One of the specific requests made here is for inclination toward God, his will and his word rather than toward “selfish gain” (119:36).  The Hebrew word translated here “selfish gain” is most often translated “unjust gain” and used in the context of bribery.  For example, its three uses in Proverbs are these:

Prov. 1:19        Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain; it takes away the life of its possessors.

Prov. 15:27      Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household, but he who hates bribes will live.

Prov. 28:16      A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.

The desire for unjust gain is a temptation for so many.  Imagine the promise of getting something for nothing!  Of course, at the heart of this is greed (cf. Prov. 1:19; 15:27) and discontentment.  And, as the translation of the text before us makes clear, at the heart of this is selfishness.  This should not be surprising because at the heart of every sin is selfishness.  The gospel calls us to look outward: to God, his gospel and to others.  Sin, on the other hand, curbs our attention and desire inward. 

Of course, this is what was so glorious about our Savior who eschewed all forms of selfishness and rather emptied himself, making himself nothing.  Rather than demanding to be served he took up the towel and basin to serve.

At the heart of sin is selfishness.  At the heart of all our sin is self promotion and self gratification.  God’s law calls us to turn from that to him.  In turning to him we are wise in not attempting this on our own.  In inkling ourselves to him we do well to incline ourselves to his word and humbly call upon him for help as the Psalmist here encourages us to do.

God’s law exposes all forms of hypocrisy—both latent and blatant.  It cuts deep, really deep.  It exposes the wayward actions, of others.  But it also exposes our own.  Fine.  But it also makes know the wayward “thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).  Is it getting hot in here?  Before God, his law exposes those things we hope we didn’t say aloud.  (I just thought that, I didn’t say that, right?)  It exposes those things we don’t speak about at parties.  It exposes fears and weakness that no one knows about; well, except for the lawgiver.  This is the genius of God’s law.  It reflects his moral character, his holiness and goodness and purity and beauty and all those things that we adore our God for.  Up against this standard we stand in awe.  We long to be different.  And we recognize our need for a Savior.  This is the beauty and genius of the law.

Therefore, it’s in this context we hear the Psalmist pray, “Put false ways far from me” (119:29).  This is the prayer of the righteous.  The righteous never pray the opposite.  Nevertheless, the righteous still need this prayer because perfection alludes us in the not yet.  We are already righteous, just not there yet.  To some this sounds like a sophisticated cop-out.  But this is the mystery of the gospel.  Sinners are welcomed into God’s presence as righteous.  If this sounds like a cop-out then perhaps the gospel does too. 

But even in this prayer the righteous can find loopholes.  One is reminded of Augustine’s quip, “Lord, make me chaste…just not yet.”  Or of the great poet of our day, Kenney Chesney, “Everybody wants to go to heaven…but nobody wants to go now.”  If we are honest we can hear ourselves in Augustine and Chesney.

Confession is a time for us to do honest business with the lawgiver.  He knows his law and he knows of our conformity to it.  He knows of our failures and he knows of his perceptions.  Most importantly, though, he knows of his Son’s perfections.  He knows that we are represented by another.  Therefore, when we cry out in confession he does not shun us, but welcomes us as represented by another.  Only those represented by the perfect one can deal openly and honestly with their sin.  Only those who are righteous, though not-yet, can pray, “Put false ways far from me.” God will be merciful to us because he showed no mercy to his Son.

His plea for illumination also implies that one is in a state of darkness. The psalmist further likens his plight to being “a foreigner in a strange land.” The land is God’s law, and it is foreign to him and he does not know his way around in it (v. 19). This is like someone sitting in a dark room. Suddenly the lights come on revealing that the place in which he dwells is a shambles. Similarly, the Law searches the heart and exposes those places which are not surrendered to the Covenant Lord.

The Law itself is like light in the way it illumines, yet it is in need of the work of the Spirit to illumine the mind of the disciple. The distinction between right and wrong is often called “light” in the Bible. The phrase “to shed a light on” describes clarification. This is the light of Christ, namely Christ’s righteous standards clarifying where we have turned from Him. The Light of Christ will one day shine upon all men when he holds them up to that standard. One day all men will stand before the throne of Christ and will be held accountable for their sins. This is why the Psalmist asks that he may know the ways of Christ, that he may not be numbered among those of whom it was said “You rebuke the insolent, accursed ones, who wander from your commandments.” (v. 21). He recognized that God will one day judge all men.

His resolve therefore is to know the Law of God and keep it (v. 24). He does also pray to God to spare him from the Day of Judgment. He resolved to obey God even in the face of suffering in this life in verse 23, “Even though princes sit plotting against me, your servant will meditate on your statutes.” Ironically, though those who obey God in this life are met with trial and resistance (v. 23), God will ultimately vindicate.  

This is the great hope for the saints of God. Though this life brings trouble, yet there is the hope of the eternal inheritance reserved in heaven for them. Let us turn now to the one who loved us and gave himself for us, in confession and petition for the forgiveness which he extends in his Covenant promises.

For example, in verse 9, he mentioned “guarding” the way of life. That which is not in danger does not require protection. Thus, he realized the need to protect himself from the tendency to sin. Also, verse 16 mentioned the intended result of taking pleasure in the Lord’s statutes is “that I might not forget your word.” This term “forget” refers back to what Moses said to Israel. He told the people, “Take care lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping his commandments and his rules and his statutes” (Deut. 8:11). The idea is not just forgetting, but forgetting which results in apostasy.

Apostasy is a sober topic, so the psalmist deliberately and soberly resolved to “guard” himself from forgetting. This tendency to wander from God’s will, and ultimately forsake the way of righteousness, is in all men. Therefore, recognizing this in himself, the psalmist sought a plan to remain faithful to his God. 

This plan involved several practices which have various results. In verse 11, for example, he resolved to memorize His words, so he would not sin against the Lord. In verse 13 he resolved to read the word aloud (literally: “record with my lips”) and meditate on the word in order that he would perceive the ways in which God would have him walk.

This psalm puts words in the mouth of the reader. The verbs are in the first person singular (I, me, my). It is a pledge and prayer to God, and a plea for help. It should be read as such. Nevertheless there is some difficulty which comes from the nature of having words placed in one’s mouth. One may not agree with everything.  The law is often met with opposition. The nature of this work is that it is introspective and humbling. It takes courage to seek satisfaction in God’s will. It takes discipline. The sternness of the law ultimately leads one to seek that great and glorious redemptive promise that Jesus died for his people, while even still sinners. 

In this way, this psalm has an implicit call to continued penitence, but also a resolved faith in the testimony of Christ. We must continue to believe those promises of redemption and peace because it is not we who guard ourselves, but God who guards us. The psalmist these Gospel promises valued as one would value all wealth (v 14). Turn to the Father to confess your sins, in the name of the one who pardoned you by his substitution on your behalf.

Like the original paradise of the garden of God in Eden, the Tree of Life is found in the new heavens and the new earth.  Since Genesis 3:22-24 until now, the Tree of Life has been off limits.  Here, however, in Revelation 22:2 (cf. 22:14; 19) free access to the Tree is described.  Here the Tree is described as fruitful—“yielding its fruit each month”—and freely offered—for the healing of the nations.  This is nothing less than the reversal of the curse experienced by Adam, and all those in him (Rom. 5:12), for his disobedience to the command of God.  Here, in the new heavens and new earth, “nothing will be accursed” (Rev. 22:3).  This is the best of news for those who have experienced existentially and positionally the weight, burden, and bondage of sin.  Even for those of us who have been delivered, we still wait for that day when we “will see his face” (Rev. 22:4) and when “night will be no more” (Rev. 22:5).  No wonder the Tree of Life serves as the foundation of the seventh and final benediction of Revelation: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates” (Rev. 22:14).

The Greek word here chosen by John, xulon (“tree”), is interesting.  It is used throughout Revelation to refer to the “tree of life.”  But John has another word he uses for trees too, dendron (cf. Rev. 7:1; 3, 8:7; 9:4).  What makes this all the more interesting is the use of xulon throughout the New Testament to refer to another tree, the tree of cursing, the tree of death.  Luke, Paul, and Peter all refer to the cross with the word xulon.  “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree” (Acts 5:30).  This is theologically freighted language, “for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’’” (Gal. 3:13; cf. Acts 10:39; 13:29; 1 Pet. 2:24).

Here is the point.  Whenever we hear of the tree of life in the very center of the city of God, we are taken back to that tree that was outside the city (Heb. 13:12).  We are reminded that because he “suffered outside the gate” (Heb. 13:12) “by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:12) we can come inside the gate and receive the blessing of God symbolized in our invitation to the tree of life.

The things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them.  And for us this is the end of all the stories, and we can most truly say that they all lived happily ever after.  But for them it was only the beginning of the real story.  All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has read: which goes on for ever: in which every chapter is better than the one before.

Set in direct contrast to the whore of Babylon (17:2), John here sees the “bride adorned for her husband” (21:2; 9).  The best Satan can offer is a cheap counterfeit to the real world and the real life which is to come.  Currently we live in the already and the not yet.  Put another way, we live between Revelation 17-18 and 19-21.  We have already come out of Babylon (18:4) and yet we have not finally entered into the new existence described here for us. 

Life in the already and the not yet is hard.  For the faithful the living is not easy.  There are real temptations to sin and frequently we give in to them.  The list of sins in 21:8 is similar to other references to sin throughout the book of Revelation (cf. 22:15).  Taken as a whole, this list probably refers to those who had denied their faith under the mounting pressure of persecution.  They had entered the battle and then they went AWOL.  They were “cowards” and above all “faithless”, engaging in the pagan worship practices of “sexual immorality” and thus had become “idolaters.”  Coupled, then, with the imagery of a whore and a chaste bride, faithlessness is tantamount to spiritual adultery.

We, however, are not those who shrink back.  We do sin, but in coming to confess our sins we reaffirm our engagement in the holy war.  We run to Christ and not from him.  We are far from perfect, but we are not cowards.  We have been knocked down, but by grace we keep getting back up.

Revelation offers to us the power of resistance.  Revelation empowers us to live faithfully and boldly.  Revelation motivates us to keep living and thus to keep fighting.  Revelation does this by calling us to fix our gaze to the future, to the time when “the dwelling place of God is with man” (21:3; 22-24). 

In light of these great and precious promises, let us now turn from our sins, confessing our failures and transgressions (1 Jn. 1:9) and receiving from the Lord the cleansing mercy he offers to us in the gospel.  For when we do we are most certainly assured of our pardon: To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment (Rev. 21:6).

In speaking thusly Jesus wasn’t articulating something new, however.  Instead his message and mission were the fulfillment of something rather old.  That is to say, when he spoke like this he got people’s attention.  This is what they were waiting for.  After all, the promise of the Old Testament was the resurrection of life (cf. Ezek. 37).  Likewise Daniel looked forward to that great day when he said, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2).

This life after this life is found only in Christ precisely because he is the possessor of life.  Jesus’ indictment of the Pharisees is telling.  “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (Jn. 5:39-40).  He is the possessor of life because the creator and sustainer of life, God, has given him the authority to grant life.  What’s more, in Jesus’ resurrection he overcame death and was made alive.  As such he became a “life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45), imparting spiritual life to all who are in him.  Because he lives we know that we too shall live.

This is a fitting way to end the Creed.  Above all, the Creed is terse and to the point.  There are many questions that it leaves unanswered and there are many questions that we continue to wrestle through.  Nevertheless, we stand firm here, knowing the things that can be known, confessing the truths that are axiomatic and have been affirmed by Christ’s church throughout the centuries.  May this Creed be an anchor, one which holds us firmly against the tides of life; one upon which we cling and hold until the end, awaiting the life everlasting.

By the Creed’s insistence we are again reminded of the body/soul unity of the Bible.  When God created Adam he created him physically and then “breathed the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) into him.  It was then that he became a “living being” (Gen. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:45).  From the beginning to be human was to be both body and spirit and to lack one is to be incomplete.  Likewise, when we die we enter a state of incompleteness.  We are lacking something.  A rupture has taken place.  We were made to always possess a body/soul unity.  The Creed rightfully fixes our hope in the hope of the Bible: The resurrection of the body.  Folk religion looks forward to deliverance from the body, the Christian hope, on the other hand, is the resurrection of the body.  Christ is the firstfruits of the final resurrection.  We look forward to that day when we shall see him as he is and become like him.

This is the last part of the Creed’s eschatology—theology of the end times.  Whereas today it is complex, the Creed offers a rather simple approach to the future.  Here is what we need to know.  Christ is coming again.  He will vindicate us and right all wrongs.  And death will not have the final word.  No, we will be raised to new life with him, wherein our joy will be complete and his glory made full.

This truth has always been especially meaningful to the martyrs and allowed them stand firm in the face of death.  This is our hope.  Death is inevitably coming.  It cannot be escaped.  However, in Christ it can be triumphed over and in this we hope and in this we rejoice.

Pastor Tallman

Recommended reading, Surprised by Hope, N.T. Wright

When we confess that we believe in the “forgiveness of sins” we are also confessing that we believe in sin and that we are intimately acquainted with it.  To confess this is to confess that one is a sinner in need of a Savior.  It is much like the admission one makes when she says, “I am sure the doctor can heal me.”  To make such a statement implies that one is sick.   I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton who came across an article entitled, “What’s Wrong with the World?”  He wrote a response.  It read, simply: “Kind Sir, I am.  Sincerely, G. K. Chesterton.”

Now, on to the good news.  The forgiveness of sins is positional, which is to say, it is objective, which is to say, this is what God has done and who he has declared us to be.  We are forgiven.  Our debt has been paid.  We are, before him, free and clear.  “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.  This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:13-14).  This matters little about how we feel or how we are performing; instead, this is who we are. 

Further, the forgiveness of sins is relational.  By forgiving our sins God restores our relationship with him.  “He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:13-14).  The offense has been removed, the offended party has been placated, the offending party has been cleansed and we have been reconciled.  All of this is rooted in the forgiveness of our sins.

In the Creed this statement stands as the heart of Christ’s redemptive work for us.  Is there more to talk about when it comes to Christ work on our behalf?  Of course.  We could and should talk about justification and adoption and propitiation and reconciliation and redemption.  We can’t talk about less than the forgiveness of sin.  Herein is the heart of the gospel.  It reminds us of our need and of God’s provision.  And herein we come back week after week as we see God’s word in the supper and hear it proclaimed from the Bible: “Take heart, my son: your sins are forgiven” (Matt. 9:2).

Our communion with Christians is another way of speaking of our unity and the bond we have with the people of God, a unity and bond that extends beyond our geographical location as well as our station in history.  Thus, by this confession we express our commitment to the church as God’s people and our horizontal relationship with the individual members.  We confess that we are not going at this alone, but together.  We confess that what we do as Christians we always do as members of the body.  Even the most sacred and sinful acts we commit are done as members of the community.  When we pray alone we pray as members of the body.  When we read the Scriptures alone we read them as members of the body, influenced and shaped by two thousand years of instruction and tradition.  Prayer and Bible reading were never meant to be done in isolation.  Individually, yes; isolation, no.  Similarly, even when we sin we sin as members of the body.  As Simon Chan says,

…every sin committed, however, private, is not just my sin against God but also my sin against the church.  The one who has an infection is infected as a member of the body.  For the Christian, there are no strictly private sins.  The only private sins are committed by heathens and heretics, the only two groups of people who are not “in Christ.”  One is not yet, the other will not (Spiritual Theology, 121-22).

The implications of this confession are as practical as they are many.  As communing members of Christ’s body we serve one another, fellowship with one another, encourage one another and know and are known by one another.  We are in this together.  Thank you, Lord, for the church.  

Every time the Creed is confessed by Protestants well meaning folk get concerned.  Is the pastor a crypto-(Roman) Catholic?  Let me give you two reasons to rest assured that what we are confessing is, in fact, Biblical and important and not a support for the Roman Catholic church.

Reason 1: We are Protestants.  Dear folks who get concerned about this phrase obviously forgot something important or are woefully ignorant: We are Protestants.  And we are not just any run of the mill Protestants.  We are self-consciously Reformed, tracing our history and theology to the Protestant Reformation.  Our Confession of Faith originally called the Pope the antichrist, for crying out loud.  Do people not know what Protestants are anymore?  Do they not teach that in school anymore?  Do pastors not teach about the reformation anymore?

Reason 2: The definition of “catholic” is not “Roman Catholic.”  In fact, if you were to take the time to look it up on the dictionary here is what you would find:

1.  broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2.  universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3.  pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

Please note carefully that nothing is said about Rome or Roman Catholicism.  The emphasis here is upon the extent of the church.  In other words, when we confess our belief in the “catholic church” we confess that the church extends beyond the walls of New Life; beyond the borders of San Diego and California and the USA.  We believe that the unity of the church is something that crosses borders and languages and ethnicities.  We have no corner on the market; we do not own the church; rather we are members of it and it owns us.  Really, it is quite a lovely confession we make when we take these words upon our lips, a lovely confession that unfortunately has been lost in many places because of a lot of fuss over nothing. 

When we confess our belief in the “holy catholic church” we are, therefore, confessing our love for the church and our love for the unity of the church and our hope for the expansion of the church.  Thank you, Lord, for the church.

For starters, let’s notice the obvious: Christians confess a belief in the church.  This seems so patently obvious that we often read over it too quickly.  Today, however, it is not as obvious as we might think.  There are many today who regard themselves as Christians and have a view of the church much lower than that affirmed by the Creed.  For example, there are those who “love” Jesus and hate the church.  There are those who are interested in Jesus, but have no interest in the church, as evidenced by the way they so infrequently gather with the church and by how low a priority church attendance is.  There are those who are interested in Jesus, but who bounce around from church to church, never really knowing and never being known.  It was Cyprian who originally said, “You can’t have God as your father unless the church is your mother.”  Calvin repeated it.  Others have said, “before you tell me you’re a member of the invisible church, show me the visible church to which you belong.”  Cyprian and Calvin were merely echoing the Creed with such statements.  This is precisely what we are thinking through in our evening series, “Churchless Christianity.”

Secondly, we do well to note that here church is singular.  Protestants are tempted to make it say, “I believe in the holy catholic churches.”  For better and for worse, the legacy of our protests is a splintered church.  Nevertheless, it is still a church and we are all part of it.  It is a church that dates back to Jesus himself, and there is only one.  Jesus founded one church.  There is only one people of God.  It is a good reminder that, while theological distinctions and precision are most surely important, we are first and foremost Christians.  There is only one body (Eph. 4:4)!

Therefore, when we confess this phrase in the Creed, we confess the importance of the church and the unity of the church.  May God grant us grace to manifest in our practice the reality of our confession.

Also worth noting is that this phrase, along with the statement about the resurrection of the body, forms the extent of the Creed’s eschatology—beliefs concerning the end times.  Here we confess he is coming again.  Why is this so interesting?  Perhaps it intrigues me because of the eschatological climate we find ourselves in, where newspaper theology has won the day.  Really, though, don’t you find it interesting that nothing is said about state Israel or the so-called rapture?  The reason is that none of those things were on church’s radar until one hundred fifty years ago.  What was important to confess was that Christ is coming again and that when he comes, he will judge and resurrect.  Period.  We do well to embrace the eschatological simplicity of the Creed.  Eschatology need not be spooking, bizarre or complex.  Our hope is in the return of Christ and the resurrection of the body.

Finally, let us be reminded of the hope such a confession engenders.  What you believe about tomorrow will shape the way you live today.  Pessimism about the future begets pessimism in the present.  Similarly, optimism about the future begets optimism in the present.  Since our Lord has been raised, we have a living hope (1 Pet. 1:3).  No matter the struggles of today, the promise of that great day is sure.

The idea and imagery of Christ’s session is rooted and prefigured in the monarchy of the Old Testament and the promise that God would rule and reign in and through his righteous king (Ps. 110).  In this way then, Jesus is fulfilling the promise of God when he takes his heavenly seat.  Consequently, it is wrong to assume that by the phrase “and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty” the New Testament writers are trying to explain where Christ is.  This is not a designation of location; but rather one of authority.  Kingship is mostly foreign to us and so the full weight of the imagery can easily be lost on American Christians.  However, those better accustomed to kings and monarchies know that “The comparison is drawn from kings who have assessors at their right side to whom they delegate the tasks of ruling and governing” (Calvin).  And the purpose of this “sitting” is “that both heavenly and earthly creatures may look with admiration upon his majesty, be ruled by his hand, obey his nod, and submit to his power”  (Calvin).

I am convinced the main reason for the charge of Holy Spirit disinterest against the Reformed church is because we speak of and refer to the Holy Spirit in a Biblical/Redemptive way rather than in a way detached from the primary work of the Spirit as fleshed out in Scripture.  What I mean is this: very often discussion concerning the person and work of the Spirit of God is infantile at best; discussion primarily revolving around the continuation or cessation of certain spiritual gifts.  A more mature  approach will note that the Holy Spirit’s primary work is making Christ known and applying the work of redemption accomplished by Christ and thus will always discuss the person and work of the Spirit in that context and not isolated from it.  When our discussion is had here we will find “faith is the principal work of the Holy Spirit” (Calvin) and not tongues or prophecy.  This is why, for example, Reformed systematic theologies and theologians usually speak of the Holy Spirit in the context of the doctrine of salvation.  “The Holy Spirit,” says Calvin, “is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself.”  The Holy Spirit is always to be spoken of in the context of the Trinity and not in some sort of detached way, as if He works in a vacuum.  To the contrary, His work is always united to the plan of God and the work of Christ.

Christ’s humiliation was intense.  He was born under the law (Gal. 4:4), suffered the death of the wicked, bore the wrath of God, had no place to be buried, and was laid in a grave for three days while death seemingly had the victory and the last word.  However, as great as his humiliation was, his exaltation was greater!  This section of the Creed shifts from his humiliation to his exaltation and teaches us to confess four central doctrines concerning his exaltation: 1)His resurrection; 2)His ascension; 3)His current session at the right hand of God; and 4)His promised return.  Today we will consider the first.  While we could amass evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, I will here simply remind you of the centrality of the resurrection to the faith we confess.

Every year the church remembers the triumph of Christ on a day we call Easter.  While this is helpful, we must always be mindful that every Lord’s Day is Easter.  Every Sunday we gather because that is the day on which Christ was raised.  The transition of the church’s worship from the last day of the week to the first day is telling.  It marks the transition into the new creation, the transition which began with the New Creation himself (cf. Rev. 3:14) emerging victorious from the grave.  This transition testifies to the centrality of the resurrection in Christian doctrine and practice.  Further evidence is seen when attention is given to the message of Jesus’ earliest followers.  They seemed almost unconcerned about life lessons—five pointers from Proverbs to be a better parent—and relentlessly focused on the radical message that God’s Servant had died and was in the grave for three days but then he emerged victorious (cf. Acts 1:22; 2:31; 3:15; 4:2; 10; 33; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30; 33-34; 37; 17:3; 18; 31; 26:8; 23).  They were a motley crew, the furthest thing from a life coach, and their message was radical.

The bottom line is this.  Take away the resurrection and everything else crumbles.  Paul goes even further.  Take away the resurrection of Jesus and we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:19).  This is the deal breaker.  To be sure there have been, are, and will be debates about issues of theology and the teaching of the Bible.  But no debate is as central to the faith as is the resurrection.  Consequently this is the place we must always come back to in our apologetic and in our greatest comfort in life and in death.  Because Christ has been raised, death is defeated and Satan is crushed.  Because Christ has been raised, I too will be raised on the last day. 

There is no better book on the subject than N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God.  I highly recommend it. While I have scratched the surface here in 500 words, he expands to 900 pages.  Tolle lege – Take up and read – you will be enriched and encouraged. Thankful for Jesus’ victory for you and me.

WLC Question 50: Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?  Answer: Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell.

You will remember that I suggest that this is not wrong.  Hell is reserved for those who possess not the power to triumph over death.   Rightly our catechism recognizes that this phrase is intended to interpret the events of Christ’s death and burial.  As such it is like a summary statement, casting light back onto the previous statements.  It rightly recognizes that there was more to Christ’s redemptive work than meets the eye.  Much more was taking place than a mere man suffering on a cross and being buried.  That had happened before and it continued after Christ’s death.  The Creed is trying to point us to the theological implications of the death of Christ.  It’s trying to teach us to view the cross redemptively and give us a window into what was taking place in Christ’s sufferings.

What was going on?  At the cross Christ underwent the severity of God’s judgment.  Had Christ only suffered at the hands of sinful men and only died a bodily death his work would have been “ineffectual” (Calvin).  It is “For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death” (Calvin).  It was here that he was “put in place of evildoers as surety and pledge—submitting himself even as the accused—to bear and suffer all the punishments that they ought to have sustained” (Calvin).  To quote Calvin one more time.  “No wonder, then, if he is said to have descended into hell, for he suffered the death that God in his wrath had inflicted upon the wicked!”

Too often the cross is gazed upon sentimentally, lingering long over the nails and crown of thorns.  But thorns and nails were not unique to him.  What was, however, unique to Christ was that he became a “propitiation,” absorbing in his person the very wrath of God and thus assuaging placating a holy God and his holy justice. (cf. Rom. 3:21-26; 2 Cor. 5:21).  Read in this light we can see how important this statement is to the “sum of our redemption” and that if it be left out, “much of the benefit of Christ’s death will be lost” (Calvin).

Therefore, when you confess your faith with this Creed, don’t let this statement trip you up.  Rather lift up your hearts as you are reminded of the perfect work of Christ on your behalf, wherein the innocent one was condemned and you, the guilty, were set free.  There is more to the cross than meets the eye.  I’m praying that we won’t miss it.

The Roman Catholic church suggested that what is presented here is the teaching that Christ after his death descended to a place called “limbo” (a different limbo than that reserved for children) to deliver the Old Testament fathers who were held in prison until Christ’s resurrection.  This interpretation is based upon the reference in 1 Peter 3:18-20.

Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

Upon first reading this text seems like it may support this teaching.  However, we do better to follow the translation of the NIV which interprets the reference to the “spirit” as a reference to the Holy Spirit and thus is the agent “through whom” Christ proclaimed to the spirits in prison.  Those spirits in prison are clearly defined in the latter verses as those who were living during Noah’s day and thus it is a reference to the preaching of Christ through Noah.

Luther suggested that Christ as the God and man literally entered into hell.  Of course one wonders how this could actually be since his body was in the grave. 

A more benign suggestion is that the Creed is using hell simply as another way to refer to the grave.  Often in the OT the word “Sheol” is a reference not to hell but to the grave, the place where the dead go awaiting the resurrection.  This seems to be the way our WLC interprets it.

WLC Question 50: Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?  Answer: Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell.

The major problem with this view is that is seems a bit like a tautology.  Thus the Creed would be saying, “was crucified, dead and buried…he was buried.”  What the Catechism teaches us is surely not untrue.  However, there is a more pregnant implication intended.  For that you’ll need to read next week.

There are two things that get people’s attention when they confess the Creed.  The first is the statement that Christ “descended into hell” and the second is the statement about the “holy catholic church.”  Even as recently as a couple of weeks ago a woman informed the church that we are not a Christian church when she found that we confess the Creed and these two controversial statements.  In an effort to maintain full disclosure, my desire to write this series stemmed from the questions I have received about these two phrases.  With almost every confession of the Creed I am asked for further explanation of them.  For that I am thankful because our confession of faith is to be a thoughtful one.  So for those of you who have asked and for those of you who have never asked but have wanted to, here you are.

For starters, there are some who would have no qualms if the statement were dropped altogether.  Wayne Grudem is clear enough, “My judgment is that there would be all gain and no loss if it were dropped from the Creed once for all” (Systematic Theology, 594).  He offers three arguments to support his conclusion: 1)The origin of the phrase is a late addition and spurious at best; 2)There is little Biblical support of the phrase; 3)There are passages that flatly contradict the phrase.  Let’s take up the matter of textual criticism first, that the origin of the phrase is a late addition.  In so doing we need to remember that the Apostles’ Creed evolved over several centuries (A.D. 200-750).  This need not be disconcerting.  Evolution can be seen in documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Constitution of the United States of America, just to name two.  The earliest reference to this phrase seems to be late in the fourth century.  The reason for this, it would seem, is “that it was inserted after a time, and did not become customary in the churches at once, but gradually” (Calvin, Institutes, I:16:513).  Grudem’s argument seems to be that since it is a later addition it shouldn’t be treated as genuine.  Of course, if that logic was applied across the board to other documents, not least to the Creed in other places, our hands would be perpetually cramped from all of the cutting and excising we would be forced to do in almost every document we encounter.  Better to side with Calvin when he says, “This much is certain: that it reflected the common belief of the godly; for there is no one of the fathers who does not mention in his writings Christ’s descent into hell, though their interpretations vary.”  Therefore, “in setting forth a summary of doctrine a place must be given to it, as it contains the useful and not-to-be despised mystery of a most important matter.”  It’s to that mystery that we will turn our attention in the weeks to come.  We will examine the different interpretations of the phrase and seek to articulate what the Creed is stating and why it is important.  Stay tuned.

Isaiah offers a fixed date for his vision of God when he says that it took place in the “year that King Uzziah died” (Isa. 6:1).  Amos does the same thing when he says, “The words of Amos…which he saw…two years before the earthquake” (Amos 1:1).  The Creed does something similar when it notes that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate.  Some have found this specific reference odd and even offensive.  But, as the fifth-century writer Rufinus wrote, “Those who handed down the Creed showed great wisdom in emphasizing the actual date at which these things happened, so that there might be no chance of any uncertainty or vagueness upsetting the stability of the tradition.”  Furthermore, it emphasizes the fact that the crucifixion was an event that actually happened in history.  We don’t believe in a made up story that happened, “Once upon a time.”  Instead we believe in something that actually happened two thousand years ago. 

The phrase “suffered under” emphasizes some important aspects about our Lord’s humiliation.  The Lord of glory, King of kings was in subjection to, suffering “under” Pontius Pilate.  And how great was his suffering.  The Creed is probably alluding to that great passage in Isaiah describing the Lord’s “Suffering Servant” (Isa. 52:13-53:12). 

The culmination of his sufferings was the crucifixion.  It was the most barbaric form of execution imaginable.  The goal was simple enough that its gruesome sight “may deter others from such crimes.”  Various forms of this torture were used.  The Roman writer Seneca said, “I see crosses there, not just of one type, but made in different ways: some hang their victims downwards, some impale their private parts, others stretch their arms out on them.”  Jesus death agrees with this practice.  He was flogged, made to carry his cross, hung and there he suffocated and died.

He was also buried.  We often don’t think of this as part of his humiliation.  But it most surely was.  There he lay in death’s bonds and captive by the tomb.  As Scott Clark has said, The burial of our Lord was another part of his ignominy. Foxes have holes, birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere even to be buried. So Joseph of Arimathea provided a tomb fit for a king. While Jesus was entombed he was silent. Finished were the cries and taunts of the cross but it was not yet time for the triumphal declaration: “He is risen.”

This section of the Creed highlights for us our Lord’s utter humiliation and sacrificial death.  Although Good Friday and Holy Saturday are now behind us on the calendar, they are never far from our minds. 

So how do we square these?  How can we say that the cross is both the manifestation of God’s wrath and his love?  For starters we need to recognize that the Bible is comfortable affirming both and often within the same contexts.  For example in Ephesians 2:3 Paul tells us that we were “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and in the next verse reminds us that God was motivated because of “great love with which he loved us” (Eph. 2:4).  We know that Christ loved us and gave himself for us (Gal. 2:20), we know that God “loved the world” (John 3:16); but we also know that Christ was propitiation, a wrath bearing substitute for us.  Hopefully you can feel the tension. 

The way forward is two-fold.  First, recognizing that wrath is a manifestation of God’s holiness, we affirm that holiness and love are not mutually exclusive categories.  They can co-exist within God without making him schizophrenic.  Secondly, we need to be humble enough to recognize that we don’t understand everything about divine psychology.  God is a complex being, let’s conform our understanding of him to what he has said rather than to what we understand.

In the end we must always remember that “Cool reflection ultimately needs to give way to worship” (Cole).  As you gaze upon the cross stand in awe of the plan and work of God for you.  Marvel that the innocent one was condemned and the guilty ones were set free.

For further reading consider God the Peacemaker: How Atonement Brings Shalom by Graham Cole.

The title “Maundy Thursday” is derived from the Latin Mandatum Novum which means “a new commandment.”  Maundy Thursday was the day that Christ uttered those powerful words, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another” (Jn. 13:34).  He did not issue this commandment in word only, though.  Just prior to giving this commandment, he demonstrated it in symbolic action when he girded himself with a towel and humbly approached the basin to wash his disciples’ feet (cf. Jn. 13:1-20).  Because of this, the liturgy of the early church included the practice of the bishop washing the feet of the congregants, thus serving them and encouraging them to live lives of servanthood as they follow the Chief Servant, the Lord Jesus Christ.

We are reminded again of the imperative and the indicative.  Here we are reminded that Jesus descended not to be served but to serve.  We gather and remember our Servant King and his approach to the cross for us.  That’s the indicative.  As we meditate on the work of our Great Servant, we are moved and motivated to be like him; to humbly and joyfully serve.

Traditionally, the observance began with a simple meal.  As Robert Webber describes it, “The table setting is always austere and the fare is very simple, reminiscent of the foods eaten in the days of Jesus.  It consists of freshly baked bread, soup, cheese, and a variety of nuts and dried fruits with the fruit of the vine to drink.”  There are table prayers.  There is the reading of John 17 as the people listen and eat in silence.  The meal closes with a reading from Ps. 69:1-23.  This is the last meal before the great Easter feast.  From there, the church rises and moves silently into the sanctuary.  There is no music.  The instruments will be put away until the service highlighting the resurrection.  In the ancient church, it was here that the Scripture was read and the minister would wash the feet of the people. 

Now the church proceeds forward to take in hand and mouth the body and blood of Christ.  Here we identify with Him.  Here we recognize that we are often like Judas and Peter in our subtle denials of Jesus and his Lordship.  But here, we hear the great words of justification and reconciliation.  Here, we place our trust in Jesus alone.

After this, the communion table is clean, swept of any vestiges of beauty; all of which will be closeted until the resurrection.

The service ends with a singing of Ps. 22 and the antiphon, “They divide my garments among them and cast form my clothing (Ps. 22:18).  In many churches the sanctuary is left open for several hours or all night for the church to come and pray.

This section of the Creed echoes several well known passages of Scripture (cf. Matt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-38).  In doing so two important aspects of the identity of Christ are emphasized.  On the one hand, his divine nature and origin are explained.  He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  Why is this important?  For starters, it links Jesus with the promised Messiah of the older testament (cf. Isa. 7:14).  He is the true fulfillment to all of the messianic prophecies of the past.  Second, it successfully silences the claims of early Jews and contemporary detractors that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary; specifically that he was the son of a Roman solider.  It was suggested that this was merely an exquisite cover-up-job designed to preserve the life of Mary.  Finally, in so speaking the Creed rejects the ancient heresy of adoptionism.  Adoptionists taught that Jesus was a mere man who was adopted by God the Father and who became his son at his baptism.

On the other hand, the Creed emphasizes that he was born.  That is, he was and is a real human being.  He got hungry, thirsty and tired.  He learned (Heb. 5:8) and grew in wisdom (Lk. 2:40).  Like the previous statement, this one also takes up a particular early Christian heresy, docetism.  The Greek word dokeo means, “to think; to seem.”  Thus it was argued, Jesus “seemed” to be a man, but he really wasn’t.  1 John takes this up, which is why John begins by noting that they had actually touched Jesus (cf. 1 Jn. 1:1).  Jesus, prior to his resurrection, was a man with all of the same human characteristics that we possess, except, of course, without sin.

In describing Jesus thusly the Creed takes up the mystery of the incarnation.  “Great,” says Paul, is the “mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh…” (1 Tim. 3:16).  This is precisely the reason why Jesus is the perfect and only mediator.  If he was merely a man he would be inadequate to represent us before God.  If he was only God he would have no connection with us and no real way to represent us.  As God he satisfies these dilemma.  When we reflect upon the incarnation it shouldn’t take us too long to quickly move to the gospel itself.  In the incarnation we are reminded that God has come down.  We have failed at coming to him.  But in the gospel we hear the words of God coming down to remedy our desperate situation.

This great mystery is the Christmas mystery and it is the mystery that sets Christianity apart from all other world religions and cults.  Inevitably this is where they all go astray.  Muslims and Mormons believe in Jesus, but not the Jesus of the Creed.  Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in Jesus, but in a Jesus who was created and not the Jesus of the Creed.  The Jesus of the Creed is the Jesus of the Bible.  He is the God-man, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.  And all of this for us.  Hallelujah, what a Savior!

In confessing Jesus Christ we are confessing the content of those titles ascribed to him.  That means, then, that these are more titles than names.  Clearly Jesus was his first name, but Jesus’ father Joseph did not have the last name Christ.  To confess Jesus Christ is to confess that our Lord is Savior (Jesus; Matt. 1:21) and Messiah (Christ).  The Greek word Christos means “anointed” and harkens back to the promised anointed messiah who was to come.

Sonship is a massive topic that has been discussed and debated throughout the history of the church.  What exactly did Jesus mean when he referred to himself as the “Son of God”?  For starters it will be helpful if we simply remember how that phrase was used and to whom it was applied in the Old Testament.  While the plural, “sons of God” was often used to refer to angels, the singular was primarily reserved for Israel (Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9) and her king (2 Sam. 7:14-15; Ps. 89:26-27; Ps. 2).  This is very interesting and very important.  When Jesus is referred to by God and refers to himself as the “Son of God” he is very intentionally being linked with Israel and her king.  As such Jesus is the true and new Israel, the rightful king of his people.  Of course the phrase is freighted with more than that, though.  As God’s only or unique Son, Jesus is ontologically equal with him.  As God’s only Son he possesses rich and mystical communion with God.  This is how it has always been.  Jesus and the Father have for eternity related to one another as Father and Son.

Lordship is, likewise, a massive New Testament theme.  No one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit, Paul tells us (1 Cor. 12:3).  That statement alone, along with many others (cf. Rom. 10:9, Phil. 2:11), makes it clear that this phrase is a cipher for the gospel itself.  To confess Jesus is Lord is to confess Jesus is God.  One of the very interesting phenomenon of the New Testament is the application to Jesus of Old Testament verses referring clearly to God/YHWH (cf. Phil. 2:10-11;  Isa. 45:23).  To confess Jesus as Lord is to confess Jesus as King.  Kings rule and reign.  (In coming weeks we will hear of  God’s seating Jesus at his right hand.)  At the ascension, Jesus was enthroned as King of kings and Lord of lords.  Finally, notice how the creed personalizes this: we don’t confess merely “Jesus is Lord,” but “Jesus our  Lord.”  In so doing we are not able to keep him at arm’s length.  Rather, we show to him allegiance and render to him all obedience.

The proverbial surface has been scratched.  Much, much more could be said about this section of the creed.  Nevertheless, hopefully this will get you thinking about the Christian message and what is we believe and why we believe it. 

Last week we noted the way the Creed began: I believe.  Simple enough.  Nevertheless, in beginning this way we are reminded that Christians believe certain things.  Christianity is not a buffet.  You don’t walk through the line choosing this and rejecting that.  Rather, something is placed in front of you and you take it or leave it.  It is a package deal, and the Creed offers to us the most rudimentary facets of that package.  It begins with the simple statement about God the Father.  In so doing, it is explicitly Trinitarian and anticipates something to be said about God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  That anticipation will soon be realized as the Creed unfolds.

Three things are said of God here in this simple statement.  First, he is God the Father.  Like the Lord’s Prayer (Our Father who art in heaven), the Creed juxtaposes the exalted transcendence of God (Almighty) with his immanence.  More than immanence, though, the Creed hints at redemption.  Only those who confess the particulars of this creed can call God Father.  In Christ, he has graciously redeemed us, making us part of his family, sons and daughters of the most high God.  As our Father, he cares for, provides and protects.

However, the Creed doesn’t linger here long.  It moves quickly to the transcendence of God.  He is el shaddi, God Almighty (Gen. 17:1).  This is the way God referred to himself when he encouraged Abraham.  To be “almighty” means to be able to do whatever it is you wish to do.  It means that you are utterly sovereign and lacking in nothing.  Not surprisingly, the majority of uses of shaddi (“almighty”) in the Hebrew Bible are found in the book of Job.

Since God is described as “Almighty,” it follows that he is therefore able to create all things out of nothing (cf. Gen. 1:3; Jn. 1; Heb. 1:1-4; Col. 1:15ff).  Scripture everywhere and often ascribes to God the creative power of calling into existence as world that which at one time never existed (cf. Rev. 4:11).  This is the classic way to refer to the works of God.  God makes himself known in creation and redemption.  Redemption is coming.  For now, the Creed hones in on creation. 

In affirming that God is the maker of “heaven and earth,” the language is very consciously chosen from the first words of the Bible, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).  Simply put, this is a way (merism) to say: God created the heavens (the unseen) and the earth (the seen) and everything else in between.  It is a rather remarkable statement.  Hopefully, it hasn’t become so familiar as to lose all of its punch.  We exist because he has spoken us into existence.  The depth of the universe and its complexity is mind-boggling.  The handiwork evidenced in creation is simply breathtaking, and we affirm God is behind all of this. 

We serve an amazing God, God the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

The Creed starts with the obvious: I believe…  That said, it is so obvious that it is often skipped over to get to the particulars and to wrestle with the controversial.  Consider why this is such an important point.  For starters, we need always to remember that everyone believes in something.  There is simply no such thing as neutrality.  When someone states a proposition, though we may need time to struggle through the particulars of it and consider its implications, we either affirm it or deny it.  An open mind, Chesterton said, is like an open mouth, it’s made to close on something.  In the Creed we close on something, something specific and concrete. 

            This leads to the next observation: Christians believe in something specific and concrete.  Much of Christendom has been infected with the deadly disease of subjectivism to the neglect of the objective.  In many circles the faith has been reduced to something that happened to me – a personal experience – rather than something that happened a long time ago.  In this light it is interesting that the Creed is almost entirely about a series of factual historical events that happened a long time ago, events that transform our existence and reality. 

            Finally the Creed provides an objective definition of what it means to be a Christian.  It points us to something outside of ourselves.  To be sure, this is not everything we believe as confessionally reformed Christians.  But it does help us to draw some boundary lines.  We might think of it as map lines separating states.  County lines are like denominations.  Just because you leave San Diego County doesn’t mean that you have left California.  Anglicans are not Presbyterians, but they are both Christians.  However, when you cross the border, leaving California to enter Arizona you enter a different state.  Those who depart from the Creed don’t merely cross a county line but rather a state line and enter into something that is not Christianity.  That is, when someone reads the Creed and attaches his “I believe” to it, he affirms that he is a Christian.  And when someone reads the Creed and then responds by saying, “I don’t believe” he makes it clear that he is not a Christian. 

                If you are reading this and find yourself able to attach your “I believe” to this statement of Christian doctrine and have yet to join a church or make public profession of faith and be baptized, let me encourage you to do just that.  The requirements for becoming a Christian are really that simple: Believe!  Believe what God has said about you and believe what he has said about Jesus Christ.  Believe you have a deep need and believe that God has solved your problem in Jesus Christ.  G.K. Chesterton recounts a conversation he had with a prosperous publisher who said of somebody, “That man will get on; he believes in himself.”  Chesterton exposed the bankruptcy of his assertion.  “Actors who can’t act believe in themselves; and debtors who won’t pay.  It would be much truer to say that a man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself.”  After the lengthy exchange the publisher simply replied, “Well, if a man is not to believe in himself, in what is he to believe?”  In summarizing the teaching of the Bible the Creed helps to answer the publisher’s question.  Do you believe?

Philip Schaff highlights the pride of place given by Christendom to the Apostles’ Creed when he says, “As the Lord’s Prayer is the Prayer of prayers, the Decalogue the Law of laws, so the Apostles’ Creed is the Creed of creeds.”  For this reason alone we cannot be ignorant of it.  It might be compared to one who desires American citizenship being unfamiliar with the constitution.  It is an amazing document, one that “is intelligible and edifying to a child and fresh and rich to the profoundest Christian scholar” (Schaff).  Luther put it succinctly, “Christian truth could not possibly be put into a shorter and clearer statement.”  This explains why early systematic theologies and catechisms of the church were framed around the big three: The Ten Commandments, The Lord’s Prayer and The Apostles’ Creed.

Like other documents of the church, the creed evolved over time.  Originally it grew out of a rudimentary baptismal formula used by those who had converted to Christianity to be recited at their baptism as a confession of faith.   What likely began very early—the second century—would arrive at its completed form in the sixth or seventh century.  And it wasn’t until the eighth century that it triumphed over other forms in the Latin/Western church. 

Until the middle of the seventh century (although traces of it could still be found as late as the nineteenth century) there was a legend that surrounded the origin of the Apostles’ Creed.  The legend suggested that the Creed, as its title suggests, originated from the pen of the apostles themselves.  The Creed can be roughly divided into twelve pithy statements.  Because of this many early Christians suggested that each line was written by a different apostle.  While there is nothing inherently wrong with such a suggestion, the evidence simply will not support this thesis. 

The bottom line is this: The Apostles ’ Creed has stood the test of time as an accurate presentation of the teaching of Scripture.  It provides its readers with a concise introduction into what Christians believe and serves as a helpful tool to teach children and converts to the  rudiments of the faith.

Believing with you,  Pastor Tallman

How does this work?  Imagine a backroom deal, two dignitaries from states opposed to one another agree to cease their violence against each other once and for all.  But what began in the backroom emerges into quite a public ceremony as the two heads of state sit next to one another and sign their names to the agreed upon treaty.  This is what baptism and the supper are.  They provide us with a sign of God’s faithfulness and favor to us.  They speak of our union with Christ and the forgiveness of our sins.  The average ancient near easterner would have easily understood this, having witnessed numerous of such covenant ratifications dealing with social and religious life.

They are more than signs, though.  They are also seals and means by which God communicates to us his grace.  In other words, they are not empty symbols, badges of our commitment or reminders like a postcard from a long-ago vacation.  No, they are more than that and that is why Scripture attributes the work of God to them.  For example, Paul says, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism…” (Rom. 6:4).  This has led Rome to attribute to the water an automatic-like power, on the one hand, and has made evangelicals uneasy.  The evangelical uneasiness stems not from a deep understanding of the Bible, but from an a priori presupposition.  That presupposition is simple: it is impossible for God to use a material thing to convey spiritual realities.  Such thinking, however, manifests a philosophical approach to the Scriptures (not to mention a Gnostic one too) rather than one which is covenantal.  For whatever reason contemporary Christians have no problem making the vow in their weddings, “With this ring I thee wed” and yet buck at the idea of God doing the same to us in baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  To be sure, the sign is not the thing signified.  But the thing signified must not be separated from the sign.

So when you witness a baptism or when you come to the table think of treaties and covenants being ratified.  Think of handshakes sealing a deal and hear the promise of God: You are mine and I am yours.  In the covenant, “We thus see that the accent falls on the faithfulness of God” (John Murray) and in the sacraments we are reminded of his faithfulness.

“Evangelical Christian theology undergirding some reaction to the Arab-Israeli conflict hinges on one pivotal notion--that the Jewish people are God's people, God's chosen ones who must be protected.”

Hundreds of recent quotes could be marshaled to demonstrate that this had become the prevailing view among American Protestants.  However, for our purposes, two interesting things are clear from this.  The first is that unequivocally the “Jewish people” are said to be “God’s people, God’s chosen ones.”  Thus, according to this position, since we know that the church also holds such a privileged place, we must conclude that there are two peoples of God and by extension two ways of salvation; unless it doesn’t really matter much eternally if you are “God’s people, God’s chosen ones.”  Second, note the political posture that arises from this theological position.  Evangelical Christians must side with Israel against the Arabs not for the advance of democracy or capitalism, but because the Jews are God’s people and the Arabs are not.  The theology behind this is dispensationalism. 

In contrast to this is covenant theology which sees God graciously calling out one people to be his own.  This began in Genesis 3 and continues to the second coming of Jesus.  All of God’s people share a common identity:  they are fallen sinners, saved by God’s grace and because of Christ’s death and resurrection.  Of course some have suggested that this is a “replacement” theology, God replacing Israel with the church.  This misses the point, though.  The church does not replace Israel but is rather the fulfillment of Israel.  In Paul’s words, the church is the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) and a “chosen race…a holy nation.  Once you were not a people but now you are God’s people…” (1 Pet. 2:9-10).

Hopefully you can see how covenant theology helps you make sense of the Bible.  And hopefully you can see how making sense of your Bible impacts how you make sense of the world.

For further reading consider The Apocalypse Code by Hank Hanegraaff

Simply put, the covenant of grace is God’s remedy to Adam’s representative failure in the garden.  Through the first man, humanity’s federal head, all were plunged into the condemnation of sin (cf. Rom. 5:12).  Left to ourselves, we could never reverse the penalty for such an act.  Enter the covenant of grace.  Grace is God’s favor bestowed to the undeserving.  Grace means that he looks upon us to bless and not to curse.  Only Jesus makes this possible.  At the heart of the covenant of grace stands Jesus who lived a perfect life, was judged in our place, and represents us before God’s holy throne.  The covenant of grace is the free offer of salvation in Jesus Christ to those who cannot earn it and don’t deserve it.  This is the heart of the gospel and the Scriptures.

Because there is only one covenant of grace, it follows that there is one people of God.  In contrast, dispensationalism (the popular teaching found in novels like Left Behind) understands that there are two people of God, Israel of the OT and the church of the NT.  Thus, the covenants of the OT are not fulfilled in the NT church, but are waiting to be fulfilled in the future when God once again begins dealing with Israel (hence the political activism related to the modern state of Israel by many churches who confess such a theology).  To be sure, God administered this one covenant differently and progressively.  Under the law, it was offered in the form of “promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews” (WCF 7.5).  Yet, in all of these there was a “foresignifying Christ to come” (WCF 7.5).  Thus, the substance of their faith was Christ as they looked forward to his coming.  Only when we understand the structure of the Bible like this does it make sense.  The covenants of the OT (made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David) and the New Covenant are progressive revelations of the covenant of grace and are fulfilled in Christ and the NT church.  To quote the Confession again, “There are not therefore two covenant of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations” (WCF 7.6).  In the NT, the substance remains the same; but God, having done away with the ceremonies of Israel, now administers the covenant through the preaching of the word, baptism and the Lord’s supper.

While perfect and perpetual obedience was required of Adam, the covenant of grace requires us to look away from ourselves to the second Adam who exacted perfect obedience in our behalf and died as an appeasing sacrifice in our place.  This is just another way of saying that God requires of us faith in his Son, and faith alone. 

Thanking God with you for his grace (I know I need it)    

The covenant of works has variously been called the covenant of creation, nature and law.  All of these are appropriate and emphasize different aspects of the covenant.  The covenant of works was the initial covenant God made with Adam, and thus with all his posterity whom he represents, that he would be rewarded with life based upon the condition of “perfect and personal obedience” (WCF 7.2).  That God was dealing with Adam covenantally is obvious from the text of Genesis 2.  Adam is given obligations and stipulations: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die (Gen. 2:17).  Likewise, Hosea alludes to the covenant when he compares disobedient Israel to Adam saying, “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant…” (Hos. 6:7).  It’s for this reason the NT writers see Jesus’ life as a recapitulation of sorts of Adam’s life.  Jesus is the “second Adam” (cf. Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15). 

When Adam sinned and rebelled he plunged the entire human race into a state of disobedience (Rom. 5:19).  He was representing us, acting as our federal head.  And thus life was forfeited for him and us.  God’s covenant with Adam had been broken. 

Enter Jesus, the second Adam.  When Jesus comes to reverse Adam’s failures he does so assuming the demands of the covenant of works; that is “perfect and personal obedience.”  Thus we are not diminishing our Lord’s service when we say that his life was as important as his death.  Thousand, maybe millions had died on crosses.  But none had died who had never sinned.

In obeying God freely and perfectly Jesus earned a righteousness for us that we were sorely lacking.  Jesus’ obedience is now credited to all those who believe.  In his perfect obedience he was for us weaving a robe of righteousness.  And when dressed in this robe God sees only sinners declared righteous before his just and holy throne and righteous sinners are sure to hear the words, “well done.”

This is the good news of the gospel that Christ has represented us before the father, not only in death, but also in his perfect life.

In this light it is important to remind ourselves that redemption was not an afterthought emerging from Adam’s failure in the garden, but was actually the plan of God from all eternity incorporating Adam’s fall in the garden.  In other words, God’s plan extends into eternity.  It is because of this the NT often speaks of God the father “giving” the Son a people.   John especially brings this out.  For example, in John 6:39 we read, “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”  And again in chapters seventeen, “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world…” (Jn. 17:6; cf. 10:29; Eph. 1:4; Heb. 2:13).  Many more texts could be marshaled.  But these, along with many others, manifest the Christ-centered focus of redemption and its Trinitarian nature.  Simply put, the theology of grace and the theology of the Bible simply could not be true were it not for a Trinitarian God.  Denying the Trinity does more than call into question the nature of God, it calls into question the very nature of salvation.  In this light it is not surprising that non-Trinitarian sects/cults are forced to create an heterodox doctrine of salvation. 

Historically the church has referred to this covenant as the “Covenant of Redemption.”  The Father covenants with the Son and the Spirit to redeem a people for his own name sake.  He gives a people to his Son, a people for whom His Son lays down his life and takes it up again, a people whom the Spirit graciously regenerates and sanctifies.

It should be obvious that we can say little more about this because the Bible doesn’t say much more.  Instead, the Bible primarily deals with “time and space,” it speaks most often from our perspective.  For this reason we can only say what has been said and be humble enough to resign our speculations to the will of Him who knows all things.  To Him the secret things belong and to us are those things he has revealed (Deut. 29:29).  Next week we will turn our attention to the way God works out his plan of redemption in time and space.

The secular treaties of the ancient Near East were done between suzerains and vassals.  Vassals were those in need and suzerains were those who could help.  A vassal might actually be a king, but a king with less power and fewer resources than the suzerain.  But help came at a price, of course.  So if the suzerain agreed to help, the vassal also agreed to show allegiance to the suzerain for their aid and support.  This agreement would be ratified in the form of a covenant.  What gets very interesting is the way these agreements took shape.

For starters there was a preamble.  In the preamble the name of the suzerain king would be identified.  Second, there would be a historical prologue.  In the prologue the suzerain would recount his gracious dealings with the vassal and describe his past support.  Perhaps he had rescued them from a stronger army.  It’s in this context that the Bible is revealed and we read, “I am the Lord your God (preamble), who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery…(historical prologue).  From here stipulations would be added.  Because of the suzerain’s gracious dealings there were certain covenantal stipulations that were agreed.  If they were fulfilled then the vassal could expect protection and provision.  However, if they remained unmet then they could expect the very judgment of the one who had earlier defended them.  These were the sanctions.  Finally, two copies of the covenantal agreements were drafted and deposited into the sacred temples of each party.  Periodically these documents would have been read publicly as a reminder of the covenantal agreement between the two parties.  Parenthetically, this very well could be why God revealed his 10 words (commandments) to Moses and called for it to be written on two tablets.  Two tablets were used not for five commandments on each, but for ten commandments on each; and as a copy for each party and as a reminder that each party carried.

Basically, then, a covenant is an agreement between two parties, an agreement that carries with it stipulations and sanctions.  Hopefully you can see how similar this pattern is to the structure of the Biblical covenants (cf. Gen. 15; 17; Ex. 20; Josh. 24).  And, in that light, hopefully you can see how this sheds light on the Biblical text and offers helpful insights to our understanding.

Related to that, we need to always keep in mind that the “form of the covenants revealed in Scripture was borrowed from and is accommodated to the ancient near eastern world and must be understood in that context” (Clark).  Because we are embedded in culture and because God is so lofty, God necessarily condescends to reveal himself in ways that we can understand.  When seeking to communicate his relationship to his people he chose to do so in a way they would readily understand: by means of a covenant.  Our Confession put is like this:

“The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he has been pleased to express by way of covenant” (WCF 7:1).

What this means practically is that we will need to learn a thing or two about the ancient practice of covenant making in order to appreciate and understand what God is doing in the Scriptures.  Next week we’ll take that up under the question: What is a covenant?  For now, however, we note how naturally this concept arises from the pages of Scripture.  You cannot read the Bible without being confronted by covenant. 

Perhaps most helpful, reading the Bible and thinking through the Bible covenantally allows us to see the unity of the Biblical revelation.  The Bible is not a disjointed, hodgepodge of stories.  Instead these 66 books fit together and convey one grand message.  Read like this we are able to discern the larger story and then take the all important step of finding our place in that story.  Our story is lived in the light of a grander, loftier story, the story of God reversing the tragic results of the first man and redeeming all of creation and his church through his Son.

For further reading you might consider these bullet points that I have found helpful

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/covtheses.php

Let’s stay in the story.

There are several reasons why I think this will be helpful for us, but the main one is the confusion that exists today over the nomenclature “Reformed” when used as an adjective to define one’s theological system.  For the most part this adjective has been emptied of all its content with only a lone TULIP remaining.  Let me explain.  Very often I will hear people describe popular preachers as “Reformed.”  For example, I have heard John Piper, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, C.J. Mahaney, Mark Driscoll and many others all described as reformed.  The problem arises when we notice that there are some significant theological differences between these great men.  For example, all of these men are Baptists with the exception of R.C. Sproul.  So, according to this definition, baptism doesn’t relate to being reformed.  Further yet, John MacArthur is a dispensationalist and the others are not.  So, according to this definition, dispensationalism doesn’t relate to reformed theology.  C.J. Mahaney, Mark Driscoll and John Piper are very comfortable with the charismatic gifts exercised today. Fine. But, according to this, being reformed has nothing to say about the Holy Spirit and his gifts and function in this present age.  We could go on, but hopefully you get the point.  When the adjective is thrown around so widely it is emptied of its content and virtually looses all of its distinctiveness. 

A second reason for spending some time thinking about covenant theology, though related to the first, is that very often we are good at articulating the five points, but struggle to define and defend doctrines indisputably connected to covenant theology like the practice of infant baptism, for example.  The fact that many struggle to defend infant baptism, or worse yet, think it unimportant, manifests a breakdown in understanding the basics of covenant theology.

Finally, understanding covenant theology doesn’t merely offer clarity when it comes to a systematic approach to Scripture, it allows one to understand Scripture in the first place.  Put like this, covenant theology is foundational to any theological enterprise and even more important than that, it is a prerequisite to understanding the Bible as a whole.  I still remember distinctly reading through the Minor Prophets and throwing my hands in the air wondering what in the world they were talking about.  Hopefully our exploration of these elementary doctrines will lead not only to an increased understanding of what we believe and why we believe it but also an increased appreciation and apprehension of the revelation of God to us in His Word.  That’s really the goal.  We want to know God’s Word better and we want to know Jesus Christ better.  God knows the desires of our hearts.  May he be merciful and grant them to us.

If there is one resolution we ought to make every year, yes always be making, it is a resolution to grow in grace.  Peter exhorts us thusly, “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 3:18). 

What does this look like, practically speaking?  Simply put, it means that we avail ourselves to and resolve that we will be engaged in those activities where God has promised to extend his grace.  To phrase it like this is to draw a sharp wedge between this position and the mystics because it presupposes that there are certain places or activities where and through which God extends his grace to his church and others that he does not.  The mystics of today and yesteryear have consistently rejected the idea that God normally restricts himself to certain external means/instruments (like going to church) when communicating his grace/favor to his people.  Instead they suggest that God is free to act when he wants and how he wants (like being with me at the mall on Sunday or at the Charger game).  There is, of course, some truth to that--sometimes God does work apart from ordinary means.  The key word there is “sometimes.”  Normally he works to grow his church by the means he has ordained. 

What are those means?  Simply put, the means of grace are the Word of God preached and the sacraments.  In this way God special grace is specifically tied to his church.  The church has been given the keys of the kingdom and to the Church Christ has given the task of administering the sacraments and proclaiming the gospel word.  Here God attaches his blessing. I am amazed when I meet pastors who tell me, with remarkable impunity, that when they vacation they don’t attend church.  May it never be!  God’s ordinary means are not found at the beach (no matter how beautiful) nor in the woods, but rather in the church.  There are exceptions to this, of course, but we dare not make rules based upon exceptions.  So then, growth in grace begins with growth in Church attendance. Provocatively put, it is better for you to never read your Bible all year individually and attend all of the corporate gatherings of the church on Sunday all year than to read your Bible every day and miss corporate worship.  Hopefully you won’t have to make that choice as Christians for 1500 years did.  Nevertheless, hyperbole is some times helpful and in making the point and feeling the full impact of it.

Tonight in the evening service I am going to expand on this and include some other disciplines we should avail ourselves to if we want to grow.  May God grow us strong for his glory.  Happy New Year.  Pastor Tallman

Reformed theology rejects both the Armininian/Lutheran position and the idea commonly referred to as “once-saved-always-saved.”  Sometimes it surprises people that we reject the latter.  In contrast to both of these we believe in the perseverance of the saints.  The first word is the important one.  The one who will spend eternity with Jesus is the one who crosses the finish line of life in faith.  Those who apostatize and fall away will not be with Jesus.  The writer of Hebrews makes this point plain, “For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised (10:36; cf. 39).  We are those who need to diligently make our calling and election sure, thus insuring that we will never fall (2 Pet. 1:10).  Equally encouraging are the promises of God that we are kept by him (cf. 1 Pet. 1:5; 9; Phil. 1:6; Jn. 10:28-29).  There is a beautiful synergy here.  God is protecting, keeping and enabling and we, in response to his divine grace, are persevering.

In reality, the question we started with is not one the Bible answers.  The Bible views the visible things and leaves the less visible to God.  So when someone comes to Christ we rightfully call them Christians.  And if they apostatize we refer to them as non-Christians.  All we know is that they were Christians and now they are not.  The secret things belong to God.  Let us therefore attend to what we can see and what we know, namely perseverance and endurance, for we have need of these.

Running with endurance with you (Heb. 12:1),

Reformed theology rejects both the Armininian/Lutheran position and the idea commonly referred to as “once-saved-always-saved.”  Sometimes it surprises people that we reject the latter.  In contrast to both of these we believe in the perseverance of the saints.  The first word is the important one.  The one who will spend eternity with Jesus is the one who crosses the finish line of life in faith.  Those who apostatize and fall away will not be with Jesus.  The writer of Hebrews makes this point plain, “For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised (10:36; cf. 39).  We are those who need to diligently make our calling and election sure, thus insuring that we will never fall (2 Pet. 1:10).  Equally encouraging are the promises of God that we are kept by him (cf. 1 Pet. 1:5; 9; Phil. 1:6; Jn. 10:28-29).  There is a beautiful synergy here.  God is protecting, keeping and enabling and we, in response to his divine grace, are persevering.

In reality, the question we started with is not one the Bible answers.  The Bible views the visible things and leaves the less visible to God.  So when someone comes to Christ we rightfully call them Christians.  And if they apostatize we refer to them as non-Christians.  All we know is that they were Christians and now they are not.  The secret things belong to God.  Let us therefore attend to what we can see and what we know, namely perseverance and endurance, for we have need of these.

The position advocated by our church is one not of potential salvation but a position that attributes to Jesus an effectual death.  That is, by Jesus’ death humanity was not made save-able but rather those whom Jesus came to die for actually had their sins paid for.  Jesus actually accomplished something for a certain group of people, the church, by his death.  More than simple proof texts, the NT over and over again uses words and imagery that support this.  For example, the word often translated “redemption” in the NT means to buy something from a marketplace.  Think of the way you buy produce.  You pick one and leave another behind.  That’s what Jesus’ death accomplished.  He didn’t make buying possible, but actually bought certain people (cf. Eph. 1:7; Rev. 5:9).  Add to this the word “propitiation” (cf. Rom. 3:25) used in the NT to describe the death of Christ.  Propitiation is an old word but one we need to retain and understand.  Synonyms include “placate,” “appease,” and “satisfy.”  By Jesus’ death the wrath of God was satisfied because it was fully absorbed by Jesus in his body on the tree (1 Pet. 2:24).  Because of this, God’s wrath will never be unleashed against those for whom Jesus has already absorbed it.

I hope you can see just how glorious this doctrine is.  Jesus has paid the debt for our sins.  God’s wrath has been assuaged and his perfect justice has been upheld.  The innocent one has been condemned and the guilty have gone free (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21).  God, in the death of Jesus, actually accomplished redemption for his people.  Far from being a tangential doctrine, Limited Atonement is at the heart of the gospel of God’s free grace.

God overcomes our depravity in two ways, one historical (that is, before creation), and one that unfolds in time.  In time, our depravity is overcome when he subdues us, makes us alive, and grants to us faith that we might believe the promises of the gospel.  We call this Irresistible Grace.  However, this is not an afterthought or a reaction to our current condition.  Far from it.  This is the very plan of God that extends back prior to creation.  Paul states this clearly in Eph. 1:3-4:  

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before him.

Before the world began, the church was already selected by the sovereignly gracious plan of God:

…share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began (2 Tim. 1:8b-9).

We must also emphasize the un in unconditional.  All Christians believe in election and predestination because, as we have seen above, the Bible uses that language.  The real debate is about the basis of that election.  Those who reject TULIP embrace and articulate a conditional view of election, usually conditioned upon foreseen faith.  As the theory goes, God looks down a long corridor and sees who is going to freely believe.  Then, based upon what he sees, he elects.  This is troubling for a number of reasons.  The most disconcerting of them all is that it makes God out to be a learner.  There was a point in time when he was unsure of who would believe, then he saw who believed and acted in election.  This is a tragic error.  God learns nothing.  All things unfold according to God’s will (Eph. 1:11) and nothing catches him by surprise.

Does this mean that God also reprobates the non-elect?  The answer is, of course.  There are two sides to this coin.  God, in his mercy and good pleasure, grants to some grace and forgiveness.  He also, in his wisdom and justice, passes by those whom he chooses to reprobate, that they might meet the consequences and punishment their sins deserve.  After all, the potter does have dominion and authority over the clay (Rom. 9:14-26).Our response is one of amazement and awe.  Our salvation is shown to be all the more precious, and we throw up our hands with Isaac Watts proclaiming, “Why was I made to hear your voice, and enter while there’s room, when thousands make a wretched choice and rather starve than come?”  (TH 469)

Simply defined, Total Depravity is the doctrine that teaches “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation” (WCF 9:3).  This is a helpful definition because it relates the doctrine to the will and spiritual good accompanying salvation.  In other words in this doctrine we are not suggesting that man is incapable of doing good things, nor are we suggesting that the will doesn’t work.  The inability is one that relates to salvation rather than to willing in general.  So it is not as though the will doesn’t work.  It works fine.  The problem is with the desires that drive the will.  They are wholly corrupted by sin and thus predisposed to pursuing those things which are contrary to God’s will, especially faith in Christ.  This is what it means to be spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1-4).

This gets to a further helpful clarification.  When we speak of Total Depravity we are really speaking of Total Inability.  Thus, the total is not a reference to one being as evil as possible.  Thankfully most are restrained from their outward lusts by God’s law.  Rather, it is a way of saying that because of our fall into sin every one of us is fallen and infected and permeated with sin.  This is why Scripture uses so many images to describe this truth.  The mind is darkened, eyes need to be opened and ears need to be made to hear.  The implications of this are clear.  According to the Bible, we don’t think as clearly as we should and we need revelation.  We have a propensity to sin and thus need to be restrained by God’s laws and his appointed instruments.  Most importantly, though, we don’t even seek after God and therefore we need to be born again. 

In God’s gracious act of regeneration (making us “born again”) God overcomes our spiritual predicament, he makes us alive and grants us new life, ears that hear and eyes that see so that now seeing and hearing we believe.

For further study, Loraine Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination is a must read.

James Arminius (1560-1610) (his Dutch name is Jacob van Hermanns or Hermanson, Hermensen), from whom the theological system of Arminianism derives its name, was originally a strict Calvinist and became professor of theology at Leyden (1603).  Ironically it was while he was engaged in a defense of Calvinism that he was converted to the doctrine of universal grace and the freedom of the will.

In 1610 his follower drafted a response to the doctrines contained in the Belgic Confession and taught by the Reformed churches.  Their “Remonstrance” (hence they were called the Remonstrants) was signed by forty-six ministers and laid before the authorities of Holland in 1610 (there was a very close union between church and state).  Their remonstrance contained five articles of rejection and followed that with five articles to be accepted.  The positive articles include: 1)Conditional Predestination; 2)Universal Atonement; 3)Saving Faith; 4)Resistible Grace; 5)Uncertainty of Perseverance.

After a series of formal discussions, counter arguments and conferences failed to bring agreement, the National Synod of Dort was convened (Nov. 13, 1618-May 9, 1619).  It was an international gathering, though mostly comprised of Dutch theologians.  There were one hundred fifty four formal sessions and a large number of conferences.  The state assumed the expenses which exceeded 100,000 guilders.

At the Synod the five articles of Arminianism were rejected and the five articles of Calvinism, written in response, were adopted along with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.  Today these three documents, The Three Forms of Unity, are the doctrinal standards of Dutch churches and respected by Reformed churches across denominational lines.

The five articles of Calvinistic response roughly correspond to what we refer to as TULIP: 1)Total Depravity; 2)Unconditional Election; 3)Limited Atonement; 4)Irresistible Grace; 5)Perseverance of the Saints.  The original five “Head of Doctrine” were: 1)Of Divine Predestination; 2) Of the Death of Christ; 3)Of the Corruption of Man; 4)Of his Conversion to God, and the Manner thereof; 5) Of the Perseverance of the Saints. 

 In the weeks to come we will take these in turn, seeking to understand the historical and theological and Biblical basis for each of these points.  The above information can be found in Phillip Schaff’s The Creeds of Christendom vol. 1.  I also recommend the reading of Roger Olson’s Arminian Theology.  Roger Olson is an Arminian, but in reading it you will find that many (so-called) Calvinists are really Arminian and many contemporary Arminians out Arminians Arminus.

But what exactly is a benediction?  To put it differently, what is happening when the minister blesses the church?  Most simply, through the minister God blesses his church.  The benediction is a “performative utterance” (Myers) whereby God’s people are given the promise of “divine pardon, presence, and peace” (Chapell).  This is what it means when God says, “So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them” (Num. 6:27).  When the benediction is pronounced we are reminded that we are God’s people and that he is for us and therefore no one or thing can be against us.  Obviously this assumes something about the office of the minister, namely that the minister is called and commissioned as God’s representative.  Through the minister God speaks to his people and through the minister God blesses his people.  This has nothing to do with the holiness of the minister or his charisma, but rather rests in his office.

Furthermore, the fact that the benediction comes at the end of the service is also informative.  If we remember that worship is dialogical—that is, it’s a conversation and interaction between God and his people—then we will notice that the benediction is the last word.  God gets the first word in his greeting and call to worship and he gets the last word in the benediction.  He begins and ends the worship service.  Thus, we are sent out into the world with God’s blessing upon us.  We are sent forth equipped to love and serve our neighbor because we are loved by God and equipped to do so.  We are sent forth with his power and presence.

Therefore when my hands are uplifted know that it is God who is blessing you, making his name to rest upon you and sending you forth into the world to do his will.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Cor. 13:14).

The second reason we remember the reformation is that we might emphasize our diversity.  This takes place on at least two levels.  The most obvious is that in so doing we make it clear that we are not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.  The next level is a bit more nuanced than and equally as ironic as the first point.  In so emphasizing the reformation we emphasize on the one hand that we are a reformed congregation and that we are not Anglican, Lutheran or Anabaptist.  The irony is that, to one degree or another, all of the above are products of the reformation.  Nevertheless, they are not reformed churches.  Lutherans are Lutherans; Anglican are Anglicans; Anabaptist are, well, Evangelicals.  Therefore, by remembering our history we are able to remember and appreciate the rich history and robust theological expression that our forefathers died to preserve.

Third, in remembering the reformation we tie ourselves to a long tradition of the Christian faith, one that didn’t start with us.  We might call this historicity.  There is great comfort that can be drawn from this truth.  Our church didn’t spring up last week, last year, last decade.  Our pastor didn’t invent it.  Instead we are tied to a great stream of faithful Christians, one whose theology we share.  As such we can derive great comfort from this for we know that it is bigger than us and it will not end with us.  We are a part of something bigger than La Mesa; something bigger than San Diego; something bigger than the USA.  We are part of the advance of the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth.

Therefore, as we remember the truths of the reformation let us return thanks to God for his good mercy to us.  Let us be humbled by the gospel.  And let us stand as those who are just passing through.  There were those before and there will be those afterward.  In all this we pray that God would be receiving all the glory forever and ever.  Amen.

Furthermore, the corporate worship service offers parents a unique opportunity to train their children.  Hymnody, theology, catechism, Scripture, prayer and so much more are being absorbed by our children.  For example, my two girls can sing the Doxology and the Gloria Patri from memory.  They can also recite the Lord’s Prayer.  My oldest just turned four and the youngest is two and a half.  Perhaps you’re thinking, “Here he goes, he’s going to toot his own horn.”  To the contrary, I have had nothing to do with that.  In fact, if anyone is responsible it is you.  You see, we never practiced them, we never even started singing or praying them at home until the girls started singing them and reciting them from memory.  They learned this and so much more by signing and praying and communing with you week in and week out.  Loved ones, let’s not miss this opportunity to teach our children.  They are the next generation of church leaders and Christians.  If they are theologically and spiritual impoverished the blame is only ours.  Consider, then, getting a copy of the liturgy from the church website on Saturday.  Sing (some of?) the songs and read the Scripture chosen for the Lord ’s Day.  Pray together.  You will be surprised at how this little time pays big spiritual dividends.

Finally, including even the least among us gives rich expression to what it means to be part of the body of Christ.  The body of Christ is made up of men and women from every race and culture and from every age.  When we separate and segregate the Church based upon age we are dividing what God has joined.  Therefore, I am deeply offended when I read these words from a Calvary Chapel church,

Adults Only Policy – Our services in the Sanctuary are designed for adults only. Our goal is to teach the Bible and to worship God in an atmosphere free of distractions where people can focus on the Lord. For this reason, only children age 12 and older are permitted in the sanctuary.

Perhaps we should have a sign that reads, “Let the little children come.”  Yes, I am fairly certain I have read that somewhere.

Of course affirming that communion is for the baptized raises some important and challenging questions for those who affirm and embrace covenant theology.  Think about it.  If children have been baptized and are covenant members may they come too? Basically that question has been answered in two ways.  First, and most prevalent, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians have taught that children are not to be admitted to the supper until they make a valid profession of faith.  Usually this is called “confirmation” or “profession of faith” and takes place in the pre-teen and teenage years.  Naturally the age differs from context to context and tradition to tradition, but the practice is basically similar.  You can see the similarities between the Baptist tradition and those just mentioned.  Baptists require a profession of faith from their children, administer baptism, and then allow them to come to the table and the traditions that practice infant baptism baptize and then require a profession of faith.

In contrast to this is the position held by some – present today as well as throughout church history – that all those who are baptized may commune at the table of grace.  No exceptions.  This includes children, young children and infants, to be specific.  This is called paedo-communion.  Paedo (or pedo) simply means child. 

While there are advocates of this latter view within the PCA and other reformed denominations, it is, without doubt, the minority position.  The question we should ask is this: Is there perhaps a middle road that learns from the wisdom articulated in the positions here described?

One of the ways that we have tried to chart this course is by requiring a profession of faith from our children who have been baptized, but to do so at an age appropriate level and to encourage our children to make professions of faith young, often, and always.  I can say from experience that some of the professions of faith we have heard from young children have been far more robust, Christ-centered, and cross-exalting than those of mature adults.  This should not surprise us, though.  After all it was our Lord who encouraged a child-like faith for entrance into the kingdom

God doesn't need our money; God doesn't need New Life Presbyterian Church; He doesn't need the Presbyterian Church in America; He doesn't need Mission to the World; He doesn't need anything!  Listen to how the Apostle Paul says:

Acts 17:24-25:  The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

If God wanted to raise up a great army of Christian missionaries from stones and pebbles from the parking lot outside our building in order to accomplish His purposes, He could.  John the Baptist said, "Bear fruits in keeping with repentance.  And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.'  For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham" (Luke 3:8).

Some of you may be thinking, "But if you say it like this, no one will support missions!  If God doesn't need us, then what is the motivation for missions?"  To the contrary, one great, white-hot, passionate motivation for missions is a big view of God!  Our God is a great God!  There is no one like Him!  He is from everlasting to everlasting; He had no beginning, and He has no end; He created all things and upholds all things by the Word of His power; He is more beautiful than the most beautiful object your eyes have ever seen; and He is more satisfying than anything in the heavens or on earth.  And the Lamb of God is worthy to receive the reward of His sufferings!  Though God doesn't need us, He calls us all to join Him in mission to the world to spread the fame of His name.  And He calls us to do this for our joy and for His glory!  If you meditate long enough on the greatness of our Triune God, you will overflow with a joy, love, and wonder that cannot be contained!  You will have to tell others about Christ; pray for missions; give to missions; and some of you may possibly even go on mission yourself.  All God's purposes will be accomplished.  The question is:  will you join Him in this most joyous accomplishment of those purposes?  May God truly amaze us with Himself, and may we be faithful to do whatever He commands us to do!

I confess that for some years I thought of mission penultimately rather than ultimately.  The break through came with I read a little sense from John Piper: Missions isn’t the goal of the church.  Worship is.  That line stopped me in my tracks and exposed my shallowness.  I was interested in the doing and being and not the reason for doing and being.  For me, the goal of missions was doing missions and being a missionary.  What was so revolutionary in my thinking was that we do missions to glorify God.  The chief end of missions is the same end of our lives: To glorify God.  That’s the goal of our lives, of our church and of missions.  The goal of missions is not conversion and it is not even the planting of churches.  The goal of missions is the glory of God.  The ultimate aim of missions is to make much of God among the nations: Let the people’s praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you!  Let the nations be glad and sing for joy…Let the people praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you…let all the earth fear Him!  (Ps. 67:3; 4; 5; 7).  Some think that if you talk like that you will hinder missions.  I think if you talk like that you won’t be able to stop missions. 

I look back on that now and wonder how I missed it.  There are no doubt myriad of reasons why.  My prayer for us, however, is that we won’t miss this most elementary truth.  God calls some of us to go and he calls some of us to send.  However, while our involvement is variegated, we are united in a common goal and purpose.  For from him and to him and through him are all things.  To him be the glory forever.  Amen (Rom. 11:36).

My prayer for this week is that we would be strengthened in our resolve to go and send for the glory of our Triune God.

For further reading consider Let the Nations Be Glad by John Piper which can be found in the church library.

..."they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability." 2 Cor. 8:3 

Many of you may be familiar with Faith Promise, the title of choice for missions’ offerings in churches across America. Here at New Life, we will also use Faith Promise as the name for missions giving.  In October, we will have a World Missions Week that will conclude with “Faith Promise Sunday”, when we as a church will make our collective commitment to financial support of our missions program.

So, what exactly is a Faith Promise? 

A Faith Promise is a financial commitment in support of work in missions, agreeing to give a specific amount as God provides, “as you are able, and even beyond your ability to give.” Faith Promise is not designed to replace your normal giving, but to increase it and, in doing so, to expand your faith.

What is the Process?

The process begins with prayer. Rather than  asking, “How much should I give?” which focuses on bank accounts, and bills, consider asking “How much does God want me to give?” which directs the focus to Him.  It might be that God wants you to give more than you think you can because He wants to stretch your faith more than you can imagine.

The Faith in Faith Promise….

Faith grows, as we trust in God alone as our provider in the personal area of daily needs. “But just as you excel in everything- in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us- see that you also excel in this grace of giving.” II Corinthians  8:7

The Promise in Faith Promise is not to God, but from Him; it provides the opportunity to pause and take careful account of how God has faithfully provided for us. “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously” II Corinthians 9:6.

Where will the money come from?

Increased giving starts not with increased income, but with God’s grace enlarging our hearts with the joy of giving. Additional giving may come as a result of unexpected sources, a successful investment, better management of finances, or from savings we have already been blessed with. As John “Wesley stated, “Make all you can, save all you can, and then give all you can.”

How do I make a commitment?

-  Pray, seeking God’s guidance in what    He would have you give.

-  Determine your annual commitment in support of missions through New Life             and indicate that intention by filling out a Faith Promise card.

Faith Promise Cards will be available in the free literature rack prior to the missions’ conference.  Everyone will receive a card on Faith Promise Sunday. 

Your Faith Promise should include all planned giving through the church to missions for the entire year. 

 So, we challenge you to join with other members of the New Life family in increasing our support for missionaries around the world, enabling them to ”Declare His glory to the nations.”.

If the Lord is calling you to help with giving, we encourage you to download this Faith Promise guide to help you.

The concern over leavened bread stems from two faulty premises.  The first is the common misconception that leaven is always used as a symbol for sin in the Bible.  To be sure it often is (cf. 1 Cor. 5:6-8; Ex. 12:12-14).  But there are times when God specifically calls for sacrifices of leaven (cf. Lev. 7:13; Amos 4:5).  Furthermore, Jesus uses leaven positively as an example of the spreading of the kingdom of God (Matt. 13:33).  The second faulty premise is that leaven wasn’t used when Jesus instituted the supper.  This assumption seems so common that it often goes without refuting.  But it’s not really that simple, mainly because the Greek word that Jesus uses in Matt. 26:26 and the parallel passage is artos and simply means ordinary, everyday, common bread.  It was, most likely, then, leavened.

Even if the bread Jesus used was unleavened, it would still not be unlawful to use leavened bread.  “Ah,” you say, “but last week you said that it was important to use wine because Jesus used wine.  Now you’re saying it doesn’t matter what bread you use?”  Yes, that’s correct.  Here’s why.  Unleavened bread is still bread, grape juice is not wine. 

In light of this, why do we continue to use leavened bread?  For a couple of reasons.  First, because it is an historically acceptable practice.  The Western tradition (Rome) has chosen to use unleavened bread.  However, Antioch (Eastern Orthodox) and many Lutherans continue to use leavened bread when they serve the supper.  This is not a new or novel practice.  Second, because of the symbolism.  Leaven causes the loaf to rise and reminds us visibly of the resurrection of the bread of life from the tomb.  Even as we remember the cross we do so in light of the resurrection.  Finally, leavened bread reminds us of the spreading of the kingdom of God (Matt. 13:33).  We long to see his glory fill the world and cover the earth.  We long to see the gospel spread like leaven in bread.

Therefore, let those who are hungry come and drink and eat and be satisfied.

For further reading check out Robert Letham’s little book, The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread.  

For 1800 years the church was in complete agreement on this subject.  When the supper was served, bread and wine were the elements used.  This is clearly seen when one reads the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, wherein we are told that the minister is to bless the “elements of bread and wine” (WCF 29:3).  This unanimity, however, was prior to the temperance movement of the nineteenth century and before the eighteenth amendment.  Since then such unity has disappeared and it has become commonplace for wine to be substituted with grape juice in the Supper.

We, however, continue to use wine for this simple reason: the Bible makes it clear that wine was used when Jesus instituted the supper and we want to model our practice as closely as possible to the Biblical teaching.  The phrase used in the NT is “fruit of the vine” which means wine (Matt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:18).  Some have argued that because the word “wine” is not used it can be concluded that Jesus didn’t necessarily mean wine.  But that’s like saying that a person didn’t have beer in mind when he said, “This Bud’s for you” because he didn’t use the word “beer.”  “Fruit of the vine” means wine.  Furthermore, when Paul admonishes the Corinthians he does so in part because at the supper some were going hungry while others got “drunk” (1 Cor. 11:21).  Obviously there was something more than grape juice present. 

Unfortunately wine (alcohol in general) has been demonized in many corners of the church.  This is unfortunate because throughout Scripture wine is explicitly used as a symbol of God’s blessing and is described as a good gift from Him (Gen. 27:28; Deut. 7:12-13; 11:13-14; 14:22-26; Jud. 9:13; Ps. 104:14-15; Prov. 3:9-10; Song 1:4; 4:10; 7:6-9; 8:2; Amos 9:13-14).  It makes sense that God would choose to serve wine at the meal that he hosts, for like wine the gospel is intoxicating, it makes the heart glad and is the source of great joy for the faithful.

To be honest, I am not sure why many churches celebrate communion when they do.  Honestly, I don’t think many have really thought too much about it.  I know we never really did when I was on staff at a church that practiced it monthly.  It’s just what we had always done and figured what everyone else did, except for those pesky Catholics who celebrate it every Sunday and we know that we don’t want to be like them.  Whatever the reasons, Michael Horton is surely correct when he says, “One’s view of the nature of the Supper plays no small part in determining frequency.”  Therefore, if the Supper is merely a time of reflection and remembrance then there would be no real need to celebrate it frequently because reflection and remembrance can be done in prayer, in song, or in secret.  But if the Supper is a real and effectual instrument of extending God’s grace to his church and offers the unique vehicle for communion with the risen Christ, then we would expect it to be observed more frequently.  Because of this, Calvin believed that the covenant meal should be partaken of “at least weekly.”

Objections to weekly communion are fairly standard, but the favorite goes like this.  “If you observe it weekly then it will lose its excitement.”  The logic is simple: familiarity breeds contempt.  But consider such logic when it comes to preaching, prayer, or worship in general.  Such a line of argumentation destroys all of Christian worship.  In reality, however, if the supper becomes boring the problem is not with the supper but with us.

Therefore, let me encourage you to avail yourselves of the ordinary means of grace and especially the weekly communion we offer here.  On the first and third Sundays, the supper is served in the morning and on the second and fourth Sundays, it is served in the evening.  Make it a priority to be here for that.

But how can this be?  How can we really partake of Christ’s physical body and blood if he is in heaven?  That is the question we need to be asking because we, in contrast to Lutherans, for example, have always insisted upon a physical ascension of Christ 40 days after the resurrection and that physically he is currently localized in heaven until he comes again bodily on the last day in a manner analogous to his ascension (Acts 1:9-11).  Furthermore, we have always insisted that the bread and the wine are really that, bread and wine, and are not transformed (transubstantiation) nor is Christ physically with them (consubstantiation).

In all of this we need first to remember that Christ is the focus of the covenant meal and not the signs.  The signs are only as good as the thing they signify.  Nevertheless, while the signs and the thing signified are distinguished they are not separated.  So when we eat the bread and drink the wine we are really eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood.  But, again, how can this be?  The only explanation is that it is by the power of the Holy Spirit who unites us to Christ so intimately that we are able to transcend the usual spatial barriers.  Calvin put it like this,

“The sharing in the Lord’s body, which, I maintain, is offered to us in the Supper, demands neither a local presence, nor the decent of Christ, nor an infinite extension of His body, nor anything of that sort; for, in view of the fact that the Supper is a heavenly act, there is nothing absurd about saying that Christ remains in heaven and is yet received by us.  For the way in which He imparts Himself to us is by the secret power of the Holy Spirit, a power which is able not only to bring together, but also to join together, things which are separated by distance and by a great distance at that.”

This is the only way we can remain faithful to the bodily ascension of Christ as well as the clear teaching of Scripture that when we eat and drink we have “a participation in the body of Christ” and “a participation in the blood of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16).  This is a great mystery, but mystery is not always bad, especially when it comes to the things of God.

For further reading: Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper by Keith Mathison.

In some ways, we had three parts to our vacation.  First, we celebrated with the Kemps the marriage of their son, Jesse, to Megan in Bozeman, Montana.  It was a wonderful couple of days, and I had the privilege of spending time with a number of people from our church who made the trek, as well as meeting many new friends.  From there, we journeyed north to a cabin in the woods.  There were twelve of us for the first couple of days.  Then down to nine for a few more days.  Then down to seven.  Then it was down to just the five Tallmans for the remainder of our time.  That was part two.  Part three is when I shifted into full relaxation overdrive and spent time with my wife and kids doing, well, not much.  You need to understand where we were.  The nearest town of about 1,000 people was a good forty-five minute drive away.  All around us was the spectacular beauty of the Northwest that we don’t often experience.  Around dusk every evening–about 9:00 p.m.–the elk and deer would descend on the field in the back of the house.  Andria got some nice photos of a doe and her fawn about 15 feet away.  Trinity chased after a deer with her new bb gun.  Eden proved to be a rising star with her (don’t tell Trinity I said it was hers) bow-and-arrow.  And Steve Yerburry and I snuck up on some deer so close, we got nervous they were going to come after us and turned back.  We saw a bear, my girls got to drive the car, sit in the front seat, ride four-wheelers to the little store, and get ice cream everyday, not to mention daily trips to the 90 mile lake about a mile away.

Also quite interesting was the religious landscape all around us.  We were surrounded for a couple of weeks by the Amish.  On Sundays, they would put their best black suits on, the men would wear big black hats, and they would ride their horse-drawn carriages to worship.  During the week, they rode bikes and lived in log homes without electricity.  They do drive tractors, though, because, as I found out, it is for work.  Ah, the loopholes.  But I digress.

At this point you are probably asking two questions: What does this have to do with the communion of the saints, and why did you come back?  Let me answer the first question by answering the second question.  I came back because of you.  I came back, excited to be back, because of the communion of saints we experience here at New Life.  Some things are more beautiful than the Rocky Mountains.  New Life if one of them.  During my time away I was reminded of the importance of the church.  I love the church.  And I love our church.  I am praying that we might value more and more the communion of the saints and come to recognize with increased clarity just how important that communion is for our souls.  I am glad to be back. 

Your joy should be in the Gospel:  What makes you happy?  You may find a lot of joy in new toys, money, falling in love, marriage, newborn babies, success in a career, etc.  But what God has done for you in the Gospel should always be your greatest joy because He is the greatest treasure in the universe, and He has reconciled you to Himself through the death of His Son.  All other joys can be taken from you, but not this one.  Furthermore, this greatest of all joys will bear much fruit in your Christian life.  God does not want to be served or obeyed out of guilt-driven duty, but from a heart full of delight and satisfaction in Him and His unchanging love for you.  The well-spring of this joy flows from the Gospel.

Your value is found in the Gospel:  Being absolutely secure with who you are in Christ Jesus will guard you from all the idolatries of this world and help you grow in the grace of God.  In Christ:

You are justified and have peace with God (Romans 5:1)

You are free from condemnation forever (Romans 8:1)

You are complete in Christ (Colossians 2:10)

All things, even those meant for evil against you, are working for your good (Romans 8:28)

Your heavenly Father, like the "Hound of Heaven," is pursuing you relentlessly with goodness and mercy all the days of your life (Psalm 23:6)

If these Gospel truths are deeply established in your hearts, you will be freed to love others with reckless abandon and passionately in love with the God Who purchased these gifts for you with the blood of His own dear Son.

Your strength to grow in holiness is in the Gospel:  Paul writes:  "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."  (Romans 6:4)

The Gospel points you to your death to sin with Christ and to the newness of life you have with Christ in His resurrection.  Paul's logic is that you cannot live in sin any longer!  You died to sin!  Be who you are in Christ…holy and blameless! 

Dear Christian, you need to hear the Gospel everyday!  For a more in-depth study of the necessity of the Gospel for Christians, see these excellent articles: http://www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/centrality.pdf

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2002/1218_The_Transforming_Power_of_Feeling_Mercy/

Singing Psalms was an Old Testament practice. Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn before going to the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:26). What they would have sung was the Passover Hallel (praise), which is Psalms 113-118.

Paul taught that singing the Psalms is also a Christian practice. Two texts that teach this are Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16

“…speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord” Eph. 5:19

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God.” Col 3:16 

The New Testament here commands us to sing the Psalter.  Some argue that the Psalms do not carry any relevance to the contemporary Church. Paul’s two passages contradict this argument. This leads to a second point.

The Church ought to sing Psalms because, through them, God teaches us how to approach Him in prayer. The adjective “spiritual” in Colossians 3:16 modifies the nouns “psalms,” “hymns,” and “songs” to describe them as spiritual in their character.

Paul refers here to the concept of Holy Spirit inspired songs and hymns from the Psalter. “Spiritual” is not something that lifts the physical into the spiritual realm. Paul sees the Holy Spirit condescending rather than us ascending. Spiritual means that God has come down to teach and admonish us with all wisdom.  Spiritual, in this case, means that the Psalms are from the source of the Spirit. It is not something that lifts you to a higher plane. “Spiritual” in this New Testament use means authored by the Holy Spirit.

The Psalms are God’s tutor to teach man how to sing to Him rightly. They show us what we ought to pray. The joy of singing the Psalms is being confronted and transformed by them. Psalm 19:14 shares this same experience, “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.” Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly by singing the Psalms.

“I have been accustomed to call the book of Psalms an anatomy of all the parts of the Soul; for there is not an emotion of which any one can be conscious that is not here represented as in a mirror.” – John Calvin (1509-1564)      

Transubstantiation is the position articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, teaching that miraculously the bread and wine are changed into the actual body and blood of Christ.  As the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent make it clear:

“First of all, the holy council teaches and openly and plainly professes that after the consecration of bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearances of those sensible things.”

More troubling than this, though, is the doctrine that in the Mass the same sacrifice of Christ on the cross is repeated. 

Consubstantiation is the position articulated by Lutherans.  Luther was openly critical of the Roman Catholic position, but still sought to insure that Christ’s real bodily presence was in the Supper while also insisting that the bread and the wine remain what they really are.  In order to overcome these hurdles he suggested that while the bread and the wine remain unchanged, Christ is nevertheless present bodily in, around and under the elements. 

Symbolic Memorialism is the position that was articulated by the Anabaptists and perhaps Zwingli (though this is being questioned and there is good evidence to suggest that he never held this position at all) and is the position held by Baptists and most non-confessional Christians of all shapes and sizes.  Because this view emphasizes remembrance of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice to the neglect of speaking of Christ’s presence, it is often dubbed, albeit pejoratively and eerily accurate, “The Real Absence View.”

Finally, there is the Reformed position.  With Rome and with Luther we insist that when we eat the Holy Meal we are feeding upon Christ’s body and drinking his blood.  What separates us is the manner of this eating.  Calvin insisted that we partake of Christ’s body and blood, but that we do so not with the mouth but by faith.  Further, since Christ’s physical body is in heaven and cannot be brought down, we must then, be lifted up into the heaven.  Obviously there is great mystery here and we should not downplay that or minimize it or be embarrassed by it.  Because many Reformed folk really are memorialists and because of the complexity of our position, next week we will flesh out more of the particulars of our position.

Expository preaching is the philosophy of preaching that seeks to communicate the message embedded in a given text of Scripture.  It presupposes there is a message in the text, and seeks to communicate that message.  This is an important definition, because expository preaching is often equated solely with “verse-by-verse” preaching and pitted against “topical” preaching.  The fact is, I have heard some very good expository preaching on topics, and some very bad expository preaching done verse-by-verse.

Therefore, an expository sermon has no time length attached to it, no requirement to go through a book in a certain way, or even an amount of text which must be exposited.  Rather, it begins and ends with what the text says, regardless of the amount of text and the amount of time given.  This means that one might preach an expository sermon covering one word of one text.  In college, I was assigned to preach the phrase, “but God” from Eph. 2.  It was an expository sermon.  But, one might also preach an expository sermon covering the entire book of Isaiah.  Furthermore, one might also be a faithful expositor if one marshals a host of Scriptures to support a particular topic.  Some wrongly assume that expositional preaching must consist of a paragraph or other unit of Scripture.  Similarly, some assume that if they simply go through books of the Bible, that is, by default, expository preaching.  Believe me, I have heard plenty of “verse-by-verse” preaching that is more “exposit-story” (that is, read a verse and tell a personal story) in nature than expositional.  Similarly, I have heard masterful expositions of texts take place in so-called topical sermons. 

If, as long as the text is allowed to speak, all of these approaches qualify as expository preaching, why have we adopted the method of book-by-book expositional preaching?  Frankly, it seems to me to be the most prudent.  I take it that one of my duties as a pastor is to make known to you the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and that the best way to do that is to expose you to as much of the Bible as possible, and to explain the meaning of the particular text in light of the whole.  If we were going to study the topic of early American history, we wouldn’t want to only focus on Virginia.  Similarly, as we study the Bible, we will include passages from the OT and the NT, the well-known and the lesser known, the favorite and the “boring.”  In doing so, we can be confident that, whatever text of Scripture we give our attention to, God will be speaking there, for “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16).

Taking up the latter first, we give to support the ministry of the church and to assist in the service of our neighbor.  In both testaments we find examples of such giving.  The temple and tabernacle were sustained by the giving (taxes) of the people.  We find God requiring a tithe prior to the giving of the law (Gen. 14:20), under the law and presumably during the new covenant.  On top of this the people gave to assist other needs.  For example, the poor of the community were cared for by the giving of alms.  Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Now concerning the collection for the saints: As I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do.  On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may proper, so that there will be no collecting when I come (1 Cor. 16:1-2). 

And all of this is an act of worship, wherein we demonstrate that we are laying up treasures in heaven (Matt. 6:19-21) and that it is more blessed to give than it is to receive (Acts 20:35).  Because Christ has given to us everything freely we freely give in generous Christian service.  This gets to why we worship accordingly during the service and don’t have a PayPal account on our website or direct deposit (although it would be interesting if the ushers had those hand held machines where you could swipe your debit car and enter your pin.  Would that be considered contemporary worship?).  By having the collection very clearly marked out during worship the service of God is bridged with the service of neighbor.  The two greatest commandments are summed up in this act of worship.

In tough economic times giving takes faith.  That’s good, for we walk by faith and not by sight.  Look back at God’s faithful provision for your needs through the years and be reminded that God loves a cheerful giver.  Test him on this, and see what might happen (Mal. 3:10).

One final point.  You need to know that as I write this I write it knowing that the most generous church I have ever been apart of will receive it.  This is not to berate you, but to encourage you.  Therefore, keep up what you’re doing and fight the good fight.  Your generosity financially is a testimony to me of your profound love and gratitude and commitment to Jesus Christ.

Historically, what we call “The Prayer of the Church” has been called different things.  Some traditions have labeled it “The Pastoral Prayer,” while others have chosen the appellation “The Long Prayer.”  Those two designations are helpful because they both get at a definition of what the “Prayer of/for the Church” is and why we practice it.  First of all, the prayer is a pastoral prayer.  In many settings, the ordained minister offers this prayer every Lord’s Day.  There is no problem with this.  However, in our context, the ordained elders rotate, offering their petitions and ushering our church before the throne of grace.  Second, this is a fairly lengthy prayer.  Jesus warned us that there is nothing inherently spiritual about loquacious and lengthy prayers (Matt. 6:7).  Verbosity doesn’t score points with God.  Nevertheless, if we are to really pray for our congregation and its needs, this will take a little time.  I suppose we could adopt the blanket method: “Lord we pray for the whole church and all of its needs.”  That would be easy.  A little too easy.  So, we expect these prayers to be personal.  We make our needs known to one another and to the elders.  This prayer, then, necessarily reflects the needs —spiritual, emotional, and physical – and efforts of our congregation.  Our nomenclature, “The Prayer of the Church” is also defining because it suggests that this is the church praying together.  When we attach our “Amen” to the end of the elder’s prayer, we give evidence that we are praying in one accord.

One surprise to those who come from low church contexts is that many, though not all, of our elders write out their prayers.  Even those who don’t write them out show evidence of extended reflection and thought about what they should pray for and how they should pray.  It is sometimes assumed that spontaneous prayer is more spiritual, while written prayer is dry, dusty, and dead.  Such preparation on the part of the elders reminds us of the seriousness and privilege we have in coming before our gracious God in prayer.  It is anything but dry, dusty or dead.

A final exhortation: Please make your requests known.  You can submit them by way of the offering basket, speaking with me personally, or communicating with Allison.  We can’t pray unless we know. 

When we lift our voices together in corporate prayer, we have God’s ear in a way that we do not have it during the week.  May God hear our prayer and have mercy upon us.

The main reason is that when we gather, we gather not because of, or even in celebration, of national identity, but to celebrate the gospel of Jesus Christ.  In fact, as we noted in last week’s sermon from Luke 8:1-3, we actually gather both in spite of and in celebration of our diversity.  In a word, when we gather, we gather as the church, and the church is not aligned with any particular nation.  In Revelation, the Lamb is extolled as “worthy” because he has been slain and “by [his] blood [he] ransomed people from every tribe and language and people and nation, and [he has] made them a kingdom and priests to our God and they shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:9-10; cf. Rev. 1:6).  Similarly, Peter tells the church, “…you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.  Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people…” (1 Pet. 2:9-10).  Peter is quoting from Exodus 19:5-6.  In the older testament God saw fit to place his name on one nation, namely Israel.  However, in the New Testament, his name no longer rests on a single nation, but instead upon the church, a holy nation comprised of women and men from every nation.  From this we should not conclude that every nation is morally equal; some are despicable.  Nevertheless, no nation today can claim to be “God’s nation.” 

As Christians we should celebrate the mercies of God in allowing us to live in such a great country.  Indeed, Christians should be the most faithful citizens longing to love and serve their neighbors in the way that God has seen fit to allow in a particular national context.  We should not, however, celebrate these things when we gather as the church.  Instead, when we gather as the church for worship we gather to celebrate God’s mercies to us in Christ, mercies extended and offered to every nation.  When we gather as the church we gather as one nation wherein all ethnic and national identities take a back seat to our identity in Christ.  On Sunday we are first and foremost Christians.

 Mingling God and country necessarily excludes those who are not part of the country we are celebrating.  More troubling, mingling God and country in our worship subtly shifts our focus from Christ and is the first step down the path to a Christ-less Christianity. – Pastor Tallman

(For further reading, please consider Christless Christianity by Michael Horton which can be found in the church library.)

Jesus instructed us to use the Lord’s Prayer as a model for our own prayers.  On one occasion, the disciples asked Jesus, “Lord, teach us to pray” (Lk. 11:1).  He neither give them the prayer of Jabez, nor did he tell them, “Just go pray any old way you want.”  Rather, he said, “When you pray, say, ‘Father, hallowed by your name…’” (Luke 11:2-4).  As we take the time to memorize and meditate on this prayer, it becomes part of the fabric of our being and it shapes our prayer life in a way that is not often consciously recognized.  In this way, it further fulfills the catechetical requirement of the church, producing well-informed disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.  As the WSC asks and teaches us to answer: Q. What rule hath God given for our direction in prayer?  A. The whole Word of God is of use to direct us in prayer; but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples, commonly called the Lord’s Prayer (WSC 99).

The Lord’s Prayer also gives evidence to the richness of the communion of the saints.  With one voice, we all pray the same prayer.  We are one, and our oneness is uniquely manifested in this recitation.  What’s more, we also give evidence that our communion of the saints extends beyond the four walls of our church.  Other churches throughout the country and the world will petition God today using these same words.  Further, churches throughout the centuries have been using the Lord’s Prayer in worship.  In doing likewise, we consciously unite with them in a common confession.  Perhaps this communal nature is nowhere more pronounced then in our children’s active participation.  I still remember my oldest daughter asking me to pray “the” prayer with her before bed.  We pray together every night, so I thought she was telling me to simply pray.  So I started.  She stopped me and said, “no Daddy, ‘the’ prayer, you know, Our Father who art in Heaven…” and she went on to recite the entire prayer from memory.  I had never taught her that, but she learned it in worship.

We must admit that there is a danger in rote prayers.  But there is a danger in spontaneous prayers, too.  The prayer Jesus gave, when properly used, serves as a guide to keep our prayers in line with the will of God and protects us from the dangers and errors of thoughtless communication with our Triune God.  Therefore, let us come boldly before the throne of grace (Heb. 4:15), making our requests known and always praying that, in all things, God will be glorified through Jesus Christ.

The fist objection is that there is a discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.  While Baptists grant that it is clear in the case of the OT that male infants received the covenant sign, they will suggest that there has been a significant change in the NT.  We must allow that there is some degree of discontinuity between the Testaments.  However, when we come to the NT, we find the Lord’s Supper replacing the Passover meal as the sustaining sacrament of the church and we find baptism replacing circumcision as the initiatory sign of entrance into the covenant community (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7; 10:1-4; Col. 2:11-12).  In the same way that male children of believing parents received the covenantal sign of circumcision, so now children of believing parents receive the sign of baptism.  In summary, infants were required to bear the covenant sign in the OT, and that command has not been reversed today.

It is also argued that when we come to the NT, we don’t find any explicit command to baptize the children of believers.  However, we need to remember that silence can be interpreted either way.  For example, we might respond by reminding our friends that we don’t find any text in the NT forbidding the application of the covenant sign to children.  The silence of the NT is clearly an affirmation of our position when we take into consideration the OT data.  In light of the way God operated in the OT, we would expect to find commands forbidding the exclusion of children, not a command to include them.  In addition, while the specifics are lacking, we do find baptism applied to entire households (cf. Acts 10:2; 11:14; 16:15; 31; 34; 18:8)—the exact covenantal language of the OT.

Let us live our lives in light of God’s rich covenant mercy and may it manifest itself in the way we love and treat and raise our children for the glory of God. 

Historically, the majority of the church has always baptized children.  From the third century through the Reformation, infant baptism was the accepted practice of the church, only rejected by heretical groups, including the heretical Anabaptists of the Reformation (many of them denied the Trinity and were eschatological fanatics, among other substantial departures from orthodox Christianity).

Infant baptism flows out of God’s covenantal dealings with his people.  It is important to note that the emphasis of the Bible is corporate not individual.  Of course, God deals with us individually, but even that is in the context of the corporate church.  Thus, we believe that God includes in his church believers in Jesus Christ and their children.  Children of believers are not outside the church, floating in a nebulous sea of indifference, at best, or in paganism at worst.  Rather, they are to be included and are to be instructed about the Lord and his precepts (cf. Deut. 6:7; Eph. 6:4).  This means that we assume our children are believers until they prove otherwise.  It is for this reason that our children participate in worship with us; and it is also the reason we apply to them the sign of baptism. As we read through the Bible, we find God dealing with children of believers on the basis of their parents’ faith or lack thereof.  For example, Adam’s children, of whom we number, suffer the consequences of his lack of faith.  Noah is the federal head of the covenant, but his wife and his children are also included (Gen. 6:18).  To Abraham the command comes, “You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you...”(Gen. 17:12-13a).  When Achan stole the things that were to be devoted to destruction God’s punishment was the stoning of Achan and his family, “all Israel stoned them with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones” (Josh. 7:25, NASB).  To those living in a democratic, individualistically charged climate this seems unfair.  We must remember that God does not deal with us democratically or even individualistically, but covenantally.  God is pleased to allow Christ to represent us even as the fathers represent their children. 

A sign points away from itself to something else. God uses baptism to signify something that we are unable to see—regeneration and the washing away of our sins, among other things.  Through baptism and the Lord’s Supper comes to us a visible Word teaching us and reminding us of the realities of our great salvation.

If signs bring an invisible reality into focus, then seals validate and confirm the thing signified.  Seals highlight the trustworthiness of God and give us tangible, visible Words that his promise is sure.  We live in a day when the black market abounds and it is therefore necessary for companies to attach seals which validate the products’ authenticity.  The man searching for a new Rolex might not know what to look for, but a trained jeweler does.  Likewise, God, through his church, seals us in our baptism.  We need not look to personal experience or our good works to know that God is favorably disposed to us.  Ultimately, assurance based on personal experience and good works is like a roller coaster ride.  But the testimony of God at our baptism stands sure: we are His and He is ours.  This is why we look back to our baptism, for there we are reminded what God has said about us.  Scripture is replete with the language of “seal” and “seals” (cf. Dan 12:4; Rev. 22:10; Matt. 27:66; 2 Cor. 1:22) and such language is applied to the sacraments (Rom. 4:11).

In all of this we are reminded of God’s goodness.  God highlights his trustworthiness in the sacraments.  But he doesn’t need to; his Word is sufficient.  Nevertheless, he knows our weaknesses and frailties; he knows our propensity to doubt and to wonder; and so he attaches to his sure Word these visible words for our benefit. 

Let us then, in renewed assurance, look back to our baptisms and hear and see the word of God to us: Your sins are forgiven.  In light of this, we commit ourselves to live in communion with Christ and with one another and pledge ourselves to a renewed obedience under the Lordship of Christ.

For starters, church membership is a tangible expression that one is, in fact, a Christian. Many people say they are Christians, but have no affiliation with the church.  This is why I like to ask people who say they are part of the invisible body of Christ (i.e. the Universal Church) which visible church are they a part of.  If they are not part of a visible church then there is no way they can assume to be part of the invisible church.  Admission into church membership means that you are a Christian.  The elders have heard of your faith in Christ and have invited you in.

Secondly, church membership is a means to submitting to spiritual authority.  We, of course, repudiate heavy-handed shepherding and authoritative domineering.  Nevertheless, we are called to submit to our leaders and obey them (Heb. 13:17).  Elders are called by God to shepherd the church and keep watch over it (1 Pet. 5:2).  God knows of our propensity to stray – doctrinally and morally – and thus grants to us a community wherein our souls can be protected.

Lastly, by joining a church we enter into covenant not only with God (point one) but also with the other members.  So we take vows as a congregation.  The members joining promise to support the church, trust in Christ, and submit to the elders.  And the current members promise to support the new members.  Joining a church is a rich expression of the unity of the faith we all share in Christ.  It is a testimony that we are one and that we are in this together. 

If you have been attending this church and would like to consider joining, please don’t hesitate to contact me so we can set up an appointment to talk.

First, the Bible includes within it confessions and affirmations of faith.  In the pages of Scripture we find that the church was not taught a string of pearl-like Bible quotations, but rather the contents of the Scriptures.  So we find concrete expression of the faith in, what many believe to be, creeds and confessions of the faith (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-4; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:15-20; 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 16; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Tit. 1:9; 3:8).

Secondly, concrete expressions of our faith are the historic practice of our faith.  This follows logically from the first point.  Since the Bible contains confessions of what we believe, it follows that we too would craft documents which accessibly codify the truths we affirm.  So, for example, the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed date to around the 4th century.  The Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Standards date back to the 16th and 17th centuries.  These documents were forged in the furnace of persecution and during a time when Christians needed to know what they believed.

Thirdly, these confessions aid us in Christian education.  The historic practice of catechizing children is often associated with Roman Catholicism.  Not so.  Actually, the RC practice came as a response to the reformed practice and the rich fruit it was bearing.  One element of being a reformed Christian is to be a catechized Christian and to have catechized children.  Too often Christian parents teach their children morals. What the church needs is not more lessons on morals but a joyful embrace of what Scripture teaches.  What might God do if every child and every adult in this congregation had digested the simple and yet profound question, “What is justification?”  If you can’t answer that, go get a catechism from the free literature table!

Fourth, by confessing our faith with these documents we express our unity in the gospel with millions of contemporary Christians and millions of our brothers and sisters who have gone before us.  We confess the same faith and are thus in union with Christ and one another.  We confess that we didn’t make this up last week.  We are not a Johnny-come-lately outfit, but rather tied intimately with the past and the present.  In all the talk about unification of Christians we need to ask the question, “United around what?”  An experience?  Or a body of teaching?  Few things better express a fulfillment of Jesus prayer in John 17 than corporate confession.

Finally, by confessing these truths we affirm our trust in the gospel.  We say to the world and to those around us, “This is what we believe.”  If you don’t believe it, don’t confess it.  But this is what we believe as followers of Christ.  As such it is an expression of our hope and trust in the gospel of Christ.  As such we affirm every Lord’s Day, “I believe the gospel…I need the gospel…I love the gospel.”

The short answer to the first question is that these are an historic expression of the Christian faith handed down to us by the church, which codify for us what Christians believe and why we believe it.  Christians believe certain things about what the Bible teaches.  If we reject those things we may be well meaning and nice folks, but we are not Christians.  We are not at liberty to define our faith, for it has been defined for us by God in His Word.  The second question really is the one that those who truly love and trust in God’s word chafe at.  It seems a bit odd that we would on the one hand confess Sola Scriptura (The Bible Alone as the sole authority for the church) while at the same time confessing historic creeds that are non-Biblical.  I confess (no pun intended) I have been there.  But we need to remember two things. 

First, as far as confessions go, everyone has a confession.  The famous line from the Jehovah’s Witnesses is also the mantra of many evangelicals, “No Creed but Christ.”  The problem is obvious.  Which Christ?  The one created or the one who is the God-Man?  Therefore, the question is not if we will have a confession but which one we will confess.  This is what we need to understand.  All Christians have a confession of faith.  When we go about constructing a theology of God or of salvation or of the Trinity or the “end times”, or anything for that matter, we are confessing something we believe the Bible to teach.  The nature of confessionalism, then, is inescapable.  As Christians we believe something and we must know what we believe and why we believe it.  The options are two: we may either create our own private confession of faith or we may embrace the one that the church has agreed upon for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Secondly, we need to remember that when we confess the historic creeds and confession we are confessing the Bible.  That is, we are confessing or affirming what the Bible teaches.  Indeed we are confessing something that is non-Biblical.  But we are not confessing something that is un-Biblical.  The difference is mammoth.  Just because something is not found, word-for-word, in the Bible, does not mean that it is de facto un-Biblical.  We may think of many things that are non-Biblical, that is, not found in the Bible.  For example, one is hard pressed to find a verse clearly affirming the Trinity.  Yet we believe the Bible teaches unequivocally the doctrine of the Trinity. 

When we confess our faith together, with one heart and voice and mind, we are affirming our belief in the teaching of Scripture, our trust in Jesus Christ for our salvation and our need to be shaped by the God who is there. For further reading, I recommend Recovering the Reformed Confession by R. Scott Clark and it can be found in our church library.

Receive the Holy Spirit.  If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld (Jn. 20:22-23).

The church, according to the New Testament, is not an appendage to the Christian life but is at the center of the Christian life.  The church feeds, by Word and Sacrament; the church forgives sins; and the church, in discipline, declares your sins are not forgiven.  The minister functions as the mouth of Christ and of the church.  The power rests not in his person or charisma, but in the office itself.  Consider a couple of examples with which we are altogether familiar and with which we are altogether comfortable: a wedding and a courtroom.  When a minister declares that a couple is married—I now pronounce you husband an wife – or when the judges declares the defendant, “Guilty as charged,” they are then married and guilty, respectively.  Before the minister spoke the couple was not married and after he spoke they were married.  Before the judge declared the defendant guilty he/she was not guilty.  The same happens every Lord’s Day when the minister declares, “Your sins are forgiven.”  Historically the minister has done this with uplifted hands as a sign – very much like a gavel – that what is said is so.

This is what Calvin said in his Strasbourg Liturgy

To all those that repent of in this wise, and look to Jesus Christ for their salvation, I declare that the absolution of sins is effected, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

So when you repent of your sins and look to Jesus Christ for your salvation, you can be assured that your sins are absolved in the deep mercy of God.  From where does your assurance come?  It comes from the very word of God spoken to you by the church through her appointed spokesman, the minister.  When doubts creep in and Satan calls into question your forgiveness, hear the words of the gospel and hear the words of the minister, “Your sins are forgiven.”

An element of traditional worship has curiously dropped out of much Protestant worship.  I am speaking of the confession of sin.  After my conversion I never attended a church service wherein the congregation confessed their sins during worship until coming to New Life.  For many, the confession of sin smacks of sacerdotalism, at best, and Roman Catholicism, at worst.  Therefore, to avoid all things sacerdotal the confession of sin has been deleted from many liturgies.  What is so striking about this, however, is that Scripture is replete with examples of God’s people confessing their sin and seeking his mercy.  One thinks of the Psalms and hears the Psalmist over and over again crying out for God’s mercy and confessing his sins (cf. Ps. 32; 51; 130).  We are reminded of Daniel’s prayer (Dan. 9) and of Nehemiah’s (Neh. 9).  And we hear John and James echoing the same truth and calling for the same practice.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 Jn. 1:9).

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working (Js. 5:16).

Confession of sin is what Christians do. The rationale is simple. We confess our sins because we sin and he who says he does not sin or is without sin is a liar and has no place in God’s house (1 Jn. 1:10).  We sin in thought, word and deed, and we commit sins of omission (not doing what we should) and commission (doing what we should not).

When we confess our sins it means we take sin and sinning seriously. I have heard people speak the opposite, as if you can sin all you want and then deal with it during the confession in worship. May it never be! God forbid! Instead, when we confess our sins we declare them to be what they are and speak of our missteps and disobedience how God speaks of them. We call it what it is. We call, as I was often told growing up, a spade a spade. Confession is more than just naming our sin, recognizing it and making it known to God; for, after all, God already knows everything. Confession of sin is also a commitment to a renewed obedience. Upon confession we commit ourselves to turn from sin to God and to seek to put to death the deeds of the body and live according to God’s law.  Finally, in the confession we also freshly appropriate the gospel, the good news that Jesus died for us and loves us and has freed us from the penalty of sin. In the confession we are reminded that our right standing before God is based on the worth and work of Jesus and not our worth and works. Simply put, in the confession we are reminded that we sin and that we need a Savior.

As we gather, let us turn from the heinousness and filthiness of our sin; let us freshly appropriate the gospel of Jesus Christ; and let us go forth in renewed obedience as we live in gratitude for all that God has done for us.

Recently I had an interesting and enlightening experience.  One of our high school students was given the opportunity to receive extra credit for a class if she would attend an Ash Wednesday service.  So I took Trinity along and we joined her family in attendance at a local Episcopal Church.  You might be thinking my interesting experience related to the ashes placed on our foreheads.  Nope.  What was interesting was the amount of Scripture we were exposed to.  As far as I can tell this was a liberal Episcopal Church (is there any other kind?  There are a few ones still).  And yet, in spite of that, we heard read and read responsively together almost five entire chapters of Scripture (Ps. 51; 103; Joel 2; Matt. 6; 2 Cor. 5). 

At one level this makes a lot of sense.  Their liturgies, whether liberal or conservative, are historic and date back the days when the Anglicans/Episcopals were bastions of conservatism.  However, conservative theology (read: a belief in the inerrancy, inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture) has, for the most part, left the Anglican/Episcopal communion.  It has been taken up by the Evangelical wing of Christianity in the West.  So then, it follows that we would find a similar permeation of and emphasis on Scripture within Evangelicalism.  This is where it gets fuzzy and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.  Today you can go to an Evangelical church service and hear little if any of the Bible read, let alone preached.  A little closer to home, while on vacation a couple of years ago our family attended a PCA church wherein the Bible was not even opened!  The minister (read: speaker) sat on a stool with Bible closed for the entire service!  Where has the Bible gone? 

How shall we overcome this?  The only way is by making our services intentionally laden with the words of God.  How do we do this?  Consider a typical service.  It begins with a scriptural Call to Worship.  Herein the Bible is opened, God speaks and we respond.  During the Reading of the Law we hear entire chapters read with little or no comments.  I have adopted the practice of reading from the alternate testament from which I am currently preaching.  Aside from fulfilling the admonition of 1 Tim. 4:13, this allows for us to be exposed to the diversity of the Biblical cannon.  We also sing the Psalms (cf. Col. 3:16; Js. 5:13).  There seems to be two positions in the church when it comes to singing Psalms; the Psalms only position and the Psalms never position.  We have adopted a mediating position of singing “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” (Col. 3:16).  Add to this that almost always the Elder leading the congregational prayer will begin with a reading from God’s Word.  Finally, because of our commitment to the Scriptures we preach expositional sermons, working our way book-by-book through the Holy Scriptures.

This is why our worship services are intentionally imbued with the Bible.  Taken together this confronts you with a massive amount of Scriptural truth week in and week out.  Left to ourselves we will are lost in the woods without a compass ( better, without a GPS unit).  But when God’s Word is opened we are put on the straight and narrow and we are guided by God’s divine grace and wisdom.

In a church in our area the Forth of July service has actual fireworks in the sanctuary during worship!

There is of course the ubiquitous drama “teams.” I have seen syncopated dance “teams”, stand-up-Christian comedians, artists painting during the sermon, light shows that border on the professional, and many other “new” and “fresh” innovations in worship.  Add to this the new trend for churches to provide “venues” of worship.  A generation ago the cutting edge venue was “contemporary” and “traditional.”  Now churches have “country” services, “luau services,” “GenX services,” “Boomer services,” and more.  In a word, anything goes. 

Have you ever wondered why we don’t have any of that?  In stark contrast to this is the simple worship of the reformed tradition.  Our tradition has always insisted that we must worship in a way that is acceptable to God (Heb. 12:28) and that acceptability is determined by whether or not it conforms to Scripture.  Thus, Scripture regulates our worship and hence we call this the regulative principle.  In many ways this gets to the heart of the Reformation, because the goal of the Reformers was to be Reformed “according to the word of God.”

Simply stated, the regulative principle of worship states that “nothing must be required as essential for worship except that which is commanded by the word of God” (Derek Thomas, in Give Praise to God, 75).  Or, as the WCF puts it, “…the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men…” (WCF 21:1).

In this way, worship then becomes quite simple.  We gather to worship God in the way that he commands us to worship Him.  We pray, we sing, we read and preach Scripture, we take up a collection and we serve and administer the sacraments.  Mystery of mysteries is that God meets us in these ordinary means.

“I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word.  The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honour of God.  But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, it at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course?” (John Calvin, Institutes).

The Biblical picture of the Lord ’s Day is of just that, an entire day.  Contrary to popular assumptions, the Sabbath did not emerge during the time of Moses.  Actually, it has been around since the inception of the world.  This is why we refer to the Sabbath, along with work and marriage, as a creation ordinance.  This is important because if the Sabbath is merely a ceremonial law attached to the nation of Israel, then when Israel passes away (70 AD), it too is done away with.  If, however, it is a creation ordinance then it is binding and “is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath” (WCF 21:7).  The distinctive of the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s Day, rests on and relates to the resurrection of Christ from the dead on the first day of the week.  Because of this, not only is the day changed, but all the new creation is ushered in.  And since the new creation is already here (2 Cor. 5:17) and not yet here simultaneously, the Lord’s Day offers to us a foretaste of the eternal state and a parable of the gospel of Christ.

In light of this, what activities should we engaged in and what should we avoid?  Let’s take the latter question first.  We should avoid doing anything that would take us away from worship and anything that we can do on the other six days.  It’s that simple.

What should we do?  First, worship.  Come to worship in the morning and in the evening.  It will be good for your soul and your family.  Structure your day around worship and make everything revolve around it.  Make it the sun and not the earth.  Second, enjoy the people of God.  Open your home to others and enter the homes of others.  Third, rest.  Rest spiritually and rest physically.  Finally, be engaged in acts of mercy.  Sundays are great days for ministering to the outcasts, visiting the sick and infirmed and helping those in need.

Remember, the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.  This is God’s good gift to us.  Enjoy.

What is it that shapes, most fundamentally and at the most basic level, our worship?  The answer is: The Covenant of Grace.  Our system of doctrine as articulated in the Westminster Standards is arranged according to the doctrine of the covenant.  Hence we confess a robust covenant theology.  Likewise our worship is to be arranged accordingly.

A covenant in Scripture is the expression of God’s voluntary condescension wherein he bridges the great gulf which exists between us and him. In other words, he comes to us as evidenced most clearly in the incarnation of our Savior. Christ descends in the condescension of grace; we do not ascend to him on the ladder of self-worth, good works or merits. Having come to us in Christ, however, we do respond. We respond in faith and repentance and obedience. It is this gospel logic that we put on display when we gather for corporate worship. It is this dialogue that is taking place when we assemble together. 

The parts of worship are of two kinds: those which are performed on behalf of God, and those which are performed by the congregation. In the former the worshippers are receptive; in the latter they are active. It is reasonable that these two elements be made to alternate as far as possible (Directory for Worship of the OPC).

When we gather and enter into worship we enter a great dialogue wherein God speaks to us and reminds us that we are his and he is ours, “I will be your God and you will be my people.”  Consider our liturgy in this light. God begins by speaking and calling us out of the world into his presence in the Call to Worship. We respond in a song of praise and a prayer of invocation, begging him to be with us and to bless us. God speaks again, this time in his holy law.  We respond in confession. He assures us of our pardon. We sing a song of rejoicing and affirm the gospel afresh and anew, confessing our faith. We give our gifts and offer our prayers, coming boldly into his presence as those welcome and forgiven. God speaks to us in his word and communes with us in the supper. We bless him and respond to his good gifts in song and praise. He sends us forth in renewed obedience, placing his name upon us in the benediction.

Worship is not a monologue. We do not do all the talking, nor does God. Here we both speak. We hear God’s good words of grace and mercy and we respond accordingly.

“…God is to be worshipped everywhere, in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in public assemblies…(WCF 21:6).” Notice the three-fold pattern of worship in the Christian life highlighted by our confession: private, family, corporate. This WWDWWD is about the first two. My greatest times of success in athletic competition were always during seasons of great success in my practice sessions. Similarly, what we do during the week as Christians profoundly affects what happens when we gather corporately on Sundays.

Personal or private worship is that worship done in secret wherein our souls are disciplined to lean upon Christ and freshly appropriate the gospel of Christ. It is a time of daily reminder that God is for us and instruction in obedience to his holy commands. This  involves Bible reading, meditation and memorization of Scripture, perhaps singing, and most assuredly prayer. Do you worship God in secret?

In their article, “A Call to Family Worship,” J. Ligon Duncan and Terry L. Johnson suggest four goals in evangelical churches. Here’s the fourth: “for family religion to be the fountain of healthy, robust, corporate worship, as well as worship in all of life.” In other words, we prepare for our corporate worship in our family worship. The family is the God’s divinely appointed “small group.”

Of course that raises the questions: Do you have family worship in your home? Dads and husbands, do you lead your family in song and prayer and meditation on the Bible? Teachers of government schools often say the problem is that parents abdicate their responsibility. Have we done the same thing with our children spiritually? Do we think it is up to the church to educate, catechize and encourage our families? It may be that your heart is not white-hot for the glory of God on Sunday because you have neglected the worship of God on Wednesday. It may be that your children don’t want to come to worship and don’t enjoy the Lord’s Day because they have had nothing to whet their appetites on Tuesday. I am convinced, however, that if you will commit to the regular pattern of family worship, your corporate worship will be enhanced and intensified and your heart will be adequately prepared.

What should you do? For starters, don’t make it complex. Don’t set out to do an hour Bible study every day after dinner; especially those of you with kids. Above all, keep it simple. Corporate worship is not complex, nor is family worship. Be sure to include a reading of Scripture. Sing a psalm or hymn. Recite the catechism. Pray.

One final exhortation. Simply your life. Make time for private and family worship. If you don’t “have time” then something has to go. These are the things that matter most. Turn off the TV and seek the Lord while he may be found.

Why do some churches have a drama presentation and we don’t?  How come we don’t have announcements in the middle of the service?  Why does the pastor lead the service and not a “worship leader”?  Why do we confess our faith and pray the Lord’s Prayer?  Why do we confess our sins?  Why do we have a call to worship followed by an invocation?  Why does the pastor lift his hands at the end of the service and pronounce a benediction?  Why do we sing Psalms?  Why does the pastor pay such close attention to the text of the Bible when he is preaching?  Why do the elders offer such detailed and thought out prayers, rather that spontaneous prayers that are shorter?  Why do we take and offering instead of installing boxes in the back of the sanctuary?  Why do we partake of the Lord ’s Supper weekly?  Why is there wine and grape juice?  Why is the loaf leavened?  Why do we baptize babies?  Why do we sprinkle during baptism?  We do we worship in the morning and in the evening?

Wow!  Have you ever asked any of those?  I have.  In this blog we will address a different aspect of our worship service and seek to explain it and offer Scriptural support for its inclusion in the service.  Each week I will be publishing the material here under this section - “blogs”.  Most, if not all of the questions above, will be answered throughout the year.  This is intended for your Christian education and edification.  Hopefully this rational will encourage your faith and stir your heart in worship.

It is possible to do the right thing—even in worship—and yet not know why we are doing them.  When this happens it is only a matter of time until the effects are seen.  Inevitably there is a slow and gradual slide to revivalism, evangelicalism and away from Biblical worship.  Knowing why we do what we do will serve as an anchor and it will cause us to love and appreciate all that God does for us when we gather in worship.