Paul Owen on Diagnosing the Church

Diagnosing the Church

January 31, 2008 by paulowen

One thing is clear to many people in Christendom today.  The Church is very, very sick.  Writers as diverse Ian Murray (Presbyterian), Doug Wilson (CREC), Darrel Hart (OPC), David Wells (Calvinistic Congregationalist), John MacArthur, Jr. (Baptist Fundamentalist), and Simon Chan (Assemblies of God) have all written about the spiritual illness which has taken American Christianity into its grip.  Some argue that the need is a return to Reformed confessionalism, others say the need is for expository preaching, others a recovery of liturgy, and others would say the basic need is more pastoral discernment.  Probably there is some truth in all of these suggestions.  What are the main problems?  I think it all boils down to evangelism and worship:

1. There is the problem of evangelism.  Somehow (no doubt the Second Great Awakening played a role) the evangelical church began to view conversion as something that can be be brought at least in part through human effort.  By persuasive appeal, a preacher, or evangelist, can persuade a person that they are a sinner whose soul requires the salvation offered to faith in the gospel.  The way that a sinner is saved is by responding to the appeal, and making a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, trusting in God to forgive one's sins on the basis of Jesus' death.

The problem with this model is it puts too much practical power in the hands of the preacher/evangelist.  It gives the impression that salvation is something that human beings can convince other human beings to accept, much like a salesman convinces a customer of her need to buy a product.  It also makes salvation too personal.  The  preacher/evangelist introduces the person to Jesus, who then closes the deal when the convert agrees to sign the contract (evangelistic tracts sometimes even have a place to put one's signature).  Whatever happened to the Church and the sacraments in all of this?  How is it that becoming a Christian has now become a matter of personal decision to accept the offer of God's gift, without baptismal incorporation into the visible Christian body?

In reality, in the Christian religion, conversion is not so much the decision to accept a gift, as it is the initiation of a person into God's family.  The gift, is the recognition of Christian identity, and all that entails, which the Church bestows upon the convert.  Initiation, not accepting a gift, is both the biblical and catholic model of conversion.  Becoming a Christian is much more like being adopted into a family, or (in the case of infants), being born into a family, than it is an evangelistic sales transaction.  Evangelical evangelism puts the burden on the individual, to choose whether they will buy the product or not; whereas biblical and catholic evangelism puts the burden on the Christian body as a whole to accept this person within their family.  Those two models create very different kinds of religion.  The question of whether or not you have "accepted" Jesus cannot be separated from the question of whether or not Jesus (in the concrete expression of his body on earth) has accepted you.

2. There is the problem of worship.  In biblical and catholic religion, worship is coming into the Temple of God and offering to God one's gifts.  In evangelical worship, all too often the impression is given that we are there to receive from God.  We are there to be uplifted, instructed, encouraged, evangelized (if need be), and so forth.  Since when did the people of God go to the Temple of God to receive things from God?  The Temple is the place where worshippers offer gifts TO God.  The Marcionist separation of OT and NT religion has drastically affected modern worship, because we no longer think of the Church as God's Temple.

Worship services are now structured, not so much with the end in view of creating an atmosphere where God is seated in his holy Temple, and we are approaching him reverently with our gifts, standing in awe at the beauty of his presence; rather, the goal of the service is to give the customers what they want so that they will return.  We have created spiritual shopping centers, and torn down God's Temple in order to build them.  And we wonder why the Church is doing so poorly in our land?

Look at the music which is offered in churches across the country today.  All too often, the music is designed to give those in attendance a "powerful" worship experience.  Is that the purpose of worship?  That kind of thinking takes God from the center and puts the idol of man on the throne, so that the true object of the "worship" is now the customer for whom the service has been designed.

3. Our defective view of worship goes hand in hand with a faulty view of the Bible.  We have taken the Bible out of its proper context in the liturgy of the Church, and made a plaything out of it.  Again, the Bible has come to be viewed as the possession of the individual, a kind of survival manual for the Christian life.  But for the ancients, the copy of the Law was shown a special reverence, and kept in the ark of the covenant in the Temple for a reason.  The worship of the Church is where the reading and interpretation of the Bible belongs (Neh. 8:1 cf. 3:26).  Nor was the connection between God's word and the Temple limited to the Old Covenant, for in the Messianic age, Isaiah predicts that the nations will go to the Temple to hear the word of the Lord, for "the law will go forth from Zion" (Isa. 2:3).  The Scriptures belong in the setting of the liturgy of the Church, which is also where the apostolic letters were read aloud (Col. 4:16), and the Apocalypse (Rev. 1:3-4), and the OT and gospels as well (1 Tim. 4:13; 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). 

Now of course, all Christians should meditate upon the Scriptures day and night (Deut. 6:6-7; Josh. 1:8), and those who are fortunate enough to own their own copies of the Bible should make good use of them.  But the Bible is not addressed to the individual Christian; it is written for the benefit of the Church, to be heard and loved (Ps. 119:47-48) in the reverent setting of worship and prayer.  We need to take the Bible out of the consumer-driven market and put it back in the sanctuary and in the Church's morning and evening prayer and worship.  Perhaps people do not treasure the Scriptures any longer because we have turned it into an ordinary kind of book by mass publication and distribution.

Biblical Horizons Blog: Synod of Dort and the Complexities of Being Reformed

http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/the-synod-of-dort-and-the-complexities-of-being-reformed/

The Synod of Dort and the Complexities of Being Reformed

January 31, 2008 by Steven W

When I was first introduced to Reformed theology, I encountered "the five points of Calvinism" and "TULIP." I was told that these came from the Synod of Dort, which essentially decided that Calvinism would be the accepted religion of the Reformed churches in Europe. Calvinism and TULIP were for the most part equivalent.

As I moved from a Reformed Baptist to a Presbyterian, I began to hear pastors mention that Calvinism was more than the five points. I began to learn about "covenant theology," which served as the basis for baptizing infants. Calvinism now included the TULIP as well as covenant theology and infant baptism. Still later in my studies, I began to learn about the Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper. My understanding of Calvinism broadened, but I still had a tendency to think of Dort when I heard the term Calvinist.

Given the central place of Dort in the history of Calvinism, I was surprised when I began to read R. L. Dabney's Systematic Theology and his book The Five Points of Calvinism. He nearly dismissed the five points saying, "Historically, this title is of little accuracy or worth."[1] As I continued to read in Dabney, I began to discover there were various schools within Calvinism, some of which disagreed in key places. Amazingly, Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd all distance themselves from theologians like Francis Turretin on the relationship between the decree of God and the cross of Christ, and even go so far as to explicitly reject key exegesis that underlies the "limited atonement" argument found in John Owen's The Death of Death.[2] These 19^th century Presbyterians were neither Arminians, nor Amyraldians though, but rather they represent what is called, for better or for worse, moderate Calvinism.[3]

How is it, I wondered, that I had never heard of this distinction before? Why have I been taught that the Five Points of Calvinism are the summary of Reformed theology? What is limited atonement? This brought on a bit of theological dizziness, and I was eager to learn more about the true history of Calvinism and the Synod of Dort. What did it teach concerning these matters, and what is its place in the larger Reformed church history?

At this point the reader must be warned. This discussion quickly becomes dangerous territory in the eyes of many contemporary Reformed thinkers. Indeed it is a sort of "read at your own risk" move. There are very few moderate Calvinists today, and the current of high Calvinism has become so strong that deviations will most certainly be condemned as Amyraldianism from the outset. Part of my intent is to alleviate this reaction and to shed some light on the facts of history. I think it will be shown that the actual history of Calvinism was always a variegated one, and the five points represented a heavily contextualized debate within one period of the larger Reformed tradition.

One of the first observations that needs to be made is that the theological dispute that lead up to the Synod of Dort occurred from inside the Reformed theological community. The Remonstrants would eventually argue for a clear departure from this tradition, but at the outset this was not the case. In other words, the debate was initially an intra-Reformed debate, not one between those inside and those outside of the tradition. Furthermore, there had been at least fourteen confessional documents composed prior to Dort, including the Tetrapolitan Confession, the 1^st and 2^nd Helvetic, the Scots Confession, the Belgic Confession, the 39 Articles, and the Heidelberg Catechism. The English and German delegates were as much concerned with maintaining their pre-existing standards as they were defending the specific writings of the Contra-Remonstrants. In fact the two parties in the Netherlands at that time are sometimes called the Arminians and the Gomarists, illustrating the regional particularity. King James I sent the British delegates to Dort with instructions to uphold the current faith of the Church of England.[4] David Pareus, writing from Heidelberg, also asked that no deviation from the Heidelberg catechism be made.[5] That there was an established and authoritative Reformed theological tradition prior to the Synod of Dort is obvious. Dort was not subscribed to by those outside of the Netherlands, though it was approved as sound doctrine by the various foreign delegates. This explains how it is that the German Reformed Church could continue with only the Heidelberg Catechism as a confessional document well into the 19^th century.

This fairly self-evident historical review is necessary today because of subsequent history's tendency to divide theological groups between "Anglicans," "Puritans," "separatists," "non-conformists," and still others, and then to simply give the title of "Calvinist" to the more extreme parties. Many within the Church of England also felt no need to apply the title of what they viewed to be a subset of Protestantism to themselves, opting instead to simply refer to the doctrine of the Church. Many conservative and "Reformed" English Churchmen valued the names of Augustine and Prosper as much or more than that of Calvin, and thus they did not refer to themselves as Calvinists. Further complicating maters is the tendency for the moderate Calvinists to criticize "rigid Calvinism." Such a reference should not be interpreted as a slight against Calvin. "Rigid Calvinist" was the name given to the supralapsarians. It was not uncommon for a moderately Calvinistic Anglican (who never referred to himself as such) to seem antagonistic towards "Calvinism" when in reality it is the supralapsarians (or perhaps some of the Presbyterian-minded Puritans) he specifically had in mind. Sorting some of these matters out can be admittedly difficult, and our lack of familiarity with the pre-Puritan Protestant Church of England further handicaps us. Figures like Archbishop George Abbott, George Carleton, Samuel Ward, and John Davenant are not familiar to modern Presbyterians, but they should not therefore be categorized as simply sub-Reformed.

The controversy in the Netherlands was ignited by the writings of Arminius and his students, but it should also be noted that the phenomena of suprlapsarianism was just as novel. Arminius's early writings were directed towards William Perkins and Francis Gomarus[6], and Morris Fuller, writing in 1897, can state that the origins of the controversy really began with the introduction of supralapsarianism into the Dutch academies.[7] Though it is certainly anachronistic to use such a label, the twelfth article of the French confession, the fifth chapter of the Scots Confession, the sixteenth article of the Belgic Confession, and the seventeenth article of the English 39 articles all present an infralapsarian doctrine. This is quite significant given Dort's stated task of defending the Reformed tradition against destructive innovations.

The followers of Arminius presented their Remonstrance at The Hague in 1610, and the issues gained international notoriety. In England, Robert Abbot and George Carleton began refuting the Arminians. Grotius and Vorstius achieved some audience in England; however, both were eventually deemed heretics. Even King James I was vocal in opposing Arminianism. He called the Arminian preachers "seditious and heretical" and wrote that their doctrine was a "corrupt seed which that Enemy of God had sown."[8] Some of the English Churchmen were eager to side with the contra-Remonstrants, but others, most notably James Ussher, Lancelot Andrewes, and John Overall argued for a middle course. Overall wrote three significant treatises on the Dutch controversy, and he proved especially influential on John Davenant. Peter White notes, "Davenant had gone to Dort armed with a four-page memorandum headed 'Dr Overall. De Praedestinatione Divinea, De Morte Christi'."[9] One of the most distinctive points in Overall's treatise that reappears in Davenant's writings at Dort is the combination of a universal and conditional atonement with a particular and efficacious atonement. According to this teaching, one could say that Christ died for all in one sense and that he did not die for all in another sense. This position, which was held in suspicion by the high Calvinists, is essentially the same as David Pareus's additions to Ursinus's Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.[10]

During the proceedings of Dort, certain significant differences among the divines became evident. Most famous perhaps is the dispute between Gomarus and Martinius,[11] but there were quite a few issues that proved controversial, including the place of the Apocrypha, the order of the decree of predestination, the foundation of election, the extent of the atonement, the universality of grace, the free offer of the gospel, and the temporary operations of the Spirit enjoyed by the Reprobate. By the end of the numerous debates and resolutions, Gomarus, who had been heading up the contra-remonstrant cause, would actually find himself in the minority.

The diversity at Dort, of course, is true of both tendencies. The British and Bremen delegates represented the more moderate strands of Calvinism, but there were also several high Calvinists present that tended towards outright hyper-Calvinism. The delegates from Friesland and Gelderland argued against the free offer of the gospel.[12] At the close of the Synod, the delegates from England, Hesse, and Bremen all requested that certain contra-Remonstrant positions be condemned, particularly statements found in the writings of Piscator.[13] Earlier in the proceedings, Gomarus had greatly disturbed the British when he stated, "As He predestinated man to death, so He predestinated him to sin, the only way to death." Of this John Hales remarked, "And so he mended the question as tinkers mend kettles, and made it worse than before."[14]

The British delegates at Dort are often portrayed as softer Calvinists. This description needs to be questioned for several reasons. The first is that the Remonstrants were originally invited to Dort. With their presence, the British and Bremen delegates are actually in the middle of the spectrum, with the Gomarists at the other extreme. When we compare the positions of the University of Heidelberg in the previous generation, as well as the broader English theological landscape, the British delegates at Dort can be seen to be well within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy. They were committed to absolute predestination, and could call upon citations from Calvin, Zanchius, Pareus, and their own James Ussher for support for their views on the atonement. There was even some division among the British delegates on these issues. Carleton, Balcanquall, and Goad were known for teaching a more restricted doctrine of the atonement, while Davenant and Ward were known for teaching a broader doctrine.[15] Initially Carleton and Balcanquall both sympathized with Gomarus, asking Martinius to modify his position, however through the persuasive arguments of Davenant, as well as the intemperate behavior of Gomarus, the British eventually agreed among themselves to support Martinius's position affirming that election is founded in the person of Christ.[16] The official British position on the canons of Dort can be found in their Collegiat Suffrage,[17] and while it is true that Davenant and Ward were successful in obtaining a majority of their views, Anthony Milton notes, "Some of the points initially desired by Ward and Davenant were excluded from the final Suffrage."[18]

In considering the place of the British and their views, we should also note the impression that they were able to make upon the final version of the Canons of Dort. The Canons are infralapsarian. In fact, the opposition to supralapsarianism was so strong that at one point, Bishop Carleton requested that supralapsarianism be included among the rejected errors. To avoid this decision, Gomarus appealed to the authority of English theologians like William Perkins and upon their reputation was able to avoid condemnation.[19] The canons of Dort also emphasize the infinite worth of Christ's sacrifice and the free offer of the gospel. The British were unsuccessful in persuading Dort to ground the gospel offer in the worth of the atonement, however, and thus this point has to be understood as a bit of a compromise. Certain high Calvinists opposed the free offer, and others defended it solely as a Christian duty, not having a necessary implication on the particulars regarding the extent of the atonement.[20]

One of the most striking achievements of the British at Dort is seen in what they were able to keep from being listed among the rejected errors. Initially a proposal had been made to reject as an error the teaching that the reprobate could attain a state of temporary justification. The British protested and were, amazingly, successful in keeping this position from being considered heretical. Their reasons for doing so are worth quoting in full:

We ourselves think that this doctrine is contrary to Holy Scriptures, but whether it is expedient to condemn it in these our canons needs great deliberation. On the contrary, it would appear

1. That Augustine, Prosper and the other Fathers who propounded the doctrine of absolute predestination and who opposed the Pelagians, seem to have conceded that certain of those who are not predestinated can attain the state of regeneration and justification. Indeed, they use this very argument as an illustration of the deep mystery of predestination; which cannot be unknown to those who have even a modest acquaintance with their writings.

2. That we ought not without grave cause to give offence to the Lutheran churches, who in this matter, it is clear, think differently.

3. That (which is of greater significance) in the Reformed churches themselves, many learned and saintly men who are at one with us in defending absolute predestination, nevertheless think that certain of those who are truly regenerated and justified, are able to fall from that state and to perish and that this happens eventually to all those, whom God has not ordained in the decree of election infallibly to eternal life. Finally we cannot deny that there are some places in Scripture which apparently support this opinion, and which have persuaded learned and pious men, not without great probability.[21]

The British were concerned about the interest of the Lutheran churches because James I had explicitly instructed them not to give undue offense towards them. James still hoped for a future union between all Reformation churches. The British delegates even asked that the Lutherans not be excluded from the title "Reformed," since, they argued, the Lutherans began the Reformation.[22]

This information is fascinating for a number of reasons. It shows the breadth of the Reformed tradition, at least according to the British, as well as their understanding of the function of the Canons of Dort. Obviously if the success of removing a rejection held value, then it was understood that positions which were neither promoted nor condemned were allowable to be held by Reformed ministers. The interest in the Lutheran churches also shows that the British did not desire to use their confessions to mark off the limits of the Christian Church. They instead only wanted to condemn clear error and the precise points under dispute at the time.

Another angle at understanding where the British delegates at Dort fall within the larger Reformed spectrum is by noting the appearance of views similar to theirs in subsequent years. Many of the English Puritans promoted a broad view of the atonement, among them being Ussher, Baxter, Seaman, Arrowsmith, Preston, Marshall, Howe, Scudder, and Polhill. Curt Daniel has stated that one third of the delegates at the Westminster Assembly could be classified among the moderate position.[23] Perhaps most interesting of all, however, is the fact that such moderate views nearly obtained the status of the majority view among 19^th century American theologians, the most well-known being, as mentioned before, R. L. Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd. With the larger lens of history, the British delegates at Dort, as well as the Bremenese, are well within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy.

One other point that should be noted is that the Canons of Dort never held confessional status over the English churches. The British delegates were sent by King James I, not by the Church of England, and thus served as private citizens. They gave their approval to the content of the Canons of Dort, however, their opinions, as found in the Collegiat Suffrage, include many more qualifications, creating a manuscript that is much larger than the Dutch Canons. The British were also asked to grant their approval to the Three Forms of Unity, which they did with certain significant reservations. The British clearly disagreed with the Dutch over polity, as well as the interpretation of Christ's descent into hell in the Apostles' Creed. The British also held to a stronger view of baptismal grace than the typical Dutch thinker, and they expressly noted their concern not to require certain formulations of the imputation of Christ's active righteousness among subscriptional standards.[24] After returning to England, Samuel Ward stringently defended the decisions of Dort, all the while maintaining that the Church of England's confessional documents had not been departed from and that they remained the rule of England's faith.

This historical inquiry ought to instruct us now, living in the 21^st century, about how to understand the theology of the Synod of Dort and its place in the larger Reformed tradition. I do not at all intent my thoughts as criticisms of Dort. On the contrary, as I study the historical complexity surrounding Dort, I grow in my appreciation of its balance and moderation. Contrary to many a foe, Dort does not represent a cold and excessive Calvinism. One will not find any one particular formulation of limited atonement at Dort. It is deliberately open, only rejecting the Arminian viewpoint. And of course, we will all have to finally admit that the acronym TULIP doesn't even work in Dutch! The order of Dort does not begin with depravity and move into election and then on to the atonement. Dort's order is: divine election from the fallen mass of humanity, Christ's death, effectual calling, and perseverance. One will notice that the third and fourth head of doctrine are combined, leaving four main points. Without trying to insinuate any particular amount of agreement or disagreement, we still should familiarize ourselves with the fact that the Canons of Dort are not the same as the popular TULIP.

Dort is also one specific piece within the larger Reformed tradition. It does not itself dictate the fullest bounds of that tradition. As we have seen, it is often that case that Dort says less, rather than more, leaving many positions open for further dialogue. With this diversity in mind, we must also be careful not to plot certain trajectories and logical implications of the Canons of Dort. It may very well be the case that no single delegate present would have himself articulated the specific theses as they are in the final form. Instead, they worked together to produce a document that each could approve of, with varying amounts of personal qualifications.

In order to grow into mature Reformed thinkers, it ought to be one of our top priorities to become acquainted with this historical information. I have found myself quite surprised at what lies smack in the middle of my own tradition. Famous names, of which I've never heard, often sit on library shelves nearby. Entire schools of thought can be forgotten within a few generations, and the majority position of one century can become the minority position of the next. Learning to form our identities in light of the complexities of history is essential for maintaining the stabilities of our religious communities, and an eye towards the future is equally as essential for their well being. The easiest way to begin this process, if I may quote Reading Rainbow, is to take a look; it's in a book!

 

---

[1] Dabney, The Five Points of Calvinism (Harrisonburg: Sprinkle), 1.

[2] for instance Dabney, Lectures on Systematic Theology, pg. 521, Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. 2, pg. 557-558, and Shedd, Dogmatic Theology supplement 6.2.7, pg. 758.

[3] The terms "high Calvinism" and "moderate Calvinism" are too broad and most certainly less than desirable. No one in the 16^th and 17^th century applied these terms to themselves, and objections can leveled as to the fairness of the descriptions. Nevertheless, these terms have become the most widely used to describe the two tendencies among absolute predestinarians. While often including many more theological issues, especially the free offer of the gospel, the divide is fundamentally over the way in which the atonement is limited. "High Calvinists" place the limit in the content of the punishment born by Christ at the cross insisting on only the special will of God toward the elect, whereas the "moderate Calvinists" allow for a general will of God toward all men, as well as the special will toward the elect, and typically place the limitation on God's effectual calling and application of the cross-work of Christ.

[4] Anthony Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (Church of England Record Society: Boydell Press), pg. 92

[5] G. Michael Thomas, The Extend of the Atonement (Carlisle: Paternoster), pg. 136; John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians Vol. II (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co.), pg. 356.

[6] Michael Hakkenberg, The Predestinarian Controversy in the Netherlands, 1600-1620 (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1989), pg. 37.

[7] Morris Fuller, The Life, Letters, and Writings of John Davenant (London: Methuen and Co.) pg. 66-72

[8] Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pg. 159

[9] ibid pg. 191

[10] see Sixteenth Lord's Day, Question 40, Part III. Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism trans. G. W. WIlliard (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed), pg. 221-225. Cf. Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, pg. 355.

[11]see Robert Letham, The Work of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press), pg. 55; Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), pg. 69; White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic, pg. 187.

[12]Thomas, pg. 149.

[13] Milton, pg. 324-325

[14] Fuller, pg. 83

[15] Fuller, pg. 85; Milton 200-202

[16] Fuller, pg. 85-89; Milton, pg. 195; White, pg. 187-188

[17] The full text can be found in Milton, pg. 226- 293

[18] Milton, pg. 201

[19] White, pg. 185

[20] ibid, pg. pg. 192

[21] quoted in White, pg. 198.

[22] Milton, pg. 327.

[23] Curt Daniel, http://www.gracemessenger.org/files/Daniel_Curt_History_and_Theology_of_Calvinism.pdf, pg. 75.

[24] see Balanquall's notes on Session 148 of Dort and the British comments on Belgic Confession Article 23 found in Milton, pg. 328-329; 338.

Quotes from Richard Sibbes, "The Broken Reed"

http://www.monergism.com/bruisedreed.html

 

            In time of temptation, apprehensive consciences look so much to the present trouble they are in that they need to be roused up to behold him in whom they may find rest for their distressed souls. (2)

            What a support to our faith is this, that God the Father, the party offended by our sins, is so well pleased with the work of redemption! And what a comfort is this, that, seeing God's love rests on Christ, as well pleased in him, we may gather that he is as well pleased with us, if we be in Christ! For his love rests in a whole Christ, in Christ mystical, as well as Christ natural, because he loves him and us with one love. Let us, therefore, embrace Christ, and in him God's love, and build our faith safely on such a Saviour that is furnished with so high a commission. (2)

            See here, for our comfort, a sweet agreement of all three persons: the Father gives a commission to Christ; the Spirit furnishes and sanctifies to it, and Christ himself executes the office of a Mediator. Our redemption is founded upon the joint agreement of all three persons of the Trinity. (2)

            The bruised reed is a man that for the most part is in some misery, as those were that came to Christ for help, and by misery he is brought to see sin as the cause of it, for, whatever pretences sin makes, they come to an end when we are bruised and broken. He is sensible of sin and misery, even unto bruising; and, seeing no help in himself, is carried with restless desire to have supply from another, with some hope, which a little raises him out of himself to Christ, though he dare not claim any present interest of mercy. This spark of hope being opposed by doubtings and fears rising from corruption makes him as smoking flax; so that both these together, a bruised reed and smoking flax, make up the state of a poor distressed man. This is such an one as our Saviour Christ terms `poor in spirit' (Matt. 5:3), who sees his wants, and also sees himself indebted to divine justice. He has no means of supply from himself or the creature, and thereupon mourns, and, upon some hope of mercy from the promise and examples of those that have obtained mercy, is stirred up to hunger and thirst after it. (3-4)

            After conversion we need bruising so that reeds may know themselves to be reeds, and not oaks. Even reeds need bruising, by reason of the remainder of pride in our nature, and to let us see that we live by mercy. (5)

            Let this support us when we feel ourselves bruised. Christ's way is first to wound, then to heal. No sound, whole soul shall ever enter into heaven. Think when in temptation, Christ was tempted for me; according to my trials will be my graces and comforts. If Christ be so merciful as not to break me, I will not break myself by despair, nor yield myself over to the roaring lion, Satan, to break me in pieces. (10)

            [W]e must conceive of bruising either as a state into which God brings us, or as a duty to be performed by us. Both are here meant. We must join with God in bruising ourselves. When he humbles us, let us humble ourselves, and not stand out against him, for then he will redouble his strokes. Let us justify Christ in all his chastisements, knowing that all his dealing towards us is to cause us to return into our own hearts. His work in bruising tends to our work in bruising ourselves. Let us lament our own perversity, and say: Lord, what a heart have I that needs all this, that none of this could be spared! We must lay siege to the hardness of our own hearts, and aggravate sin all we can. We must look on Christ, who was bruised for us, look on him whom we have pierced with our sins. But all directions will not prevail, unless God by his Spirit convinces us deeply, setting our sins before us, and driving us to a standstill. Then we will cry out for mercy. Conviction will breed contrition, and this leads to humiliation. Therefore desire God that he would bring a clear and a strong light into all the corners of our souls, and accompany it with a spirit of power to lay our hearts low. (11-12)

            In pursuing his calling, Christ will not quench the smoking flax, or wick, but will blow it up till it flames. (16)

            Preachers should take heed likewise that they hide not their meaning in dark speeches, speaking in the clouds. Truth fears nothing so much as concealment, and desires nothing so much as clearly to be laid open to the view of all. When it is most unadorned, it is most lovely and powerful. Our blessed Saviour, as he took our nature upon him, so he took upon him our familiar manner of speech, which was part of his voluntary abasement. Paul was a profound man, yet he became as a nurse to the weaker sort (1 Thess. 2:7). (26-27)

            Christ came down from heaven and emptied himself of majesty in tender love to souls. Shall we not come down from our high conceits to do any poor soul good? Shall man be proud after God has been humble? (27)

            Let men take heed of taking up Satan's office, in misrepresenting the good actions of others, as he did Job's case, `Doth Job fear God for naught?' (Job 1:9), or slandering their persons, judging of them according to the wickedness that is in their own hearts. The devil gets more by such discouragements and reproaches that are cast upon religion than by fire and faggot. These, as unseasonable frosts, nip all gracious inclinations in the bud, and as much as in them lies, with Herod, labour to kill Christ in young professors. A Christian is a hallowed and a sacred thing, Christ's temple; and he that destroys his temple, him will Christ destroy (1 Cor.3:17). (32)

            Christ, for the good aims he sees in us, overlooks any ill in them, so far as not to lay it to our charge. Men must not be too curious in prying into the weaknesses of others. We should labour rather to see what they have that is for eternity, to incline our heart to love them, than into that weakness which the Spirit of God will in time consume, to estrange us. Some think it strength of grace to endure nothing in the weaker, whereas the strongest are readiest to bear with the infirmities of the weak. (33)

            Grace, while we live here, is in souls which, because they are imperfectly renewed, dwell in bodies subject to several humours, and these will incline the soul sometimes to excess in one passion, sometimes to excess in another. Bucer was a deep and a moderate divine. After long experience he resolved to refuse none in whom he saw aliquid Christi, something of Christ. The best Christians in this state of imperfection are like gold that is a little too light, which needs some grains of allowance to make it pass. You must grant the best their allowance. (33)

            It will prove a special help to know distinctly the difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, between Moses and Christ. Moses, without any mercy, breaks all bruised reeds, and quenches all smoking flax. For the law requires personal, perpetual and perfect obedience from the heart, and that under a most terrible curse, but gives no strength. It is a severe task master, like Pharaoh's, requiring the whole tale of bricks and yet giving no straw. Christ comes with blessing after blessing, even upon those whom Moses had cursed, and with healing balm for those wounds which Moses had made.
            The same duties are required in both covenants, such as to love the Lord with all our hearts and with all our souls (Deut. 6:5). (36-37)

            First, if there be any holy fire in us, it is kindled from heaven by the Father of lights, who `commanded the light to shine out of darkness' (2 Cor. 4: 6). As it is kindled by the use of means, so it is fed. The light in us and the light in the Word spring the one from the other and both from the one Holy Spirit. (38)

            Secondly, the least divine light has heat with it in some measure. Light in the understanding produces heat of love in the affections. In the measure that the sanctified understanding sees a thing to be true or good, in that measure the will embraces it. Weak light produces weak inclinations, strong light, strong inclinations. A little spiritual light is of strength enough to answer strong objections of flesh and blood, and to see beyond all earthly allurements and opposing hindrances, presenting them as far inferior to those heavenly objects it beholds. All light that is not spiritual, because it lacks the strength of sanctifying grace, yields to every little temptation, especially when it is fitted and suited to personal inclinations. This is the reason why Christians that have light that is little for quantity, but heavenly for quality, persevere, when men of larger apprehensions sink. (38)

            All scandalous actions are only thoughts at the first. Ill thoughts are as little thieves, which, creeping in at the window, open the door to greater. Thoughts are seeds of actions. These, especially when they are helped forward by Satan, make the life of many good Christians almost a martyrdom. In this case it is an unsound comfort that some minister, that ill thoughts arise from nature, and what is natural is excusable. We must know that nature, as it came out of God's hands in the beginning, had no such risings out of it. The soul, as inspired of God, had no such unsavory breathings. But since it betrayed itself by sin it is, in some sort, natural to it to forge sinful imaginations, and to be a furnace of such sparks. And this is an aggravation of the sinfulness of natural corruption, that it is so deeply rooted and so generally spread in our nature. (47)

            It should encourage us to duty that Christ will not quench the smoking flax, but blow on it till it flames. (50)

            God accepts our prayers, though weak, because we are his own children, and they come from his own Spirit; because they are according to his own will; and because they are offered in Christ's mediation, and he takes them, and mingles them with his own incense (Rev. 8:3).
            There is never a holy sigh, never a tear we shed, which is lost. And as every grace increases by exercise of itself, so does the grace of prayer. By prayer we learn to pray. So, likewise, we should take heed of a spirit of discouragement in all other holy duties, since we have so gracious a Saviour. Pray as we are able, hear as we are able, strive as we are able, do as we are able, according to the measure of grace received. God in Christ will cast a gracious eye upon that which is his own. (51)

            We must know for our comfort that Christ was not anointed to this great work of Mediator for lesser sins only, but for the greatest, if we have but a spark of true faith to lay hold on him. Therefore, if there be any bruised reed, let him not make an exception of himself, when Christ does not make an exception of him. `Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden' (Matt. 11:28). Why should we not make use of so gracious a disposition? We are only poor for this reason, that we do not know our riches in Christ. In time of temptation, believe Christ rather than the devil. Believe truth from truth itself. Hearken not to a liar, an enemy and a murderer. (61)

            There are those who go on in all ill courses of life on this pretence, that it would be useless to go to Christ, because their lives have been so bad; whereas, as soon as we look to heaven, all encouragements are ready to meet us and draw us forward. Among others, this is one allurement, that Christ is ready to welcome us and lead us further. None are damned in the church but those that are determined to be, including those who persist in having hard thoughts of Christ, that they may have some show of reason to fetch contentment from other things, as that unprofitable servant (Matt. 25:30) who would needs take up the opinion that his master was a hard man, thereby to flatter himself in his unfruitful ways, in not improving the talent which he had. (67)

            Stir up the grace that is in you, for in this way holy motions turn to resolutions, resolutions to practice, and practice to a prepared readiness to every good work.
            However, let us remember that grace is increased, in the exercise of it, not by virtue of the exercise itself, but as Christ by his Spirit flows into the soul and brings us nearer to himself, the fountain, so instilling such comfort that the heart is further enlarged. The heart of a Christian is Christ's garden, and his graces are as so many sweet spices and flowers which, when his Spirit blows upon them, send forth a sweet savor. Therefore keep the soul open to entertain the Holy Ghost, for he will bring in continually fresh forces to subdue corruption, and this most of all on the Lord's day. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, even in Patmos, the place of his banishment (Rev. 1:10). Then the gales of the Spirit blow more strongly and sweetly. (71)

            The present trouble in conflict against a sin is not so much as that disquiet which any corruption favored will bring upon us afterward. True peace is in conquering, not in yielding. The comfort intended in this text is for those that would fain do better, but find their corruptions clog them; that are in such a mist, that often they cannot tell what to think of themselves; that fain would believe, and yet often fear that they do not believe; and that think that it cannot be that God should be so good to such sinful wretches as they are, and yet they do not permit these fears and doubts in themselves. (72)

            So it cannot but cut the heart of those that have felt this love of Christ to hear him wounded who is the life of their lives and the soul of their souls. (73)

            Hence we learn the necessity that the understanding should be grounded in knowledge which is above nature for a well ordered Christian life. There must be light to discover an end beyond nature, because of which we are Christians, and a rule suitable to direct to that end, which is the will of God in Christ, discovering his good pleasure toward us, and our duty towards him. (85-86)

            Heaven is ours already, only we strive till we have full possession. (92)

            As to directions on how we are to conduct ourselves so that the judgment of Christ in us may indeed be victorious, we must know that, though Christ has undertaken this victory, yet he accomplishes it by training us up to fight his battles. He overcomes in us by making us `wise unto salvation' (2 Tim. 3:15); and, in the measure that we believe Christ will conquer, in that measure we will endeavor by his grace that we may conquer, for faith is an obedient and a wise grace. Christ makes us wise to ponder and weigh things, and to rank and order them accordingly, so that we may make the fitter choice of what is best. (101)

            All sin is either from false principles, or ignorance, or thoughtlessness, or unbelief of what is true. (102)

            We must keep grace in exercise. It is not sleepy habits, but grace in exercise, that preserves us. (104)

            Lastly, it furthers the state of the soul to know what frame it should be in, that so we may order our souls accordingly. We should always be fit for communion with God, and be heavenly minded in earthly business, and be willing to be taken off from it to redeem time for better things. We should be ready at all times to depart hence, and to live in such a condition as we would be content to die in. We should have hearts prepared for every good duty, open to all good opportunities, and shut to all temptations, keeping our watch, and being always ready armed. So far as we come short of these things, so far we have just cause to be humbled, and yet we should press forward, so that we may gain more upon ourselves, and make these things more familiar and lovely to us. And when we find our souls at all declining, it is best to raise them up presently by some awakening meditations, such as of the presence of God, of the strict reckoning we are to make, of the infinite love of God in Christ and the fruits of it, of the excellency of a Christian's calling, of the short and uncertain time of this life, of how little good all those things that steal away our hearts will do us before long, and of how it shall be for ever with us hereafter, as we spend this short time well or ill. The more we make way for such considerations to sink into our hearts, the more we shall rise nearer to that state of soul which we shall enjoy in heaven. When we grow careless of keeping our souls, then God recovers our taste of good things again by sharp crosses. Thus David, Solomon and Samson were recovered. This taste of good things is much easier kept than recovered. (105-106)

            Satan knows that nothing can prevail against Christ, or those that rely upon his power. Therefore his study is how to keep us in ourselves, and in the creature. But we must carry this always in our minds, that that which is begun in self confidence ends in shame.
            The manner of Christ's bringing forth judgment to victory is by letting us see a necessity of dependence on him. (115)

            It takes much trouble to bring Christ into the heart, and to set up a tribunal for him to judge there. There is an army of lusts in mutiny against him. The utmost strength of most men's endeavors and abilities is directed to keeping Christ from ruling in the soul. The flesh still labors to maintain its own government, and therefore it cries down the credit of whatever crosses it, such as God's blessed ordinances, and highly prizes anything, though never so dead and empty, if it allows the liberty of the flesh. (118)

            Thus the desperate madness of men is laid open, that they would rather be under the guidance of their own lusts, and in consequence of Satan himself, to their endless destruction, than put their feet into Christ's fetters and their necks under his yoke; though, indeed, Christ's service is the only true liberty. (121)

            Let us not look so much at who our enemies are as at who our judge and captain is, nor at what they threaten, but at what he promises. We have more for us than against us. What coward would not fight when he is sure of victory? None is here overcome but he that will not fight. Therefore, when any base fainting seizes on us, let us lay the blame where it ought to be laid. (122)

            What a comfort this is in our conflicts with our unruly hearts, that it shall not always be thus! Let us strive a little while, and we shall be happy for ever. Let us think when we are troubled with our sins that Christ has this in charge from his Father, that he shall not `quench the smoking flax' until he has subdued all. This puts a shield into our hands to beat back `all the fiery darts of the wicked' (Eph. 6:16). Satan will object, `You are a great sinner.' We may answer, `Christ is a strong Saviour.' But he will object, `You have no faith, no love.' `Yes, a spark of faith and love.' `But Christ will not regard that.' `Yes, he will not quench the smoking flax: `But this is so little and weak that it will vanish and come to naught."  Nay, but Christ will cherish it, until he has brought judgment to victory.' And this much we have already for our comfort, that, even when we first believed, we overcame God himself, as it were, by believing the pardon of all our sins, notwithstanding the guilt of our own consciences and his absolute justice. Now, having been prevailers with God, what shall stand against us if we can learn to make use of our faith? (123)

Allen Ross Articles on OT Exegesis

http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/dvot616main.htm

 Beeson Divinity School

DVOT 616  OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS

ALLEN P. ROSS

copyright Allen P. Ross

 

Introduction and Syllabus

Exegetical Assignments

Procedure Outline and Bibliography

Word Studies

Literary Analysis

Poetic Discourse

The Figures of Speech

The Study of Textual Criticism

The Study of Syntax

The Study of Biblical Theology

Developing the Exposition

Samples and Supplements

Quotes from Richard Sibbes, "The Bruised Reed"

From Richard Sibbes, "The Bruised Reed":

"There are those who go on in all ill courses of life on this pretence, that it would be useless to go to Christ, because their lives have been so bad; whereas, as soon as we look to heaven, all encouragements are ready to meet us and draw us forward. Among others, this is one allurement, that Christ is ready to welcome us and lead us further. None are damned in the church but those that are determined to be, including those who persist in having hard thoughts of Christ, that they may have some show of reason to fetch contentment from other things, as that unprofitable servant (Matt. 25:30) who would needs take up the opinion that his master was a hard man, thereby to flatter himself in his unfruitful ways, in not improving the talent which he had." (p. 67)

"However, let us remember that grace is increased, in the exercise of it, not by virtue of the exercise itself, but as Christ by his Spirit flows into the soul and brings us nearer to himself, the fountain, so instilling such comfort that the heart is further enlarged. The heart of a Christian is Christ's garden, and his graces are as so many sweet spices and flowers which, when his Spirit blows upon them, send forth a sweet savor. Therefore keep the soul open to entertain the Holy Ghost, for he will bring in continually fresh forces to subdue corruption, and this most of all on the Lord's day. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, even in Patmos, the place of his banishment (Rev. 1:10). Then the gales of the Spirit blow more strongly and sweetly." (p. 71)

2008 Puritan Reading Challenge

http://timmybrister.com/2007/12/12/puritans-we-greet-thee-in-2008/

January: The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes (128 pp)
February: The Mystery of Providence by John Flavel (221 pp)
March: The Godly Man's Picture by Thomas Watson (252 pp)
April: Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices by Thomas Brooks (253 pp)
May: Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ by John Bunyan (225 pp)
June: The Mortification of Sin by John Owen (130 pp)
July: A Lifting Up for the Downcast by William Bridge (287 pp)
August: The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment by Jeremiah Burroughs (228 pp)
September: The True Bounds of Christian Freedom by Samuel Bolton (224 pp)
October: The Christian's Great Interest by William Guthrie (207 pp)
November: The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter (256 pp)
December: A Sure Guide to Heaven by Joseph Alleine (148 pp)

There are several other great Puritan paperbacks, but I chose these because I wanted to have a different author each month (Owen, Bunyan, Watson, and Brooks have multiple paperbacks). I have front-loaded the reading schedule with some of the more readable Puritans and tried to balance out the topics throughout the year. Outside the Scripture, there is perhaps nothing better for your own soul than to invest in your personal sanctification by developing a reading plan of Puritan paperbacks! (Other books include: Thomas Watson, All Things for Good, The Doctrine of Repentance, The Lord's Supper, The Great Gain of Godliness; John Owen, The Holy Spirit, The Glory of Christ, Communion with God, Apostasy from the Gospel, Temptation: Resisted and Repulsed, The Spirit and the Church; Thomas Brooks, Heaven on Earth, The Secret Key to Heaven; Richard Sibbes, Glorious Freedom; William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying; John Bunyan, All Loves Excelling, Prayer, The Jerusalem Sinner Saved, The Acceptable Sacrifice; Ralph Venning, The Sinfulness of Sin, Learning in Christ's School; Robert Traill, Justification Vindicated; and Samuel Rutherford, Letters of Samuel Rutherford.)

Read the Church Fathers during Lent

http://www.churchyear.net/lentfathers.html

2008 Date Day in Lenten Fast Reading
2/6 1 Didache: complete
2/7 2 Epistle to Diognetus: 1-6
2/8 3 Epistle to Diognetus: 7-12
2/9 4 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians: complete
2/11 5 St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Ephesians: complete
2/12 6 St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Magnesians: complete
2/13 7 St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Trallians: complete
2/14 8 St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Romans: complete
2/15 9 St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Philadelphians: complete
2/16 10 St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Smyrneans: complete
2/18 11 St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to Polycarp: complete
2/19 12 St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 1-11
2/20 13 St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 12-23
2/21 14 St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 24-35
2/22 15 St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 36-47
2/23 16 St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 48-59
2/25 17 St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 60-68
2/26 18 St. Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church (Treatise I): 1-9
2/27 19 St. Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church (Treatise I): Secs. 10-18
2/28 20 St. Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church (Treatise I): Secs. 19-21
2/29 21 St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 1-10
3/1 22 St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 11-20
3/3 23 St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 21-30
3/4 24 St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 31-40
3/5 25 St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 41-50
3/6 26 St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 51-60
3/7 27 St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 61-70
3/8 28 St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 71-80
3/10 29 St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 81-94
3/11 30 St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XIX
3/12 31 St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XX
3/13 32 St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XX1
3/14 33 St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XXII
3/15 34 St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XXIII
3/17 35 St. Ambrose of Milan: Concerning the Mysteries: 1-4
3/18 36 St. Ambrose of Milan: Concerning the Mysteries: 5-9
3/19 37 St. Leo the Great: Letter XXVIII (called the "Tome"): complete
3/20 38 St. Leo the Great: Sermon XXI (On the Feast of the Nativity I): complete
3/21 39 St. Leo the Great: Sermon XLIX (On Lent XI): complete
3/22 40 St. Leo the Great: Sermon LXXII (On the Lord's Resurrection): complete