ResponsiveReiding

I am well aware that many of you do not have the leisure I do in my present circumstance to read as you would like. So from time to time, I’ll try to pass on some significant quotes to give you kind of a digest of good reading. I hope they will be enlightening, encouraging, timesaving, thought provoking and otherwise beneficial.

Here’s today’s stuff.

Most of us see life with the screen up. We assume that things are as they appear and that we can easily identify those on whom God’s favor rests. We may put our confidence in the traditions of the past, for example, and assume that forms hallowed by repeated usage must be pleasing to God in the present. How far in the past we look may vary from person to person: We may insist on forms that stretch all the way back to the early church, the Reformation, or the Puritans, or simply the forms to which we have been accustomed as individuals. Alternatively, we may place our trust in numbers: If many people attend a particular church or type of church, then surely God’s blessing rests on it and we should model our church after that style.

God’s presence is not so easily discerned. He does not always continue to bless forms and institutions that he has blessed in the past, nor is he always found in the large and apparently successful churches. In the Bible, he is most often found with the poor and the weak, the despised and rejected, those whom the world regards as castoffs. So when Jesus comes, he visits the temple, but his primary teaching and ministry takes place in the open air. He will eat with the scribes and the Pharisees when they invite him, but he is known rather as the friend of tax collectors and sinners (Matt. 11:19). When he seeks twelve disciples, he goes not to the religious training schools but to the work places of ordinary men and women. The essence of his training program is not a rigorous course of book study, but three years of being in his presence.

Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), 155–156.

it is the presence of Christ that constitutes the church. The prerequisite, then, for worship to be possible in the New Testament context is not a building chosen by God and accepted by him, but a people chosen by God and accepted by him. God dwells in the hearts of his people, not in a building made with hands. This surely has implications for how we assess different churches. All too often we make our judgment based on whether the programs a church offers seem to meet our needs or on its denominational label, rather than attempting the harder task of discerning the reality of Christ’s presence.

 Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), 156.

Yet while there is no room for complacency, there is solid hope for the believer in the most trying of times. For even while God may abandon parts of his professing church, he never abandons his covenant commitment to save for himself a people. If the religious leaders of the day and the major denominations turn their backs on him, he will leave them to their fate—but only in order to do a new work through the small and despised, those neglected and considered insignificant. God will choose the weak in order to shame the strong (1 Cor. 1:27). If the Jews will not receive their Messiah, then the gospel will go to the Gentiles. If the West turns its back on Christianity, then God will open up new doors in the other two-thirds of the world. In every generation, God’s work of giving to men and women a new spirit and a new heart continues until the full harvest of his people is brought into his kingdom.

 Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), 157.

As Calvin expressed it, in the form of a prayer:

Almighty God, as we have completely perished in our father Adam, and no part of us remains uncorrupted so long as we bear in both body and soul grounds for wrath, condemnation, and death, grant that, reborn in your Spirit, we may increasingly set aside our own will and spirit, and so submit ourselves to you that your Spirit may truly reign within us. And then grant, we pray, that we not be ungrateful to you, but, appreciating how invaluable is this blessing, may dedicate and direct our entire life to glorifying to your name in Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

 Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), 158.

Note: This is part of a reflection from the Puritan Oliver Heywood reflecting on the joy of his newborn son. How different from the mantra of the day in our culture that the only thing we seem to want for our children is that they be “happy.” Who cares if they remain happy in their sin and unbelief, as long as they are happy. Heaven forgive us.

I desire not great things for him in the world, but good things for his soul to prepare him for another and better world.…

 W. H. Davies, “Oliver Heywood, the Northern Puritan,” in Puritan Papers: 1965–1967, ed. J. I. Packer, vol. 4 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 158.

Oliver Heywood was not friendly to the rule of Cromwell, and the state of the nation at this period provided occasion for further reflection:

Come then my soul and view this guilty nation … alas, we have become a mere skeleton; alas, this is the greatest grief of all that God is leaving England, this is the quintessence of our calamity; alas, how can our land fare well when God has departed? Well, and if poor England’s best days alone may be past, we alone may thank ourselves, we must condemn ourselves and justify God. Our people have been surfeited with the gospel, they cry out away with formalities; the manna is like food, it creates loathing, we need not wonder then if God should take away what has become offensive to the nation … should not the sins of this poor island, the cause of all its miseries much affect thee my soul.

 W. H. Davies, “Oliver Heywood, the Northern Puritan,” in Puritan Papers: 1965–1967, ed. J. I. Packer, vol. 4 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 158–159.

And again, “O that I could learn the mind of God in all these dispensations. Surely I may sing of mercy and judgment, floods of love and only drops of displeasure. How mysterious is God in His proceedings! O that I had wisdom from above to spell out his meaning. He hath a special design in all these national commotions.”

 W. H. Davies, “Oliver Heywood, the Northern Puritan,” in Puritan Papers: 1965–1967, ed. J. I. Packer, vol. 4 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 159.

Heywood, being deeply moved by the religious condition of the nation, believing also in God’s sovereign purposes, sought in obedience to the Scripture to discover its outworking in the events of his day. This reveals the prophet’s heart as much as the pastor’s. Pacific in his intents, he writes, “Woe is me that I have lived to see this day when ecclesiastical divisions have produced civil opposition … how sad is it that those who are reconciled by the blood of Christ should thirst after one another’s blood. How unlike is this to the spirit and grace of the saints of God.”

 W. H. Davies, “Oliver Heywood, the Northern Puritan,” in Puritan Papers: 1965–1967, ed. J. I. Packer, vol. 4 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 159.

Note: There is something well worth our consideration in the following given the issues which have arisen over responses to the Covid crisis.

The accession of Charles II brought about unexpected opposition. In 1661 private meetings were ordered to be prevented. Heywood at first put a favorable construction on events, though he later had cause to change his mind: “The truth is, our dread Sovereign, at the first and hitherto, hath allowed us abundant liberty for religious exercises both in public and private, but his clemency has been abused which has occasioned this severe and universal prohibition. The fanatical and schismatical party truly so called, have by their unwise and unwarrantable practices troubled all the people of God throughout this nation, and have rendered the sweet savour of Christian converse to be abhorred.” And he continues with unsparing self-analysis:

But why do I lay the blame on others and not on ourselves? The actions of men and edicts of princes could not have abridged our liberties had not our sins procured these things. Just very just, is what has come upon us, for we have been unprofitable under our privileges.… they have been so ordinary that our hearts are grown indifferent and less than ordinary preparations have served for extraordinary duties. We meet as if loth to meet, our prayers were full of deadness, unbelief and vanity. It is therefore just we should not be permitted to meet for prayer. We too much aimed at applause for our gifts and God has taken away the occasion of venting the pride and hypocrisy of our hearts. We did not improve the society of our Christian friends and therefore we must not now enjoy it. I doubt not we have been too much abroad and too little at home, religious in company but careless in our closets. Now we must learn to enter into our closets and shut the door upon us. It is the property of a Christian to make a virtue of necessity and wisely to improve this present restraint of Christian liberty which our gracious God will restore to us if He sees it useful.

 W. H. Davies, “Oliver Heywood, the Northern Puritan,” in Puritan Papers: 1965–1967, ed. J. I. Packer, vol. 4 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 160.

“O how little power have I over my own thoughts, I feel the truth of that word ‘when He giveth quietness who then can make trouble, and when He hideth His face, who then can behold Him?’ But now I feel the benefit of prayer.”

 W. H. Davies, “Oliver Heywood, the Northern Puritan,” in Puritan Papers: 1965–1967, ed. J. I. Packer, vol. 4 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 165.

One summing up his [Heywood’s] life said, “He dared to be good, in a bad time.”

 W. H. Davies, “Oliver Heywood, the Northern Puritan,” in Puritan Papers: 1965–1967, ed. J. I. Packer, vol. 4 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 165.

“So that you may take this account of our sanctity, that holiness as it is in us consists in our complete conformity to the Holy One; godliness is Godlikeness. God is the Holy One by way of eminency, far surpassing both men and angels. He is essentially holy, but we are participatively so; it is but a quality in us, it is essence to Him. He is holy effectively, for He makes others so. Our holiness requires that there be conformity to the will of God. The will of God is the rule of holiness, as His nature is the pattern of it, and there is no more of holiness in any work than there is of the will of God in it.”^[1]

^[1] W. H. Davies, “Oliver Heywood, the Northern Puritan,” in Puritan Papers: 1965–1967, ed. J. I. Packer, vol. 4 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 167–168.

Alas, what are you better for having Christ revealed to you, unless He be revealed in you? O woe will be to you if you prove Christless after hearing so much of Christ.… ^[1]

^[1] W. H. Davies, “Oliver Heywood, the Northern Puritan,” in Puritan Papers: 1965–1967, ed. J. I. Packer, vol. 4 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 168.

Note: The following is from a paper by Ryle considering Paul’s rebuke of Peter at Antioch.

There are three great lessons from Antioch, which I think we ought to learn from this passage.

       I.   The first lesson is, that great ministers may make great mistakes.

      II.   The second is, that to keep the truth of Christ in His Church is even more important than to keep peace.

     III.   The third is, that there is no doctrine about which we ought to be so jealous as justification by faith without the deeds of the law.^[1]

^[1] J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 364.

The Church of Rome boasts that the Apostle Peter is her founder and first Bishop. Be it so: grant it for a moment. Let us only remember, that of all the Apostles there is not one, excepting, of course, Judas Iscariot, of whom we have so many proofs that he was a fallible man. Upon her own showing, the Church of Rome was founded by the most fallible of the Apostles.*^[1]

^[1] J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 365.

I see this tendency to lean on man everywhere. I know no branch of the Protestant Church of Christ which does not require to be cautioned upon the point. It is a snare, for example, to the English Episcopalian to make idols of Bishop Pearson and the “Judicious Hooker.” It is a snare to the Scotch Presbyterian to pin his faith on John Knox, the Covenanters, and Dr. Chalmers. It is a snare to the Methodists in our day to worship the memory of John Wesley. It is a snare to the Independent to see no fault in any opinion of Owen and Doddridge. It is a snare to the Baptist to exaggerate the wisdom of Gill, and Fuller, and Robert Hall. All these are snares, and into these snares how many fall!^[1]

^[1] J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 367–368.

False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism.^[1]

^[1] J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 376.

But I pass on to the third lesson from Antioch. That lesson is, that there is no doctrine about which we ought to be so jealous as justification by faith without the deeds of the law.

The proof of this lesson stands out most prominently in the passage of Scripture which heads this paper. What one article of the faith had the Apostle Peter denied at Antioch? None.—What doctrine had he publicly preached which was false? None.—What, then, had he done? He had done this. After once keeping company with the believing Gentiles as “fellow-heirs and partakers of the promise of Christ in the Gospel” (Ephes. 3:6), he suddenly became shy of them and withdrew himself. He seemed to think they were less holy and acceptable to God than the circumcised Jews. He seemed to imply that the believing Gentiles were in a lower state than they who had kept the ceremonies of the law of Moses. He seemed, in a word, to add something to simple faith as needful to give man an interest in Jesus Christ. He seemed to reply to the question, “What shall I do to be saved?” not merely “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” but “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and be circumcised, and keep the ceremonies of the law.”^[1]

^[1] J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 378.

An ignorant laity will always be the bane of a Church. A Bible-reading laity may save a Church from ruin. Let us read the Bible regularly, daily, and with fervent prayer, and become familiar with its contents. Let us receive nothing, believe nothing, follow nothing, which is not in the Bible, nor can be proved by the Bible. Let our rule of faith, our touch-stone of all teaching, be the written Word of God.^[1]

^[1] J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 382–383.

let me entreat all who read this paper to be always ready to contend for the faith of Christ, if needful. I recommend no one to foster a controversial spirit. I want no man to be like Goliath, going up and down, saying, “Give me a man to fight with.” Always feeding upon controversy is poor work indeed. It is like feeding upon bones. But I do say that no love of false peace should prevent us striving jealously against false doctrine, and seeking to promote true doctrine wherever we possibly can. True Gospel in the pulpit, true Gospel in every religious society we support, true Gospel in the books we read, true Gospel in the friends we keep company with,—let this be our aim, and never let us be ashamed to let men see that it is so.^[1]

^[1] J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 383–384.

In the familiar passage containing Jesus’ dialog with Peter in John 21, we all recognize Jesus’ triple admonition: “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep” and “Feed my sheep.”

First, some have sought to make much of the nuances between sheep and lambs, and between feed and tend. While there may be something to teasing those things out, it seems to me they primarily round out the pastoral role with 2 emphases: 1 – God’s people need attended to, especially in terms of their basic, daily provision in feeding; 2 – These are Christ’s sheep, not ours. The thrice repeated “my” is not to be overlooked. Those committed to our care belong not to us, but to Him. And we will give an account of how we have treated, fed, tended to – shepherded His flock.

Second, God’s people are to understand themselves as His own, and that He has appointed some to see to their care and feeding. As most point out, shepherding revolves mainly around, feeding, leading and protecting. God’s people are on their way somewhere, and we need to lead them there. Obvious in that is that if we ourselves are not actually going anywhere, we can’t lead them anywhere either. If we are not pursuing Christ’s likeness on the road to Zion, we’re lost, and they will wander with us. Along the way there will be those who wish to harm them, and we must protect and warn them as best we can. Even as they acknowledge their need to be warned and protected. False doctrines abound. Distractions from seeking Christ and Heaven are everywhere. Those who would take advantage of them to line their pockets, boost their egos or simply maliciously abuse them in obtaining power are never in short supply. And the tendency toward wanting to feed our souls more on curiosities, our fleshly tastes and things which have no eternal value is inherent in our fallenness. It’s work.

Third, and my focus here, is that even as Christ’s charge centers upon feeding, that delightful and potent image has to inform us. Feed; not entertain. Feed; not beat. Feed; not berate. Feed; not inspire, enthuse, overload, under-nourish, replicate ourselves, force our opinions or school them in our personal preferences – feed. And I am certain here that no one would argue that such feeding is anything other than the milk, the meat and the bread of God’s Word.

And herein is my real point today. Spiritual growth and change is not the result of we preachers and teachers giving one life altering, soul-shattering, eternally impacting sermon after another – but the steady, faithful, preparation and delivering of God’s Word. Continually pouring into the life so as to sustain it over time, and not trying to transform it by bursts in singular, transformative sermons.

Take the pressure off of yourself to preach THE sermon that will shake the world. Feed His sheep. Stop trying to produce sermonic home runs every week. Feed His sheep. No, they won’t “get it” because you felt especially lit up last Sunday. They need a regular, consistent diet of Biblical truth which sustains day to day, and produces true growth over time. And it is in this very mundane, routine work of providing Christ to their souls that the real work is done. Strength for today, and slow, steady growth.

Yes, even in the natural, there are some growth spurts when we are younger. But as we age, not so much. Sudden impact change is not the norm. We are to “grow up into Him” as Paul says. To grow in grace. Not to blow up over night or because someone preached a real hay-burner last week.

Don’t despise, look down on or treat lightly the week in and week out labor of providing meal after meal after meal. One of the joys I’ve had in my life is to have eaten in some of the finest restaurants in the world. And not a one of those meals changed me. No matter how extravagant, well prepared, succulent or nourishing. Each, in the end, was only one meal. None of them by themselves made any permanent alteration. There’s not a one I could walk away from and say “man! that’s the meal I’ve been waiting for all my life – and now everything is different!” By the next morning, I was hungry again, and needed yet another meal to sustain me. And it is just so with the souls of men.

Brother, just feed His sheep. You sustain them best by simply giving them meal after meal after meal. And that is our call. Not to win a blue ribbon. To sustain them until they reach glory. It isn’t glamorous. But it is an unspeakable privilege, and eternally glorious.

Now, congregant. A last word to you. Please don’t require more of your shepherds than what Christ has charged. If they are regularly feeding you the soul-sustaining Word of God – praise your Savior for it. Maybe they don’t use the same spices someone else does. Maybe they don’t serve it in a flaming pan by the table. Maybe there aren’t any Michelin stars on the marquee. Maybe they do not excel in eloquence. Did you need your Mom to be a master chef in order to serve what sustained you into adulthood? It is the sustenance, the Word of God which takes priority, not the china it is served on, the flourish with which it is delivered nor the thread count in the table cloth. Meat, vegetables, fruit, bread and drink. These are all we can eat. There may be varieties of each, but when all is said and done – those are what have fed and sustained us. And so it is the manna God has provided for us in this wilderness until He takes us into the Promised Land. We can boil it, fry it, bake it, spit-roast it, saute it, puree it, grill it or eat it raw – but it is the only food-stuff He has given our shepherds to feed us with. And if they are doing so – let us not just be content, but grateful and satisfied. For it is only this regular diet which will enable us to grow in the likeness of our Redeemer.

End note: I’ll just bet growing up, Jesus heard a lot of pretty poor sermons in His local synagogue. Certainly no one who could preach or teach on His level. But we find Him there don’t we? Because it was where God’s Word was read, and expounded. Where God was worshiped. And that was enough. Even for Him.

THE TODAY’S REIDING PODCAST VERSION CAN BE FOUND HERE

Back in the 1970’s, writer and television personality Steve Allen, put together a TV show called “Meeting of Minds.” The idea was to bring figures from various points in history together to discuss ideas. So one show I watched brought Augustine, Empress Theodora, Thomas Jefferson and Bertrand Russell together to discuss religion. It was great.

I thought of that show often and thought if I were to host such a program, I would begin each segment with the directive: “Gentlemen, define your terms.” If participants in any dialog do not mean the same thing by the words they use, no true discussion actually occurs. And this is no less true when it comes to the Bible and theological terminology.

Every field of study has its own vocabulary. Mechanics talk about toe, caster and camber. Podiatrists talk about toe too, but these 2 are NOT talking about the same thing. Horticulturists have their words as do Mathematicians, Engineers, Artists – you name it. If it is a field of study, it has its own vocabulary. And so does the Bible. So that Paul can write to Timothy in ​1 Timothy 4:6 “If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.”

There are “words of the faith.” Words the Bible, as inspired by God’s own Spirit use one way, which we often co-opt but infuse with very different meanings. When we do this, we in fact can make the Bible say or teach things it really doesn’t. And one prime example of that is the way the word “spiritual” is used in popular discourse, and even errantly by Christians.

In our present culture, people often refer to being spiritual as opposed to being religious or part of organized religion. So their so-called spirituality may take almost any form imaginable. It may mean they are people who have some belief system, whether it is well formed, historical or completely ad hoc and self-created. Maybe they mean mystical in some way, or simply empathetic, in touch with nature, into crystals, Druidism, mere positivity or who knows what? All of this ignoring that the Bible uses the term very specifically. Those who are spiritual according to Scripture are those, and only those, indwelt by the Spirit of God and living under His influence. Being spiritual is the sole domain of those born again. Of new creatures in Christ. Of those who have owned their sin and condemnation before God, looked to the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross as their only means of reconciliation to God, and whose lives are now lived under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Everything else, anything else, is not truly spiritual no matter how it sounds.

Now this is the chief concern of Vaughan Roberts’ wonderful book, “Authentic Church: True Spirituality in a Culture of Counterfeits.” And as a small group study, I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is a brisk but powerfully poignant walk through the book of 1 Corinthians. A letter written by the Apostle Paul to a group of people who prided themselves on their spirituality, but were anything but – spiritual.

The chapters run as follows:

1. True spirituality focuses on Christ’s cross, not on human wisdom

2. True spirituality respects faithful leaders, not flashy ones

3. True spirituality demands holiness, not moral permissiveness

4. True spirituality affirms both marriage and singleness, but not asceticism

5. True spirituality promotes spiritual concern, not unfettered freedom

6. True spirituality affirms gender differences, but not social divisions

7. True spirituality prioritizes love, not spiritual gifts

8. True spirituality focuses on a physical future, not just the spiritual present

A wonderful way to capture 8 core concepts regarding genuine, Biblical spirituality.

Each chapter not only works through the passages clearly, with sound exegesis and pointed applications – they conclude with suggestions for further Bible study, a series of terrific follow up questions and points for discussion.

A small group would find this an invaluable resource.

Let me close my thoughts and my recommendation with these 2 quotes from the book:

“The authentic work of the Spirit is seen, not when people get excited by some new message or miracle, but rather when their eyes are opened and their hearts filled with an ever-deepening appreciation of the Bible’s teaching about what God has done for them in Christ and a growing longing to live in the light of all they have received from him.”

And 2nd: “If you want to find a Spirit-filled church, look for one which takes the Bible very seriously and gives time to hearing God speak through it. That will be a church where the sermon is central to its meeting and not a platform for the preachers to put forward their own ideas, but rather a faithful exposition of the truth of Scripture.”

That’s good stuff!

The Audio Podcast can be found HERE

One of the controlling concepts of the Bible is the idea of COVENANT.

God, as Scripture testifies, cannot lie. His word is always trustworthy. He says what He means, means what He says, and speaks only the truth to us. We however, are not as perfectly holy as He is. In our sin, we lie to ourselves, others, and in our fallen state, also sinfully doubt Him as though some of what He says is not trustworthy. It was that very doubting of His veracity that was at the center of The Fall in Eden. Had we believed Him and not the Enemy, or our own selves, we would have never taken the fruit He told us would be our death to Him in disobedience.

This is the reason why salvation is a matter of faith. A matter of believing the testimony of what Jesus did in His life, death and resurrection. Faith is the opposite of the unbelief that led to our destruction. And so His Word, all of it, must be received by faith. That is what reverses the Fall.

So good is our God, and so aware is He of how this matter of unbelief still infects Humanity, He condescends to not only make certain promises to us, but to swear to those promises over and above just making them. When He does this, it is called a covenant. He makes a formal act of it. So that our hearts and minds will drink in the seriousness and unbreakable nature of certain of His promises. The promises which are most vital to our relationship to Him.

Now in Jeremiah 31, we read that God declared to disobedient Israel (suffering exile for its sins) that one day He would make a new covenant with them. New, because He had made one with them as a people once before, but they had broken that one. Jer. 31:31-32 says it this way: Jeremiah 31:31–32 (ESV)“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.”

That Old covenant referred to is at its core, the 10 Commandments, and all that springs from, surrounds and supports them.

They were for that time.

And the prominent feature of those commandments is found in the repeated words: “Thou Shalt”, and “Thou Shalt not.” Do this, and don’t do that. Its focus was upon them. What THEY should and should not do.

But what about this New Covenant? Luke 22:20 has Jesus inaugurating it at the Last Supper. So we read that Jesus took: Luke 22:20 (ESV)“the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

And that is the covenant for this time. A covenant which does not have 10 commandments built around “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not”, but around 5 “I will”s. The only “they shall” issues from the “I will”s God promises to perform.

See the contrast?

The responsibility for maintaining this New Covenant shifts from us and our weaknesses, to His eternal strength and commitment. And this is the covenant all Believers in Christ live in now. We’ve gone from 10 to 5. That’s what time it is. Thus Jer. 31:33-34 reads:

Jeremiah 31:33–34 (ESV)this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

What time is it? We’ve gone from 10, to 5. Believers live under this New Covenant now; made, sealed and testified to in the blood of Jesus Christ.Don’t live back there – live here.

I’m Reid Ferguson, and this has been Today’s Reiding. Thanks for joining me.

In 2008, it was my privilege to deliver 2 lectures at the John Bunyan Conference – hosted by John Reisinger, on the doctrine of Christ’s atonement. He was most gracious in inviting me, knowing in advance that we would disagree. But John was a champion of open discussion and always in favor of asking questions to further our understanding of what the Scriptures teach, and to refine our knowledge when and where we can.

Recently Cross to Crown Ministries, under the direction of A. Blake White has made almost 30 years of the John Bunyan Conference lectures available free online. They can be found HERE. And they contain lectures from John Reisinger, Fred Zaspel, A. Blake White, Doug Moo, Tom Schreiner, Don Carson and others. Tons of good listening. And I want to thank Blake and Cross to Crown for their largess in making this material available to all.

My 2 lectures were designed to open a dialog among my Reformed brethren regarding how we understand the the idea of “limited Atonement” – especially in light of the New Covenant. While the majority of those present did not agree with my conclusions, it was a genial – and I hope – productive time together. Fred Zaspel was the more-than-capable respondent to my lectures, and those responses are included in the recordings so that you can hear the nature of where our points of disagreement lay.

It is my prayer that continuing to search the Scriptures and challenge our own assumptions will help us grow more and more in the appreciation of this great, Christ-wrought salvation which is ours in Jesus, and overflow into every increasing worship to the One who saved us by His blood.

The link to both lectures is HERE Scroll down to near the bottom of the page – to 2008.

Enjoy.

Reading Isaiah and Jeremiah can be harrowing. But in both books, even as God’s judgments upon Israel and Judah are repeatedly and graphically described, there is also a constant call to repentance, the assurance of the Lord that He receives those who repent, and the promise of days of restoration that are supremely sublime. The mercy and grace of Christ make themselves known even in the midst of God pronouncing the severest of judgments. How great the wonder of the power of Jesus’ death for us.

Now one principle which is repeatedly addressed in these 2 books as well as others, is one established long ago in Eden, and is vital to the Gospel as well: That God created us both as individuals, and as members of one another.

In Eden, we all died in Adam. We were joined together with him in his sin, in that Adam and Eve were the entire human race at the time. And in falling, the race fell. Not just Adam and Eve.

Some rebel against this notion. After all (we say) “I didn’t disobey in Eden, it’s unfair!” But God imputes that sin to us nevertheless. He bound us together as a common humanity. A bond which we have no power to dissolve. But we must beware our protest against this arrangement if we would desire salvation. For it is the imputed righteousness of Christ which saves us, and not our own. So if we want to reject our union with Adam and its negatives, we should – being consistent – reject our union with Jesus and its positives. This however is how God made us. These are His rules of reality. This is His appointed economy.

But there are more unions than just these two. This comes out in stunning reality in the Scriptures as we see the righteous in Israel and Judah suffering captivity along with the unrighteous. Even as we see the unrighteous returning to Judah after the Babylonian captivity along with the righteous. The righteous in a nation share in God’s chastisements of the unrighteous, and the unrighteous in some ways enjoy the mercies of God along with the righteous. At one and the same time.

During the Trump era in America, it became common for some to say “he’s not my President.” And now, during the Biden administration, we hear the exact same from the other side. Of course, this ignores the ties that God has established between nations and their citizens. It is in fact a fiction. As citizens of the U.S., whoever is in office IS our President, no matter how much we might like or dislike, support or abhor them or their policies.

Like it or not, Adam was our head. And like it or not, Christ is now head of the human race, tho many would say “He’s not MY God.” Saying it, doesn’t make it so. Saying it, will not somehow remove the responsibility to obey Him; the basis upon which every human being will be judged.

So Christian, we cannot isolate ourselves from the sins of our nation. We own them in some degree corporately. We must recognize this. Own it. And pour out our confessions for the sins of our nation, even as Daniel did in Daniel 9. He wasn’t guilty of the idolatry that landed him in Babylon, but his people were. Not only that Scripture affirms the Babylonian captivity was a direct result of the sins Manasseh led Judah into – and that was both nearly 100 years before Daniel, and in spite of a great subsequent revival under the leadership of Josiah. But Daniel confessed and plead for mercy regarding those sins of both his forefathers and his contemporaries.

And God heard.

As Christians, we can do no less even today.

Think on that some.

Isaiah 6:1–3 (ESV)In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

I’m Reid Ferguson and this, is Today’s Reiding – a podcast of thoughts on the Scriptures, and Scripturally informed thoughts on a host of topics and issues that confront us every day – living in this post Genesis 3 world, and as we look forward to the Kingdom of Christ to come. You can subscribe to Today’s Reiding free, on most of the popular podcast platforms like: Spotify, Google, Breaker, Apple and others. Or, you can drop me a line at reid.ferguson@gmail.com, and I’ll add you to my mailing list.

I promise to email only when new episodes drop.

Isaiah ministered in Judea for around 60 years, and under the administrations of 4 different Kings. He predicted and witnessed Israel’s fall to Assyria. And, he predicted Jerusalem’s fall to Babylon, the Jewish exile, Babylon’s fall to the Medes and the Jews return to Judah.

During King Uzziah’s term in office, Judah prospered greatly. Times were uncertain, but overall, good. Uzziah’s death was not welcome, and it apparently shook Isaiah. Isaiah’s touch-points of earthly stability, a sound, good man in the highest office; national military successes; and economic prosperity all began to crumble. So God turns Isaiah’s eyes away from earth to Heaven. And there, Isaiah sees this mind bending vision of God’s throne with its attendant seraphim; spirit beings who appear to guard God’s throne, engaged in perpetual and spontaneous worship at God’s revealed glory.

Their song? A 2 part refrain: Thrice holy is the Lord of hosts. The tripling there indicating holiness to the highest possible degree. And, the entire earth is filled with God’s glory.

No one would argue that God is gloriously, infinitely, unalteringly and wonderfully – holy. Sinless, pure and undefiled in any way. But, the whole earth filled with God’s glory? Maybe we’re not so sure. Isn’t sin rampant here? Aren’t there wars, famines, plagues, rape, violence, racism, atheism, corruption in the Church and the government, false religion, disease, sexual perversion, death and all manner of other woe? How does that fit with the whole earth being filled with God’s glory?

I thought you’d never ask.

The Bible asserts this is true on 2 concurrent fronts. But like Elisha’s servant in 2 Kings 5, Isaiah before this vision, and probably you and me before considering passages like Hebrews 2:8 where we are told Christ is reigning now even though we don’t see it physically yet. Blind to it as we are, in truth, the whole earth IS filled with His glory.

As in Romans 1 and other places, all the woes we see in this fallen world right now, stem from God’s judgment upon sin. He’s active, not passive. Gloriously pouring out a measure of His just wrath in the world – evidenced by all of the things we’ve just mentioned and more. These judgments are manifestations of His glory in His justice in dealing with sin.

Secondly, in the midst of this just judgment, it is still not as severe as it could be. God in mercy is restraining Himself, and using these punishments as a means to wake us up to our lost condition and need for forgiveness and reconciliation to Him. On top of which He deploys His Church, armed with His gospel of grace in the Cross of Jesus to the four corners of this sin cursed world.

So it is, the whole earth IS filled with His glory. Glory in just and holy judgment, and glory in restraining mercy with the the testimony of His saving grace in and through the Church. We just need the news of it to penetrate our souls, more than the blind reports from the earthly news outlets who haven’t a clue as to what’s really going on. The truth is: God is truly, actively and superlatively holy, and the earth is FILLED with His glory, whether we see it, believe it, or not.

Consider that today.

One of the opportunities my recent “retirement” has afforded me, is to visit around to various Churches in my area to see what’s going on. Sadly, with but a few notable exceptions, it has not been a very happy experience thus far. And this, for one key reason: There has been a forsaking of preaching the Word of God.

Now don’t get me wrong – in most cases, the Bible has at least been referenced. But it has been so only in the sense that the preacher had something he wanted to say – and then found a passage (or worse, just a single word which they then defined to suit their purposes) that appeared to buttress their idea. But they were far from simply going to the Scripture, ascertaining what was being said to whom, under what circumstances, and thus what the passage was meant to teach when it was written. For in truth, only then, can we rightly find out what God has taught, and thus what we desperately need to hear. Instead, I’ve heard a lot of kindly, (and yes, even sound at times) Christian advice. Advice aimed at scratching where the preacher thought the people itched. Or simply where he did. But was all centered around the idea of how the Bible can be accessed to help me live the life I want to live, and not around how God has spoken so that I might live the life He wants me to live in accordance with how I am to be His image-bearer as I approach the final destination of eternity in His presence, fully bearing the image of Christ.  

The whole experience thus far has reminded me of Amos 8:11 (NIV84)  “The days are coming,” declares the Sovereign Lord, “when I will send a famine through the land— not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the Lord.

This last Sunday, the preacher began by reading out 4 passages from 1 John on loving. All disconnected from their context, and apart from any attempt to define love Biblically. And then he unashamedly went on to preach 4 points (out of 12) from their Church membership covenant on how they agreed to treat each other. Along the way, he kept saying that these points were Biblically based. But at the same time, he failed to show even once from whence these points as he articulated them, were derived. Just saying something is Biblical or comports with Biblical teaching in some way, is not preaching the Word of God. It is the propounding of man’s ideas using the Bible as the justification for what they want to say. And some of those ideas may be good, moral, ethical and lovely. But that is not the same as hearing what God has said as God has said it, and then moving on to how that ought to inform my soul about the God I serve, and how to serve Him as He desires. It may be a good Christian lecture – but it is not what was meant by the Apostle Paul – when inspired by the Holy Spirit – he wrote to Timothy: 2 Timothy 4:2 (NIV84) “Preach the Word”.

If you are in a Church where the approach to the Sunday sermon (and other teaching venues) is to try and open up God’s Word, by what Alistair Begg calls SCEOTS (Systematic, Consecutive, Exposition of The Scriptures) – cherish it. Treasure it for what it is. Maybe it is not the slickest presentation. Maybe the music is not your personal preference. Maybe there are other likes or dislikes which can easily become distractions. Don’t let them! If the attempt, if the action week after week is to dive into a passage in understanding what the Spirit wrote through His men to particular peoples in their places and times and circumstances – and then to see how that applies to us – you have no idea how you are being fed in the midst of this very great and severe famine which afflicts our land right now. Savor that sacred food. For that alone can truly nourish your soul. It may not show you how to live your idea of a victorious, successful or more happy life – but such a steady diet will bring you to spiritual health so as to be equipped to know and serve the living and true God on your way to the Heaven He has prepared for you.  

It will deliver you from death. It will open your eyes to the wonder and glory of the Christ who died for you, that you might be eternally reconciled to the Father, and fit you for an eternity with Him.

How great our God

How vast His grace

That bids poor sinners

Seek His face

Whose love unfathomed

Made the way

Thru Calv’ry’s Cross

My soul to save

His own Son’s blood

He offered free

And Christ in love

Died willingly

His Spirit’s work

To raise from death

And bring to life

By His own Breath

No earthly tongue

Is fit to tell

The cost incurred

To save from Hell

Let this my hymn

Forever be

The Three in One

Have ransomed me

With endorsements from the likes of Tony Lane, Martin Foord, Curt Daniel and Robert Lightner, my weak voice is hardly needed as an impetus to read and consider Paul Hartog’s “Calvin on the Death of Christ: A Word for the World” – but I’ll give you my 2 rusty pennies anyway. I venture that partially (in the interest of full disclosure) because I interacted with Dr. Hartog before the book was finished and thus my name appears in the Acknowledgements. Feel free to question my objectivity. Though in this case, I don’t think that’s really an issue. And I most heartily encourage you to read this volume carefully as an important contribution to a hotly debated and contentious discussion.

For those of us within the Reformed/Calvinistic branches of American Evangelicalism, discussion of the nature of what is most commonly (though certainly unhelpfully) termed “limited atonement”, is an ongoing reality. For myself, this came to a head a number of years ago. Having come into a “Calvinistic” soteriology, I was taught what is most often portrayed as THE Reformed presentation of “Calvin’s T.U.L.I.P.” A misnomer on several fronts. First off because Calvin never formulated the T.U.L.I.P. If you are unfamiliar with that acronym, it stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and the Preservation or Perseverance of the Saints. Commonly referred to as “The 5 Points of Calvinism.” More recent studies have shown that the T.U.L.I.P. is in fact a 20^th Century invention traceable to a sermon by Dr. Cleland Boyd McAfee in 1905. Thus it did not emerge either directly from Calvin, nor (as is thought by many) from the Synod of Dordt.

But secondly, (speaking to the issue at hand) a strict view of Limited Atonement (such as advanced most powerfully and convincingly by John Owen among others) was never “THE” Reformed or Calvinistic view. As though one could not claim to stand within Reformed orthodoxy unless they embraced the notion that Christ died ONLY for the elect. Massive amounts of recent scholarship by Robert Muller, Curt Daniel, Carl Trueman, Alan Clifford, Michael Lynch and many others have disproved that idea without question. So it is the likes of Archbishop Ussher, Willam Twisse, Edmund Calamy, Richard Vines, Edwards Reynolds and above all John Davenant – are all examples of men who supported views other than strict Limited Atonement even at the Westminster Assembly.

If you want the most robust accounting in this regard – especially in treating how Calvinistic Southern Baptists debated this – you cannot afford to neglect David Allen’s magisterial The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review. It is unparalleled in setting the historical record straight.  

All that said, those on both sides of the Limited Atonement debate inevitably try to marshal Calvin to their side. Hartog points out how this is really not useful on serval counts. First off, Calvin is not the last word on Reformed theology. Hartog writes: “Calvin cannot be elevated as the plumb-line of Reformed theology, and Reformation theology was a work in progress.” There were many voices of the Reformation and John Calvin was but one. Second, Calvin himself would have gagged on the notion that people would ever appeal to anything bearing his name, like “Calvinism.” He never set out to create such a thing and would have been repulsed by it. His Institutes were simply an attempt to provide the everyday Christian with a digest of generally received Reformed thinking. Thirdly, it is anachronistic to make Calvin weigh in on a debate which was not raging at the time he wrote and ministered. And lastly, which is at the heart of Hartog’s book – Calvin’s own writings with their inherent tensions prevent one from saying Calvin held to a strict view of Limited Atonement.

Painstakingly combing though Calvin’s works, Hartog mounts the Herculean task of endeavoring to let Calvin speak for himself – and never requiring him to anachronistically endorse later positions. As Dr. Hartog notes in his introduction: “It is evident that Calvin never discussed the question of the extent of the atonement as a separate doctrinal point.” (See: Kennedy, “Was Calvin a Calvinist?” 194.) Or, in my terms, Calvin never spoke of the atonement in quantitative terms. Quantity, is the wrong category.

Now if you were only to read Chapter 2 and Hartog’s attempt to “elucidate what I perceive to be the complex structure of Calvin’s theology through a series of twelve issues and how he seems to address them through his own writings” – you will strike a vein of solid gold. This is profoundly useful as it serves as an incredible digest of Calvin’s thought.

1. “Will all individuals ultimately be saved? Calvin responds with a firm negative.” Whatever his views on the universal applicability of the atonement – he was no “universalist.”

2. “Who is beckoned in the offer of the gospel? Calvin firmly supports the general offer of the gospel with its universal promises.”

3. “Why is it not everyone believes? [Because] “not everyone is efficaciously drawn by the Holy Spirit.”

4. “What distinguishes these specific individuals (whom the Spirit efficaciously draws) from all others?” “The gracious, eternal, unconditional election of God sets them apart.”

5. “Does this mean that the elect are saved by Christ’s work in the cross even prior to their belief?” “No…God, through his Spirit, effectually applies Christ’s work to the elect when they believe, but they are not saved until they believe.”

6. “Does this mean that the provision of Christ’s sacrifice is limited to the elect alone, since God eternally intended to apply Christ’s work ultimately to the elect alone?” “No, because Calvin seems in some sense to coordinate a universal provision of Christ’s sacrifice with the general call of the gospel: “God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.”

7. “Is the fact that the provision of Christ is universally offered important to the elect themselves? Yes. “The Holy Spirit does not “create” faith in the elect ex nihilo as if it were some kind of a substance or material or object or property. Faith is a confident, relational trust in God’s promises centered in the person and work of Christ.”

8. “Are there ramifications of Christ’s all-sufficient, universal provision in the ministry of evangelism? Yes. “If we wish to serve our Master, that is the way we must go about it. We must make every effort to draw everybody to the knowledge of the gospel.”

9. “Do unbelievers despise the grace that is offered to them? Yes, affirms Calvin. He asserts that “the obstinacy of men rejects the grace which has been provided and which God willingly and bountifully offers.”

10. “In our finite comprehension of matters, may we distinguish between our understanding of a revealed will in the universal promises of the gospel and a secret will in God’s eternal decree? Yes, concedes Calvin cautiously, if we understand that we thereby manifest our human, limited comprehension—as God’s will is truly unified, being “one and undivided.”

11. “So then did Christ die for all people or for the elect? In view of the totality of Calvin’s materials, he would seemingly answer, “Yes,” with further explanations. Christ died intentionally as a sufficient expiation and redemption for the sins of all humanity, and he died intentionally for the efficacious salvation of the elect in particular.”

12. “If Christ suffered as a provision for all humanity (as understood through one intentional aspect), and the Spirit works efficaciously only in particular individuals (the elect), does this mean the Trinity is not unified in redemption? No. “Calvin declares, “For it was God who appointed His Son to be the Reconciler [or Propitiation] and determined that the sins of the world should be expiated by His death.” “For however proud men may be, they are the possession of the devil, until they are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ. For in the word world is here embraced the whole human race.”

And then in each of these, Calvin is quoted meticulously, contextually and copiously.

Make no mistake, this book is not about the Limited Atonement debate itself. It is about how Calvin gets unfairly backread into that debate by modern theologians. And in the process, it decisively (in my opinion) takes the “Calvin missile” out of the arsenal of those who argue he taught “Limited Atonement” as it is portrayed today.

Weighing in at just over 200 pages, Paul Hartog’s “Calvin on the Death of Christ: A Word for the World” is lucid, succinct, thorough, refreshing and important.

My recommendation? Tolle Lege – take up and read!

Right away.