Deity & Decree, by Samuel D. Renihan

 Published in the UK by Broken Warfe, 2021, 134pp.

Evangelicals rightly demand theological precision and accuracy when it comes to the doctrine of Scripture, or justification by faith alone. Any drift from biblical inerrancy is detected and rejected in short order. Similarly when it comes to including works in justification. 'By faith alone, by grace alone', we insist. The same theological care isn't necessarily displayed when attention turns to the doctrine of God. Some contemporary Evangelical theologians suggest that belief in divine impassibility makes seem God cold and remote. Others have argued that the Son stands in a eternal relationship of submission and authority to the Father. 

Part of the problem is that Evangelicalism contents itself with brief statements of belief, as opposed to elaborate confessions of faith. Compare the Doctrinal Basis of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches with the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689. Point 1 of the FIEC Doctrinal Basis has a 54 word statement on 'God'. What it says is perfectly fine and good. But by way of contrast, the 2LBCF Chapter 2 devotes three paragraphs totalling 408 words to 'Of God and the Trinity'. The older confession self-consciously echoes the creedal heritage of the church and gives expression to what is sometimes called the 'classic doctrine of God', 'The Lord our God is a... most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions'. Renihan wants to recover the older emphasis of the confession. 

If the doctrine of God is 'first theology' and of primary importance, we need to ensure that what we say of God is biblically accurate and informed by the theological reflection of the past. That is where Deity & Decree comes in. With impressive clarity and brevity Renihan gives attention to God's Unity, Triunity and Decree. 

God's Unity: God is self existent, with life in himself. He is uncaused cause of all things. God's attributes such as his omnipotence, holiness and love are not the bits of which his being is composed. God is simple, having no component parts. All that is in God is essential to God, because all that is in God is God. That is why he cannot change. An unchanging God is not susceptible to suffering. There is nothing within the being of the ever blessed God that could cause him to suffer. Suffering cannot be imposed upon him from without, as that would give the created order an advantage over him, compromising his omnipotence and immutability. The impassible God is not cold, or remote, however, for God is love, full of self-generated compassion and mercy towards lost sinners. The move towards attributing suffering to God's being risks compromising the uniqueness of the incarnation of the Son of God. In Christ as man God did what is impossible for him to do as God namely, to suffer and die for sinners. 

God's Trinity: The Bible reveals that in the one God there are three persons, or subsistences: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three persons are equally and fully God, yet the Three are not interchangeable. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It is these personal properties alone that distinguish the persons. We may not ascribe an attribute such as authority to the Father and submission to the Son in terms of their eternal relations. The Son has the same power and authority as the Father because he is of the same essence as the Father. But there is an order in the Trinity and the missions of the three persons in the world of time reflect the eternal relations. The Father sent the Son into the world at his incarnation. The Father and Son poured out the Holy Spirit upon the church on the Day of Pentecost. Getting the Trinity right isn't theological hair splitting. As the Second London Baptist Confession states, "which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on Him." (2:3). 

God's Decree:  The decree is a simple, eternal and sovereign act of God's being. The Almighty's unchangeable decree, however, does not reduce creatures to the status of puppets in his hands. As the confession makes clear, "nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree." (3:1). The decree does not make God the author sin, which he willingly permits for his own ends. Neither does it  deprive human beings of  responsibility to God for their actions. God decreed the salvation of his people not because of anything in them, but because of his own free grace given them in Christ before the foundation of the world. Those not elected to salvation are passed by according to God's decree. The cause of the damnation of the wicked is not the divine will per se, but their own sin, which rightly deserves eternal punishment. 

In line with the Reformed Catholic tradition Renihan insists that God's decree is the expression of his will which is a property of the divine being, not the persons of the Trinity. This cuts across the idea proposed by some contemporary Evangelicals that the Son's will was eternally subordinate to that of the Father. The divine will is common to all three persons of the Trinity in the being of God. The Son, as well as the Father and the Holy Spirit was therefore party to the decree of salvation. The Son's submission to the Father in the economy of redemption cannot be read back into the eternal relations of the Trinity. 

Renihan handles the biblical materials underlying God's Unity, Trinity and Decree with insight and care. His treatment of these topics is enriched by the Great Tradition of Christian thought, especially writers of the Reformation and Puritan periods. The author's prose is limpid and precise, yet his tone  tone is meditative and devotional. A fine work of 'first theology' that demands a response of joyful doxology of the reader:

Glory be to God the Father. Glory be to God the Son. Glory be to God the Holy Spirit. 

Glory be to the only, living, true, and triune God.

‘Glory to the New-born King'

So says the chorus of a favourite carol, Hark! the Herald Angels Sing. But why should glory be ascribed to the new-born Jesus? After all, he would have looked much like every other baby. Cute, yes, but worthy of the angels’ praise? I know artists often portray the infant in the manger as if he glowed in the dark with heavenly splendour, but that has no basis in fact. If anything, the Bible stresses how ordinary looking was Jesus. He ‘took the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men’ wrote the apostle Paul. As with any other baby, Jesus was weak and totally helpless, ‘tears and smiles like us he knew’.

Yet Christians believe that he who as an infant was cradled in his mother Mary’s arms, was also the eternal Word of God who upheld the universe by his divine power. He is fully God, the Father’s only Son as well as fully human. That is why angels worshipped the new-born King. They recognised him as their Maker made flesh. Another reason for worship is what Jesus was sent into the world to do. As the angel of the Lord explained to startled shepherds keeping watch over their flock by night, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.’

God became man in Jesus because we needed a Saviour. That tells us something about the human condition. The Bible tells us, ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’. We are incapable of saving ourselves from sin, otherwise God would have left us to get on with it. Jesus came to live a life of perfect obedience to God on our behalf. He then laid down his life as a sacrifice for sin. His death was sufficient to rescue the world from sin. That’s because it was the Son of God in human form who suffered in our place at the cross.

Jesus is the King of love. He was born in the royal city of David. He was crucified as ‘King of the Jews’ to win us a place in God’s eternal kingdom. He rose from the dead and was exalted to the right hand of the Father, where he reigns as King of kings and Lord of lords. He is able to save completely those who put their trust in him.  Will you join the angels in singing, ‘glory to the new-born King!’?

Christmas Services at Providence & Ebenezer. 

* For the Christmas/New Year editions of several parish magazines 

History on Fast Forward

I’m old enough to remember life before music could be downloaded or streamed. I can even remember when CDs were a novelty, rather than old hat. Apart from a few cassettes most of my teenage music purchases were on vinyl and had to be played on a record player. Records had two sizes and speeds. Albums had to be played on 33rpm, singles on 45rpm. If you forgot to flip the switch from 45rpm when listening to an album it would play at high speed and at a higher pitch than was intended. You could produce the same effect by pressing the ‘play’ and ‘fast forward’ buttons at the same time on a cassette player. That was our idea of fun in the 1970’s and 80s. We didn’t have TikTok and stuff back then.

Right now it seems like the album of history is being played at 45rpm. It’s a pain if you have to submit a monthly article like this one, which sometimes includes comment on current affairs. As I write this just before the deadline, Kwasi Kwarteng has been sacked as Chancellor and Jeremy Hunt has been appointed in his place. Prime Minister Liz Truss has vowed to carry on, but who knows who’ll be PM by the time you read this in November? In September Boris Johnson stood down, Liz Truss took over and then the Queen died. Now we’re all having to get used to singing, ‘God save our gracious King’. It’s all happening too fast.

It’s much better when history proceeds at a glacial pace and nothing much seems to be going on. But time is hurtling by at a dizzying speed. The key thing is to have the wisdom to know what do to with the brief span allotted to us. We live in a day of great gospel opportunity. God has sent his Son the Lord Jesus to die for our sins and rise again from the dead. Jesus now calls us to put our faith in him that we may be forgiven and have the hope of eternal life. History seems to be stuck on fast forward. In the words of the old hymn, ‘swift to its close ebbs out life’s little day’. So, hurry up and wait for what’s worth waiting for. Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near.

*For November edition of various parish mags

An unexpected visit to the National Gallery

The car started to make a funny noise as we travelled to London for a family visit. The idea was that we would stay in London from Thursday to Saturday and then set off to Eastbourne for a two week break. 

But as we turned off the M4 we noticed the car sounded a bit odd. Like our old school unleaded guzzling Ford Focus had transitioned into a whining elecric job. Freaky. On arriving at our destination a peek under the bonnet revealed a fluid leak. Not engine oil, but whatever it was, there was quite a bit of it. Too much to risk proceeding with our journey without getting it looked at. 

A visit to a garage on Saturday morning revealed that the power steering pipe needed replacing. Couldn't be done until Monday at the earliest. We were stuck. In London. Where there's always stuff to see and do.

Like arty stuff in an air conned gallery during yet another summer 2022 hot spell. And so we braved the sweltering Bakerloo line and headed for the effortlessly cool National Gallery. 

We hadn't visited for years, so it was like bumping into old friend after old friend as we wandered through the various exhibition rooms. There's Rembrandt as a young man and then as an oldie. The greatest self-portraits ever? And his epic Belshazzar's Feast. 

I wanted to see Turner's The Fighting Temeraire. There it was. Like, wow. The ghostly old ship being towed to the breaker's yard by the fiery, modern tug boat. That sunset. On the way we saw Gainsborough's portraits of gentry couples proudly posing on their estates, shooting a confident gaze at their  viewers. Placed next to tenderly intimate depictions of the painter's young daughters. 

Then the Monets and Reniors. Not to mention Van Gogh's Sunflowers, Chair and Wheat Field. It was the visual eqivalent of playing a setlist of all your favorite songs, with some welcome surprises thrown in. And this was a rushed 2 hour visit in which we sampled only some of the artworks on display in the grandeur of the National Gallery. All for free. To think, we could have been travelling to Eastbourne. 

An Introduction to John Owen: A Christian Vision for Every Stage of Life, by Crawford Gribben

Crossway, 2020, 190pp

Crawford Gribben has written a full scale biography of John Owen entitled, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat. This is something different. Here Owen's story is interwoven with his teachings on how the Christian faith casts light on every stage of life, from childhood to death and eternal life. Novices will find this a useful way of getting into Owen and will be stimulated to dive deeper. Seasoned Owen readers will discover fresh insights into some of his key writings. 

Childhood 

John Owen was a particular favourite among early Particular Baptists such as Nehemiah Cox. They valued his account of the relationship between the old and new covenants, which they saw as tending in a Baptist direction. Owen was an Independent and a paedobaptist, however. He wrote in defence of infant baptism, but he had a cordial relationship with the Particular Baptists.  Unlike other contemporaries he did not accuse them of being schismatic Donatists because they insisted on baptising believers who had been 'baptised' as babies. 

Owen's advocacy of infant baptism made for tensions in his ecclesiology. He acknowledged that in the apostolic church "all baptized initiated persons, ingrafted into the church" were recognised as "sanctified persons" (p. 57). Further, "the proper subjects of baptism" are "professed believers... and their infant seed" (p. 58). But this did not mean children of believers should be admitted to church membership, at least not until they had made a credible profession of faith. Admitting unconverted people into the church would have compromised the Independent's vision of churches as a gatherings of visible saints. 'Well, quite', Owen's Baptist friends may have been tempted to say. 

Issues of baptism aside, Owen firmly believed that the children of believers needed careful instruction in the faith. To that end he penned The Primer and The Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, Unfolded in Two Short Catechisms. These texts were intended to supplement the teaching children will have received in church meetings.   

Youth

The rise of William Laud not only made church life difficult for Puritan-minded types. It also made things rather challenging for godly students at Oxford and Cambridge. Certainly for Owen, whose dreams of pursuing an academic career at Oxford were dashed. 

Owen's university days had given him a good grounding in theology, but it was through the ministry of an unknown preacher in London that he was converted. Now he had an experiential knowledge of the truths he had studied so diligently at Oxford. 

Owen returned to the city in 1651, where he was appointed dean of Christ Church and then vice-chancellor of the university.  He took the opportunity to preach to the young people in his charge. Knowing the danger of having only an intellectual knowledge of the truth, the laid great emphasis on  practical godliness. John Locke was among Owen's students, but he didn't take kindly to the Puritan's attempts at fostering reformation among the student body.  

Two of Owen's sermon series preached to students at Oxford later became the basis of some of his most celebrated works, On the Mortification of Sin and Of Communion with God. In the second title, Owen sought to show how the believer may enjoy distinct communion with each person of the Holy Trinity. He wanted his students not only to have a clear understanding of orthodox theology, but also to deep delight  in the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

Middle Age

The Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 spelled the end of Owen's role as a prominent public figure. He was dismissed from Oxford and had to keep a low profile, giving himself to pastoral ministry among Independent congregations. Owen now had to plead with the authorities to grant toleration to Puritans who would not conform to the Church of England. He argued that Nonconformists were law abiding citizens who sought to contribute to the common good of England. They were no threat to the established order and should therefore be accorded liberty to practice their faith free from persecution. Owen's ideas were later taken up by his old student, John Locke, in An Essay Concerning Toleration, which is often regarded as a key text in the development of classic liberalism. 

For Owen, middle age involved an experience of painful defeat that followed the collapse of Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth. But if this world often meant suffering for the godly, Owen consoled himself, "It is but yet a little while before it will be no grief of heart unto us for to have done or suffered any thing for the name of the Lord Jesus." (p. 116).

Death and Eternal Life

John Owen looked forward to better days for Christ's 'peaceable kingdom' on earth. Jesus would not, he believed, "leave the world in this state, and set up his kingdom on a molehill." (p. 128). But in later life he lost confidence in his ability to understand what God was doing in history. Gone was the old certainty that the Lord was on the side of Parliament, showing his approval by granting the Ironsides victory over the Royalists at Naseby and Marston Moor. After all, the Charles II was now King, and those identified with the Good Old Cause found themselves on the losing side. He reflected, "I do not know... a greater rebuke, in the whole course of my ministry, than that I have been labouring in the fire to discover the causes of God's withdrawing from us without any success." (p. 130). 

John Owen died on 24 August 1683. He knew that death is not a kindly friend, but an unnatural rending of body and soul due to sin. But death could be welcomed, none the less. For the believer death means the end of a lifelong struggle with sin and a departure from this world to be with Christ. Despite the disappointments and reversals he experienced of his earthly life, Owen did not die a broken, disillusioned man. One of his final works was Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ, in which he sought to set forth his view of the supreme glory of the Lord Jesus. The believing soul, which has glimpsed the glory of Christ by faith will at last see him by sight. "the sight of God in Christ, which is intellectual, not corporeal; finite, not absolutely comprehensive of the divine essence, is the sum of our future blessedness." (p. 139). 

In his conclusion the author reflects on Owen's lasting impact on society and the the church. The old Puritan's ideas on religious toleration helped to sow the seeds of classic liberalism. His theological writings are the subject of renewed attention in the contemporary Evangelical world. 

Crawford Gribben has ably opened up John Owen's Christian vision for every stage of life. An excellent read. 

* I am grateful to the author for kindly sending me a free copy. 

A tough question

With Boris Johnson announcing that he is standing down as Prime Minister various candidates have been vying for his job. Now the list has been whittled down to the final two, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss. It is up to Conservative party members to decide who will be the next occupant of 10 Downing Street. You would expect journalists to quiz the candidates on what they would do about the cost of living crisis if they gained power, would they cut taxes and so on. But these days it seems than no media interview or hustings event is complete without politicians being asked: ‘What is a woman?’ Tough question. 

The dictionary definition is ‘adult human female’. No surprises there. But giving that answer could get a politician into hot water with those who believe that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman. Even if their anatomy suggests otherwise. Debates over the ‘trans’ issue have become a highly contested aspect of today’s ‘culture wars’. Everyday words are changed to reflect this. In guidelines produced by one NHS trust ‘mothers’ are renamed  'birthing parents’, ‘fathers’ as ‘second biological parent’. There is great concern over the number of children being referred to the NHS Gender Identity Development Service because they believe they were born in the wrong body. The vast majority of children seeking help are girls. It was recently announced that the Tavistock child gender identity clinic is due to close, following criticism the quality of care provided in an independent review. 

Of course, people suffering from gender dysphoria should be treated with respect and given all the help they need. But there is no escaping biological reality. Each cell in our bodies either has two X chromosomes (female) or one X and one Y chromosome (male). That cannot be changed. It is the way God made us, “So God created mankind in his own image, male and female he created them.” The Bible honours the created differences between men and women, but also insists that male and female are of equal value and worth before God. 

Jesus counted women as well as men among his early followers. According to the gospel accounts it was women who first discovered that Jesus’ tomb was empty and saw him risen from the dead. At the time of the early church society was deeply divided between ethnic groups, salves and masters, men and women. Yet the Christian message was one that brought people together. It teaches us that we are all sinners, but through Jesus we can be forgiven and be put right with God. To believe in him is to belong to his people, where there is “neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

*For the August edition of various parish magazines 

Particular Baptists and Calvinistic Methodists on the Covenant of Grace

John Eilas (1744-1841)

Hanserd Knollys (1599-1691)

Chapter VII of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Savoy Declaration (1658) is devoted to 'God's Covenant with Man' (see this tabular comparison). The two confessions are not identical at this point. The wording  is different here and there. Savoy omits quite a bit of Westminster's paragraph 5 and the whole of paragraph 6. But they have quite a lot in common. Both both the Presbyterians and Congregationalists were Paedobaptists, holding that the children of believers should be baptised. An essential element of Paedobaptist theology is that just as Abraham's offspring were to be circumcised, so the children of believers should not be denied the new covenant sign of baptism. 

That is why Westminster and Savoy say that the covenant of grace was 'differently administered' during the era of the law to what is now the case under the gospel (VII:5). In other words, the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants were administrations of the covenant of grace, as is the new covenant. Under all the various administrations the children of covenant members were to receive the sign of the covenant and either be circumcised (under the law) or baptised (under the gospel).  

The trouble with that is under the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants, simply being a descendant of Abraham according to the flesh did not make a person a true believer in the coming Messiah. Paul says as much in Romans 9:6-13. How, then could the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants be administrations of the covenant of grace, when, according to both Westminster and Savoy, the covenant of grace was between God and the elect, who would most certainly be saved?

the Covenant of Grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. (VII:3).

The framers of the Second London Baptist Confession (1689) denied that the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants were administrations of the covenant of grace. Rather, they were 'steps' under which the covenant promise of salvation was revealed until it was fully made known under the new covenant.

This covenant [of grace] is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament (VII:3). 

Accordingly, baptism is only for those who were ordained unto life and have been savingly engrafted into Christ, the evidence of which is their profession of repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Chapter XXIX 2LBCF). 

Now, eyebrows might be raised at the idea of 'Calvinistic Methodism', thinking that Methodists were Arminians like John Wesley. But George Whitefield was both a Calvinist and a Methodist. So too were his Welsh counterparts, Daniel Rowland and William Williams. Second generation Welsh Calvinistic Methodists left the Church of England and formed their own church grouping. Their leaders such as John Elias and Thomas Charles were very much Calvinist in doctrine and Methodist in spiritual vibrancy. Their confession of faith reflects that. 

What I want to highlight here is how the Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists (1823) resembles the Second London Baptist Confession more than it does Westminster or Savoy in its treatment of covenant theology. Chapter 13 is entitled, 'Of the Eternal Covenant of Grace'. The confession says that the promises of the covenant of grace are given to 'Christ and his seed' and under this covenant this 'seed' will receive eternal life. That could not be said of all Abraham's natural descendants and regretfully, neither is it true of all children of new covenant believers. The final paragraph of Chapter 13 says,

God in his own time reveals this covenant through the gospel to all his people, and, by bringing them to approve and embrace it, brings them into the bond of the covenant, and into actual possession in their own persons of its grace, gifts, and privileges. The covenant of grace was revealed by degrees, and under various dispensations; but the gospel dispensation is the last and most glorious. This covenant is free, sure, holy, advantageous, and eternal.

Note the way in which the penultimate sentence seems to echo the emphasis of the Second London Baptist Confession. Contrary to Westminster and Savoy, the covenant of grace is not said to be 'differently administered' over time, but 'revealed by degrees, and under various dispensations: but the gospel dispensation is the last and most glorious'. That is more or less the equivalent of the 2LBC's  'revealed... by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament'. Quite how on this basis the Calvinistic Methodist fathers still went on to affirm infant baptism in Chapter 37 of the confession, I am at a loss to know. 

My point is that few would doubt that the early Welsh Calvinistic Methodist churches were part of the Reformed family. Their confession placed them in the mainstream of Presbyterian and Reformed thought. Particular Baptist teaching on the covenant of grace sprang up from within the Reformed churches, especially the Independents in the seventeenth century. But they saw with greater clarity that the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants could not simply be identified with the covenant of grace. They were 'covenants of promise' (Ephesians 2:12) in which the covenant of grace was progressively disclosed. 

All agree that the covenant of grace is with God and his elect people in Christ and made effective by the Spirit. The genius of the Particular Baptists was to follow the biblical logic of that position to say that  baptism should therefore only be administered to believers on profession of faith, who are then admitted to the membership of a local church. Doctrinally speaking, we are indeed Reformed Baptists. But that in itself is not sufficient, we also need something of the life and fire of the old Calvinistic Methodists. 

The cost of living (Jesus' Way)

Here’s where I embarrass myself by writing an article on what the government needs to do to fix the cost of living crisis. Basically, they have to make sure that stuff is cheaper, and that people have enough money to pay for the stuff they need. I think that just about covers it. Agreed?

Whether Liz Truss or Rishi Sunack wins the Conservative leadership election, their success as Prime Minister will rest on coming up with  policies that address the cost of living crisis. Especially when it comes to fuel and food. It can’t be right that some people in our society will have to choose between heating and eating come the chilly winter months.

Jesus spoke about the cost of living too. According to the economics of the kingdom of God the gift of eternal life can’t be bought, but it will cost you everything. It can’t be bought because salvation is by God’s free grace, not our efforts. That’s why he sent Jesus to die for our sins so that all who believe in him may be forgiven and have the hope of glory to come.

While grace is free, it is not cheap. People may quite like the idea of eternal life, but strictly on their own terms. Well, no. Jesus wants disciples who will follow him, not consumers who just want what he has to give. The Lord Jesus challenged his would-be followers, “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.” He urged people to count the cost of discipleship saying, “any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.” If we would truly live, we must die to self and follow Jesus. That’s the cost of living his way.

*For the July edition of local parish magazines. 

Pastors, bodily training is of some value

In one of the Bible's Horrible Histories moments Eglon the tubby tyrant is put to the sword by Ehud the left-handed judge. See Judges 3:12-30 for the lowdown. When Ehud stabbed the King of Moab in the guts with his sneakily concealed blade we are told, "And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the excrement came out." (Judges 3:22). Nice. 

Now, I don't think this episode is in the Bible first and foremost to shame us into keeping ourselves in trim. But it does seem that mention of Eglon's weight is meant to tell us something about his character. Similarly, when Eli fell backwards off his chair on hearing the Philistines had captured the ark of the covenant, we are told, "his neck was broken and he died, for the man was old and heavy." (1 Samuel 4:18). Eli and his sons had previously been accused of, "fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?’" (1 Samuel 2:29). 

Gluttony is condemned in Proverbs 23:20-21, 28:7. According to Paul a distinguishing mark of "enemies of the cross of Christ" is that, "their god is their belly" (Philippians 3:19). Meanwhile, among the fruit of the Spirit is "self control" Galatians 5:23). While Paul urged Timothy to "train yourself for godliness", he also admitted, "bodily training is of some value" (1 Timothy 4:7-8). Too right. 

A recent government report revealed that around three quarters of those aged 45-74 in the United Kingdom are overweight or obese. Being overweight leads to a range of other serious health problems. According to a report in thebmj, "Covid-19 death rates are 10 times higher in countries where more than half of the adult population is classified as overweight". 

The answer to question 73 of The Baptist Catechism on the sixth commandment ("you shall not kill") spells out what is required in that commandment, "The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life (Eph. 5:28,29) and the life of others". That's why self control in diet, plus regular bodily exercise aren't optional lifestyle choices for followers of Jesus, but a matter of obedience to the Lord.

Now, the reasons why people become overweight are complex. Physical exercise isn't a possibility for people with debilitating illnesses that severely limit their movement. We know that. But in general terms regulating weight is about eating sensibly and taking regular exercise. Elders/overseers should model a life characterised by self control (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:8). How can we preach to others on that virtue (Titus 2:2, 5, 6, 12) when self control is conspicuously lacking in us?

Perhaps all this is easy for me to say as I've never had to battle with being overweight. My teenage nickname was 'Ribs the Mod' because I was skinny and a mod. Shortly after getting  married in my mid 20's I went up a waist size from 32" to 34", but I've remained that size until now (mid 50's). If I did one of those 'before and after' photos, all you'd notice is I now have less hair than 10 years previously. In fact few things bring out the Pharisaic 'older brother' in me than the hearty congratulations elicited by 'after diet' snaps, "‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving [slimming] for you and never disobeyed your orders [rarely ate biscuits]. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.'" (Luke 15:29). 

You want to know the secret of the 'Davies Diet & Exercise Regime'? Sorry to keep you in suspense until the end of the post. Here it is. Eat less stuff as you get older and your metabolism slows down. Rarely eat between meals. Spurn biscuits. Mostly. Enjoy a balanced diet with plenty of fruit and veg. Have a bit of a workout with some reps & a spin on an exercise bike most days. Go for a decent walk with your wife on your day off. Climb a mountain every now and again. Because bodily training is of some value. 

The labourers are few

The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; 
therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest 

to send out labourers into his harvest.

(Matthew 9:37-38)

I don't know of a church of any size that complains they have too many workers for what they are trying to do. The activities of larger (100ish) and middle-sized (50ish) fellowships are often staffed by a core of dedicated members, while others don't get so involved. The problem is even more acute when it comes to small churches (25 or less). If a small congregation has a pastor he is going to have top help out with a whole lot of stuff, especially if his fellow church officers have full time jobs on top of their church responsibilities. Yes, he must prioritise 'prayer and the ministry of the word', but not to the neglect of  pastoral visiting, youth work, taking school assemblies, admin, taking a turn on refreshments duties and so on. Plus, pastors should be active and engaged member of their local communities, serving as school governors, or whatever. 

Being a small church often means only having enough people to keep a modest programme of organised activities ticking over. You can forget about whizzy new initiatives featuring the latest evangelistic fad. OK, the toddler group or children's work could be ditched to make room for a new thing, but that would probably alienate those who attend the toddler group, or whose children enjoy coming to Friday Club. And so the church withdraws into ever decreasing circles, losing touch with the very people who may come to a 'new thing' if invited. Sometimes just managing to keep going with the help of God is an achievement in itself. 

Especially when you are labouring away in an unfashionable market town in the South West of England. Many Evangelical Churches within reach of a Uni seem to be packing them in. Ditto those based in multi-ethnic communities. Where you have a predominantly white British demographic such as in Wiltshire, not so much. It's not as if people in the South West are by and large 'too posh to pray' types for whom the eye of a needle is a tad on the narrow side. There are pockets of real deprivation in the South West that go unnoticed by tourists sampling the local delicacies (pasties, cream teas, Wiltshire ham and scrumpy). See this article by Rakib Eshan,  It's grim down South.  The stats for my home town of Westbury, Wiltshire can be found here:  Westbury Community Area. 

The hardest nut to crack when it comes to education England is the underperformance of disadvantaged white British children. The achievement gap between white British 'Pupil Premium' kids and others from more affluent homes was wide enough before the pandemic. Due to school closure it is now a mighty chasm. I would venture to suggest that a similar nut needs cracking when it comes to evangelising the UK. But there are limits on what smaller churches can do in terms of running organised activities to reach their local communities. We need help. But unlike in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers there is no sign of  Gandalf and the Riders of Rohan charging down the valley to join us in the fight. 

Evangelicals tend to avoid living and working in places like Westbury, Wiltshire. Evangelicalism is largely middle class and the middle classes often pursue careers that require a degree. Blue collar towns don't offer much in the way of those kind of jobs. But unless Evangelical Christians are prepared to live in towns such as Westbury they are not going to be able to engage with their neighbours and work colleagues in the area. Sometimes they do move here, but then attend a more middle class church elsewhere. The trouble is, it's unlikely the people they have got to know will travel with them to a nearby town or city if invited to a meeting. Small townies tend to be 'somewheres' with a strong sense of place, rather than 'anywheres'. That is even more true for villagers. And so while smaller churches are steadily tapping away at the nut and tiny fissures may appear, cracked it isn't 

If you want to be part of a rapidly growing church plant, or an overnight church revitalisation programme, small town ministry probably isn't for you. Things tend to happen slowly in small towns. Westbury has been waiting for a bypass for decades. Similarly it can take many years for a church to break down barriers and win people's trust. Even when that does happen the impact may not be seen in terms of extra folks attending services on a Sunday. The people most open to the gospel may not be a family with a professional dad and a stay at home mum and their young children, but an older couple whose advanced age and health problems militate against them coming along to meetings. It may have take years of pastoral care and meeting their practical needs before they become open to faith in Christ. 

That said, at least Westbury has a Grace Baptist Church, which is twinned with a fellowship in the village of West Lavington (see here for the Providence & Ebenezer website). Warminster, a few miles down the A350 has no Independent Evangelical or Grace Baptist Church at all. It would be great to see one planted, but who's going to do that? 

What's to be done, then? Small churches in small towns or in village locations need to keep on keeping on, doing what they can with the resources available to them. We are told, "let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up." (Galatians 6:9). Yes, we need more workers too. Jesus said, "The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest." (Matthew 9:37-38). Above all we need a mighty outpouring of the Spirit upon gospel churches of all sizes in these days, "Revive your work, O Lord in the midst of the years!" The hammer of the word in the power of the Spirit can crack any nut. 

By the way, I've noticed that church leaders serving hard up communities often have a thing with wearing hats. Mez McConnell has his beanies. Steve Kneale is seldom seen not sporting a baseball cap. Not to be outdone, here's one of me wearing a bucket hat. 

The History of Christianity in Britain and Ireland: From the first century to the twenty-first, by Gerald Bray

IVP, 2021, 693pp

This looked like the book for me. The history of Christianity in these islands is a fascinating story. I've enjoyed some of the author's earlier writings Creeds, Counsels and Christ (Mentor) and The Doctrine of God (IVP). But I didn't get on with this title as well as anticipated. Bray writes very much from an Anglican perspective. His focus tends to revolve around the institutional church. Tables are given on how dioceses in England and Ireland developed over the centuries. Controversies in relation to the Established Church are discussed in some detail. The account can sometimes be a little dry and lacking in human interest, which is a pity as the Christianity in Britain and Ireland has produced some great characters. 

Plus, while billed as covering Britain and Ireland, England pretty much dominates, with occasional side glances at Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Even periods when a lot was going on in Wales like the Evangelical Revival in the 18th century and the other revivals that followed, little coverage is given here. The 20th century Welsh preacher D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones gets a mention, though. He is made to sound even more Welshy by the author referring to him as Dafydd rather than David Martyn. Inaccurately he is said to have called for Evangelicals to leave their denominations and join the FIEC (Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches), where in reality it was the BEC (British Evangelical Council). 

Not much is said about the impact of British Christianity on world mission. William Carey's pioneer work in India isn't mentioned, for instance. Were Baptists even a thing? Of course, in a work of this scale the writer will have to be highly selective, but a less Anglo-centric and Anglican-centric account would have made for a more rounded history. 

Gripes aside, there a good things here too. The shadowy origins of British and Irish Christianity are charted with care. The Medieval period isn't written off as a 'Dark Age' altogether devoid of gospel light. Take a bow, Anselm. Periods of Reformation and Revival and some of the key figures connected with them are given due attention. For an avowed Anglican Bray is highly sympathetic towards the Puritans and has little time for Charles I. 

The author's sweeping overview of the history of Christianity in these islands concludes with him charting the rapid decline in church attendance and influence in recent decades. The roots of decline are traced to factors in the Victorian era, where many people had a 'form of godliness', but knew little of its power. Bray makes it clear that where churches are growing in this secular age they tend to be biblically faithful, gospel preaching fellowships. Church groupings that have changed their beliefs to fit in with the times are on their way out. Maybe there was something to be said for Lloyd-Jones's 1966 call for Evangelicals to leave the doctrinally compromised denominations and come together to reach the nation for Christ? 

For now the church in Britain and Ireland finds itself 'singing the Lord's song in a strange land' as marginalised exiles. We must fight the good fight of faith and pray that our God will once more pour out his Spirit upon us in reviving power. 

The Restless Republic: Britain Without a Crown

Audibe edition, read by Lucy Tregar

Thursday 2 June 2022 marked the beginning of Her Majesty the Queen's Platinum Jubilee celebrations. It was also the day on which I finished listening to Anna Keay's gripping account of the time when Britain was without a crown. That wasn't an act party pooping Republicanism on my part. It just happened that being on holiday gave me time to listen to the final chapters of the author's book when sitting on Tenby beach. 

And a very splendid book it is too, brilliantly read by Lucy Tregar. The period of the Republic and Commonwealth is often thought of as a drab and colourless time. Puritan killjoys draped in Bible black endeavoured to suck the joy out of life with all the relish of a wasp stinging a small child. With them in charge living in these islands was about as much fun as Afghanistan  under the Taliban. 

Well no. Those old Puritans certainly took life seriously, but life in the Republic was far from dull. Radical political ideas were put to the test. Religious diversity and toleration were allowed to thrive. Within limits, of course. Almost recognisably modern newspapers began to roll off the presses. Even the formidably stern Lord Protector of England, Oliver Cromwell was known to throw a decent party. With music and high jinx. Anna Keay depicts a vibrant and restless republic indeed.    

While the subtitle promises an account of Britain Without a Crown, it's mostly about England, with a nod to Scotland an occasional side-glance to Wales, but a good hard look at Ireland. Of course it all went pear shaped on the death of Old Noll. But when Britain had a crown again, Charles II did not attempt to wind the clock back and rule with the high handed pretentions of his father, Charles I. Monarchs would now be of the constitutional, not absolute variety. 

The author devotes two chapters each to nine characters from the period of the Republic. Some were movers and shakers, others more marginal figures. The personalities depicted span the Republican/Royalist divide. The lawyer John Bradford presided at the trial of Charles I and went on to become President of the first Commonwealth Council of State. The staunch Republican became disillusioned when the Commons-led Republic was supplanted by the rule of Cromwell as Lord Protector. While Bradford and his fellow Republicans were willing to execute a king, there were limits when it came to turning the world upside down. Gerrard Winstanley's Digger commune at St George's Hill was brutally crushed. The landowning gentry who dominated England's newfound Republic were not about to turn the nation into common treasury for all. 

How defeated Royalists fared during this period is illustrated by the poignant tale of what happed to Lord Derby and his redoubtable wife, Charlotte Stanley. They were actively involved in trying to overthrow the Commonwealth and suffered the consequences. The L’Estranges of Norfolk kept their heads down, but still faced decimation at the hands of the Republican regime. Had Cromwell and Co acted with greater magnanimity towards their defeated foes, maybe there would not have been such a clamour for Charles II to take the crown when the Lord Protector died. 

The religious ferment of the time the London-based mystic Anna Trapnel. People would hang on her words as the young woman emerged from trace-like states to utter her oracles. Trapnel's prophecies addressed political as well as spiritual matters, so the authorities kept a close eye on her. For a time she was carted off to Cornwall where she could cause less trouble. Little is said of more mainstream Puritan figures such as John Owen or Thomas Goodwin. Baptists barely get a look in. 

Marchamont Nedham was a newspaper man. Initially a Royalist critic of the Republican regime, he was imprisoned in the notorious Newgate Gaol. On escaping he did a reverse ferret and courted favour with high up figures in the Commonwealth. His publication, Mercurius Politicus  became the must-read journal of the period. Nedham was careful to maintain his loyalty to the Republic. He exploited his contacts for insider news. Nedham cultivated an array of foreign correspondents whose reports gave the paper international scope. His columns not only included news and comment on current affairs, but also adverts. Mercurius Politicus did not survive the return of the King. 

William Petty was a man of science. And by that he meant the empirical study of nature, not uncritical acceptance of the theories of the ancient Greeks. On the continent Galileo got himself into trouble with the Vatican for advancing Copernicus' heliocentric account of the solar system. The lack of a centralised religious authority in England created space for men like Petty to follow wherever the evidence of nature led them. Petty made his name by almost miraculously restoring Anne Green to health after she had been hanged for murder. Petty and a colleague were about to perform an autopsy on Green when  they noticed she wasn't quite dead. The scientist put his methodical approach to good use in charting the territory in Ireland that was due to be taken from Irish Catholic landowners and given to Protestants in their place. Cromwell's Irish campaign and the subsequent attempts at land clearance showed the Republic at its vindictive worst. As John Owen commented in a sermon to Parliament, “How is it that Jesus Christ is in Ireland only as a lion staining all his garments with the blood of his enemies, and none to hold him out as a lamb sprinkled with his own blood to his friends?”

The man who dominated the era of the Republic was, of course, Oliver Cromwell. Keay neither paints him as a 'boo-hiss' villain, or a plaster saint. Cromwell was a complex character. His conversion to Christ changed the course of his life. He was too humble to take the crown when it was offered to him. Cromwell sought to be attentive to the voice of God addressing him through providence. He could be magnanimous in victory and was tolerant of religious differences within reason. His main political aim was not to achieve a perfect constitutional settlement, but to secure a godly reformation in the land. His Major Generals worked hand in hand with Puritan pastors to achieve that goal in the face of sullen hostility from the masses. Cromwell was an uxorious husband and doting father to his children, yet he feared accusations of nepotism and was cagey about promoting his sons to high office. On the other hand, the Lord Protector could also be harsh, bad tempered and impulsive. Successive parliaments were called and then dissolved. Papist Ireland was treated most cruelly.  His providentialist view of history meant that the Lord who gave him victory at Naesby and Marston Moor must have approved of his political actions, when that isn't necessarily the case. Prosperity isn't always a sign of the Lord's favour and the lack of it a token of his displeasure, as the Book of Job testifies. 

Disappointingly, the author does not adjudicate on whether it is true that a monkey kidnapped the infant Oliver Cromwell and carried him to the roof of Hitchingbrooke House, only to deposit the future Lord Protector of England safely back in his crib. Be that as it may, when Cromwell died the Republic was doomed to collapse. It didn't help that Oliver appointed his unsuitable son Richard to succeed him, rather than the altogether more capable Henry. Cromwell's old generals George Monk and Thomas Fairfax were not Republican purists. They craved stability and concluded that only restoring the monarchy could rescue the nation from chaos. And so it was that Charles II was crowned king. The Republic was no more. 

Listening to this colorful and captivating account of life in Britain without a crown was a salutary reminder that as an attempt at securing a godly reformation, the Commonwealth era was a spectacular failure. Witness the return of 'Merrie England' with the accession of Charles II to the throne. The Puritans' Calvinist theology should have told them that only inward transformation by the Spirit can make a people godly. Political imposition by the State won't cut it. The early Particular Baptists understood this and argued for a clear separation between church and state. 

 

Given the patriotic fervor that greeted Her Majesty's Platinum Jubilee celebrations it doesn't look as though Britain will be once more without a crown any time soon. Although King Charles III could always mess up spectacularly. Be that as it may, modern Britain would not be what it is today were it not for the Restless Republic depicted here. 

The King of Love

Over an elongated Bank Holiday weekend a grateful nation paused to mark the Platinum Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. I well remember the Queen’s Silver Jubilee celebrations way back in 1977. We had street parties, people merrily waved Union Jack flags and wore red, white and blue plastic hats. Much fun was had by all. Little did we think when we sang, ‘Long live our gracious Queen’, that Her Majesty would live to see her 96^th birthday and reign over us for 70 years (so far).

The Queen’s reign has been so long that she seems like a living embodiment of modern British history. She has seen 14 inhabitants of 10 Downing Street, from Winston Churchill to Boris Johnson. Even the oldest of us has lived most of our lives under her rule. We don’t like to think that one day Her Majesty’s reign will end, but end it will. Prince Charles sitting in for the Monarch at the recent State Opening of Parliament  was a little glimpse of what’s to come. His time on the throne is bound to be short lived compared to that of his mother.

The Queen makes no secret of the fact that her dedicated service to the nation is inspired by her faith in a King far greater than even her royal personage. That King is Jesus. The Bible styles him, ‘King of kings and Lord of lords’. Death will not deprive him of his crown. In fact, it was by dying on the cross for our sins and being raised from the dead that he was enthroned as the world’s true Lord and King. His kingdom of love will never end.

In her message to the Commonwealth in 2011, Her Majesty the Queen, said: “Although we are capable of great acts of kindness, history teaches us that we sometimes need saving from ourselves – from our recklessness or our greed. God sent into the world a unique person – neither a philosopher nor a general, important though they are, but a Saviour, with the power to forgive. Forgiveness lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It can heal broken families, it can restore friendships and it can reconcile divided communities. It is in forgiveness that we feel the power of God’s love.”

* For the June edition of various local parish magazines 

Confessing the Son's impeccability

In an earlier post I argued, 'No, Jesus could not have sinned, but he was tempted'. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith does not explicitly rule on whether Jesus could have sinned. Although it clearly states that he did not, 'The Son of God... [took] upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities of it, yet without sin'. (2LBC 8:2). But there are resources in the confession that help to throw light on the matter and point in the direction that the incarnate Son of God could not have sinned. See Chapter 8 of the 2LBC: 'Of Christ the Mediator'.

The confession acts as an aid to theological reflection by erecting a fence around the mysteries of the gospel, lest we stray out of bounds. Its teaching will help us think through whether Jesus could have sinned in the light of classic orthodox Christology. The Puritans who drew up the Westminster Confession of Faith and its offspring the Savoy Declaration and Second London Baptist Confession were not reckless revisionists. They were Reformed Catholics, who happily confessed the truths laid down in earlier creedal documents such as the Nicaean Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition. 

The Doctrinal Basis of the FIEC doesn't help us either way. It simply says, 'The Lord Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, and lived a sinless life in obedience to the Father.' (4. The Lord Jesus Christ). Traces of Nicaea and Chalcedon can be detected in the wider statement, but they are much more faint than in the 2LBC. 

Clear echoes of Nicaea may be heard in the language the 2LBC uses to describe our Lord. He is God's 'only begotten Son' (8:1), 'the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with Him who made the world' (8:2). The confession's account of the hypostatic union is thoroughly Chalcedonian, 'so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures [divine and human] were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.' (8:2). 

The doctrine of 'communion of attributes' is clearly spelled out, 'Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.' (8:7). This helps to explain statements in Scripture which seem to suggest that the divine Son suffered and died for his people: 'crucified the Lord of glory' (2 Corinthians 2:8), 'the Son of God loved me and gave himself for me' (Galatians 2:20). Those things clearly happened to Jesus' as man, but we do not say that his human nature died for us, but the person of the Son gave himself to the cross in the mode of his human nature. 

What do these statements have to say to the question of whether or not Jesus could have sinned? Quite a lot. For Christ to have sinned his human nature would have needed to unhitch itself from the divine person of the Son, who cannot be party to sin, Hebrews 1:8-9. The confession rules that out by saying the two distinct natures 'were inseparably joined together in one person' (8:2). The communion of attributes also comes into play by underlining that all actions of the incarnate Son, according to both his  divine and human natures were actions of the person of the Son of God in whom they were united. That means any sin committed by Jesus' human nature would necessarily have been the sin of the Son of God, which is unthinkable. Christ could not have sinned by reason of his human nature's unbreakable union with his divine person. 

Paragraph 3 is also relevant, which I quote in full:

The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety; which office He took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by His Father; who also put all power and judgement in His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.

Here attention is given to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus' human nature. The Spirit is given him 'above measure... to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety'. The Spirit's task was to fit Jesus to accomplish the work of redemption. Had Jesus sinned he would have disqualified himself from the office of mediator and surety. It was impossible that the Spirit should have failed in his work. It was impossible therefore for Jesus to sin. The Spirit-anointed Son finished the work the Father gave him to accomplish. 

The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto Him. (8:5) 

That the our Particular Baptist forefathers were Reformed Catholics is seen in the distinctively Reformed flavour of their treatment of Christ the Mediator. His work is placed in the context of the covenant of redemption, a hallmark of seventeenth century Orthodox Reformed theology,

It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man (8:1)

Taking a lead from John Calvin, Christ's saving work is set out in terms of his biblically assigned offices of prophet, priest and king. Contra Rome, no other mediator between God and man is recognised.  

This office of mediator between God and man is proper only to Christ, who is the prophet, priest, and king of the church of God; and may not be either in whole, or any part thereof, transferred from Him to any other. (8:9) 

They were not called 'Particular Baptists' for nothing: Christ's atoning work procured reconciliation 'for all those whom the Father had given him' (8:5). The benefit of his redeeming work is 'communicated to the elect in all ages' (8:6). 

Had Christ sinned the covenant of redemption between the persons of the Trinity would have been broken. The Lord will have failed in his work as mediator and surety of the covenant. Jesus the priest would need atonement for his own sin. The prophet of our God will have proven false. Christ the king will have been defeated. The Father also will have failed to uphold his incarnate Son by the power of the Spirit. Due to inseparable operations a failure of one person of the Trinity would necessarily involve the other two, which is unthinkable. With that in mind we have to say that the Son simply could not have failed to accomplish the work of redemption. In other words, it was impossible for him to sin.

Although there are differences of emphasis, the Second London Baptist Confession is in agreement with the Westminster Confession and Savoy Declaration on these main points, see here. It is unsettling, then to find that no less a 'Westminster man' than Charles Hodge arguing, 

This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare [not possible to sin]. If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning. Systematic Theology: The Complete Three Volumes, Kindle Edition, location 20205. 

Of course,  Hodge makes it clear that Jesus did not in fact sin, but he goes on to say,

Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with his people. (Systematic Theology, location 20205-20212). 

But later the Princeton divine states,

All Christ’s acts and sufferings in the execution of his mediatorial work were, therefore, the acts and sufferings of a divine person. (Systematic Theology, location 20232). 

Quite how that chimes with it being necessary for Jesus to be able to sin for him to face temptation I am at a loss to explain. I guess that 'even Homer sometimes nods' and great theologians don't always perceive the inconsistency of their arguments. 

But  why is this matter even important? Advocates of the view that Jesus could have sinned insist that in reality he did not. Supporters of the impeccability of Christ argue that the doctrine does not imply that his temptations were a sham. Very good. But it is important because admitting the possibility that Jesus could have sinned plays havoc with orthodox Christology. The union between the person of the Son and his human nature is rendered uncertain, rather than unbreakable. Due to the inseparable operations of the Trinity, a failure of the incarnate Son would have constituted a failure of the Father and Holy Spirit too. To be consistent Hodge and those who argue like him would have to say,

All Christ’s acts, sufferings [and any possible sins committed] in the execution of his mediatorial work were, therefore, the acts, sufferings [and sins] of a divine person. 

 You see the problem?