The Wanderer

A bit of catching up . . .

I have begun a series on Becoming and being a Christian.  I started it a couple of weeks ago with a sermon on Isaiah 45.22 on Looking to Jesus.

Afterwards we looked at 2 Corinthians 5.17, on being A new creation in Christ.  In dealing with that we looked at what Paul says about our position: “If anyone is in Christ.”  Many are without Christ, which makes every other good and privilege to be ultimately dust and ashes in our mouths.  There are those who are with Christ, and they are enjoying the blessings of being in the very presence of the risen Jesus.  But no one will be with Christ without being first in Christ – united to him by a saving connection, enjoying new life in him.

Then there is the matter of our condition: “new creation.”  This speaks of a radical, thorough, divinely-worked reality, in which the Almighty works not with nothing but against everything in us to change our antagonism and give us a new heart.  Men try to rehabilitate, but only God can regenerate.  We must be a new creation before we can live as one: we cannot earn new creation by trying to live like Christians.  Salvation comes first.

Finally, Paul offers an explanation: “the old has gone and is gone for good; look! the new has come and keeps on coming.”  The old nature has been dethroned and Christ reigns.  A transformation has taken place – the Christian has new light, understanding, will, desire, purpose and destiny.  There is a note of wonder as the persecutor-turned-preacher marvels at God’s grace in Jesus Christ in saving sinners from the darkness and bringing them into his marvellous light.

Last Sunday, we came on to the subject of A true Christian.  How can I know if I am a new creation in Christ?  Am I a true child of God?  The apostle John wrote his gospel so that we might know that Jesus is the Christ, believe, and be saved (Jn 20.31).  He wrote his first letter so that believers might “know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God” (1Jn 5.13).  I had intended to show the things that the world and many religious people assume are certain marks of true Christianity, but which fool many and which will fail those who rely on them when trials come, things which are no sure mark of a genuine conversion, before moving on to the positive indications of genuine saving faith.

However, the sermon took off in the first moments, and I spent the hour dealing with seven things (developed from headings in Gardiner Spring’s excellent The Distinguishing Traits of Christian Character or here [or, for Logos users, here] – sorry, not too many hard copies around!).  Visible morality, head knowledge, the form of religion, eminent gifts, conviction for sin, strong assurance, and a memorable or notable experience of alleged conversion, individually or in combination, do not indicate the genuine nature of a professed work of grace.  Unbelievers who assume they are saved on this basis are being fooled; believers who build their assurance on this flawed foundation will find it fails when they need it.  I got no further, closing by urging sinners to acknowledge their need and flee to Jesus, and calling upon the people of God to hold fast to the finished work of Christ, the promises of God, and the reality of the Spirit’s renovating work.  I hope to go on to the four positive indications of genuine saving grace, as spelled out by the apostle John, next Lord’s day.

Over the last few lessons of our adult Sunday School we have been working from Luke 2.52: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.”  We have used this as a framework to consider the parents’ responsibility to train their children with regard to intellectual, physical, spiritual and social or cultural development.  We hope to finish off this section next week before the Easter break, picking up afterwards with the training and admonition (required primarily of fathers as heads of households) commanded in Ephesians 6.4.

Justin Taylor has an interview between Mark Driscoll and Peter Jones of truthXchange (see also Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet).  Lots of interesting nuggets in a wide-ranging discussion.

One hundred years after Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount, a man approached the great church father Tertullian with a problem — his business interests and Christianity conflicted. He ended by asking, ‘What can I do? I must live!’ Tertullian replied, ‘Must you?’

R. Kent Hughes, The Sermon on the Mount, page 74.

HT: Ray Ortlund.

Crawford Gribben gives the Irish consitution on the state and education.

Paul Helm surveys some key words and phrases.

Pyro Dan Phillips gives guidance on the excuses we can use when trying to avoid addressing sin with which we have legitimately been charged.

Here are the four cards for fudgers of the issue to play (the last is my favourite on account of hearing it so regularly in a certain situation):

1.      The “grace” card. This is antinomianism, whether nascent or in full-bloom. What? How dare I? Don’t I believe in grace? Brother, hear me: I not only believe in grace, I have staked my eternal destiny on the grace of God in Christ. But Biblical grace is how God freely saves me FROM sin’s guilt and power (cf. Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 2:11-14). The moment you adduce grace as if it were how God makes it “okay” for me to live under sin’s power without feeling guilt, you’re no evangelical, you’re at best dangerously close to being an antinomian, and you’re having crumpets and tea with a virulent heresy (cf. Jude 1:4).

2.      The “judge not” card. This may be the laziest and silliest. Jesus says “Judge not” (Matthew 7:1), then immediately tells us how to bring others’ sins to their attention (i.e. not hypocritically, vv. 3-5); then tells us not to give holy things to pigs and dogs (v. 6). So we have to judge enough to identify sin, pigs, and dogs. What mustn’t we do? We mustn’t judge others’ hearts, which we can’t see (Proverbs 14:10; 20:27; Jeremiah 17:9; 1 Corinthians 2:11). In a very similar vein, there is the…

3.      “Yeah… but you did it with the wrong attitude.” As a response to a truthful confrontation, this is barely more contentful than “Oh yeah?” and “So’s your old man.” It’s more along the lines of, “Oh, well, er… hey, look! A comet!” – except phrased as an accusation. Oddly, the “wrong attitude” set is very judgmental when it comes to mind-reading and heart-examining anyone who dares to try to obey Jesus’ command to discern (Matthew 7:3-6) and rebuke (Luke 17:3). At its worst, it evolves into…

4.      Three magic words: “You’re not loving.” Ahh yes, consider the incandescent splendor of The Love Card^TM. Do you tell me (truthfully!) that I’m breaking the first, second, third, fifth, and whatever-else commandments? Oh yeah? Well, it doesn’t matter, because… you’re not loving! So there! Now I don’t have to deal with my sin! I’m a victim, you’re Torquemada! The beauties of this pathetic, craven dodge are literally countless. Behold, and marvel:

• Hey, presto! The subject is changed! Mission Accomplished! We’re not talking about my (actual) sin anymore, we’re all about your (alleged) lovelessness in pointing it out! It’s… er… Martinelli time!
• It’s like calling someone a “racist”: you are in sin, but your brother is now The Accused, he’s assumed guilty, and the more he tries to defend himself, the worse he looks.
• The bar remains unreachable, and can be raised world without end. “I think you missed this… what about that?… I still think you’re….”
• Unlike your sin, this standard is so vast and borderless that you can use it and re-use until everyone loses interest or dies. Who ever loves enough – purely enough, selflessly enough, heartily enough? Suppose the poor chap works diligently on his attitude of love three or four times; then you get to say, “Why do you keep harping on this? I think you have issues!” It’s sheer genius, of a dark sort.
• Here’s the kicker: you (or the person whose sin you’re enabling) are the ones in sin, but now you look holy and pious, and the other guy looks bad!
• You can simply run out the clock until everyone wearies of the subject, and the person who brought it up (to honor Christ with believing obedience, guard the holy name of God, and do you good) just looks bad.
• And, hey! You get to keep your sin! Because evanjellybeans just don’t care about God-shaming, sinner-hardening, testimony-ruining, soul-destroying, kill-Christ sin anymore!

Too true.  Read it all.

Greetings.  My computer is having some fun with what it likes to call thermal events, leading to data-saving shutdowns.  Since my only readily available substitute began to welcome the blue screen of death on a semi-permanent basis a couple of weeks ago, I may not be posting for a while!

I have been promising myself a week-long computer sabbatical for some time.  It might have come upon me unnannounced.  Please do keep checking back.  I hope to be up and running again soon.

Update: Up and running again.  The old-fashioned method of hoovering out the inside of the case while coughing as clouds of dust went up has worked a treat so far.  Not only is the computer working again, but I can no longer hear the fan making that “helicopter at full throttle” noise that – had I not become accustomed to it over time – should no doubt have alerted me to the fact that something was getting a little rocky inside.

For Jade: Mac not required yet.

My friend Paul Wallace is hanging up the keyboard.  He gives his reasons why, and they are copied below.  Paul has had many stimulating, wise and helpful things to say, and has often passed on rich nuggets of truth from the past.  He is not trying to bind anyone else’s conscience (and says so), but his thinking is nevertheless a challenge to other bloggers.  Why do I do this?  For what reason and with what purpose?  You might even share some of Paul’s thinking without reaching the same conclusions.  You might have other reasons for the same conclusions.  However, there is a challenge to me and I think to others.  I am not ready to stop yet, but what I do and how I do it may need to keep altering if I am to honour Christ by this medium.  Thank you, Paul, for your honesty, earnestness, and wisdom.

OK. I’ve come to a decision. I’m stopping blogging. I’m hardly a regular blogger anyway, but I’ve been thinking more and more about it, and without trying to trample on anyone else’s conscience, especially you folks who read here regularly and have your own blogs, I have come to the decision that blogging is no longer useful as a means of Christian communication. When I say that, I do not include all blogs but merely my kind of blog – a theological kind of blog. Nor do I want to suggest that any of you should give up blogging, but this is where my conscience is and you can read what I think and make up your own mind. I’ll probably still read the odd blog, but so far as writing and commenting it’s pretty much over for me I think. Blogging had a great potential for information sharing, edification and fellowship, and it has been all those to me, but sadly I believe it is evolving into something that is becoming ever more dangerous for the welfare of the Church of Christ. When I speak of blogging I mean the worldwide concept and not necessarily individual blogs themselves. There are some stunningly good and useful blogs and I hope there will continue to be, but I am not convinced that the culture that blogging has become is good for the Church.

Here are my reasons:

1) I have come to hate, yes hate, the celebrity culture that exists at present within evangelicalism and sadly none the less so within Reformed/Calvinist Christianity. I am convinced that part of the reason it exists is because of blogging. Within seconds of Mr. Big posting something, it is spurted all over the internet as the “new wisdom”, received with authority because of name and not necessarily because of the substance. I have decided that I no longer want to be a part of it. We shake our head in sad amazement at the “D lister” celebrities who are famous for being…well famous. I fear blogging is the medium for making Christian celebrities famous sometimes merely because they have good designs and a snappy turn of phrase, they are famous for being famous. Influence used to come with time, with Christ-centred work, by gaining respect among the people of your church, then your circle of churches etc. now you get it by having good visuals, multimedia sites etc. etc.

2) I believe blogging is contributing to the erosion of biblical authority within local churches and within the Church Universal. Everyone thinks if they have an opinion that it is worth airing, even if completely cock-eyed, short-sighted, poorly thought out and with little biblical substance or support. I think it was James White who said that blogs were aggregators of ignorance. In a wide variety of locations this is sadly true.

3) Furthermore it has contributed to an increased democratisation of the Church, where pastors called and gifted by God are “verbally chastised” by folks who have neither the experience nor theological knowledge to really know what they are talking about and who have never been recognised or called by any local church, and indeed on occasion could never and would never be permitted into a pulpit. It is especially the manner of communication I am thinking of and the harm this is causing in church structures and organisation. Things are written on blogs and especially in comments threads that would never, ever, ever, be said face to face. There is serious disrespect in much blogging. To that extent blogging is contributing to the evident disrespectful society that we live in. That’s not pulling rank, pastors are accountable, but they are accountable to Christ and to their own people primarily, and this pastor has decided that that is more than enough. The forum for intelligent conversation, discussion and correction is within the local church, and when it goes outside that I believe it tends to weaken the Church. I am committed to the biblical authority structures of the local church and cannot with a good conscience continue to be part of something I fear is seriously damaging that structure.

4) At the same time as there is increasing democratisation, paradoxically there is an increasing intolerance to honest disagreement. I’m going to be straight. There are too many fanboys out there who just cannot have their hero spoken against in any way, no matter how coherent, biblically argued, and charitable their hero has been written about. It is as if there is some kind of electronic ecumenical movement. We are no longer allowed to disagree with someone (especially the celebrity), we must all instead have a electronic group hug. I’ll be straight again, this sounds like a ploy of the devil and because of that I believe it is my greatest issue with what blogging has become. You just cannot critique anyone or anything any more without being attacked as a bigot by somebody. I am convinced there are people out there, who scan for tags of their favourite “celebrity” and come to their defence no matter what the issue is.

As I say, this is where I am at. Many of you will know that I have expressed concerns before, but over the last couple of weeks these concerns have been exacerbated.

I think there is a possible way forward. That is to keep blogs private (or at the very least commenting restricted), perhaps where groups of friends discuss topics by invitation only. Sadly however that would mean that I would probably never have communicated with many of you who read this blog regularly. However I am convinced that “open commenting” is not helpful, edifying or for the good of the Church. I suppose we could all agree to fully moderate our commenting, but I fear we are merely bolting the gate after the horse has bolted so far are rescuing the medium goes. Truth be told, perhaps I’m doing that even by shutting shop now.

This leaves me with a problem. There are a number of my “regulars” who I would like to keep in contact with in some way. So if you want to do that and have not already been in email contact with me. Leave a comment on this post, that way I’ll get your address and drop you mine in return.

Goodbye blogging.

What does Europe contribute to the world (perhaps, more specifically, America)?

According to Gene Veith (channelling Charles Murray of the Washington Post), a syndrome and a mentality.

Its nice to know Europeans are bringing something to the table . . .

Update: a little more on social democracy.

Thanks to all those who were praying for me yesterday as I participated the programme Simply the Truth on Genesis TV, chaired by Doug Harris.  I think the Lord helped Doug, my fellow-participant Leigh Porter and myself as we discussed the issue of theology.  There were some personal presentational issues that I would wish to correct if I have another opportunity (apart from the unresolvable problem of having a perfect face for radio), but in terms of content, I was grateful to God that I was able to deliver my contribution and answer questions from viewers with a measure of composure and clarity.  The feedback seems to have been positive.  Please continue to pray that there would be many who have a new or deeper appetite to know God as a result of this programme.

As I also mentioned, at the other end of the televisual spectacle was ABC Nightline’s Face-Off which was discussing the existence of Satan.  The whole thing can be watched here.

Dan Edelen asks some pointed questions about church planting that may have be more culturally bound to  the US than to the UK, but which identify principles that come close to home.

HT: Z.

R. Scott Clark takes careful issue with Professor Murray over the language and definition of ‘definitive sanctification.’  His argument is substantially though not entirely historical: is the concept ‘Reformed’ i.e. in RSC’s estimation, does it accord with the teaching of the historic confessions of the 17th century?  His answer is a tentative no.

Let me take you this morning to opposite ends of the televisual spectrum.

Today I make a foray into the world of internet and satellite television.  I have no idea how many people will be watching.  It may be three.  I will be participating (with another guest named Leigh Porter) in a two-hour live discussion programme called Simply the Truth, chaired by a gentleman named Doug Harris.  Our topic is ‘Theology.’  The blurb for the programme asks, “Just what is theology?  Should every Christian be a theologian?  How will understanding theology deepen my walk with the Lord?”

This particular broadcast will be from 1pm through 3pm GMT on Genesis TV which can be watched here.

I would appreciate prayer for true wisdom with agility and clarity of mind and mouth, especially when dealing with emails and phone calls from viewers; for the quick establishment of a good rapport with Doug Harris and Leigh Porter; for grace to communicate clearly and Scripturally where I have opportunity to do so; that I might not be put at a disadvantage by the alien environment of a television studio; and, most importantly, that Christ would be lifted up through my speech and attitude.

At the other end of the spectrum, this evening (for US viewers) – and at some pagan hour of the morning for those of us in the UK – Mark Driscoll (with Annie Lobert, Deepak Chopra, and Carlton Pearson) is on ABC Nightline’s Face-Off tonight discussing the existence of Satan.  The debate has already taken place, but Mark has a talent for being provocatively engaging, and all the indications are that he used this platform to preach Jesus Christ the victor.  Should be interesting.  Once I find a link to an online version, I will post it here.

Update: the whole thing can be watched here.

Please pray that in both these instances the proverbial idiot’s lantern would be employed for the glory of God in Christ.

Are you hip or hearty?  Take the DeYoung test and find out . . .

I don’t know what lies between the lines, but this outline on men and marriage from Mark Driscoll looks like it has excellent material behind it.  If you follow this blog, you will know that, in the church which I serve, we have been dealing with issues related to the Christian family.  When dealing with Biblical manhood, we looked at perversions of masculinity which we called abdication and tyranny.  Mark labels these ‘cowardice’ and ‘chauvinism’.  Here are his insightful categories under each heading:

Chauvinism

1. No Sissy Stuff Sam: whatever women do, do the opposite.
2. Success and Status Stewart: masculinity = material success.
3. Give ‘em Hell Hank: angry and abusive.
4. I’m the Boss Bob: domineering and controlling; in authority, not under authority.

Cowardice

1. Little Boy Larry: never grew up, disorganized, lives with his mother, etc.
2. Sturdy Oak Owen: absolutely dependable but emotionally absent.
3. Hyper-Spiritual Henry: hides behind religious behavior and “God talk.” Talks at you but not to you.
4. Good Time Gary: irresponsible life of the party.

I meet these men.  Sometimes I meet more than one of them in the same man, watching certain individuals veering between two extremes.  These are painfully accurate portraits, and I am wondering to which extreme and to which portrait I tend.

Read it all.

In response to a recent post on the early church, my friend Paul asked what might be recommended reading for those looking to get their teeth into the church fathers . . . not literally, of course, that would be gruesome.

In responding, I should make clear that I am no expert on Patristics.  So, you get personal opinions from someone not that widely read in this sphere, and whose taste may not be too well-developed.

That said, I imagine that for many the classic introductory text would be Augustine’s Confessions (or here).  It is essentially a spiritual autobiography that contains much instruction.

Also from Augustine, I profited a great deal from The City of God.  Written in the aftermath of the sack of Rome by the Goths, it considers the true identity of God’s kingdom and the activity of God in the history of the world, with much that remains relevant today.

Athanasius On the Incarnation is another that ought to be read, if only because it was written by a man who famously stood against the world for the sake of the truth.  Though probably written before the Arian controversy in which he became embroiled, here he lays the foundation for his stance in that most monumental battle for the full divinity of Christ Jesus.

Another with similar steel in his spine was the author of Against Heresies, Irenaeus of Lyons.  Forced by circumstance to take up the polemic pen, he identified, studied and exploded various poisonous theological opinions.

If history is your thing, and you want to get to know some of the names and issues, then Eusebius is probably your man.

Gregory Nazianzen wrote On the Holy Spirit which you might be able to track down.

If you like sermons (and you should!), then you might try the homilies of Goldenmouth himself, John Chrysostom.  There is a selection here.  For plain and penetrating explanation, still helpful and stimulating.

If all this seems a little daunting to anyone, two modern works that would serve as excellent introductions are Michael Haykin’s Defence of the Truth or Nick Needham’s 2000 Years of Christ’s Power, volume 1 (sadly seems to be out of print at the moment).  Michael gives you a brief outline of several men and their battles.  Nick gives more of an overview of the early church, with the advantage that after each significant section you get a chunk of primary source material from various authors.  Both are highly recommended.

You will also be pleased to know that I remembered something from a real expert: Michael Haykin gives his own suggestions here and here.

If you are looking for the works of the early church fathers, then this seems to be the mother of all sets!

I trust this serves its purpose of giving you some idea of where you might begin.  Any other suggestions, feel free to post below.

Defence of the Truth: Contending for the Faith Yesterday and Today by Michael Haykin

Evangelical Press, 2004 (160 pp, pbk)

The life of the ancient church (circa AD 100-600) is the mine from which Dr Haykin draws the gems which constitute this brief training course in Scriptural apologetics.  Shortly after the ministry of the apostles in person had ceased, God raised up a variety of men to lay hold of the apostolic ministry committed to writing and to defend the truth which was then under assault.  The author’s six short essays concentrate on six characteristic stands for the truth.

These studies cover a balanced range of topics.  They deal with the rebuttal of pagan error concerning the Christian church in the Letter to Diognetus, and Irenaeus of Lyons’ assault on Gnosticism; there is an interesting chapter on millennial views in the early church; we see Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers defending the doctrine of the Trinity, and Augustine setting forth a Christian view of history in The City of God; we learn, too, of Patrick of Ireland’s evangelistic zeal.  Some of these names and episodes are far from being common knowledge in the present-day church, and this ought not to be so.  Defence of the Truth brings these occasions and individuals to our attention as facts to be remembered, brethren to be esteemed, and examples to be followed.

Each of these vibrant and informative sketches ends with a brief applicatory passage (together with recommendations for further reading), in which the author seeks to press home some of the more obvious lessons from the episode just considered.  If there is any particular disappointment with the book, it is that these exhortatory sections could not be more fully developed.

The men held up for our instruction in these pages were fallen and sinful, and we are not asked to pretend otherwise.  At points we see good men differing, and the author points out where some of these men were perhaps mistaken, or where a particular emphasis in their writing (even one profitable in their own time) sadly became the seedbed of error in the church many years afterward.

Nevertheless, we should be stirred up as we see men, valiant for truth, standing firm for Christ and his kingdom in an age when – much like our own – the things they loved were under assault.  It would be worth our while to take up this training course and to seek to learn from it how better to serve the cause of Christ in our own generation.

There are a couple of things out and about at the moment about the New Perspective.

At Reformation 21, J. R. Daniel Kirk’s attempt to synthesize the NPP and the historically Reformed perspective in his book Unlocking Romans is reviewed by Guy Waters.  Waters concludes:

Unlocking Romans is a striking piece of the post-NPP academic landscape. This book serves as a reminder to the church that we may never assume or take for granted the exegetical foundations of our teaching and preaching. In each generation, these foundations must be articulated and rearticulated in the face of new questions and fresh challenges to biblical teaching. If readers want to see how a scholar attempts to synthesize the NPP and Reformed theology, then a study of this work will repay the effort. In the end, Kirk’s efforts do not rescue the NPP from the charge that the NPP’s understanding of Paul’s doctrine of salvation compromises Reformed theology.

Scott Clark reminds us of Charles E. Hill’s review of N. T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said. Was Paul of Tarsus the Real founder of Christianity? Hill states at the end of his review:

The whole coherency of justification as meeting the problem of the wrath of God against sin, and therefore as being absolutely grounded in the substitutionary atonement by Christ which diverts that wrath from us, is lost or obscured in the membership interpretation. These things may not yet be denied by Wright, but there is no intrinsic connection between them and justification, as I see it, in Wright’s view.

A fascinating snippet from Z sends us toward a longer article from Philip Jenkins, the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Humanities at Penn State University, about the death of churches.  He suggests that persecution kills churches:

Persecution doesn’t have to exist absolutely constantly over 500 or 1,000 years. Minorities get on perfectly well for 50 years and then there’s persecution and the population is reduced. The ratchet turns another notch, and it will go one way but it won’t turn back. That sort of sporadic persecution through the centuries is what can really destroy a faith.

He argues that we need a theology of church extinction:

I sometimes ask audiences how many people have ever read a book on the growth or establishment of a church, and many people raise their hands. Then I ask how many people have ever read a book on the death or extinction of a church, and virtually nobody does. But in history, church death is a very common phenomenon. Christianity moves from one area to another, but it also dies in areas where it has been strong. That fact violates a lot of what we expect about Christian growth. We have a theology of mission, not a theology of retreat. So do we explain these episodes as the churches doing something horribly wrong? Do we regard them as a natural part of historical development? Do we think that if Muslims replaced Christians in a country like Iraq, the expansion of Islam must be within God’s plan? How Christians actually deal with things like the destruction of the church in Iraq is by not talking about it. We pay no attention to it because we don’t know about it.

He does not seem to suggest that the church of Christ will not prevail, but seems more interested in the providential ebb and flow of God’s kingdom around the world in certain regions and at certain times.

Augustine put it slightly more robustly at the opening of his Confessions: “Our hearts are restless, until they find rest in you.”

Now Dr Justin Barrett, from the Institute for Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford University, is arguing that it is the natural default position of children to believe in God, challenging the view of some atheists that religion is learned through family indoctrination.  In this snippet from the BBC, Dr Barrett discusses whether religion or atheism is learned with scientist and writer Professor Lewis Wolpert:

Are we born believing in God?

It is hardly a Christian approach, but it certainly bears out the truths of Romans 1 and 2.

Justin Taylor posts Roger Nicole’s summary of the gospel from a seminar on the atonement at Reformed Theological Seminary:

Moved by His incomprehensible love for mankind, the Triune God was pleased not to abandon our rebellious and corrupt race to the misery and hell that it justly deserved, but to undertake to save a great multitude of human beings who had absolutely no claim on His mercy.

In order to bring this plan into execution, the second Person of the Godhead, the Son, took unto himself a full human nature, becoming in all things like his brethren and sisters, sin excepted. Thus he became the Second Adam, the head of a new covenant, and he lived a life of perfect obedience to the Divine Law.

Identifying with his own, he bore the penalty of human sin on the cross of Calvary, suffering in the place of the sinner, the just for the unjust, the holy Son of God for the guilty and corrupt children of man.

By his death and resurrection he has provided the basis

• for the reconciliation of God to humans and of humans to God;
• for the propitiation of a righteous Trinity, justly angry at our sins;
• for the redemption of a multitude of captives of sin whose liberty was secured at the great price of His own blood.

He offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice sufficient to blot out the sins of the whole world and secured the utmost triumph over the enemies of our soul: sin, death, and Satan.

Those who repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ are thus to be absolved from the guilt of all their sins and are adorned with the perfect righteousness of Christ himself. In gratitude to him they are to live lives of obedience and service to their Savior and are increasingly renewed into the image of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This good news of salvation by grace through faith is to be proclaimed indiscriminately to mankind, that is to every man, woman, and child whom we can possibly reach.

Michael Haykin is always good value, and some of his material on the early church that I have read and heard has been penetrating and profitable to the mind and soul.  He was recently interviewed by the Christ the Center panel on the Reformed Forum podcast.  The focus of the interview was upon the importance of reading and studying the early church fathers.  You can access the episode in which he was interviewed here.

HT: Andrew Fuller Center.

A new husband gives us an insight into some of the desperation of the early days as he learns the craft of husbanding.  Most of us have been there, Pecadillo.

A humbling reminder from Paul Wallace, quoting the Puritan John Preston, who exhorts to focused and zealous prayer before anticipating an objection:

You may object, “Aye, but it will cost us much time to do this.” Indeed one common cause among the rest, that keeps us from the thorough performance of this duty is this: Remember that the time spent in calling upon God does not hinder you, and that though it takes so much from the heap yet indeed it increases the heap. It is said of tithes and offerings, “Bring them in,” and do not think that, because you lessen the heap, that you are poorer men. No says the Lord, it will increase your store. “I will open the windows of heaven.” and you shall have so much the more of it. So it is true in this case.

In other things you see it well enough. You know, the baiting of the horse does not hinder the journey, nor does the oiling of the wheel. The sharpening of the scythe is no hinder to the work, even though there is a stop in the work to do it. As our common saying is “A whet is no let,” and the doing of this is no impediment.

A good principle to carry into another Lord’s day . . .

Tim Challies is live-blogging this year’s Ligonier Conference: the reports so far indicate that much good spiritual food is being distributed and enjoyed.  Follow Tim’s summaries here.