy by keeping them from the tree of life which would have bound them to an immortal existence of sin & misery. In God’s wrath, he remembers mercy.
Posted in: Christocentricity, Misadventures in Exposition