Kerugma Moving to Old Paths Paved

This is to announce that KERUGMA will be migrating over to WordPress as of today. The New blog is called, Old Paths Paved. See you all over there. Please update your links.

Christian Modesty in Dress – What does the Bible Teach?

Below is an excellent sermon on a subject that is, because of modernity, too often left from the regular work of the pulpit, even in Reformed Churches. Please give Rev. Silversides a listen.

Ministerial Fidelity and Prudence, by Wm. B. Sprague (1834)

Fidelity requires that the most humbling, and to the carnal mind, the most offensive doctrines of the Gospel, should be held up by every minister with great distinctness and prominence. I may specify particularly, the malignant nature of sin, the entire depravity of the unrenewed heart, and the absolute dependence of every sinner for salvation, on sovereign grace, through the atoning blood of Christ, and the sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit. These truths are at war with the natural feelings of every unrenewed man. Men do not wish to be disturbed in their pleasures by having the danger of their condition set before them, or to be wounded in their pride, by being told of their inability to accomplish their own salvation; and hence, when these great truths have been presented even with the utmost affection, they have often been met with a spirit of malignant opposition; and the preacher has been publicly denounced, and his motives assailed with an unhallowed and bitter asperity. Nay, so deep is the enmity of the heart against these peculiar truths, that it has not unfrequently happened, that those who have exhibited a strong attachment to their minister during the season of their carelessness, have, under the influence of an awakened conscience, become so sensitive to the truths he has preached, that they have openly become his enemies, and in some instances, have even taken the lead in an attempt, not only to neutralize his influence, but to ruin his character. All this proves beyond debate, that while the minister who preaches faithfully, wields a weapon of tremendous power, it is one which will sometimes be mightily resisted, and will provoke a shower of reproaches upon himself. But no matter how high the spirit of opposition may rise—though it should mount up even to a malignant phrenzy—these offensive doctrines must be preached, and in the proportion in which they are exhibited in the word of God; and whoever substitutes any thing else in the place of them, is guilty of dealing deceitfully with his Master's message, and must expect to bring upon himself the blood of souls.

But if you would be found faithful in preaching the Gospel, you must not only bring out its offensive truths, but you must do it with great plainness and simplicity. There is a way of mixing up the truth of God iwth the wisdom, or shall I say folly,--of man; of neutralizing the effect of the doctrines of the Bible, by burying them up amidst the speculations of human philosophy. In opposition to this, you are to hold up the truth just as it is, and to trust to that alone in the hands of God's Spirit to do the work, unaided by any reasonings or speculations that are of mere human origin. What you have to do is to wield the naked sword of the Spirit; and if you attempt to improve it by any devices of your own, you will inevitably blunt its edge and prevent its efficacy.

Some ministers who preach the truth, fail nevertheless in fidelity, for the want of an honest and pungent application. Here again, you are to be on your guard. You are never to consider your work done when you have merely stated the truth; but you are distinctly to trace its relations to your hearers, to show them its bearings upon their characters and prospects, and to endeavor, if possible, to waken their consciences into lively exercise, so that they shall recognize it as the sword of the Spirit. When you spread before them the utterly ruined condition of the sinner, and the fearful scenes which must open upon him in the next world, if he enters that world unconcerned, you are to endeavour to carry home to them the conviction that they are the sinners described, and if they are in any degree awakened, instead of lulling them to sleep by mere general representations, you are still to hold up their true character as guilty rebels, and to show them that there is no way of escape except by the blood of the everlasting covenant. It is only in proportion as the preaching of the Gospel is discriminating, and is brought to bear directly upon the consciences and personal interests of men, that we have a right to calculate upon its legitimate effect: anything else will never be the fire and the hammer to break the flinty rock in pieces.

But along with fidelity in preaching the Gospel, you are also to exercise prudence. You will have occasion for this in the selection of your topics, with reference to the peculiar circumstances and needs of your congregation; for what at one time may be fitted to produce the most happy effect upon an audience, may, under different circumstances, be worse than a mere dead letter. While fidelity requires that you should preach the whole counsel of God, it is the dictate of prudence that you should rightly divide the word of truth; and that in selecting your subjects of discourse, you should give careful heed to the indications of divine Providence. On the same ground you should endeavour to avoid a tedious uniformity in your discourses, both as it respects the subjects and your manner of treating them; for unless the mind is relieved by some degree of variety in these particulars, it will inevitably, contract a habit of listlessness.

Again: While fidelity requires that the Gospel should be preached in its most offensive doctrines, with great plainness and simplicity, and honest application to the conscience, prudence forbids all offensive personalities, coarse allusions, and attacks on private character. Indeed, whoever commits these errors is more than imprudent: he sins against the dignity of his office, and exposes himself to the pity of the church, and the contempt of the world. You are indeed at liberty, nay, you are solemnly bound, to take off the covering from the carnal heart, and show it in the light of day, festering in its own depravity ; and you are to endeavour to make every unconcerned sinner feel that this is precisely his own case; but this is widely different from designedly holding an individual up to popular odium, and especially in the spirit of anger or retaliation. Cases may occur in which a minister may know facts in respect to individuals in his congregation, which have gained little or no publicity; and it may be his duty to select some topic of discourse which shall bring out a word in season for them; and there may be other cases in which he may be called upon publicly to testify against particular sins, in consequence of an individual having fallen into them, lest his silence should seem to indicate a wish to screen the offender; but the moment he makes a personal attack from the pulpit, especially on one of his hearers, he lets go the sheet anchor of prudence, and not only defeats the end he has in view, if it be a good end, but not improbably plunges into a sea of troubles, from which, to say the least, he is not soon extricated. Many a minister has, by one incautious attack, even by a single expression, fitted to give unnecessary provocation to an individual, thrown a cloud over his prospects of usefulness, and originated a spirit of division and turmoil which has spread through an extensive community.

R.C Sproul on The Seeker Sensitive Church, or Post-Modern Church

Lewis and Clark (Just wanted to say that!) On White

Dr, James White has challenged Dr. R.Scott Clark to defend his remarks that baptists cannot be considered “reformed” in his recent blog entry. Dr. Clark does not need my help in doing so. I will leave that to him as a very capable theologian. However, while reading Dr. White's post, my mind was drawn to our Form For the Administration of The Lord's Supper, where it states, among other things, the grievous sins for which one ought to withhold one self from Holy Supper. The list includes, but is not limited to “all despisers of God, and of his Word, and of the holy sacraments”.

Now before we get all upset and say that it is unfair to apply these words to baptists (yes, even those that hold to the First or Second London Confessions), lets take a step back and see if the clothes make the man. If they do, then we need to let the objective Word of God speak. Let us also remember, that many of our baptist brethren, in holding the to the conviction of their own understanding of the Word, would withhold Holy Supper from any who had not been baptized. Consistent baptists would recognize that if their system of thought is true, and baptism means immersion, then to have been sprinkled (thus not immersed), would mean not baptism has actually taken place. And if baptism is a requirement of Communion, then only immersed persons will be admitted. Further, if baptism is to be applied only to those who have made a credible profession of faith, then persons who were baptized as infants were not the proper recipients of the right, and therefor, again, are not truly baptized. Many, if not most rank-and-file reformed baptist churches consistently hold this view, looking, in essence, upon those of us who hold to paedo-baptism, as “despisers of God, and of his Word, and of the holy sacraments” in our own right. We are disobedient, and in effect, rebellious. Especially those of us that understand both sides! That is why they deny us the sacrament of Holy Supper in their communion.

So let's not get upset with the words of our form. The strict and particular baptist, as well as the reformed baptist hold us to the same standard we hold them to. It cuts both ways.

Dr. White, in his entry states this:

But I cannot tell you how often I hear my Presbyterian brethren handle this text in the exact same fashion as the Jehovah's Witnesses handle John 14:28 (it ends up being merely "the Father is greater than I am") or Arminians handle Matthew 23:37 ("how often I wanted to gather you but you would not"). The clear indication of tradition is seen in how Acts 2:39 is truncated in the thinking of my brothers so that it is simply "the promise is to you and to your children." What is the promise? What is the context? Why leave off the rest of the sentence both in meaning and application? The promise is for the Jews who heard Peter, to their children, and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." The promise of forgiveness upon faith and repentance, along with the promise of the Holy Spirit, is for Jew ("you and your children") and Gentile ("to all who are far off") based upon God's electing grace ("as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"). Changing this to merely a statement about "you and your children" involves an eisegetical shift in hermeneutics that my Presbyterian brethren would never allow in discussing the Trinity, justification, or the resurrection, but when it comes to this one topic, all of a sudden things change.

First, I think it is incredible that Dr. White would compare the reasoning of the vast majority of the historic Reformed faith in Acts 2, to the reasoning methods of a cult. The remark is beyond unfair, its vitriolic. If I said that Dr. White's handling of the text was in the exact same fashion as the Christadelphians would that be a sign of fair play? But Reformed theologians do not truncate the passage, they parse it, and that properly. Even Calvin recognizes that the the words of Peter in Acts 2:39 have far reaching implications. “And we must note these three degrees, that the promise was first made to the Jews, and then to their children, and last of all, that it is also to be imparted to the Gentiles” (Calvin on Acts 2:39) . But Calvin, and the rest of the historic Reformed faith recognizes that within the 3 degrees spoken by Peter, each degree has its own meaning, and Calvin rightly points out the Abrahamic reference in the first degree. That is the focal point of the debate, the context of the first clause, not the truncating of it. There is a big difference. Dr. White simply paints with a broad brush and insists, "The promise of forgiveness upon faith and repentance, along with the promise of the Holy Spirit, is for Jew ("you and your children") and Gentile ("to all who are far off") based upon God's electing grace ("as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself")." He goes on to say, “Changing this to merely a statement about 'you and your children' involves an eisegetical shift in hermeneutics...”. I do not know of a single Reformed or Presbyterian commentator of any note, dead or alive, that reduces this text to “merely a statement about 'you and your children' ”. Perhaps Dr. White is speaking about personal experience with some Reformed folk, but we desire to remain objective and look at the passage as it is historically understood by the faith of our fathers, and the sound exegesis produced by them.

Dr. White insists that we look at the context before we rule on the meaning. We agree. Context is key.

Who was standing before Peter and the other apostles during that sermon? Well a list is given to us in Acts 2, verses 9-11, “Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.”.

So in front of Peter on that wonderful day stood Jews and proselytes from many nations. Men and women who were devout in the religion of the Old Testament. And what was their understanding of the doctrine of the Covenant to that very moment? It was the understanding of Abraham. Genesis 17:7 “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” For thousands of years, this was the understanding of the Covenant; it is the seed-bed of reasoning in the mind of the hearers. All that they are listening to from the lips of Peter is filtered through this ancient understanding. The baptist would like us to believe that the broad brush anabaptistic generalization of Acts 3:39 is the right one. However, Dr. White is the one engaging in eisegetical hermenutics by truncating 2000 years of pre-Christ theological understanding, and in essence placing in Peter's mouth, “Look, I know that your children were in the covenant 2 months ago, but surprise! They're now out.” Never mind that Peter employs Abrahamic language in verse 39. Never mind that he does not take time to explain to the hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jews listening to him that the most basic and fundamental aspect of the covenant has now been removed; that their children were “in” a few weeks ago, but now since the resurrection, they are no longer covenant members. No explanation, no reasons given by Peter. We just assume that they are now “out” based on a completely novel anabaptistic interpretation founded on a dispensational-esque hermeneutic with no place in serious exegeisis in 1600 years of the Christian Church. I think the Jew would have looked at Peter and said, “Thank you sir, but we will keep the covenant that our children are in.” In other words, why not let the bulk of sound systematization of the doctrine of the Covenant for the past 2040 BC years stand, and 1600 years AD stand? Never mind engaging with Dr. White in all the exigetical apparati of the two sides that have been at a standstill for 450 years. That horse is beaten to death. We have books and minds, we can read the arguments on both sides. But our theological grid is everything. Context is everything, and in my mind, the deciding factor. Within our Reformed framework, the New Testament, and the New Covenant (read “renewed” and upon better promises), makes much better sense in light of Peter's words and maintains the continuity of the covenant.

This will not change the minds of reformed baptists, but it should demonstrate why, on the subject of the sacrament of baptism, we cannot call them Reformed. Dr. Clark is right. Being Reformed IS defined by the Covenant. Baptists are wrong on the covenant. You do the math.