Poll Result

Voting has now concluded for the Best Contemporary Reformed Systematic Theologian Poll. I am pleased to announce the worthy joint-winners:

Sinclair Ferguson 30%

Kevin Vanhoozer 30%

I have enjoyed Ferguson's work, especially his The Holy Spirit, 1996, IVP and John Owen on the Christian Life, 1987, Banner of Truth Trust. Ferguson is also a gifted preacher whose ministry I have found to be immensely enriching and challenging. Kevin Vanhoozer's The Drama of Doctrine, WJK, 2005 makes him one of the most stimulating and original of Reformed systematic theologians. Look out for my next Poll on the best historic Reformed theologians.

Sing to the Lord a new song

Stuart Townend

One of the regrettable features of the evangelical reformed scene in the UK is the outbreak of "hymn book wars". Some friends have real problems in singing certain contemporary hymns. This is not because they are against new compositions altogether. Not many would object to singing a hymn by Vernon Higham or Timothy Dudley-Smith! The issue is, should we sing hymns that have been written by "charismatics" like Graham Kendrick or Stuart Townend? I don't suppose that this post will bring hostilities to an end, but here are my reflections on why Reformed believers should not balk at singing hymns by charismatic authors.

C. H. Spurgeon laid down a good principle in the Preface to Our Own Hymnbook,

"Whatever may be thought of our taste we have used it without prejudice; and a good hymn has not been rejected because of the character of its author, or the heresies of the church in whose hymnal it first occurred; so long as the language and the spirit commended the hymn to our heart we included it, and believe that we have enriched our collection thereby."

On that basis, evangelical Calvinists have happily sung Wesley's hymns despite his Arminian theology. Nonconformists have sung hymns composed by Anglicans whose liturgical approach to worship has been very different to their own. Isaac Watts, the "father of modern English hymnody" had decidedly unusual views of the trinity and the Person of Christ, but as his speculations do not find their way into his hymns, we sing them gladly. The same goes for Richard Baxter's hymns, although his teaching on justification and the atonement deviated from the teaching of Reformed faith. If we can sing the hymns of these older writers despite their sometimes serious theological abberations, what's the problem with singing hymns by "charismatics" like Kendrick and Townend?

Some say that as Watts, Wesley and Baxter are dead, their unhelpful teaching can have little impact on contemporary worshippers. But are we no longer troubled by Arminianism? Richard Baxter's "neonomianism" bears more than a passing resemblance to Norman Shepherd's controversial views on justification. Baxter may no longer be with us, but his teachings are still very much a live issue. I once spoke to a man who held to the view that it is alright to sing hymns by an author who was dodgy but dead. I asked if he would sing a Townend hymn the day after the hymn writer passed into eternity. He said "no", because his influence would still remain for some time after his death. When I asked how long he would have to be dead before his hymns became acceptable, the friend replied that he did not know. So much for the death of a hymn writer atoning for his errors!

We Calvinists often complain that the "Charismatic Movement" is light on doctrine. But many of Kendrick and Townend's hymns are rich in biblical theology. They focus clearly on the Person of Christ, his propitiatory death and bodily resurrection. I was gratified to see Stuart Townend's name among the ranks of solidly evangelical luminaries who commend Pierced for Our Transgressions, (Jeffry. Ovey & Sach, IVP, 2007). He wrote, "there is a need for the vital doctrine of penal substitution to be clearly, comprehensively and compellingly explained." Many of Kendrick and Townend's compositions are gospel hymns. Take a look at In Christ alone (647, Christian Hymns 2004 edition. See here). It strikes me a little churlish to write off the "Charismatic Movement" as theologically vacuous and then refuse to sing their hymns even when they are filled with deep, orthodox Christology. Should we not be encouraging them for moving in this direction? Of course, people are free to say that they do not like the style of some of these new hymns and that they prefer the older compositions. But if that is the case, let them admit that this is an argument over taste and not principle.

Lest anyone misunderstand what I am saying, I do not go in for charismatic style "worship bands", or "happy clappy" services. I am a firm believer in using hymn books rather than OHP's because when hands are clasping hymn books, arms are less likely to be held aloft and waved around by "ecstatic" worshippers. But I like the statement of Paul to the Corinthians, "all things are yours: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come - all are yours. And you are Christ's and Christ is God's." (1 Corinthians 3:22 & 32). I am not happy with much of what goes on under the "charismatic" umbrella. But I recognise that there are genuine godly believers in that movement, men and women who love the gospel. Some are even Calvinistic in their theology. If that is the case, the Spirit is at work in their hearts and lives. He has given these friends the gifts and graces that have produced some wonderful new hymns. If "all things are mine" as a member of the body of Christ, then these hymns are mine to sing just as much as those of Isaac Watts and Vernon Higham.

"The whole earth one community in Christ"

In his Miscellany 262, Jonathan Edwards predicted that in the future there will be,

"better contrivances for assisting one another through the whole earth by more expedite, easy, and safe communication between distant regions than now. The invention of the mariner’s compass is a thing discovered by God to the world to that end. And how exceedingly has that one thing enlarged and facilitated communication. And who can doubt but that yet God will make it more perfect, so that there need not be such a tedious voyage in order to hear from the other hemisphere? And so the country about the poles need no longer be hid to us, but the whole earth may be as one community, one body in Christ".

This has not quite come to pass yet, but the word wide web is a wonderful example of of an "expedite, easy and safe communication between distant regions". Even on my little, blog I have frequent visitors from all round the world. Last week I received an e-mail from a pastor in the Philippines. Like me, he serves two churches. He had read an article of mine on justification by faith in the Protestant Truth magazine. Questions about the role of Christ's active obedience in justification had recently been raised in his churches. The pastor asked me to elaborate a little on what I had said in the article and to respond to some of his people's concerns. We exchanged several e-mails and I suggested that he try and get hold of John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied. The thought crossed my mind that a well known Reformed publisher has a Book Fund. They send out parcels of free books to pastors whose libraries could do with a boost. I e-mailed the publisher who said that they would be willing to help my friend. A package, including Murray's Redemption has been made up and is on its way to him right now. The pastor e-mailed me this morning to say that he was looking forward to receiving the books. He asked for prayer for a conference that he will be organising in his area on the subject of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Isn't that amazing? I the providence of God, the Internet has enabled a Wiltshire pastor and a UK-based publisher to have meaningful fellowship with a preacher from the Philippines.

The Life of John Murray

The Life of John Murray by Iain H. Murray, Banner of Truth Trust, 2007, 220 pp.

John Murray was born and raised in a croft in the Highalnds of Scotland. He became one of the foremost Reformed theologians of the 20th century. Murray studied and then taught at the Princeton Seminary in the USA just at the time that Princeton was drifting from its old Calvinistic theology. He left his teaching duties at Princeton to teach systematic theology at the newly founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he served with distinction from 1930-1966. Murray worked alongside the likes of Gresham Machen, Cornelius Van Til and E. J. Young to make Westminster a centre of Reformed orthodoxy and scholarly excellence.

Murray was no ivory tower theologian. He was involved in the life of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in America. He liked nothing better than to preach the Word to the people of God. The theologian had a real pastoral heart and many found him to be a wise and discriminating counsellor. He sought to encourage the Church to be active in evangelism and mission. At one point in the book, we are given Murray’s “Rules for the Open Air Meeting”. His gifts as a theologian and discerning Christian leader were deployed with great effect when he acted as Moderator of the Presbytery’s General Assembly. While Murray was no friend of liberal theology, he was also wary of Fundamentalism, which he saw as anti-intellectual and legalistic. Murray was champion of of distinctly Reformed confessional orthodoxy. He helped to guide the fledgling Reformed movement in the UK, acting as an advisor to the Banner of Truth Trust and speaking regularly at the Trust’s Minister’s Conference.

From Murray’s portrait, that adorns the front cover of his Collected Writings, it might be thought that he was a rather stern and forbidding figure. But he embodied the best of Scottish Highland piety, with a commitment to serious godliness wedded to heartfelt experimental Calvinism. Murray was as strict Sabbatarian. He loved to spend the Lord’s Day in uninterrupted worship, prayer and meditation. He once refused to enter into a conversation with Machen about soccer on the Lord's day, "I do not speak of such things on the Sabbath!" Ironically he was barred from entering the Scottish Free Presbyterian ministry because he sided with a minister who would not discipline a women for catching a bus to church on Sundays. (How sad is that?) Iain Murray brings the theologian’s humanity to the fore with examples of his humour and kindly generosity. The biographer also charts the course of Murray’s blossoming friendship with Valerie, whom he was to marry when in his early 60’s. The couple were blessed with two children.

In terms of his life’s work, John Murray was above all a theologian. Although reference is made to some of his key writings, this biography makes little attempt to assess the enduring value of Murray’s theological legacy. He did not write a complete systematic theology. But he made important contributions to the field of systematics. Murray’s theological method was exemplary. He believed that systematic theology should primarily arise from exegesis of the biblical text. He also argued that the discipline should be informed by the riches of past theological discovery and be able to face the challenges of the contemporary world. Murray published important work on ethics and the doctrines of justification by faith and sanctification. He was one of the top Calvin scholars of his day. His greatest scholarly achievement was probably his outstanding commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

This edition of John Murray’s Life has a new appendix which contains some previously unpublished correspondence, but no index. I hope that the publication of this biography will lead to a fresh appreciation of Murray’s work, much of which is published in his four volume Collected Writings (Banner of Truth Trust).

See here for my discussion of Murray's approach to systematic theology.

Faithful and contemporary

(See Kelly's comments below for the people behind this picture)

On Saturday, our children went to a Youth Conference. On the way to pick them up, Sarah and I visited Dyrham Park, a National Trust stately home. A contingent of the Sealed Knot Society, a Civil War reenactment group were performing in the grounds. All were dressed in 17th century garb. They marched back and forth, fired their muskets and wielded their pikes. It was a very enjoyable demonstration. But I wonder if our churches sometimes give the impression that we are the religious arm of the Sealed Knot Society. We put on a good display and speak in impeccable olde English, but are we little better than historical curiosities?

The task of the church is to perform the drama of God's redeeming grace before the contemporary world. In order to do this we must be faithful to the drama's biblical script and speak appropriately to the present day setting. The church cannot afford to alter the drama of redemption to suit the tastes of the moment. Then we would be heralding another gospel that is not another. But we must avoid giving the impression that the Christian faith belongs in some kind of cultural or historical backwater. The gospel is transcultural. Its message speaks to people of every age. Protestants of all people should realise this. Our forefathers translated the Scriptures into the language of the people so that their contemporaries could access the riches of God's Word for themselves. Tyndale's translation was faithful to the text of Scripture and up-to-date in its style. It is important to use version of the Bible that is as accurate as possible in modern English. People today often dismiss the Christian faith as out of date. They do not believe that the gospel has anything meaningful to say in the 21st century. Using a 17th century Bible translation may only serve to reinforce that impression.

A similar point could be made with regard to the use of modern hymns in worship services. The Church is an historic institution in a fast-changing age. Singing the great old hymns of Watts and Wesley reminds of our continuity with the past. But we should not shy away from singing modern compositions as a recognition of what the Lord is doing in the church today.

Matters get worse when praying in olde English, using the Authorised Version of the Bible and not singing contemporary hymns almost become a test of fellowship. Stuart Olyott, a well known preacher in the UK recently revealed that a church invited him to preach on the condition that he prayed in "thees" and "thous". When he refused to do so, the invitation was withdrawn. I was once quizzed about which Bible translation I use before being asked to preach to a certain church. I said that I usually use the New King James version, but would happily read and quote from the AV if that is what they preferred. However, that was not good enough as the church only accepts the ministry of "AV only men". Now, many who on principle use only the AV are not this narrow minded. But it is nothing short of tragic that we are dividing over such issues.

Belief in “Scripture alone” should liberate us from the dead weight of traditionalism. We must continue to reform our practices in the light of Scripture. Tradition can be helpful. But we must not become so “traditional” that we lose touch with the modern or postmodern world. We have been called to the kingdom for such a time as this! We do not belong to the 16th or 17th Centuries, we serve the Lord Christ in the 21st Century. We should not be so enamoured by the Reformers and Puritans that we begin to speak like them. They spoke in the language of their day – and so must we! To be fair I must also say that many who read from the AV in church preach in clear, contemporary English. Lloyd-Jones used the AV in his day, but listen to what he said,

"There is a grave and real danger for many of us to become traditionalists and legalists. There are some people who seem to take delight in using archaic phrases; and if you do not use them they doubt whether you are really preaching the Gospel at all. I have observed that certain young men who have developed a new interest, for instance, in the Puritans, start speaking and writing as if they lived in the seventeenth century. This is quite ludicrous. Let me sum it up in modern terms by asserting that it is always our business to be contemporary; our object is to deal with the living people in front of us who are listening to us".

Exiled Blogcaster

Blogger has recently added a video clip tool. I thought that I would have a go at blogcasting and here's my first attempt. I'm not entirely sure about it, but here it is anyway. David Sky the "theological monkey" has a bit part. The video quality isn't that great as it was recorded on my mobile phone, but it is mercifully short at just over 3 minutes.

WARNING: THIS BLOGCAST MAY CONTAIN IRONY

"Aren't you that Preacher in Exile?"

While we were at the Aberystwyth Conference, it began to dawn on me that behind the statistics on my sitemeter are living, breathing people who actually read the stuff I post here. On a number of occasions (well, at lest twice), I was asked, "Aren't you that Preacher in Exile?", or "You're the one with the blog thing, right?". Somewhat disconcertingly one of the speakers from last year's conference told me that he had read my review of Aber 2006. I could not remember what on earth I had written about his ministry. He seemed happy to chat anyway, so I couldn't have been too critical. One friend even asked after David Sky. He wondered if DS was at conference with us. But David still hasn't fully recovered from his dramatic accident, so we left him home alone. Sadly, he was still here when we got back.

It was also nice to bump into a couple of fellow bloggers, Gary Brady and Martin Downes. Good to know that they do exist outside of cyberspace. So, what edifying lessons do I derive from my recognition as the "Exiled Preacher"?

1. Don't write anything about anybody that would cause you grief and embarrassment if you were to meet them in the flesh.

2. Don't write anything about me that would cause you lots of grief and embarrassment if you were to meet me in the flesh.

3. Don't let your pet monkey start a blog.

Ten reasons to read Calvin's Institutes

1. It is a key Reformation text. If you would know what the Reformation was all about, read the Institutes.

2. The Institutes are readily available in a older and quite cheap English translation (here) and a more modern edition (here). You can even access them online (here). Why not give 10 minutes every day to reading Calvin's great work? Keep at it and you will be sure to make good progress.

3. The Institutes were written as theology for the people of God. You don't need to be a pastor or theologian to read this work. Calvin's intention was to give the Reformed churches a clear and deep understanding of biblical doctrine.

4. The practical sections of the Institutes are very helpful. Calvin's teaching on self-denial and prayer are outstanding. This is a work of theology that will change your life.

5. While Calvin builds on the insights of scholastic teaching, his approach to theology is refreshingly biblical. The work is full of Scripture references and considered exegesis.

6. In the Institutes, the doctrine of the Trinity is the doctrine of God. The Reformer insisted that the Son of God does not derive his divine essence from the Father. He is autotheos - God in his own right. For Calvin the language of begetting with regard to the Son is to be understood in relational rather than causal terms. Calvin's whole system of theology is thoroughly trinitarian. The Father reveals himself in the Son whom we know through the Spirit's witness to the Word of God.

7. The God-centeredness of the Institutes is a welcome corrective to "me and my needs" centred evangelicalism.

8. Unlike some works of Reformed theology, Calvin gives due attention to both the cross and the resurrection of Christ.

9. For Calvin union with Christ is the key to understanding the Christian life. Those who are united to him are both justified and sanctified. The Reformer taught that God declares the believing sinner righteous in Christ apart from works. But those who are united to Christ are also sanctified and called to do good works. Calvin thus avoids both legalism and antinomianism.

10. Read the Institutes for knowledge of God and yourself.

John Calvin on the resurrection of the body (4)

The historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection

This series began before the summer holidays. I hope to complete it over the next few weeks. In many modern treatments of the resurrection of Christ, the historicity of the resurrection event is what dominates the writer's concerns. This is understandable in the light of modern day sceptical thought and the impact of Liberal theology. (See The Meaning of Jesus by N.T. Wright & Marcus Borg, 1999, SPCK, Part IV, for a dialogue between liberal and conservative scholarship on the historicity of Jesus' bodily resurrection). Calvin however, was pre-modern and his priorities were not necessarily the same as ours. His main aim was to unpack the meaning and significance of the resurrection of Christ, not to defend its historical basis. But this does not mean that the Reformer was uninterested in historical issues. He was aware of "scoffers" who derided the Bible's resurrection accounts. Calvin wanted to show that Scripture acts as a strong and coherent witness to the resurrection. His primary goal seems to have been confirming the faith of believers rather than refuting the sceptics as an end in itself. (All quotes are from Institutes III:XXV:3).

"But least any question should be raised as to the resurrection of Christ on which ours is founded, we see how often and in what various ways he has borne testimony to it. Scoffing men will deride the narrative which is given by the Evangelist as a childish fable. For what importance will they attach to a message which timid women bring, and the disciples, almost dead with fear, afterwards confirm?"

Calvin explores several lines of evidence:

1. The testimony of Christ's followers

Why, asks Calvin, did not the risen Jesus appear publicly in the temple, or show himself to Pilate? The Lord seems to have used weak and infirm people as witnesses to the resurrection. But Calvin can see the "admirable providence of God" in all this. The women hurried to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning only to see that it was empty and to hear the angels tell them that Jesus had arisen from the dead. The apostles were not gullible fools who immediately believed the women's testimony. They took a lot of convincing that Jesus was alive. "How can we question the veracity of those who regarded what the women told them as a fable, until they saw the reality?"

2. The testimony of Pilate and the guards

The Governor may not have seen the risen Jesus, but he was given sufficient evidence that Jesus was alive. He posted a guard at Jesus' tomb, but his body went missing. The guards were bribed to spread a report that Jesus' disciples had stolen his body. But this is hardly credible. Are we to suppose that the disciples had the weapons, training and courage to mount an attack upon the guards and steal the body of Jesus? If this is what happened, why did not the soldiers call for help from the citizens of Jerusalem and apprehend the body-snatching disciples? Pilate knew what had really happened. In his desperate attempt at a cover-up, he unwittingly "put his signet to the resurrection of Christ, and the guards who were placed at the sepulchre by their silence and falsehood also became heralds of his resurrection." Even those who had no vested interest in proclaiming Jesus' resurrection bear witness to the fact.

3. The testimony of angels

This line of evidence will not convince the hardened sceptic, but Calvin was writing to confirm the faith of Christians who believed in the existence of angelic beings. Referring to the men in shining garments at Jesus empty tomb, Calvin writes, "Their celestial splendour plainly shows that they were not men but angels." The angels said to the women, "He is not here, but is risen." (Luke 24:6). Heaven-sent supernatural beings bore witness to Jesus' resurrection.

4. The resurrection appearances

Calvin writes, "Afterwards if any doubt still remained, Christ himself removed it." The apostles saw him frequently. They handled him and touched him. Their initial unbelief (eg. Thomas?) "is of no little avail in confirming our faith". In addition to appearing to them, the risen Christ spoke to the apostles concerning the mysteries of the kingdom of God and ascended to heaven before their eyes. But the apostles were not the only ones to whom Jesus appeared. Calvin appeals to Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that the risen Jesus was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once. This is an impressive array of witnesses to the event of Jesus' bodily resurrection.

5. The sending of the Holy Spirit

By this Jesus gave "a proof not only of life but also the promise of supreme power, as he foretold, 'It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you' (John 16:7). The fulfillment of this promise on the day of Pentecost serves as evidence that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead (cf Acts 2:32 & 33).

6. Appearances to Paul and Stephen

Even after his ascension, Jesus appeared to these two men. "Paul was not thrown down on the way by the power of a dead man, but felt that he whom he was opposing was possessed of sovereign authority. To Stephen he appeared for another purpose - viz. that he might overcome the fear of death by the certainty of life".

All these lines of evidence taken together are sufficient to convince people that Jesus rose from the dead. "To refuse assent to these numerous authentic proofs is not diffidence, but depraved and therefore infatuated obstinacy." The problem with rejection of the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not the lack of reliable evidence, but sinful unbelief.

While Calvin believed that people are convinced of the truth of Scripture (including the claims that Christ rose from the dead) primarily by the witness of the Spirit. This does not mean that he was unwilling to appeal to historical evidence to defend the reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection. This combination of the Spirit's witness to Scripture and appeal to historical proofs can be found in the Bible itself. In Luke's account, the disciples see the empty tomb and hear the women's eyewitness testimony to Jesus resurrection appearance. But what convinced them that Jesus rose from the dead was his own appearance to them personally. Luke notes that Jesus ate before them, demonstrating that he was no "ghost", but a real, embodied man. In addition to this, the Lord "opened their understanding that they might comprehend the Scriptures" (Luke 24:45). It was only then that the disciples grasped the real significance of the resurrection event. Here is the combination of historical evidence, Scriptural testimony and the witness of the Spirit. Evidentialists who simply rest their case on the historical evidence need to take into account the necessity of the Spirit's witness to convince sinners that Jesus truly rose from the dead. Presuppositionalists should not baulk at presenting the historical evidence that Scripture gives for Jesus' resurrection. Of course, Calvin was not writing to address these concerns, but his method of reasoning has something to say to both evidentialist and presuppositionalist schools of thought. In his article on Presuppositional apologetics in New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics, (IVP, 2006) John Frame argues that even presuppositionalists have to answer objections. Simply calling for faith in the resurrection of Jesus "because the Bible says so", without presenting the historical evidences for the resurrection is an inadequate apologetic strategy.

Penknap Providence Church 2007 Anniversary

Basil Howlett

Today we marked the 198th anniversary of the Church with a special anniversary service. Our people were joined by friends from other congregations in the area to praise God and hear his Word read and proclaimed. The preacher was pastor Basil Howlett of Carey Baptist Church in Reading. I did a summer pastorate with Basil back in 1989 when he was the minister of Copse Road Evangelical Church in Clevedon. At the time I was a student at the London Theological Seminary. It was good to renew fellowship with Basil and hear him preach God's word.

His text was "Seeing that we have such a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession." (Hebrews 4:12). His main points were:

The Hebrew Christians were in danger of giving up on the Christian faith. The writer of the epistle reminds us that in Christ....

I. We have a great High Priest

1. He was God
2. He became man
3. What he was like - without sin
4. What he did - died for sinners
5. What he achieved - salvation from sin
6. Where he went - passed through the heavens
7. He is eternal with the power of an endless life

II. We have a gracious High Priest

So that we are not intimidated by his greatness, Christ's graciousness is also revealed. He is able to sympathise with our weaknesses (4:15). He feels for his suffering people and is able to help us in our trials and temptations.

III. Two words of application

1. Let us hold fast our confession (4:14)

2. Let us draw near to the throne of grace (4:16)

This bare outline cannot convey the warmth and power with which the preacher proclaimed his message. Our minds were stirred and our hearts moved by this exposition of the greatness of Jesus' high priestly ministry. The service was followed by a traditional "Chapel Tea" with lots of nice food and good fellowship.