yinkahdinay's Xanga

The Genius of the Reformation: How a Just God Justifies the Ungodly

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:58:42 GMT

A couple of weeks ago, we had Prof. Alan Strange with us speaking on the subjects of apologetics and justification. Unfortunately, I don't think the apologetics speech was recorded. However, we do have a recording of the speech on justification: The Genius of the Reformation: How a Just God Justifies the Ungodly. This is an excellent, passionate presentation of the Reformed doctrine of justification. You can listen by clicking here or right click (and select "Save As") to download.

Total Depravity -- Heidelberg Catechism Lord's Day 3

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:15:19 GMT

"The doctrine of total depravity is irresponsible, unintelligent, and destructive. It is contrived by human theologians and is not Scriptural. If people are totally depraved, they ought to be shot, gassed in the chamber or hanged by the neck ‘till dead.” The man who wrote this claims to be Reformed. His name is Robert Schuller and perhaps you’ve heard of him in connection with his Crystal Cathedral in California. He’s well-known in broader Christian circles as a leading prophet of the self-esteem movement. In fact, he has written his own definition of sin: “sin is anything which gives you low self-esteem.” With that in mind, you can see why he finds the teaching of total depravity to be repulsive. If we’re totally depraved that means we get knocked down a notch and we will inevitably suffer from low self-esteem – in other words, the doctrine of total depravity will lead us to sin.

So we see that in Christian circles the doctrine we find in our Catechism is under attack. The attack comes from more than one direction. For we also have the people who don’t see Genesis 1-3 as giving us a factual account of what happened at the beginning of the world. They think total depravity is foolishness because they don’t believe that man ever really fell into sin. There never was a person named Adam. The story just represents what happens to all of us – we have to make our choice and most of the time we fall. But there is the possibility that someday we will learn from our mistakes and we will find peace and goodness in this world. It is not inevitable that every man sins. Man is not totally depraved, he is just weak and needs some help. We can expect things to get better for mankind.

Against this type of thinking and against the self-esteem false prophets, we confess man’s total depravity. We confess that man is dead in sin and totally corrupt. We do not believe in the good which lays within man – that every person is basically good in his heart and only needs the right circumstances to find his good potential. No, brothers and sisters, we confess from the Scriptures that apart from God we are wicked and perverse. Our Catechism already made this point in Lord’s Day 2, but in Lord’s Day 3 we see this worked out further.

Click here to read more of this sermon.

Popular Ways of Getting Here

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:02:57 GMT

People come to Yinkahdinay via different means. Some come here because other blogs have links (i.e., Thea's Ramblings, Heidelblog, Pilgrim People, JimWitt, Standing at the Crossroads -- thanks folks!). Many make use of the RSS feed. Others come because they have Google Alerts for keywords like Klaas Schilder, covenant theology, Federal Vision, N.T. Wright, etc. If I use those words, they show up automatically to make sure everything is kosher. Still others, quite a few actually, come through Google searches. Can you guess the most popular Google search that brings people to this blog? It's "World's Largest Beaver Dam," closely followed by "Galilean Fishing Boat." "Fulton Surface to Air Recovery System" has also been popular. However you may come to Yinkahdinay, I'm glad you do. Xanga doesn't seem to be as popular as it was three years ago when I first started blogging, but the number of hits that I get makes it seem worthwhile to continue.

The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:26:44 GMT

A few days ago, I posted a book review about Jerry Bridges' book The Discipline of Grace. While this is an excellent book, I bemoaned the fact that he doesn't have much of a place for the church and the means of grace, at least not in this book anyway. I recently picked up a similar (but much older) book by Walter Marshall, the Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. Marshall covers a lot of the same ground as Bridges, taking essentially the same approach. However, Marshall is better in that he definitely has a place for the church, the preaching of the Word, and the sacraments. Unfortunately, Marshall was also writing in the seventeenth century and his book is an arduous read. Some of the Puritans remain eminently readable today (Thomas Watson always springs to mind), but Marshall is not one of them. However, I did notice that Amazon.com carries a version of this in modernized English. My edition is the older one published by Sovereign Grace Publishers.

Are You Busy?

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:15:25 GMT

If so, C.J. Mahaney may need to speak with you.

Moratorium on "Evangelical"

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:26:02 GMT

I no longer use the word "evangelical," at least not if I can help it. I was interested to read in the latest issue of Modern Reformation that David Wells agrees:

"Evangelical is an honorable word with a history that has been magnificent. But today, it has been debauched by a mass of empty born-again professions, by fallen leaders, and by theological corruption. It is time, I believe, to respect what the word once meant by no longer using it ourselves, at least for a generation. Let us put our own house in order before we think again of ourselves as being evangelicals."

Psalm Sing -- Tomorrow Night

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:27:11 GMT

The concept of a Psalm Sing is quite familiar to churches that sing only psalms, such as the Reformed Presbyterian Church and Free Church of Scotland. Unfortunately, we don't really have such a tradition. Maybe tomorrow night will be the beginning of one. We're going to be gathering at the Langley Canadian Reformed church at 7:30 PM for an evening of psalm singing. The evening will be recorded and the plan is to have it professionally produced and released as a CD. If you live in the area, please make plans to join us. More information is available here....

The Guanabara Confession

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:31:58 GMT

In a recent article in Clarion, I wrote that the Belgic Confession was the only Reformation confession written by a martyr. Well, I just found out that I was wrong. The Guanabara Confession was written in Brazil in 1558. It was associated with the Genevan mission to Brazil. Its authors prepared this confession and then less than twelve hours later they signed it with their blood.

It's true that it's not an ecclesiastical confession like the Belgic (and not nearly as complete), but nonetheless it is a valuable reminder that confessing the Reformed faith in the sixteenth century could be a dangerous, even deadly, thing to do. Another interesting point about this Confession is the way the authors work not only with Scripture, but also with the early church fathers. That reflects the context in which they're writing, but it also tells us that these men knew their patristics -- exactly like Guido de Bres and the other Reformers. Interesting stuff. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did.

************************************************

The Confession of Guanabara

According to the doctrine of St. Peter, the apostle, in his first letter, all Christians must be ready to give an answer of the hope that they possess, with all meekness and benevolence; we, the undersigned, Mr. Villegagnon, unanimously (according to the measure of grace upon us bestowed by the Lord), are giving an answer, point by point, as you have thus requested and ordained, beginning with the first article:

We believe in one God, immortal, invisible, creator of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible, who is identified in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; who constitute nothing else but the same substance in essence, eternal and of the same will; the Father, source and beginning of all good; the Son, eternally generated by the Father, who, in the fullness of time, manifested Himself in the flesh to the world, being conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of the Virgin Mary, made under the law to rescue those that were under it, in order that we would be received by adoption as God’s own sons; the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, teacher of all truth, speaking through the mouths of the prophets, bringing the things that were said by our Lord Jesus Christ to the apostles. He is the only comforter in affliction, imparting steadfastness and perseverance in all good.

We believe that it is necessary to worship solely, perfectly love, cry to and call upon the majesty of God in faith, and in a personal manner.

Worshiping our Lord Jesus Christ, we are not separating one nature from the other, but confess both natures, namely: the inseparable divine and human natures.

We believe, concerning the Son of God and concerning the Holy Spirit, that which the Word of God and apostolic doctrine and the symbol teach us.

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will come to judge the living and the dead, in a visible and human form, as He ascended to heaven, executing such judgment in the form which has been predicted in the 25^th chapter of Matthew; and that the Father has given Him, being man, all power to judge.

And concerning what we say in our prayers, that the Father will come at last in the Person of the Son, we understand, by that, that the power of the Father, given to the Son, will be manifested in this judgment; nevertheless we do not want to confuse the persons, knowing that they are distinct one from another.

We believe in the holy sacrament of the Supper, as corporal figures of bread and wine, and that faithful souls are actually fed with the very substance of our Lord Jesus, as our bodies are fed by food; thus, we do not understand the saying that the bread and wine are actually transformed or transubstantiated in their body, because the bread continues with its nature and substance; likewise the wine, there is no change or alteration.

We differentiate, nevertheless, this bread and wine from other bread and wine dedicated to the common usage, understanding that these are, for us, sacramental signs, under which truth is infallibly received. The reception of this truth, however, is not possible except by faith, and it is not proper to imagine anything carnal, nor to prepare the teeth to eat, as we learn from Saint Augustine, when he says, "Why do you prepare the teeth and the stomach? Believe, and you have eaten."

The sign, therefore, does not give us the truth nor the signified thing; but our Lord Jesus Christ, by His power, virtue and goodness, feeds and preserves our souls and makes them share in His own flesh and blood, and all His benefits.

Let us see the interpretation of the words of Jesus Christ: "This is my body." Tertullian, in his fourth book Against Marcion, explains these words: "this is the sign and the figure of my body."

St. Augustine says, "The Lord didn’t avoid saying—'This is my body,' when he was merely giving a sign of his body."

Therefore (as it is ordained in the first canon of the Nicean Council), in this holy sacrament, we should not imagine anything fleshly, nor distract ourselves with the bread and wine, which are in them proposed as signs, but lift our spirits to heaven so that we can contemplate, by faith, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus, who sits at the right hand of God, His Father.

In this sense we could subscribe to the article of the Ascension, alongside many other statements of Saint Augustine, which we omit for we fear they are too lengthy.

We believe that if it was necessary to add water to the wine, the gospel writers and Saint Paul would not have omitted such an important matter.

And as what the earlier doctors have observed (concerning the blood mixed with water that flowed from Jesus Christ’s side, considering that such an observance has no basis in Scripture, and seeing that this happened after the institution of the Lord’s Supper), we cannot necessarily admit this practice today.

We believe that there is no other consecration except that which is performed by the minister, when he celebrates communion, when he speaks to the people, in a known tongue, the literal institution of this Supper, as per the form prescribed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, admonishing the people as to the death and passion of our Lord. Even as it is taught by St. Augustine, consecration is the word of faith that is preached and received in faith. Therefore, it follows that the words secretly pronounced about the signs cannot be their consecration, as it appears from the institution that our Lord left to His apostles, speaking His words to His disciples who were there, present, whom He ordered to take and eat.

The Holy Sacrament of the Supper is not food for the body as it is for the souls (for we cannot conceive anything fleshly about them, as we declared in the fifth article) which receives them by faith, which is not carnal.

We believe that baptism is a sacrament of repentance, and is an entry into the Church of God, so that we can be incorporated in Jesus Christ. It represents to us the remission of all our sins, past and future, which is fully acquired only through the death of our Lord Jesus.

Moreover, the mortification of our flesh is there represented, and the washing, represented by the water sprinkled on the child, is the sign and seal of the blood of our Lord Jesus, who is the true purification of our souls. Its institution is taught to us in the Word of God, which the saints have observed, using water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As to exorcisms, abjurations of Satan, confirmation, spit and salt, we record these as traditions of men, and we are pleased, only, with the form and institution left by our Lord Jesus.

As to free will, we believe that the first man, created in the image of God, had freedom and will, both to do good as well as evil. Only he knew what was free will, for he was possessed of full abilities. Nevertheless, he did not even keep this gift of God, for it was taken away from him on account of his sin, and from all that descend from him, such that no one from the seed of Adam has a spark of good.

For this reason, Saint Paul says that the natural man does not understand the things of God. And Hosea cries to the children of Israel: "You have fallen by your iniquity." And we understand that this is true about the man that is not regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

As to the Christian man, baptized in the blood of Jesus Christ, who walks in newness of life, our Lord Jesus Christ restores to him free will, and reforms his will for all good works; nevertheless, not in perfection, for the performing of good will is not in his power, but comes from God, as fully this holy Apostle declares, in the seventh chapter of Romans, saying, "but to will is present with me, but to perform that which is good, I find not."

The man predestined to eternal life, even though he sins on account of his human frailty, nevertheless cannot fall into impenitence.

Speaking about this, St. John says that he does not sin because His seed remains in him.

We believe that forgiveness of sins belongs only to the Word of God, of which, says St. Ambrose, man is just the minister; therefore, if he condemns or absolves, it is not him, but that which is announced by the Word of God.

St. Augustine, in this area, says that it is not by merits of men that sins are forgiven, but by virtue of the Holy Spirit. For the Lord said to his apostles, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," and he adds, "whosoever sins you remit, they are remitted unto them, etc."

Cyprian says that a servant cannot forgive an offence against the Lord.

As to imposition of hands, this has served its time, and there is no need of preserving it now, for through the imposition of hands one cannot bestow the Holy Spirit, for this belongs only to God.

As to ecclesiastical orders, we believe that which has been written by St. Paul in the first letter to Timothy and in other places.

The separation between a man and a woman legitimately united by marriage cannot be done, except on account of adultery, as is taught by our Lord (Mathew 19:5). And not only is this cause for separation, but also, with the cause properly examined by authorities, the non-guilty party, if cannot contain himself, should marry, as it is taught by St. Ambrose, on the seventh chapter of the first letter of Corinth. The authority, however, must proceed in this matter with mature counsel.

St. Paul, when teaching that the overseer must be the husband of one wife, is not saying that another marriage is not proper, but he is condemning bigamy, which attracted many in those days; nevertheless, we will leave the concluding judgment on this matter to ones more knowledgeable in the Holy Scriptures, and we will not base our opinion in this matter solely on our faith.

It is not right to vow a promise to God, unless it is that which He approves. In this way the monastic vows tend to corrupt the true service to God. It is also a fearful thing for a man in presumption to vow something beyond the measure of his calling, seeing that Scripture teaches us that continence is a special gift (Matthew 19 and I Corinthians 7). Therefore, it follows that those who impose on themselves this necessity, renouncing matrimony throughout all their lives, cannot be excused of extreme temerity and excessive and insolent confidence in themselves.

And through this means, they tempt God, considering that the gift of continence is, in some, merely temporal, and that which is temporal does not last throughout a whole life. Thus, monks, priests, and others who oblige themselves to live in chastity, tempt God, for it is not in themselves to fulfill what they have promised. St. Cyprian, in his chapter eleven, says, "If virgins dedicate themselves in good will to Christ, they persevere in chastity without defect; if they so remain, strong and constant, they can expect the reward prepared for their virginity; if they do not want or cannot persevere in their vow, it is better for them to marry than to be thrown into the fire of luxury, on account of its pleasures and delights." As to the passage written by St. Paul, it is true that the widows separated to take care of the church would submit to a vow of not marrying again while they would be engaged in those duties; not because this would impart to them, or because it would be attributed to them, any holiness, but because they would not be able to perform those duties, if they were married; and, if they felt like marrying, they should renounce that calling to which God had led them; nevertheless, fulfilling the promises made in the church, without breaking the promises made at baptism, in which this is included: "Every one should serve God in the place where he has been called." Widows, therefore, did not vow continence, for marriage was unbecoming to their duties, and they had no other choice but to observe that. They were not so constrained to the point that they were forbidden to marry and burn themselves, falling into infamy or dishonesty.

But, to avoid such inconvenience, the Apostle Paul, in the aforementioned chapter, forbids that they be allowed to vow such vows unless they reached sixty years of age, which is an age generally considered outside of the incontinence bracket. And he adds that the elect should be married only once, so as in this manner they receive already an approval of continence.

We believe that Jesus Christ is our only mediator, intercessor and advocate, by whom we have access to the Father, and that, justified by His blood, we will be free from death; and reconciled by Him we will have full victory against death.

As to the saints who died, we say that they desire our salvation and the fulfillment of the kingdom of God, and that the number of elect is completed; nevertheless, we must not direct ourselves to them, as intercessors to obtain something, because we would be disobeying the commandment of God. As to us, the living, while we are united as members of one body, we should pray one for another, as we are taught by many passages of Scriptures.

As to the dead, St. Paul, in the first letter to the Thessalonians, in its fourth chapter, forbids us to mourn for them [excessively], for this is a pagan custom, who have no hope of a resurrection. The Apostle does not command nor teach us to pray for them, something which he would not have forgotten, if it would be convenient. St. Augustine, speaking about Psalm 48, says that the spirits of the dead receive according to what they have done in life; and that if they have not done anything, and are still living, they will receive nothing, when dead.

This is the answer that we give to the articles that we have received from you, according to the measure and proportion of faith, which God has given us, praying that he may be pleased that this faith may not be found dead in us, but bearing fruits worthy of His children, and that we may grow and persevere in it, so that we will render praises and thanksgiving to Him forever. Amen.

Jean du Bourdel, Matthieu Verneuil, Pierre Bourdon, André la Fon

Remembrance Day 2008 -- Lest We Forget

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:13:15 GMT

Today is Remembrance Day in Canada, the day we remember with gratitude the sacrifices made by countless men and women so that we can live in a relatively free nation. Today, I want to honour not only those who fought in the Canadian military forces, but also those Canadians who fought in the underground in Europe. I have a personal interest in doing so, since my Opa Bredenhof was one of those Canadians. I'd like to share one of his many war stories. He served in a fighting battalion of the Dutch underground army, committing acts of sabotage against the Germans, and preparing to attack them from the rear when the Allies approached from the front. Here's my Opa Bredenhof:

*****************

Attacking the enemy from the rear is always risky and extremely dangerous. This is what we were called on to do. But we had all lived through dangerous times before. We knew the land and that was an advantage. But the enemy fought fanatically.

We had mostly good soldiers. We used to say, 'Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition' and 'Pray and fight.' It was dragging on week after week. In the meantime, there were still small jobs to do.

One day I was summoned to Zwolle. I was told that they had an important man to look after. A complete radio installation had been discovered in his house and we had to find a hiding place for him. He was a man of about 45, a real gentleman, a man of class and breeding. This I could see right away. But he was scared like a rabbit. He had lost his cool. I was told by the officers that if he fell into the hands of the enemy it would cost many lives. We had to avoid that scenario at all costs. So there we went. I told him to do exactly as I told him.

He was a very learned man who didn't fight with weapons in his hands, but with his intellect. We were halfway between Zwolle and Hasselt, along a bare road with empty fields on either side of the road. All of a sudden I spotted two or three trucks and cars ahead with German soldiers in them. Was it a roadblock? It was hard to say. To turn back would look suspicious. My companion wanted to know what we should do. I told him to keep cool and if they were to stop us we would just show our falsified papers. But in my heart I thought that the game was over. The officers were not stupid either; they would see something wrong in the combination of us two.

We were maybe 200-300 feet away and then our deliverance arrived. Out of the clouds above us came three Allied fighter planes, Spitfires, all firing their cannons. Thirty or forty feet away the rounds slammed into the roadblock. Cars and trucks caught fire. Dead and wounded Germans lay moaning on the road. The rest of the soldiers dove into the ditch on both sides of the road. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw the planes turn about a mile away. "Bike! Bike!" I screamed at my companion. Like madmen we pedalled between the dead and wounded and burning vehicles. We must have set records. The Germans let us pass, but I knew that if the planes hadn't have showed up it would have been a different story. They would have surely seized our bikes with the good air tires. Hardly anybody had them anymore. I always had a good supply of air tires during the whole war.

We just made it past the roadblock and the Spitfire cannons started rattling and booming again. Once again the rounds landed just behind us. I hope that the Lord blessed those pilots who both times neatly missed us. But I also knew that those pilots were sent at just the right time by God to give us safe passage."

***********************

Opa went on to write about how he had to find a good hiding place for this man. He succeeded when he came to the home of Mrs. H. Linde, a widow with a large family and a poor farm. Mrs. H. Linde is the mother and grandmother of the Lindes in the Langley and Aldergrove Canadian Reformed churches.

I think the story gives you a sense of both the courage and faith of those who fought against the Nazis. Opa was just one of thousands. Through their efforts, God brought down the enemy. Ultimately, we remember HIS faithfulness, that God has been "our help in ages past."

This is a shot of my Opa (second from the left) and his brothers Egbert, Henk, and Tiemen Bredenhof shortly after the war. By this time, Opa was a Royal Dutch Police officer, while his brothers were in the Dutch army.

Keller's The Reason for God

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:53:18 GMT

I read Tim Keller's The Reason for God some months ago. I think I mentioned it a couple of times here on Yinkahdinay. I enjoyed it and found a lot of food for thought in it, but I didn't think it warranted a review. Any review I would write would have to be quite long and detailed and at the end of it, I probably wouldn't give it much of a recommendation.

Dr. F.G. Oosterhoff apparently felt differently and her review appeared in the September 26, 2008 issue of Clarion. Her only critical remark had to do with Keller's position on creation and evolution. She didn't get into some of the more fundamental methodological problems.

The November 2008 issue of New Horizons has a review by OPC Pastor Brett McNeill which does that. He appreciates the book on the level of communication, but asserts that it falls short on the level of content. I think he succinctly expresses some of the concerns that I have as well. Let me quote the relevant portions:

However, there are some weaknesses in the book. In chapter 8 ("The Clues for God"), Keller runs into what VanTil called the "blockhouse dilemma," which arises when the apologist presents an argument for a god. It is not clear how to get from there to the triune God of the Bible.

[...]

...Keller does not adequately challenge the presuppositions of the nonbeliever. The first half of the book is dedicated to answering questions of the skeptic (about exclusivity, suffering, evil, science, etc.). Rather than questioning the skeptics' test of truth, Keller attempts to demonstrate that Christianity satisfies their tests the best.

McNeill makes some good points, although I do see more points of similarity with the presuppositional method than he does in Keller. As Oosterhoff noted, many have compared Keller to C.S. Lewis and I think Keller is much closer to VanTil than is Lewis. It would be interesting to have a book by Keller on the method of apologetics -- and then we could engage him on this more fruitfully. At the end of the day, even with its shortcomings, I don't doubt that God could use this book for his sovereign purposes.