Sanctification by Faith

In his Catechism for the Church of Geneva (answer # 126), John Calvin wrote, "To believe in Christ is as much to say as to receive Christ in such sort as He doeth give Himself unto us; now this is an evident thing, that Christ doeth not only promise to deliver us from death and to restore unto us the favor of God His Father through the only merits of His innocence, but also He promiseth to make us new creatures by His Spirit, to the end that ye should lead a holy conversation in all good works, so that these must be joined together, except we would divide Christ from Himself." In simpler terms, Jesus does not save  man from the wrath of God without also making him a new creation with good works consistent with that new nature. 

The biblical basis for Calvin's statement comes from II Corinthians 5:17-21: "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who, through Christ, reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake, He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." This is a description of the legal exchange that happens at the moment that a sinner experiences saving faith. He has an instantaneous exchange of status with Jesus, receiving the righteousness of Jesus in place of the sin that is ours by nature. That is why Jesus could say to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). The moment he believed, that man had all of the righteousness of Jesus. He was as justified as any saint at a hundred years old, even though he was never given the opportunity to do a single good work. 

However, for the saint who remains in this life, for as long as he remains in this life, there will be good works. After reminding the Christians that their justification is through faith alone, not at all by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul tells the Church at Ephesus (verse 10), "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." While justification is instantaneous, as we see in the example of the thief on the cross, this new walking in good works, which we call sanctification, is a process lasting as long as the Christian remains in this life. The Westminster Larger Catechism Answer #75 defines sanctification this way: "Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, through the powerful operation of His Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life."

Yet we are never to mistake the order of these events. We can never do good works to gain the favor of God. It is only after a man is justified through faith alone in Jesus alone that he is then able to do good works. This is the point of Paul's epistle to the Galatians. "We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we, too, were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for is righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose" (Galatians 2:15-21). 

Paul's challenge to the erring Galatians is, if I was justified by faith alone in Jesus, how would I now turn aside from faith and seek to live the Christian life by my works? No, he says! My Christian life, too, is by faith alone in Christ alone! My good works are not by my own moral striving, but arise from the new life of Christ within me. Sanctification is by faith just as much as justification is by faith!

The Universal Kingship of Yahweh/Christ

"All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before You. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and He rules over the nations." -Psalm 22:27-28 

In the verses cited above, both uses of "Lord" in English represent Yahweh in the Hebrew, the name of the preincarnate Christ, the second Person of the Trinity. And "nations" is also translated as "Gentiles." Therefore, this is the claim of Christ to a universal kingship, not just over Israel, as is claimed by the Jews and dispensationalists, but over all nations, both Jews and Gentiles. A kingship which is already real, and which will become progressively more visibly as we approach the time of His return, as we pray in the Lord's prayer; "Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10)." This is explicitly and eloquently affirmed in the Westminster Larger Catechism: "In the second petition, acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the Gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the Gentiles brought in, [and] that He would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of His power to al the world, as may conduce to those ends" (answer 191). 

In both the Scripture ext and in the catechism, the presumption is of a current kingdom which shall have future effects. Neither allows for a future kingdom as is assumed by the dispensationalist. Nor does either allow for a kingdom limited to a particular region of the earth, such as the political state of Israel, or even to the church as is held by amillennialists.

Diotrophes and the Doctrine of the Visible Church

The Westminster Standards distinguish between the visible church and the invisible church. For example, we can read question and answer 61 in the Larger Catechism (see questions 61 through 65): "Are they saved who hear the gospel and live in the church? All that hear the gospel and live in the visible church are not saved, but they only who are true members of the church invisible." I agree with this statement as consistent with the Word of God. 

In contrast, we have the doctrine of the Anabaptists and some Baptists that the church has only one form, and consists only of the regenerate. They thus deny the existence of the visible church as described by the catechism. I consider this to be a false and dangerous doctrine. First, it is not a power given to men to judge the heart, such that we could infallible mark who is and who is not regenerate. And second, it creates chaos in the government of the church. And third, it is unbiblical. 

The Apostle John tells us of a man in the church, Diotrophes. We would call him an elder or overseer. "I have written something to the church, but Diotrophes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So, if I come, I will being up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to, and puts them out of the church" (III John 1:9-10). 

So, we have John's warning of this man Diotrophes, a member of the church government in the congregation to which this epistle was written. John's warning is that Diotrophes is a false teacher who uses his power to put good men out of the church, an abuse of church discipline. 

The issue that this account presents for the doctrine we are considering is that the bad guy, Diotrophes, is a member of the church, while the good guys, whose names we are not given, are not members, due to their excommunication. If the denial of the visible and invisible church distinction is correct, then the Anabaptist must claim that Diotrophes is the true Christian while the friends of John are not. But that would be exactly opposite of John's warning to Gaius! 

On the other hand, the traditional Protestant doctrine, that of the Westminster Standards, easily resolves the situation: As a false professor, Diotrophes may be a member of the visible church, but he cannot be a member of the invisible church. And of the rest, regardless of the illegitimate action of Diotrophes, the friends of John are true believers, and, therefore, members of the invisible church, even though their membership in the visible church may have been canceled by the unlawful use of excommunication. 

When Men Turn the Name of God into Vanity

Do you know the third Commandment? It is the one that says, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain" (Exodus 20:7). In our modern understanding, this commandment means not to use "God" flippantly, such as, "Oh God, I love pizza!" And it certainly includes that. But isn't it in itself flippant to believe that one of the Big Ten would be about that? 

Our ancestors certainly gave it more weight: "What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment? Answer : The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it" (Question 113, Westminster Larger Catechism). There is little in our mental or social lives that the divines did not put under the Third Commandment. 

I want to especially consider one aspect of the abuse of God's name, and that is the claiming of it by members of pseudo-Christian cults. The worst ones are the ones that simply create a false Jesus, by depriving Him of His full and eternal deity. This would include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals. They abuse God's name by applying it to idolatrous inventions of their cult founders. In this sense, the commandment is equivalent to the warning given by Jesus Himself: "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect" (Matthew 24:4-5, 24)

The followers of these manmade pseudo-Christs claim the name of Christ, and will even expect others to acknowledge them as Christians. However, they have claimed the name, not of the Jesus of the Bible, but of an idol, and are, therefore, using His name in vain. And, as Moses wrote, God will not hold them guiltless. They remain in their sins (John 8:24). 

How the Church Paved the Way for Humanism

There has long been a tradition of dividing the Ten Commandments into two tables, commandments one through four and then five through ten. I am OK with that division. The first four deal primarily with man's relationship with God, and the other six primarily with his relationship with his fellow man. They are often portrayed this way in images of the commandments. That might be a bit fanciful. We have no record of how they were divided between the two tablets. Or even if they were divided. Some people believe that each tablet displayed all ten.

That's fine so far. 

There is also a common view that the civil government is supposed to enforce the second table, the laws against thievery and murder, etc., but has no authority over the first four. 

My question is this: Why? 

Sometimes the answer is that the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids it. We have freedom of religion in this land, so we can't have laws against idolatry. Yet our country has a heritage of so-called "blue laws," laws that required businesses to be closed on Sunday in honor of the Sabbath. "Blue," in this case, derives from a historical usage, in which "blue" was used for something which was overly strict. It was a pejorative term, but passed into general usage. The courts have upheld Sunday-closing laws on secular grounds, such as the practicality of providing a day off for workers. 

However, the question must be, Why does the First Amendment - in reality, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment - outweigh God's commandments? Should a cultural preference become the standard by which even Christians are to live, over the Word of God? 

When God tells us, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3), His desire is clear. So also when He says, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (verses 4-5). So, on what grounds do we decide that His will in these two commandments is less important that it is when He says, "You shall not murder" (verse 13)? There is certainly no biblical justification for that judgment. 

When the Westminster Standards were originally written, the Larger Catechism, question and answer 109, included among the sins forbidden by the Second Commandment, "tolerating a false religion."  However, in 1788, when the first Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church met in the newly-independent United States, they removed that clause as offensive to religious liberty. Not as offensive to the Word of God. 

What this should tell us is that the secular humanism which has come to dominate these United States is not a new phenomenon, and did not suddenly puff into existence because prayer was removed from government schools in the 1960's. Rather, it was the culmination of that decision in 1788 to place political and cultural considerations above the enscripturated Word of God. The door was opened to the supposed independence of "secular life" from God. Now we have parts of our lives which are designated "religious," and parts which are designated "secular." And the humanists are perfectly happy with allowing Christians to enjoy that distinction, because it turns all of life outside the church doors over to them. And the church doors are only a temporary barrier, until the humanists have secured their territory against that day.

Opposition to Gracious Election and the Kingship of Jesus

In Matthew 21:5, Jesus refers to himself as "king," using  Zechariah 9:9. And, indeed, this is closely followed by the royal welcome he received to Jerusalem in the immediately following verses. Under the influence of Dispensationalism, Christians have mostly stopped talking about the kingly office of Christ, though it carried great significance to our ancestors. For example, we can look at the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king? Answer : Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to Himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which He visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon His elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for His own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

We also have the words of Jesus, as He portrayed the nature of His kingship in a parable: "As for these enemies of Mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before Me" (Luke 19:27). As king, He will by right judge unbelievers to destruction for their rebellion against His proper rule over them. 

That parable is the New Testament parallel to Psalm 2, which is the promise of the Father to the then-preincarnate Son. Verses 1-3 is the gloating of the rebels: "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 'Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us." These are the same ones described in Luke 18 as refusing to submit to their rightful ruler. However, the Father is unimpressed by their bluster: "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill'" (verses 4-6). So, He says to the Son, "The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel" (verses 7-9). 

We have a concept in our modern society that religion is a voluntary thing, that believing in Jesus or not is a person choice, and either one is equally valid. Well, we can tell ourselves that, but it is not what God says. Unbelief is rebellion, and is, therefore, under the judgment of God. This error is even found among professing evangelicals, who have adopted the cultural assumption of religious freedom binding even on God. He rejects that claim, and even tells us of His sovereign choice of who shall be a sheep, i.e., a valued citizen of His kingdom, and who shall be a goat, i. e., a rebel (John 10:27-29). One sign of who is which is their response to this doctrine.

"There is much violent and bitter opposition to that account of it [i. e., election] which places a crown of absolute sovereignty on the head of Jehovah, and prostrates man in entire dependency upon His will" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Infant Baptism in Paul to the Ephesians

Among Reformed Christians, the children of believers are baptized, not as a sign that they are saved, but because they are - by right - members of the visible church. Thus, we reject both the errors of baptismal regeneration as taught by, for example, Roman Catholicism, and the view that the children of believers are no different from the children of nonbelievers, as is taught by Baptists,

I have addressed this matter before, from I Corinthians 7:14, but I want to turn to a different text this time.

Paul says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother' (this is the first commandment with a promise), 'that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land'" (Ephesians 6:1-3). This command is addressed to children of Christian parents, not to children in general. Of course, all children should obey their parents, but that isn't the audience of Paul's statement. The children in Christian homes are to obey their parents "in the Lord." That is, they have a relationship that children and unbelieving parents don't have. The children of Christians are in the Lord! Again, that doesn't have to mean that they are necessarily converted. Rather, they are covenantally distinct.

And that is what the Reformed say, that our children are covenantally set apart by God, enjoying the privileges of the visible church, and, therefore, have a right to be baptized. We acknowledge this confessionally, such as Question 166 of the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Unto whom is Baptism to be administered? Answer : Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to Him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized." 

Perseverance, Apostates, and the Church

In arguing against the biblical doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, Arminians point to people who used to profess the Christian faith, but who have now fallen into gross sin, or who have even repudiated the faith they once professed. And there certainly are such people.

However, the Bible addresses that issue: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (I John 2:19). In the previous verse, John had warned his audience of antichrists, apostates who now denied the basic doctrines of Christ. He addresses the obvious hypothetical question, How could Christians become such enemies of the faith? And his answer is that such people were never true Christians in the first place.

This verse teaches the doctrine of the visible church. That is, the church as an organization of people who profess the Christian faith, without addressing the true condition of their hearts. This is contrasted with the invisible church, which is all of those throughout history who have truly been born again, without regard to their membership in any particular organization. The two overlap, but they are not identical, as John explains. 

Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell explained the distinction this way: "[I] restrict the 'church,' in its proper sense, to the congregation of the faithful. None can be truly members of it but those who are members of Christ. [I] accordingly maintain with Calvin, with Luther, [and] with Melancthon, that hypocrites and unbelievers, though in it, are not of it. They are insolent intruders, whom it is the office of discipline to expel" ("Theology as a Life in Individuals and in the Church"). The Westminster divines also addressed the subject in the Larger Catechism, questions 62 through 65.

What Is Faith?

We have a lot of common sayings on the issue of faith. Two that I sincerely hate are "a leap of faith" and "you just gotta have faith." The first means that we should go through life making hazardous decisions with insufficient information. The second is what we say to people dealing with personal or general catastrophes. Faith in what? Or whom? Well, faith in faith, i. e., the New Age concept that insistent belief creates reality.

In contrast, Theologian John Frame, in his "Apologetics," p. 53, says, "Faith is not mere rational thought, but it is not irrational either. It is not 'belief in the absence of evidence'; rather, it is a trust that rests on sufficient evidence... So faith does not believe despite the absence of evidence; rather, faith honors God's Word as sufficient evidence." In other words, "faith" is not a mental insistence without regard to objective circumstances. Rather, it is a belief in the power of God on the basis of His Word, the Bible. Faith isn't the vacuous stubbornness of popular psychology and New Age religion, but rather has a particular foundation and explicit content.

We see that for example, in Jude 1:3: "Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." Here the brother of Jesus is referring to faith as a body of belief, of doctrine, which was held in common by believers. He is telling us that the content of our faith matters! That is the opposite of what we say in the phrase I quoted above. Paul referred to the same thing in Titus 1:4: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith..." The emphasis here is on content, too, but a content held in common among believers, equivalent to Jude's "that was once for all delivered to the saints." Both inspired writers reject faith as a feeling or as an individual insistence, but rather as something held in common among all true believers, with a specific content of truth.

Luke describes that content in Acts 6:7: "The word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith." The content of the faith is the word of God, i. e., the Bible, and to believe it is to be obedient. Or, to express the converse, not to believe it is to be disobedient.

Therein lies the problem with faith in faith, without content. it assumes, contrary to Scripture, that God honors disobedience as if it were obedience. Again quoting Paul (Ephesians 5:6): "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for ... the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." Not doing things God's way cannot be the source of assurance that our common encouragements assume, because they bring, not His blessings, but His wrath.

Here is a definition of biblical faith (Westminster Larger Catechism 72): "Question 72: What is justifying faith? Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation."

Godly Men Love God's Sabbath

When talking about the importance of the Sabbath, I have noticed that most Christians will make a dismissive remark about its being ceremonial law. That statement is false, since the Sabbath long preceded the time of Moses (Genesis 2:2-3). Even more, though, it ignores the role the Sabbath played in the rest of the Old Testament. The godly people of Israel valued the Sabbath. In fact, that quality is used in the Old Testament as a distinguishing mark between pious and nominal Israelites.

Before the Babylonian exile, God, speaking through the Prophet Jeremiah, warned the people of Israel, "If you do not listen to me, to keep the Sabbath day holy, and not to bear a burden and enter by the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched" (Jeremiah 17:27, but look at the whole passage from 21 to 27). Yet, we know that Judah ignored the warning, and it was fulfilled in the sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586BC.

After the exile, the governor of Israel - appointed by the king of Persia, but God's man - Nehemiah, remembered these words, and tried to start the restoration of Judah on better footing. First, he recognized the pattern of Sabbath desecration: "In those days I saw in Judah people treading winepresses on the Sabbath, and bringing in heaps of grain and loading them on donkeys, and also wine, grapes, figs, and all kinds of loads, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. And I warned them on the day when they sold food. Tyrians also, who lived in the city, brought in fish and all kinds of goods and sold them on the Sabbath to the people of Judah, in Jerusalem itself! Then I confronted the nobles of Judah and said to them, 'What is this evil thing that you are doing, profaning the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers act in this way, and did not our God bring all this disaster on us and on this city? Now you are bringing more wrath on Israel by profaning the Sabbath'" (Nehemiah 13:15-18). Both the Jews themselves and the foreigners resident among them were trampling God's day, just as their ancestors had in the time of Jeremiah. They had learned no lessons from their seventy years of exile.

So, he commanded reforms: "As soon as it began to grow dark at the gates of Jerusalem before the Sabbath, I commanded that the doors should be shut and gave orders that they should not be opened until after the Sabbath. And I stationed some of my servants at the gates, that no load might be brought in on the Sabbath day. Then the merchants and sellers of all kinds of wares lodged outside Jerusalem once or twice. But I warned them and said to them, 'Why do you lodge outside the wall? If you do so again, I will lay hands on you.' From that time on they did not come on the Sabbath. Then I commanded the Levites that they should purify themselves and come and guard the gates, to keep the Sabbath day holy. Remember this also in my favor, O my God, and spare me according to the greatness of your steadfast love" (Nehemiah 13:19-22). This passage shows both the binding nature of the Sabbath for the people of God and the responsibility of the civil magistrate to fence the day from abomination.

This is the basis for the Westminster Larger Catechism (question 117): "The sabbath or Lord's day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to betaken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God's worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day." Though the day has been changed from the seventh to the first, the Sabbath principle is just as binding as it was to Jeremiah and Nehemiah.

Christ, Our Conquering King!

Question 45 of the Westminster Larger Catechism asks, How does Christ execute the office of a king? And answers it this way: "Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

There's a lot there, and I won't even try to address it all.

In Psalm 110:1, the Father gave a promise to the Son as part of the intra-Trinitarian covenant in prehistory: "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool" (applied to the Son in Hebrews 1:13). The Father had determined to glorify the Son by giving Him visible rule over the creation. History has been the record of the fulfillment of that promise, as the rule of Christ is established over the kingdoms of the world (compare Daniel 2:44-45, Revelation 11:15).

The theme of the royal destiny of the Son is especially described in the second Psalm:

"'As for Me, I have set my King
     on Zion, My holy hill.' 
I will tell of the decree:
     The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son;
today I have begotten You.       

     Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage,
and the ends of the earth Your possession.
     You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.' 
     Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
     Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
     Kiss the Son,
lest He be angry, and you perish in the way,
     for His wrath is quickly kindled. 

Blessed are all who take refuge in Him."

- Psalm 2:6-12 

What we don't see here is a description of the means of that conquest. There are militaristic expressions, but no mention of armies or weapons. In fact, Scripture denies a spiritual role for weapons of war: "The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds" (II Corinthians 10:4). So, no tanks or nuclear bombs, or even swords or arrows. What then?

Some of Jesus's last words during His earthly ministry are found in the Great Commission: "Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age'" (Matthew 28:18-20). Here, Jesus claims "all authority," that is, the very delegation of royal prerogative we find in Psalm 2. As King, what assignment does He then give His captains, the Apostles (and we after them)? To disciple the nations, part of which is to teach them to obey His Law.

Therefore, the answer to the assignment in Psalm 2 is no military conquest. Nor is it some waving of a divine hand from heaven. This is in spite of the obvious fact that either one would be within the power on omnipotent deity. Rather, the submission of all things to the crown rights of Jesus is through His people, as we proclaim the Gospel and train the nations to live as Christians. Evangelism and missions will conquer the world, because our Savior is already king!

The Baptism of Jesus as a Sign of His Priestly Office

I want to compare two events, one in the Old Testament, the other in the New Testament.

The first is the process of consecration of the Levitical priests. "You shall bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tent of meeting and wash them with water" (Exodus 29:4). "Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tent of meeting and shall wash them with water" (Exodus 40:12). "All those who were listed of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron and the chiefs of Israel listed, by their clans and their fathers’ houses, from thirty years old up to fifty years old, everyone who could come to do the service of ministry and the service of bearing burdens in the tent of meeting, those listed were 8,580" (Numbers 4:46-48, but compare also verses Num. 4:3, 23, and 29). The two things that I want to emphasize in these passages in that their ministries began at age thirty, and were marked by washings in water (see Hebrews 9:10).

The other is the account of the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:9-11, compare John 1:31-34): "In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when He came up out of the water, immediately He saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are My beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.'" We know that this happened when He was thirty years old from Luke 3:23: "Jesus, when He began his ministry, was about thirty years of age."

Thus we see how Jesus fulfilled the provisions for the Levitical priesthood, though He Himself was not a Levite (Hebrews 7:13). Rather, His priesthood is described as "in the order of Melchizedek" (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, 5:10, 6:20, and especially 7:17). 

As Christians, we receive many benefits from His priestly office, something which the Westminster divines found essential to their system of doctrine. In answer 44, the Westminster Larger Catechism tells us, "Christ executes the office of a priest, in His once offering Himself a sacrifice without spot to God, to be a reconciliation for the sins of His people; and in making continual intercession for them." And in describing that intercession, answer 55 tells us, "Christ makes intercession, by His appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of His obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring His will to have it applied to all believers; Answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services." We rarely hear this doctrine preached today, but how comforting it should be to us, His people.

The Priesthood of Christ Negates All Other Priesthoods (Even Rome's)

The purpose of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews was to demonstrate the superiority of Christ over the accoutrements of the Mosaic covenant. In chapters 7 and 8, he examines the priestly office of Christ, and compares it to the Mosaic, levitical priesthood. (Just as an aside, this is an internal proof that the epistle must have been written before 70AD, when the destruction of the Temple made that priesthood moot.)

The ways in which Christ's priesthood is superior include His eternality (Heb. 7:3, 17, 24, 28): "He holds His priesthood permanently, because He continues forever." This is contrasted with the string of human priests, due to their mortality (Heb. 7:23). Another way in which He is superior is due to the sufficiency and effectuality of His one-time sacrifice (Heb. 7:27): "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily..., since He did this once for all when He offered up Himself."

This passage addresses two errors of the Church of Rome; first, that her clergy have a priesthood; and second, that Christ's sacrifice is repeated in the Mass. Both of those heresies undermine both the sufficiency and eternality of the priestly office of Christ, contrary to both the words and the purpose of the Epistle. That is, if Christ as priest is both eternal and sufficient in that office, there is neither need nor allowance for any other priest or sacrifice. That is why a Protestant church has a minister, not a priest, a man who points believers to their only and all-sufficient hope in Jesus Christ, not in any mere man, no matter how glamorous his robes, titles, and claims may be.

Because of the explicit words of Scripture, I commend the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism (Question 44): "Christ executeth the office of a priest in His once offering Himself as a sacrifice without spot to God, to be a reconciliation for the sins of His people, and in making continual intercession for them."

The Calling of the Jews, as Described in Jeremiah

In Question 191, the Westminster Larger Catechism asks, "What do we pray for in the second petition [of the Lord's Prayer]?" The answer says, in part, "In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in..." And the Directory for the Publick Worship of God, under the heading of "prayer," directs that prayer be made, among other things, "for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles..." That is almost a direct quote from the Apostle Paul in Romans 11:25-26: "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved..." It is these promises on which the catechism answer is based.

Did this concept originate with Paul? Is this a Christian imposition, and to be considered offensive by Jews? I answer no to both questions.

In Jeremiah 31:3-4, we find, "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued My faithfulness to you. Again I will build you, and you shall be built, O virgin Israel!" This promise appears after long passages protesting the apostasy of Israel, which God would judge with the seventy-year exile in Babylon (e. g., Jer. 25:18). The prophet continues in verse 6, "For there shall be a day when watchmen will call in the hill country of Ephraim: 'Arise, and let us go up to Zion, to the Lord our God.'" Verse 9, "With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back..., for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." And 13-14, "I will turn their mourning into joy; I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and My people shall be satisfied with My goodness, declares the Lord.”

"Don't these verses refer to the return of Israel after the Exile?" someone may ask. Modern Jews limit it to that application. On the other hand, dispensationalists apply it to the modern State of Israel. The problem for either interpretation is further down the passage.

In verses 18-20, the prophet tells us, "I have heard Ephraim grieving, 'You have disciplined me, and I was disciplined, like an untrained calf; bring me back that I may be restored, for You are the Lord my God. For after I had turned away, I relented, I was ashamed, and I was confounded, because I bore the disgrace of my youth.' Is Ephraim My dear son? Is he My darling child? For as often as I speak against him, I do remember him still. Therefore My heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him, declares the Lord." This is a description of the repentance of Israel, and return to faithfulness to her God, which certainly has not happened. Ancient Israel continued in apostasy, even rejecting and killing her Messiah, so that God destroyed their nation, city, and temple, in 70AD. And today's State of Israel is overwhelmingly secular. Under her laws, a Jew can be religious, agnostic, atheist, or even Buddhist or New Age. What he cannot be is a follower of Jesus the Messiah.

And in verses 33-34 (part of the same New Covenant passage quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12), God Himself says, "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."  This is what Paul talks about, when Israel repents of her apostasy and turns, as a nation, to her Messiah, Jesus Christ. The key is found in Jer. 30:9: "They shall serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them." The restoration prophesied by Jeremiah isn't geographical or political, but rather a restoration through Jesus, the Davidic king (compare Isaiah 9:6-7 and Jer. 33:14-26). That has, demonstrably, not happened yet.

That same event is described by the Prophet Zechariah (Zech. 12:10): "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on Me, on Him Whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over Him, as one weeps over a firstborn." Their God, Jehovah, promises to send His Holy Spirit to change their hearts, so that they will finally recognize Who Jesus is, and what they did to Him 2,000 years ago. And He shall receive them (Rom. 11:26-27, Isa. 59:20-21): "The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be My covenant with them when I take away their sins." Thus, both Old and New Testaments prophecy of a time when the Jews, en masse, will repent of their hardheartedness, and turn to their God and Savior Jesus Christ.

God's Judgment on Manmade Religion

The Prophet Jeremiah gave his prophecies in the time immediately before and immediately after the sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, followed by the subsequent exile of the Jews to Babylon. His sermons before those events were proclamations of God's judgment against Judah, for which these events were His judgment.

Notice the pattern in the quotations below:

Jeremiah 3:17: "They shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart."

Jeremiah 7:24: "They did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward."

Jeremiah 11:8: "They did not obey or incline their ear, but everyone walked in the stubbornness of his evil heart."

Jeremiah 13:10: "This evil people, who refuse to hear My words, who stubbornly follow their own heart and have gone after other gods to serve them and worship them."

Jeremiah 23:17: "They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, 'It shall be well with you'; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, 'No disaster shall come upon you.'"

Do you see what each of these verses says? God doesn't chastise Judah for a lack of religiosity. Rather, He chastises them for religious practices according to the inclinations of their own hearts. Judah even proclaimed her innocence (Jer. 2:35), and pretended not to understand why He was angry with them. God acknowledges that they have continued in their religious activities, but not according to His purposes (Jer. 7:9-11): "Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’—only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I Myself have seen it, declares the Lord." Look also at Jer. 7:21-26.

God makes a final effort to call His covenant people to repentance (verses 5-7):  "If you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever." Yet, in the face of His mercy, Judah refuses. Jer. 8:6: "They have not spoken rightly; no man relents of his evil, saying, 'What have I done?' Everyone turns to his own course."

What was the real religious devotion of Judah? (Jer. 9:13-14): "They have forsaken My law that I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice or walked in accord with it, but have stubbornly followed their own hearts..." It is that same error described above: will-worship. They preferred the spiritual exercises that they had invented (or borrowed from their pagan neighbors) over those commanded by God in His word.

This is a description of two times in our own Western history: it was part of the complaints of the Reformers against the Church of Rome that she had polluted Christian worship with pagan images and pageantry not authorized by Scripture, and again in the "seeker-friendly" neopaganism which is spreading in our own time.  Rome has added additional "sacraments" and dogmas, not to mention the superstious praying to angels and saints. She is the exemplar of "following their own hearts." And why is that so bad? Jeremiah answers that question, too (Jer. 17:9): "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick." While Rome pretends to an authority to legislate faith and morals beyond the mandates of Scripture, God says that the reservoir from which she draws is deceitful (which is not to exempt Protestant innovators of the same criticism).

Judah's apostasy here is in violation to the First and Second Commandments of God (Exodus 20:3-4). While Rome attempts to obscure the Second by subsuming it into the First, by doing so she merely demonstrates that her error is no accident, but is willful and deliberate. In my own tradition, it is called the Regulative Principle of Worship, and is explicitly enjoined in the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 109: "The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God Himself." That is our rejection of the worship in the Church of Rome.


This truth led to an essential warning in the Westminster Confession of Faith (XX:2): "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to His Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."

Legalized Theft: Property Rights in an Entitlement Society

Much in the news today, as well as in water-cooler discussions, is the effort to force businesses, such as florists and bakeries, to serve social functions against the religious convictions of their owners. On one side, we see those who protest discrimination by the business-owners. On the other, we see those who have suddenly read the First Amendment about freedom of religion.

I say to both sides: That ship sailed a long time ago.

To the tolerance campaigners, I have a question: when a bar serves a particular clientele, is it discriminating? When there is a bowling league - or insert any social activity of your choice - for a particular segment of society, is that intolerant? My point is that discrimination cuts both ways. To discriminate in favor of a group is just as intolerant as to discriminate against that group, isn't it? Yet, I'm not seeing any public outrage about that. I recommend repeating this sentence to yourself, until you see my logic: "I can't tolerate intolerant people."

To the other side, the supposed defenders of religious liberty: Where were you when interracial marriage was declared legal by the Supreme Court? If a person has religious convictions against interracial marriage, is that a religious right that you want to protect? Speak up. I can't hear you. Why is it that "religious freedom" has suddenly become a rallying cry when it wants to discriminate against gay people? Yet, that phrase was never heard when so-called "civil rights laws," especially "public accommodations" laws became de riguer in the sixties.

My thought is that the answer is the Eighth Commandment, which reads simply, "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15). One of the sins forbidden by that commandment, according to Question 142 of the Westminster Larger Catechism, is "all unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor of what belongs to him." To my mind, that covers both sides of this debate. As to the social activities to which I referred above, the commandment preserves the right of individuals to spend their own money on peaceful, voluntary interactions with associates of their choice. For the business owners, it preserves their right to perform interactions with individuals of their choice. Do you see the two sides of the coin here? The conflict arises from the efforts of government officials to insert force where there was none. And both sides, in their efforts to get government force for their own efforts, fail to recognize that force that works for them can just as easily be used against them.

Keeping the Lord's Day Holy

"The sacred observance of one day in seven is God's appointed means for the cultivation of piety: when piety vanishes, orthodoxy necessarily follows it in due time."

This quote is from the Lectures on Systematic Theology (the specific lecture is available in this pdf) of Robert Lewis Dabney, one of the two best-known theologians from the old Southern Presbyterian Church. In this passage, he was stating his opinion that a lack of Sabbath concern in European churches, including both Calvin and Luther personally, was the reason that the European mainland was, even in his time, a spiritual wasteland. I am sure that, if he lived in our day, he would suggest that the same disease is what has destroyed the Protestant churches, his own Presbyterian Church included, have faded into paganism, even in the English-speaking nations.

The view Dabney was defending can be found in the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 116: "What is required in the fourth commandment? Answer: The fourth commandment requires of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as He has appointed in His Word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called the Lord's day." (See also Questions 117-121). He held, and I also hold, that this view best summarizes the biblical teaching relevant to the Lord's Day, or Sabbath, for the Christian.

The opening biblical reference is Genesis 2:1-3: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation." That is, the Sabbath arises from the creative acts of God at the beginning of history. Remember that; it is a crucial aspect of what I am advocating.

Next, it comes up in the IVth Commandment, in both Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15.

The objections to continuing Sabbath observance, even in its Christian first-day form, are twofold. The first is a general objection that the ceremonial law has been fulfilled in Christ, and is therefore no longer binding on the Christian. That principle is certainly correct. However, it is irrelevant here, because, as I mentioned above, the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, instituted thousands of years - at least- before the time of Moses. In addition, we have the New Testament concurring in Hebrews 4:9, "There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." Thus, the Sabbath is found both before the ceremonial law was given and after it was abrogated in Christ. Therefore, it could not have been abolished with the ceremonies, such as the sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood.

The other objection is more specific. It is based on Colossians 2:16, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day." But that interpretation is only possible if you ignore the next verse, "These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." This brings us back to the exact point I made in the paragraph above. Paul is encouraging the Colossian believers not to be shaken by the criticisms of the Jews, or of Judaizers in the Church, who advocated the continuing devotion to the Jewish ceremonies, e.g., the festivals and seventh-day Sabbath attendance at synagogue or the Temple. In other words, he is not referring to the Sabbath principle here, but rather to the now-superseded Jewish Sabbath. Otherwise, Paul's companion Luke would have been remiss in recording that the Christians met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).  And Paul himself would have erred in encouraging the believers to take up an offering in their meetings on that day (I Corinthians 16:2). So, the general reading of Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 would make it contradict these two verses, and especially Hebrews 4:9 (quoted above). The narrow reading, i.e., that it is reference specifically to the Jewish Sabbath, must therefore be the correct interpretation.

The Testimony of the Bible to Its Own Infallibility

"Question 157: How is the Word of God to be read?
Answer: The holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer."
- Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 157

As a Presbyterian, I resent the association, in the minds of many, of me (and my fellow churchfolk) with the liberal Presbyterian Church (USA). That denomination is just one of the Presbyterian churches in this country, and in no way represents historical Presbyterianism. The question above comes from the Westminster Larger Catechism, one of the traditional doctrinal documents that Presbyterians have professed ever since 1647. As can be seen, it describes a proper Christian understanding that the Scriptures are the very word of God, and must be received and honored as such by the true Christian. The Catechism reflects what the Scriptures testify of themselves.

Isaiah 55:11:, "[S]o shall my word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." God acknowledges the Scriptures as His own word, and promises their spiritual effectiveness.

Jeremiah 23:29: "Is not My word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" The Word overcomes all resistance.

II Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." This is the central proof-text. The Scriptures are inerrant, because their divine Author is necessarily infallible!

II Peter 1:21: "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Another powerful text, because of its simple and direct message. While the Bible certainly was written by human authors, it is not their word, but that of the Holy Spirit who moved them is such a way as to record His words.

Hebrews 4:12: "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." In a parallel to the Isaiah reference, the writer of Hebrews testifies to the power of the Scriptures to effect us in fundamental ways.

As you can see the Catechism correctly summarizes the very testimony that God gives to His own word. Those who deny the inerrancy of the Bible, yet claim to be Christians face this warning from Jesus Himself (John 14:28): "The one who rejects Me and does not receive My words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day." To reject the Scriptures is to reject Christ, and that choice will be recalled as evidence against you in the Judgment to come.

The Sabbath and Going Out for Lunch after Church

Question 117: How is the sabbath or the Lord's day to be sanctified?
Answer: The sabbath or Lord's day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to betaken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God's worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.
- Westminster Larger Catechism 

At a former church, it was our practice all to go to lunch together after Sunday worship. It was a very small church, only about a dozen members, and we were widely dispersed, so participation was necessary if I were to have any sort of  relationships with my brethren. Doing that caused me great discomfort of conscience, because I believe that a Christian should avoid commercial activity on the Lord's Day. As the IVth Commandment says, we are not only to rest from our own labors, but also to relieve our servants of theirs. I am glad to say that my current situation doesn't put me in that conflict.

Some excuse eating out on Sundays as giving the wife the opportunity to rest. I think that is a good concern. However, I cannot accept that one person honors the Day by putting the work off on someone else.

Consider the Commandment itself (Exodus 20:10), "the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates." It is forbidden even to put the labor off onto one's employees or animals. I have seen this described as the first labor legislation.

Nehemiah expands this even further. Nehemiah 10:31 tells us, "if the peoples of the land bring in goods or any grain on the Sabbath day to sell, we will not buy from them on the Sabbath or on a holy day. And we will forego the crops of the seventh year and the exaction of every debt." And Neh. 13:15, "In those days I saw in Judah people treading winepresses on the Sabbath, and bringing in heaps of grain and loading them on donkeys, and also wine, grapes, figs, and all kinds of loads, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. And I warned them on the day when they sold food." Both of these verses describe people who willingly profit from providing Lord's Day labor to resting believers. Yet, this voluntary labor is still forbidden. And this is exactly what is happening when believers "honor" the Lord's Day by going to commercial establishments, where others profit from violating the Fourth Commandment.

Where I live, restaurants are swamped on Sunday afternoons. I sincerely believe that this grieves the Lord.

The Westminster Standards and Biblical Inerrancy

The Westminster Assembly

"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."
- Westminster Confession of Faith I:5

The first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith is devoted to the doctrine of scripture. The logical basis for that choice was that the Assembly wanted to set out immediately their standard for everything else that they would declare. Since they held that the Bible alone is and should be the source and judge of all that we are to believe about God, the spiritual condition of man, and the relationship between the two, they set their doctrine of scripture as the gateway to the Confession.

As you can see, in this paragraph, the Bible is called the "Word of God." In Paragraph 8, it is described as "inspired by God." And in Paragraph 9, it is called "infallible." We now use the adjective "inerrant" to mean the same thing.

The answer to question 4 of the Larger Catechism teaches the same precept: "The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God."

Thus, we see that the orthodox, confessional view of Presbyterians is that the Bible is inerrant, because it is the actual Word of God. The instrumentality of its writing is by men, but the words are from God. As Peter explained (II Peter 1:21), "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." While liberal Presbyterians have been denying the inerrancy of the Bible for the last century, the confessional statements above prove that the claim of such teachers to be Presbyterian is a deception.

I want to bring to your attention another part of those confessional statements. Both the Confession and the Catechism state that the inward witness of the Holy Spirit is necessary for the individual to believe the nature and teachings of the Bible. If the inspiration and necessary inerrancy of the Scriptures are self-evident, as the Standards teach, why don't all professing Christians, at the very least, believe it?

God in His own word says that we should believe because of who He, its author is. Zechariah 12:1, "Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him..." He is the Creator of everything around us, and even our spirit within us. Thus He claims a singular qualification to be believed. Yet, so much of the world refuses to believe. And His word explains why.

Romans 1:18-20 is a description of the spiritual condition of unregenerate men. Notice especially verse 18, which describes "men who suppress the truth by their wickedness." Sinful men hate God's Word, so they suppress their knowledge of its truth. The Apostle Paul also describes this spiritual condition in two places in I Corinthians. I Cor. 1:21 says, "the world did not know God through wisdom." Natural wisdom blocks out the knowledge of God. And I Cor. 2:14 much the same: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." The unregenerate man cannot perceive spiritual truth because his sin blocks it from his awareness. He is like the spoiled child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sing-songs, "La-la-la, I can't hear you," to avoid acknowledging the instructions or admonishments of his parents.