The Wanderer

Deep Harmony L.M.

Lord, on your mercy I depend,
On the sweet cleansing of Christ’s blood,
And on your mercy without end
I gladly rest my hopes of good.

Though this weak soul is sore oppressed,
Mercy prevents my being moved;
Mercy bestows each gracious test,
That every grace be truly proved.

Grant me the strength to do your will,
To love and bless your holy name;
Lord, I require your mercy still,
Which is from age to age the same.

Though my corruptions rise again,
And evil mars each duty done,
God’s mercy covers every sin,
Through the blest merits of the Son.

Lord, on your mercy I depend
For every good that here I know,
And on your mercy without end
I all my hopes of heaven bestow.

©JRW

See all hymns and psalms.

Reformed Confessions of the 16^th and 17^th Centuries in English Translation (Volume 1: 1525-1552) compiled and introduced by James T. Dennison (Reformation Heritage Books, 2008) is not cheap, but serious historians and those interested in the confessional heritage of the church will enjoy this first in an intended series of three volumes.  Several of the thirty-three texts included are here in English for the first time.  Each is simply and clearly set out, preceded by a brief introduction.  If nothing else, it gives a rich and encouraging sense of one’s inheritance as a Christian confessor.  This volume carries us from Zwingli’s Sixty-Seven Articles of 1523 through to the Consensus Genevensis of 1552.

From the same stable comes A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism by William Ames, translated by Todd Rester (Reformation Heritage Books, 2008).  This is a translation from Ames’ original Latin of his exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism.  It is not a systematic treatment of its questions and answers, but rather an exposition of a Scripture passage that corresponds to and buttresses the conclusions of what was often called ‘the Christian’s Catechism.’  Simple, brief, rich chapters give us spiritually stimulating insights into the genuinely practical piety of this seminal Puritan.

Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, Andrew Sach (IVP, 2007).  In even starting this book, I had to overcome my innate distrust of any book that demands ten (yes, ten) pages containing forty-five (no joke!) separate endorsements designed to appeal to the broadest possible spectrum of readers and any number of groupies of Christian celebrities.  On reflection, this should probably be taken as an indication of the seriousness of the subject.  The book divides into two, the first section positively setting forth the doctrine of penal substitution (Biblical foundations, theological framework, pastoral importance and historical pedigree), and the second answering the critics (the issues of Scripture, culture, violence, justice, God, and Christian living are addresses).  It is a clear and robust statement of this essential doctrine, responding to current assaults and fads, and will be appreciated as much by thoughtful believers in various walks of life as it will by pastors and preachers.

Nothing in My Hand I Bring: Understanding the Differences between Roman Catholic and Protestant Beliefs by Ray Galea (Matthias Media, 2007) is by a Maltese man whose Roman Catholicism was deeply ingrained but became more nominal as he matured.  Then, seeking substance in his life and reading the Bible, he was converted.  The book tells his story briefly, but concentrates on a comparison between traditional Roman Catholicism and fundamentally Biblical Protestantism.  Written with an insider’s insights and a Christian’s convictions, this would be helpful to those wrestling with similar issues, or helping others who are doing so.

In Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, edited by C. J. Mahaney (Crossway, 2008), several Sovereign Grace Ministries pastors address the matters of the media, music, stuff, and clothes, beginning with the principle that worldliness (and its absence) is fundamentally a matter of heart obedience to the word of Christ, and also teaching us how we should love the world in a Godlike fashion.  The basic principle is sound, though its application here is interesting.  Curiously prescriptive at some points, at others it allows for (and even promotes) a broadness that will cause proponents of an older evangelicalism to raise at the very least a quizzical eyebrow. The so-called “New Calvinist” view of culture is, I think, the underpinning one.

Preachers and teachers will appreciate Look After Your Voice: Taking Care of the Preacher’s Greatest Asset by Mike Mellor (DayOne, 2008).  Although the “greatest asset” subtitle could be argued on theological grounds, this is a brief but helpful treatment of an important but easily-ignored topic.  Simple, clear and helpful, it is written by a preacher for preachers (rather than by voice-production specialists for the stage, for example) and so takes some account of spiritual aspects as well.  A good investment for preachers, and includes three appendices on voice exercises, voice physiology, and care of the voice (this last by Spurgeon).

Tim Shenton is in the same congregation as the subject of this book, Audrey Featherstone, I Presume?: The Amazing Story of a Congo Missionary (Evangelical Press, 2008).  It chronicles the dramatic conversion, wartime experience, and labours in the Congo – often in the midst of extreme dangers – of a woman of faith who would be considered in many respects unremarkable.  Bringing us right up to her present circumstances as a widow still serving her Lord, this book will be an encouragement to those who consider that they have little to offer their Saviour in serving him.  The book contains a brief history of the Regions Beyond Missionary Union (RBMU).  The legitimacy and terminology of missionary agencies and female missionaries are both assumed rather than questioned.  The 20^th century setting is a helpful reminder that such work is not the relic of a more distant past.

Faith Cook has written several compendiums (compendia, if you are so inclined) of Christian mini-biography, and her latest – Stars in God’s Sky: Short Biographies of ‘Extraordinary Ordinary Christians’ (Evangelical Press, 2009) – ranges through time and space to consider the work of God’s grace in the hearts and lives of men and women sometimes associated with brighter stars in God’s galaxy and sadly overlooked by Christian astronomers.  Here we find the lives of such as John Foxe and John Gifford, Susanna Harrison and Fanny Guinness, briefly sketched out for edification and enjoyment.  A good and stimulating read, as one has come to expect.

Growing Leaders in the Church: The Essential Leadership Development Resource by Gareth Crossley (Evangelical Press, 2008) can sometimes feel like a curious combination of theological textbook and business manual.  A format busy with diagrams, text boxes, question sheets is not always easy on the eye, but there is lots of good matter to appreciate.  The aim of the book is to provide a resource for training present and future church leaders in a practical way.  While at points there is a degree of absoluteness in the instruction given, at others one has the sense of several options up for grabs, all considered legitimate – a little more pragmatism in evidence.  Good men will differ on whether these lines are drawn in the right places.  The book raises a good number of the right questions, and offers stimulating and practical answers, though some will wish to emend or extend them.

We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry by G. K. Beale (IVP/Apollos, 2008) begins at Isaiah 6 before traversing the Old and New Testaments to demonstrate, support and apply the thesis that “What people revere, they resemble, either for ruin or restoration.”  Insofar as it reaches its intended audience, a thorough treatment of a vital topic, well and carefully argued.  The topic is fascinating, but the handling of it is not popular: the style is a little ponderous and lofty, the substance dense, and the aim high, the whole tone being of the academy.  Perhaps Professor Beale could be encouraged to craft a more accessible and engaging treatment of the same topic on such a necessary theme for those not accustomed to the language and tone of the theological lecture hall?

The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation by Paul Garner (Evangelical Press, 2009) will appeal to Christians of scientific skill and interest, as well as others more broadly concerned about the nature and implications of the teaching of creation.  The author deals with the issues of origins in clear and pithy style, not avoiding the hard questions nor fudging on the answers, building a scientific model that will assist Christians being assaulted with regard to their doctrines of origins and practice of science.  As a non-scientist, it seems to me fascinating and useful, not above the head of the untrained, though probably of greater value to those who understand the technical issues.  For Garner, Genesis presents us with the facts of history, provides a framework for good science, and establishes a foundation for the gospel itself.  Some details and emphases might doubtless be challenged, but the whole seems sound and helpful.

The Profiles in Reformed Spirituality series from Reformation Heritage Books includes volumes on Alexander Whyte, Jonathan Edwards, Hercules Collins, Horatius Bonar, Lemuel Haynes, George Swinnock and John Calvin.  A growing interest in ‘spirituality’ (which some believe has been for too long a dirty word in Reformed circles) has led Joel Beeke and Michael Haykin (the editors of this series) to turn to the past to find particular models of Biblically-informed, Spirit-impassioned piety as a spur and guide to modern Christians.  Varying in style, wide-ranging in subject, popular in approach, this is a colourful and profitable series.

If you are visiting Edinburgh, A Spiritual History of the Royal Mile by Paul James-Griffiths (Latent Publishing, 2008) will serve you well.  It is broad both in its temporal scope and its theological sense, with the chapters on the Reformation and the Covenanters probably being of most interest, together with the Enlightenment period and the time of the Great Awakening (where Chalmers and Finney are made to sit alongside each other).  The chapter on 21^st century Edinburgh is sobering.  One should not forget that Edinburgh is also home to the offices of the august publishing house, the Banner of Truth, though it is not on the Royal Mile; bargain hunters have been known to head to the Banner warehouse to pick up some damaged stock at good prices, as a help on their own spiritual journey.

The cry of “Freedom!” has been a rallying point for many centuries.  In many lands and nations, it has drawn the attention of men and women, and stirred them up to great and noble deeds.  Freedom is something greatly to be desired, and greatly to be valued.

Suppose that you were a convict, sentenced to death.  How would you feel?  Surely your one desire would be that you might somehow save your life, and have your freedom once again.

How, then, would you respond if a messenger came from the judge and halted the execution, claiming “You have been pardoned!  You are now free!”  Would you turn your back on such a man?  Would you mount the scaffold in defiance of such a message?  Would you block your ears, assault the messenger, and reject the message?  Surely no one would reject the message of peace and the messenger of pardon?

Each one of us is a slave of sin, under the judgement of a holy God.  The sentence for sin is death, and that is the sentence that is pronounced upon every sinner, with the eternal punishment of hell to follow.  Who would not desire the pardon of such a judgement?

There is a message of pardon, a message of hope, of peace, of freedom.  That message is Jesus Christ, and him crucified.  He has died in the place of sinners in order that freedom from sin and the love of God might be freely proclaimed.  He himself said that he came ‘to set at liberty those who are oppressed’.

This is freedom indeed!

Jesus Christ has sent his church and his preachers to proclaim this good news.  That is why we speak to people about the Saviour, and spread this news as far and as wide as we can.  That is why I hope that you will read and consider these words.

How will you respond to this message?  Will you block your ears and turn your back?  Or will you receive the pardon for sins offered in Christ?  Perhaps you want to hear more of this – the pardon of God in Christ is proclaimed Sunday by Sunday in many faithful churches.  Hear the gospel; believe in Jesus Christ as he is freely offered to you, and your soul shall live.

The PyroManiacs have posted this great little nugget from C. H. Spurgeon.  It comes from “The Weaned Child,” an undated sermon delivered at the Metropolitan Tabernacle and published in 1875.

“Oh, but really one ought to be acquainted with all the phases of modern doubt.”

Yes, and how many hours in a day ought a man to give to that kind of thing? Twenty-five out of the twenty-four would hardly be sufficient, for the phases of modern thought are innumerable, and every fool who sets up for a philosopher sets up a new scheme; and I am to spend my time in going about to knock his cardhouses over?

Not I! I have something else to do; and so has every Christian minister. He has real doubts to deal with, which vex true hearts; he has anxieties to relieve in converted souls, and in minds that are pining after the truth and the right; he has these to meet, without everlastingly tilting at windmills, and running all over the country to put down every scarecrow which learned simpletons may set up.

We shall soon defile ourselves if we work day after day in the common sewers of scepticism. Brethren, there is a certain highway of truth in which you and I, like wayfaring men, feel ourselves safe, let us travel thereon.

The address that follows comes from B. B. Warfield’s Faith & Life (Banner of Truth, 1974), a collection of discourses delivered at Sunday afternoon classes with the students of Princeton Seminary intended to explore the deeper currents of Christian faith and life.  This is a challenging and encouraging piece based on 1 Corinthians 3:5-9 that I read while preparing for a sermon a few weeks ago.  The repeated refrain of Warfield’s address is that God gives the increase.

Man’s husbandry and God’s bounty

1 Cor. 3:5-9: – “What then is Apollos?  And what is Paul?  Ministers through whom ye believed; and each as the Lord gave to him.  I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.  So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.  Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.  For we are God’s fellow-workers; ye are God’s husbandry, God’s building.”

These verses form a natural section of this Epistle.  The Corinthians had sent a letter to the Apostle, making inquiries on several important matters.  But when the Apostle came to make reply, he had matters to speak to them about which were far more important than any of the questions asked in their letter.  Trusty friends had reported to him the serious deterioration which the Corinthian Church was undergoing, the strange, as we may think them, and certainly outbreaking, immoralities into which they were falling.  Chiefest of these, because most fundamental and most fecund [fruitful] of other evils, was the raging party spirit, which had arisen among them.  Greek-like, the Corinthians were not satisfied with the matter of the simple Gospel, in whatever form, but had begun to clothe its truths (and to obscure them in the act) in philosophical garb and rhetorical finery; and had split themselves into factions, far from tolerant of one another, rallying around special teachers and glorifying each, a special mode of presentation.  So far has this gone that the rival parties had long ago broken the peace of the Church, and were threatening its unity.

Paul devotes himself first of all to the shaming of this spirit and the elimination of its results.  In doing so he cuts to the roots.  He begins with a rebuke of the violence of the Corinthians’ party spirit, sarcastically suggesting that they had made Christ, who was the sole Redeemer of God’s Church and in whom were all, a share; and so parcelled Him out to one faction – as it others had had Paul to die for them and had been baptized in his name, and so on.  He then sets himself seriously to refute the whole basis of their factions and to place firmly under his readers’ feet the elements of the truth.  To do this, he first elucidates the relation of wisdom – philosophy and rhetoric, we would say now – to the Gospel; pointing out that the Gospel is not a product of human wisdom and is not to be commended by it; although, no doubt, it proclaims a Divine wisdom of its own to those who are capable of receiving it.  Thus he destroys the very nerve of their strife.  Then, with our present passage, he turns to the parallel occasion of their strife and explains the relation of the human agents through which it is propagated to the Gospel.  This he declares to be none other than the relation of hired servants to their husbandry of the good-man of the farm.  Proceeding to details, Paul and Apollos, he declares, are alike but servants, each doing whatever work is committed to him, work which may no doubt differ, externally considered, in kind, though it is exactly the same in this – that it is nothing but hired service, while it is God that gives the increase.  There is no difference in this respect; not that the work is not deserving of reward; reward, however, not as if the increase was theirs but only proportioned to the amount of their work as labour.  The harvest is God’s; that harvest which they themselves are.  They, the labourers, are fellow-labourers only, working for God.  They, the Corinthians, do not belong to them; they are God’s husbandry, God’s building.

Thus the Apostle not only intimates but emphatically asserts that the Church of God is not the product of the ministry; no, nor is any individual Christian.  Every Christian and the Church at large is God’s gift.  God sets workmen to labour in His vineyard; and rewards them richly for their labour, paying each all his wages.  But these labourers, it is not theirs to give the increase, nor even to choose their work.  It is theirs merely to work and to do each the special work which God appoints.  The vineyard is God’s and so is the increase, – which God Himself gives.

Now, looking at this general teaching of the passage in a broad and somewhat loose way, we see that the following important truths are intimated.

(1) Christianity is a work which God accomplishes in the heart and in the world.  It may even be said to be the work of God: the work that God has set Himself to do in this dispensation, and hence the second creation.

(2) Shifting the emphasis a bit, we perceive that the passage emphasizes the fact that Christianity is a work which is accomplished in the heart and in the world directly by God.

(3) Men are but God’s instruments, tools, “agents” (ministers) in performing this work.  They do not act in it for God, that is, instead of God; but God acts through them.  It is He that gives the increase.

(4) All men engaged in this work are in equally honourable employment.  If one plants and another waters and another reaps, it is all “one.”  They are all only fellow-labourers under God; equal in His sight and to be rewarded, not according to what they did, but according to how they did it.  This would not be true if man made the increase; but the reaper no more makes the harvest than the sower.  Nor would it be true if the reaper had the increase.  But it is not the reaper’s “field.”  He is a hired labourer, not an owner.  It is God’s field.  Each gets his wages; little or much according to the quality of his work.  Wages are measured by labour, not results.  And therefore it is all one to you and me, as labourers in God’s field, whether He sets us to plough, plant, water or reap.

Looking at these truths in turn:

What an encouragement it is to the Christian worker to know that Christianity is, so to speak (in the figure of the text), the crop which God the great husbandman has set Himself to plant and to raise in this “season” in which we leave.  Therefore this dispensation is called “the year of salvation.”  And therefore, when pleading a little later with these same Corinthians to receive the grace of God not in vain, Paul clinches the appeal with the pointed declaration that now, this dispensation, is that accepted time, that day of salvation, at last come, to which all the prophets pointed, for which all the saints of God had longed from the beginning of the world.  It is therefore again, leaving the figure, that this same Apostle declares that our Lord and Saviour has for the whole length of this dispensation assumed the post of the Ruler of the Universe, in order that all things may be administered for the fulfilment of His great redemptive purpose; in order that all things may, in a word, be made to work together for good to those that love Him.  In a word, God is a husbandman in this season which we call the inter-adventual period; and the crop that He is planting and watering and is to reap is His Church.

No wonder our Saviour declared the Kingdom of Heaven like unto a sower who went forth to sow; who spread widely the golden grain, and reaped it too, a harvest of many-fold yield.  For God’s husbandry cannot fail.  Other husbandmen are not in this wholly unlike their hired servants: they plant and water, – but they cannot compel life; and what may be the results of their labour they know not.  The floods may come, the winds may blow, the sun may parch the earth, the enemy may destroy the grain.  But God gives the increase.  It is therefore that the Redeemer sits on the throne, that floods and rain and sun – all the secret alchemy of nature – may be in His control, that “all things shall work together for good to them that love Him.”  There, I say, is our encouragement.  Christianity is the work of God, the work He has set Himself to do in this age in which we live.  As we go forth as His servants to plant and water, we may go upheld by a deathless hope.  The harvest cannot fail.  When the sands of time run out and God sends forth His reapers, the angels, there will be His harvest thick on the ground – and the field is the world.  The purpose of God stands sure.  We may not be called to see the end from the beginning.  But if God calls you and me to plant or to water, it is our blessed privilege to labour on in hope.

All this is just because the result is not ours to produce or to withhold.  It is God that gives the increase.  As Christianity is the work which God has set before Himself to accomplish in this age; so Christianity in the world and in the heart is a work which God alone can accomplish.  It is not in the power of any man to make a Christian, much less to make the Church – that great organized body of Christ, every member of which is a recreated man.  Why, we cannot make our own bodies; how much less the body of Christ!  If in this work Paul was nothing and Apollos nothing, what are we, their weak and unworthy successors!  This is the second great lesson our passage has to teach us; or, rather, we may better say this is the great lesson it teachers, for it was just to teach this that it was written.  The fault of the Corinthians was that they had forgotten who was the husbandman, who alone gave the increase.  Hence their divisions, making Christ only the share of one party, while others looked to Paul or Apollos or Cephas, just as if they stood related to the harvest in something of the same way as Christ.  Nay, says Paul, Christ alone is Lord of the harvest.  It is God alone who can give the increase.

Paul had reason to know this in his own experience.  He knew how he had been gathered into the Kingdom.  He was soon to acquire new reason for acknowledging it, in that journey of his from Ephesus to Macedonia, in which, while his heart was elsewhere, all unknown to himself God was leading him in triumph, compelling ever-increasing accessions to his train.  Nor did he ever stint his declaration of it.  Thus, take that passage (Eph. 2:10), where he, completing a long statement of God’s gracious dealings with Christians in quickening them into newness of life, without obscurity or hesitation outlines the whole process as a creative work of God.  “For it is by grace that ye are saved, through faith: nor is this of yourselves, it is God’s gift; not of works, lest some one should boast.  For we are His workmanship – creatures – created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath afore prepared that we should walk in them.”  This is Paul’s teaching everywhere: that as it is God who created us men, so it is God who has recreated us Christians.  And the one in as direct and true a sense as the other.  As He used agents in the one case – our natural generation (for none of us are born men without parents), so He may use instruments in the other, our spiritual regeneration (for none of us are born Christians where there is no Word).  But in both cases, it is God and God alone who gives the increase.

Let us not shrink from this teaching; it is the basis of our hope.  Though we be Pauls and Apolloses we cannot save a soul; though we be as eloquent as Demosthenes, as subtle as Aristotle, as convincing as Plato, as persistent as Socrates, we cannot save.  And though we be none of those, but a plain man with lisping lips, that can but let fall the Gospel truth in broken phrases – we need no eloquent Aaron for our prophet.  We need only God for our Master.  It is not we who save, it is God; and our place is not due to our learning or our rhetoric or our graces, it is due to the honouring of God, who has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens.

Hence we have the great consolation of knowing that the responsibility of fruitage to our work does not depend absolutely on us.  We are not the husbandman; the field is not ours; its fruitage is not dependent on or limited by our ability to produce it.  All Christian ministers are but God’s “agents” (for that is the ultimate implication of the term used), employed by Him to secure His purposes; God’s instruments, God’s tools.  It is God who plans the cultivation, determines the sowing and sends us to do it.  Now this is to lower our pride.  Some ministers act as if they owned the field; they lord it over God’s heritage.  More feel as if they had produced all the results; made, “created,” the fruit.  They pride themselves on the results of their work and compare themselves to others’ disadvantage with their neighbours in the fruits granted to their ministry.  This is like a reaper boasting over the sower or ploughman, as if he had made the crop it has been allowed him to harvest.  Others feel depressed, cast down, at the smallness of the fruitage it has been allowed them to see from their work, and begin to suspect that they are not called to the ministry at all, because the work given them to do was not reaping.  And herein is the consolation: just because we are not doing God’s work for Him, but He is doing His own work through us; just because we do what work He appoints to us; not we but He is responsible for the harvest.  All that is required of stewards is that they be found faithful.

Hence – and this is the final and greatest consolation to us as ministers – it ought to be a matter of indifference to us what work God gives us to do in His husbandry.  Reaping is no more honourable than sowing; watering no less honourable than harvesting.  Men disturb themselves too much over the kind of work they are assigned to, and can scarcely believe they are working for God unless they are harvesting all the time.  But in the great organized body of labour it is as in the organized body to which Paul compares the Church later: if all were reapers, where were the sowing, where were the cultivating, where the watering?  And if no sowing, and no watering, where were the reaping?  It is not ours to determine what work we are to do.  It is for us to determine how we do it.  For none of us will fail of our wages and the wages are not proportioned to the kind of work, as if the reaper because he reaped would have all the reward.  The field is not his, and the harvest is not his.  He does not get the crop because he reaped it.  He gets just what the planter and waterer get, his wages.

Wages, I say, not proportioned to the kind of work, but to the labour he does.  Each one, says Paul, shall receive “his own reward” according to his own labour.  The amount of labour, not the department of work, is the norm of our reward.  What a consolation this is to the obscure workman to whom God has given much labour and, few results; reward is proportioned to the labour, not the results!  And this for a very good reason.  God apportions the work on the one hand and gives the increase on the other.  But it is we that do the labour.  And, of course, we are rewarded according to what is done by us, not God.  Let us then labour on in whatever sphere God gives it to us to labour, content, happy, strenuous, untiring, determined only to do God’s work in God’s way; not seeking to intrude into work to which He has not appointed us, and not repining because He has given us this work and not that.  Each one to his own labour, and God the rewarder of all!

Tying the Knot Tighter: Because Marriage Lasts a Lifetime by Martha Peace & John Crotts

P&R, 2007 (118pp, pbk)

A few months ago a friend recommended this to my wife.  We thought we would read it together from time to time in the evenings as a way of profitably spending some time together (as opposed to my native notion of quality time as being in the same room at the same time).

The book is split into three parts: Basics (five chapters), Roles (eight chapters) and Responsibilities (six chapters).  The topics covered are very much those that you would expect from such a volume.  Each chapter is very brief, only a couple of pages at most.  This substance is followed by a list of questions for discussion, some recommended reading, and then a written prayer.  OK, so I do not like written prayers as a matter of course.  So, we didn’t use them.

As to the rest, I must admit to being fairly underwhelmed to begin with: the chapters were not particularly demanding, and the questions – while better than some alleged study guides – did not appear to probe too far.  However, as with many such things, you will get out what you put in.  Once I had stopped making sarcastic comments while reading the chapters and making fun of the questions, the chapters did prompt some useful lines of thought and the questions did prove a helpful way of prompting discussions that did us good as a couple.  The chapters make up in accessibility for what they lack in depth: their brevity allows you to at least cover the territory, and the questions enable you to address the particulars of your own relationship.  Couples who have had little Biblical teaching on marriage will find this a very helpful starter; those with more understanding will still find this a useful reminder and prompt.  Sure, sometimes it is a little cheesy, and you might hope for a little more distinctness and clarity at certain points.  Nevertheless, couples – perhaps especially those with young children, and therefore lacking in time and energy – looking for a way to make the most of those scant hours when they can hang out without simply flaking out would do well to consider this.

Equally helpful as an introduction or refresher course, this would be useful to many.  Be prepared where you can to think beyond what is immediately required, and when you are able to dig deeper than the questions immediately demand, and you will profit.

• Westminster Bookstore
• Monergism Books
• Amazon.co.uk

Martin Downes posts and suggests some helpful material rebutting the “openness of God” heresy.

Al Mohler reposts a helpful challenge to the current generation of young evangelicals.  Here is his conclusion:

Sociologist James Davison Hunter has long warned that younger evangelicals tend to go soft on this doctrine [of the exclusivity of Christ as Saviour]. Educated in a culture of postmodern relativism and ideological pluralism, this generation has been taught to avoid making any exclusive claim to truth. Speak of your truth, if you must–but never claim to know the Truth. Unless this course is reversed, there will be no evangelicals in the next generation.

Charles Spurgeon stated it plainly: “We have come to a turning-point in the road. If we turn to the right, mayhap our children and our children’s children will go that way; but if we turn to the left, generations yet unborn will curse our names for having been unfaithful to God and to His Word.” Those words ring with prophetic urgency more than a century after they were written. Evangelicals must regain theological courage and conviction, or we must face the tragic reality that this may be evangelicalism’s terminal generation.

An interesting couple of posts (highlighted by Timmy Brister) in which Christopher Wright (author of The Mission of God and The God I Don’t Understand) sets out five false dichotomies in mission:

1. Opposing the individual and the cosmic and corporate impact of the gospel, and prioritizing the first.
2. Opposing believing and living the gospel, and prioritizing the first.
3. Opposing evangelism and discipleship, and prioritizing the first.
4. Opposing word and deed, or proclamation and demonstration, and prioritizing the first.
5. Opposing evangelism and ecclesiology, and prioritizing the first.

Read both parts in full.

Gene Veith points us to a fascinating story.  Be sure to read the whole thing.

An archaeologist has apparently discovered the palace of King David. See this account of the find, which confounds liberal scholars who had been casting doubt on David’s existence and which confirms Biblical details.

Archaeologists had previously discovered the remains of the walls around the ancient Jebusite fortress that David conquered and then made his capital. But the area inside was so small, with no trace or no room for any kind of palace. Thus, some scholars–a number of whom had a pro-Palestinian agenda that downplayed any Jewish claims to the city–said that King David was a legendary figure, at most a village chieftain rather than the ruler of a powerful kingdom. But then Jewish archaeologist Eilat Mazar noted that 2 Samuel 5, after talking about David taking the stronghold, building a city around it, and building his palace, said that when the Philistines came, he “went down” to the stronghold. Near where the stronghold was in Jerusalem is a hill. She dug there and discovered the foundations of a huge building, built on bedrock, which means that it was not over any other site. This apparently remained the residence of Judah’s kings up until the nation’s conquest and Babylonian captivity. On the site Dr. Mazar discovered a seal of “Yehuchal Ben Shelemiah,” who is apparently the “Jehucal the son of Shelemiah” who was the nemesis of the prophet Jeremiah just before the city fell (Jeremiah 37-38).

I am reminded by this story of the burden upon parents when speaking of the sermons they have heard in the presence of their children (referring both to the sermon and the speaking):

A pious lady once left a church…in company with her husband, who was not [a believer]. She was a woman of unusual vivacity, with a keen perception of the ludicrous, and often playfully sarcastic. As they walked along toward home she began to make some amusing and spicy comments on the sermon, which a stranger, a man of very ordinary talents and awkward manner, had preached that morning in the absence of their pastor. After running on in…sportive criticism for some time, surprised at the profound silence of her husband, she turned and looked up in his face. He was in tears. That sermon had sent an arrow of conviction to his heart! What must have been the anguish of conscience-stricken wife, thus arrested in the act of ridiculing a discourse which had been the means of awakening the anxiety of her unconverted husband.  (Quoted from “The Central Presbyterian” in William James Hoge’s Blind Bartimaeus and His Great Physician [London: T. Woolmer, 1881] pp. 79-80)

I have read or heard several preachers employ such illustrations, and they never fail to bite into my soul, both as a preacher who longs to do good, and as one who has himself been guilty of such an attitude, sometimes employing the smoke-cloud of pretended sanctity to silence the voice of conscience.

The fact is, the most stylistically-rotten sermon in human terms, if it contains the truth of God’s gospel, can be employed by the Holy Spirit to awaken, convict, and convert a sinner.  I mourn over how many of the Spirit’s arrows of truth have been drawn out of the souls of men, women, and children, by sarcastic, disaffected, angry hearers, many of whom, in all sincerity, earnestly desire the salvation of those from whose hearts they are brushing off the gospel seed.

HT: Cal.vini.st.

One of the greatest errors to be dreaded and watched and prayed against is that of excessive caution, under the guise of prudence, in anxiety to avoid giving offense to worldly people who never can be reconciled, by all you can do, to anything in the shape of a revival of religion.

William C. Burns (1815-1868), Scottish minister, missionary to China, writing in The Revival of Religion, page 350.

HT: Ray Ortlund.

A good vocabulary is not acquired by reading books written according to some notion of the vocabulary of one’s age-group.  It comes from reading books above one.  (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, cited in Roverandom, xvi).

I could not agree more.  The only thing is, that the one who reads above himself, especially if he reads silently, still finds a guide useful in order to ensure that his understanding of sense and capacity of pronunciation are more rather than less accurate.

(HT: Z)

Common grace supplies some helpful perspectives on giving praise.  I am particularly amused at the distinction between basic and advanced praise.

Once you have read this, it might be an idea to look through some of the verses that identify the character and work of Barnabas (“Son of Encouragement”) and consider how God’s grace in Christ adds a lustre to such things.

Good Piper?

He explains graciously and winsomely why he does not own a television and go to see films.

Bad Piper?

He explains graciously and winsomely why he has invited Doug Wilson to speak at a Desiring God conference.  Scott Clark – who manages to get in another dig at everyone he considers not “Reformed”! – rightly takes Piper on, graciously and winsomely, with regard to the broad assertion that Doug Wilson is orthodox in certain vitally important issues.  I don’t see all the issues precisely the way Clark does, but I agree with the fundamental assertion that the Federal Vision theology is not the gospel.

I guess the good Piper/bad Piper thing depends on which angle you are looking from.  But then, from whichever angle some of us are considered, there is little good to see.

Kevin DeYoung has an interesting post (generated by one from another blogger, I should add) about why so many New Calvinists are also complementarians, and rigorously so.  He suggests at least four reasons (summarised below) why they are so closely linked:

1. Historically, opening the door to egalitarianism in one generation leads to bigger errors in the next.  It is a distinctly and definitely slippery slope.
2. The role of men and women is a huge issue for our day. Gender issues are among the most significant in our day.
3. Complementarianism tends to signify a number of other important convictions (he suggests that it usually ‘goes with’ inerrancy, penal substitution, and eternal punishment, for example).  In DeYoung’s opinion, a Calvinist complementarian is a pretty safe pair of theological hands.
4. Practically, it is very difficult for groups and organizations and movements to make both complementarians and egalitarians happy.

These are interesting reasons, not least because we are accustomed to hearing the so-called New Calvinists banging on about the importance of distinguishing between doctrines held in the open hand and doctrines held in the closed fist (i.e. negotiable and non-negotiable matters).

Quite apart from the fact that not all “New Calvinists” are actually Calvinists (some are Amyraldians), I am left wondering who gets to determine the open hand – closed fist classification of any doctrinal matter.  Is it the loudest shouter, the most famous name, or the bloke with the biggest congregation (do downloads count)?  I find it vaguely amusing that we all like to think that we can determine what are the open and closed hand issues, and vaguely worrying that complementarianism is now identified as one of the latter, when so many important matters are – relatively speaking – dismissed as the former.

I am not suggesting that the roles of men and women are unimportant issues, but there are many doctrinal matters which are, historically considered, far more slippery in a slopewise fashion than complementarianism (one might mention antinomianism or unbalanced perspectives on the person and work of the Spirit, both of which seem to be moot points among “New Calvinists”).  Who decides that other issues are relatively unimportant?  I can think of a whole raft of theological positions which do and do not imply faithfulness in other areas, some much more and others much less.  Finally, it can be fairly tricky to keep any ‘organisation’ (one might mention the local church, for example) happy that has people in it at opposite ends of the spectrum on more significant issues.

So, a stimulating and useful post by Kevin, but one which raises more questions than it answers, and certainly demands that the same magnifying glass be employed on other equally-if-not-more-important issues.

Keith Mathison recommends what he believes to be the top five commentaries on each book of the Bible, as well as giving some honorable mentions to others.