News

Friends,

There are some big changes going on in the life of the Patterson family.  Last night I accepted a call from Second Parish Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Portland, Maine.  It is a bitter-sweet decision as we love the saints here in Battle Mountain so much, yet we believe the Lord is calling us elsewhere.  Please continue to pray for both churches as the transition is made, that God would grant trust in his most holy and wise will.  Pray for us as we prepare to move, and especially for the kids as they adjust to a new church, a new school, and a new life.

I’ll update everyone as we know more details, but it looks like October 12 will be our departure date from Battle Mountain.

Acts Commentaries

This book on Acts is a must for anyone who is preaching through the book.  This one also provides some interesting perspectives from a socio-rhetorical viewpoint.

I must admit that was I was disappointed by this commentary.  Though Hughes provides some helpful hermeneutical divisions for preaching, the content is, overall, lacking in depth and redemptive historical significance.

I Finally Did It

I finally picked up this gem of a book.  It has been way too long in coming.

The Law is Not of Faith–Princeton and the Law: Enlightened and Reformed

Chapter 2 is written by  Daryl Hart.  Here Hart seeks to answer critics of Princeton who claim Princeton’s use of Enlightenment philosophy and the the tradition of natural law that accompanied appeals to human reason was out of step with its bold defense of the Reformed faith.  Hart is intent to show, however, that, “Instead of being at odds with Calvinist teaching, Princeton’s appeal to the Enlightenment, especially its adaptation of Scottish moral philosophy, was actually consistent with older Reformed appeals to natural law and civic or external virtue.”

He then goes on to argue that what makes Princeton’s strange mix of Enlightenment philosophy and Reformed orthodoxy plausible is how they interpreted the Decalogue and the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works and a reminder of our need for Christ.

Hart then briefly surveys the writings of Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge on the law and other related topics arguing that while they freely invoked Enlightenment  methods and arguments in hopes of defending the reformed faith, the adaptation of Scottish moral philosophy  reinforced important elements in their defense of federal theology.  Hart says, “In sum, Princeton’s moral philosophy reaffirmed the works principle universally required by God’s demand for righteousness.  At the same time, the universal standards of the law and its demand for justice established the framework for Princeton’s teaching on the doctrines of grace and the work of Christ” (pg. 48).

Hart’s survey of Alexander and Hodge’s writings is informative, though his thesis that the doctrine of republication helps resolve the tension found in Princeton theology is tentative at best.  Hart says this: “The basic hunch is this:  because the Princetonians understood the Decalogue as a republication of the covenant of works and as a pedagogue unto Christ who fulfilled all the requirements of God’s covenant with Adam, they could explain the law both as obligatory on all people (e.g., Alexander’s moral science) and as having a specific function in God’s redemption of his people (e.g. Hodge’s systematics).  The further implication is that because theologians and historians have generally abandoned and ignored Protestantism’s continued us of natural law, that is, a range of moral truths known even by unregenerate persons, scholars have been able to see only inconsistency or contradiction in Princeton’s theological and ethical outlook.  In other words, Alexander’s moral sicence was a nineteenth-century version of Protestant reflection on natural law that was no more at odds with his junior colleague’s covenant theology than was Calvin’s Turretin’s, or Owen’s combination of natural law and Reformed theology (pg. 60).

The tentative nature of this thesis is admitted by Hart in the next paragraph not only because of limited space, but also the lack of reflection by historical theologians on 19th century Calvinism.  However, Hart takes a stab at such a harmonization looking first at Hodge’s own appeal to the categories of moral science as found in his explanation of Reformed theology (particularly original sin), and second, Princeton’s critique of New England Theology, particularly the doctrine of the atonement.

His assessment in these areas are intriguing, and Hart’s disapproval of all things revivalistic shines once more.  However, I am simply not clear on how Princeton’s critique of New England Theology relaxes some of the tension created by Princeton’s use of enlightenment philosophy.  Perhaps someone more familiar with the issues can fill me in on this point, but I simply do not see it.

The Law is Not of Faith–Calvin and Witsius on the Mosaic Covenant

Chapter 2 of The Law is Not of Faith is written by Dr. John Fesko, recently appointed professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary in California.  Fesko desires “to take a comparative historical theological snapshot of two continental Reformed theologians” on the challenging issue of the place of the Mosaic covenant in the Scriptures.  The two continental theologians Fesko culls out for comparative analysis are John Calvin and Herman Witsius.  In doing so, Fesko hopes to show the continuity that existed between the two men regarding the Mosaic covenant despite coming from different periods.

Fesko then tackles the daunting task of summarizing both Calvin and Witisus’ views on the Mosaic covenant, beginning with Calvin.

Fesko helpfully points out that in Calvin the term “law” can mean several things, cautionary the reader to carefully distinguish whether Calvin has the moral law or the law as the Mosaic covenant in view when the term is used.

From there, Fesko highlights Calvin’s firm believe that in every dispensation after the fall man has been saved by grace through faith in Christ.  ”What changes, therefore, in the transition from the OT to the NT is not the covenant, but rather the form or administration of the covenant (2.11.13)” (pg. 29).  However, with the dispensation of Moses, “there are two separate covenants, the foedus legale and foedus evangelicum, the ministries of Moses and Christ (2.11.4) (pg. 30).  Fesko explains that for Calvin the law functions within the foedus legale to call us to what is right, what is forbidden; and to promise reward to the keepers of righteousness and to threaten those who break it with punishment.  ”Calvin, therefore, sees the Mosaic covenant characterized by the promise of eternal life which can be obtained Israel’s obediences, yet because of their sin, Israel is unable to fulfill the requirements of the covenant–only Christ was able to to this.  In this sense, then, the foedus legale and foedus evangelicum are antithetical, in that they both extend the promise of salvation, the former through obedience and the latter through faith in Christ.”  This antithetical nature, however, is not meant to imply that the OT saints were saved by works and not by grace.  What distinguishes the OT saint from the NT saint is not “not the promise of the gospel, but ‘the diversity in the outward government,’ or the outward administration of the gospel” (pg. 32).  The works principles present in the Mosaic covenant displays man’s inability to merit eternal life through obedience to the law and drives the sinner to Christ.

In Witsius, Fesko then argues, we see the same themes that exists in Calvin, but also some some important developments.  The differences are seen in Witsius use of the doctrine of the covenant of works and his greater use of typology in his explanation of the Mosaic covenant (pg. 34).

After Calvin, Fesko says, there is a refinement of covenant theology in which the distinctions between pre and post fall covenants are sharpened.  It is with these developments in mind that Fesko surveys Witsius on the relationship between the two covenants (works and grace).  While recognizing important differences between the covenants of works and grace, “Witsius also explains that the covenant of grace may be further subdivided into two distinct economies, which he defines as the old and new testaments.”  Like Calvin, Witsius argues that the substance of the covenant of grace is the same.  What differs is what Witsius calls the “cicumstantials” of each economy.  Though Witsius is prepared to say that the Mosaic covenant is legal in nature for reasons Fesko lists on page 36, “the telic goal of the threefold law finds its fulfillment in the person and work of Christ.”

Another prominent development in Witsius is seen the his use of typology in the Mosaic covenant.  Witsius “argued along the same lines as Calvin that the Mosaic covenant vis-a-vis the ordo salutis functioned in the same way as to reveal sin and drive Israel to Christ” (pg. 36).  ”The Mosaic covenant vis-a-vis the historia salutis, on the other hand, had a different aim.  Witsius argued that the Mosaic covenant was a national covenant” (pg. 37) in which rewards where promised for obedience and punishment for disobedience, in which Israel could earn their salvation through obedience.  Again, however, given man’s sinfulness, this highlighted man’s inability to keep the terms of the covenant.

Fesko argues that this fits in with Witsius’ understanding of typology in that he undersands Israel’s existence in the Promised Land as looking back to Adam’s probation in the garden, while also looking foward to Christ (pg. 37).  Fesko then says, “Given this typological thrust of the Mosaic covenant, Witsius is prepared to say that the Sinai covenant is therefore neither exclusively of the covenant of works nor of grace.  Rather, it is a national covenant of ’sincere piety’ that presupposes both covenants.”

Fesko then goes on to compare, in summary, Calvin and Witsius, highlight the commonalities and differences between the two (pg. 39-42).

Fesko’s concluding nicely summarizes the entire chapter, “So, then, whether in Calvin’s more grammatical-historical or Witsius’ more redemptive historical hermeneutic, one finds that both were making essentially the same point with different emphases: the Mosaic covenant is unique in that it is legal in nature, demonstrating vis-a-vis the ordo salutis man’s inability to fulfill the demands of the law, which drives man to Christ, and in terms of the historia salutis, painting a typological portrait of Christ’s person and work” (pg. 43).

Fesko’s contribution to this book is clearly and persuasively written.  He tackles the task of summarizing Calvin and Witsius with ease and helpfully points out their differences as well as the developments in covenant theology that are evident in Witsius.

The Law is Not of Faith–Introduction

I’ve just picked up the book entitled The Law is Not of Faith edited by Bryan Estelle, John Fesko, and David VanDrunen, all professors at Westminster Theological Seminary in California.  The book intends to address the doctrine of republication, which holds that the covenant of works is in some sense republished in the Mosaic covenant.

The introduction of the book begins with a fictional narrative set on the floor of presbytery in which an ordinand is being examined in theology.  In the process of examination, it comes out that this candidate holds to the doctrine of republication.  The rest of the short narrative is taken up with the man defending his position and correcting some of the misunderstandings of the doctrine.  Here are some of the clarifications provided in that narrative, as well as in the section “Common Misconceptions.”

1.  The doctrine of republication is not even remotely related to the doctrine of dispensationalism.  The OT saints were saved only by faith and by looking for the Messiah to come.

2. The doctrine of republication affirms that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grave per WCF VII.  However, because that covenant is administered differently in the time of the law and gospel, the Mosaic covenant is distinct in that it was administered through types, shadows and promises.  In other words, the works principle served a typological function, exposing the people’s sin and pointed them to the Messiah.  Therefore, the Mosaic covenant is not a covenant works, but rather an administration of the covenant of grace in which there is a works principle operative at a typological level.

3. The doctrine of republication is not a new and novel doctrine, but has been held by theologians such as Calvin, Turretin, and Hodge.

4.  To affirm the doctrine of republication does in no way deny the third use of the law.  Rather, the doctrine of republication points the redeemed sinner to Christ who has fulfilled God’s broken law and save him from the curse of the law.

The next section of the introduction seeks to answer the question, “What is the Doctrine of Republication” and looks at the answer in biblical theology, and in systematic theology.

A section is then devoted to various expressions of the doctrine of republication throughout church history in order to abate fears that this doctrine is new and novel.  Selections are cited from Polanus (1561-1610), Turretin (1623-8) and Hodge (1797-1878).  Though the formulations by these men might be varied, the essence of the doctrine of republication can been seen throughout church history, proving that such a concept is not foreign to Reformed theology.

If the doctrine of republication is historic, then what has happened to it?  Why haven’t we heard about it.  Fesko, VanDrunen, and Estelle answer that the republication doctrine has fallen by the wayside preeminently because of the work of the late professor John Murray.  Though thankful for much of Murray’s contributions to Reformed theology, the editors hold that Murray’s recasting of covenant theology to combat dispensationalism has had a deleterious effect on our understand of the place of the Mosaic economy in God’s covenant of grace.  Murray believed that the doctrine of republication was contrary to the teaching of the continuity of the covenant of grace.  ”With such rhetoric Murray released the clutch, and those who had studied under him or were influenced by his writing, without appropriate reflection and criticism in these areas set in motion a chain of events that would produce deleterious injuries for confessional Reformed theology  and beyond (pg. 17).

The introduction then ends summarizing the plan of the book, cautioning the reader that though the doctrine of republication is, in one sense, simple, in other respects it is complex and difficult to navigate through.

Furthermore, the editors wish to assure their readers that the book does not intend to “thrust a single monolithic view of the Mosaic covenant upon Reformed churches” (pg. 19-20).  Rather they hope the book will, “encourage and catalyze discussion about what we believe are important issues for the doctrine and life of the church” (pg. 20).

Finally, the readers are encouraged to take up the essays in the order in which they are presented, the historical essays laying the groundwork for the essays that follow in Parts Two and Three.

I found the introduction of The Law is Not of Faith interesting and informative.  The fictional narrative at the beginning was helpful to see the practical reasons why the editors put this book together, and the section on “Common Misconceptions” helped to address some of my own misconceptions about the doctrine.

A Welcome Addition

They’ve finally come out with this classic in hardcover.

Easter, Pictures of Jesus, and the Second Commandment

Like Christmas, this is the time of year where portraits and pictures of Jesus abound.  From the mini football with a picture of the resurrected Christ that my son got from the Lutheran preschool last week (which my other son promptly obscured with a sharpie marker), to Jesus impersonators in passion plays, the evangelical church is filled with representations of Jesus.  I do not doubt that most Christians are well-meaning in trying to make the reality of Christ’s resurrection hit home with people in this way.  However, it seems to me that the reformed churches need to speak with one voice (and certainly have in their confessions) that such representations of Jesus are a violation of the second command, “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images…”

Now, I understand there will be many who will rush to argue that the second commandment forbids only the worshipping of such images of Jesus.  However, we must read the commandment carefully.  The Lord says, “You shall not make for yourself any graven images…”  He then goes on to expand upon the commandment by saying, “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them”  And so to the commandment comes, very generally, in two parts–don’t make them, and don’t worship them.  Therefore to make a representation of Christ, since he is God come in the flesh, is to violate the second commandment.

Furthermore, to create an image of Jesus is, by the very act, to created a false image of Jesus.  We do not know what Jesus looked like, and the emphasis of the Scripture is not on what he looked like.  It is on what he accomplished.  And since we don’t know what he looked like the very making of an image of him constitutes it a false image, for it does not truly represent him.  This is the very thing the second commandment forbids.

Now, some might argue (and they have), “What’s the big deal?  A picture of Jesus is not going to turn my child into a blatant idolater.”  That may be true, but the big deal is that God has forbidden it, and we, as the Heidelberg Catechism so wonderfully puts it, “are not to be wiser than God, who will not have his people taught by dumb images, but by the lively preaching of His Word.”

It is through the lively preaching of his Word that our infinitely wise God had determined to teach and instruct us concerning our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not images.  And so this is the question?  Are we going to claim to be wiser than God by using and sanctioning images of Christ in and by our churches or are we determined to worship God (corporately and privately) in the way he has ordained?  It is the gospel, preached and proclaimed, that is the power of God unto salvation.  Let us be engaged in that!

Christianity Explored

Greetings all!  I’m writing to let you know about an evangelistic outreach project that we are doing here in Battle Mountain entitled “Christianity Explored.”  We are beginning April 30th and I would appreciate your prayers.  We are excited about the potential of this program and hope it can be used to bring people to a knowledge of Christ.

 You can find out more about what we are doing at the blog we have put together here.

2 Timothy 2:20-26

Reading: 2 Timothy 2:20-26

Text: 2 Timothy 2:20-26

Theme:  The Lord calls his church to be vessels of honor for the purpose of his kingdom

1.     The making of such of vessel

2.     The maintenance of such a vessel

3.     The ministry of such a vessel

 

Intro:   God’s grace, brothers and sisters, is the foundation both of the Christian’s standing before God, and the Christians sanctification in this life.  By it God’s redeems us, and by it renews us more and more in his image.

 In this chapter, Paul has been encouraging Timothy to faithfulness.  He must endure hardship, like a  soldier (vs. 4), compete like an athlete (vs. 5), work like a farmer (vs. 6).  He is to be diligent to present himself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed (vs. 15), rightly dividing the word of truth.  Paul has called him to shun profane and idle babblings (vs. 16), and not strive about words to no profit.  And all of this prefaced by “be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.”

It is with that encouragement in mind, brothers, that Christ strengthens his chosen people, and that they find their spiritual fortitude in him alone, we turn to the last set of exhortations to Timothy from Paul, his father in the faith.  Paul has been speaking about good and bad workmen, true and false teachers, and now he turns to another metaphor, another picture of the Christian minister and Christian ministry, that of a vessel, an instrument.  And here the Lord calls his church to be honorable vessels, honorable instruments in his hands.  And we need to see three things about such instruments, such vessels this morning (read).

 And so FIRST, brothers and sisters, the Lord calls us, his church, to be honorable vessels, honorable instruments in his hands, and first we need to see the making of such vessel (rd. vs. 20).

 Paul begins with the picture of the various sorts of vessels that are used in a large house.  Some vessels are made of gold and silver, and are used for honorable purposes such as eating.  Other are made of wood or clay and used for dishonorable purposes, such as holding garbage or human waste (remember, no toilets in those days). 

 Now the large house that Paul talks about is no doubt the visible church of Jesus Christ.  In that church there are both honorable and dishonorable vessels.  The dishonorable vessels/instruments are those like Hymenaus and Philetus who talk religious talk, yet run headlong into ruin  and  destroy the souls of their hearers with their ridiculous wrangling and constant quarreling to no profit.

 And so Paul takes it upon himself to exhort Timothy and those who Timothy teaches to become vessels that are honorable in the church of God (read 21).  Now, this is not a call to sanctify oneself by ones own power, but an expanding upon the exhortation at the beginning of the chapter, “be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.”  It is a call to, in the power of Christ, conscious, willful cleansing.  And that cleansing for Timothy and his hearers consists in cleansing themselves from the false teachers that teach a Christless Christianity.

 This cleansing involves a focused attention upon the finished work  of Jesus Christ, and the life of thankfulness that Christ’s life produces.  To be an honorable vessel, and honor instrument in the hands of the Lord, brothers and sisters, one must cleanse themselves of any pretention that would marginalize the work of Jesus Christ, reduce that work to just a good story, or make it anything but the ground and foundation of your salvation and mine.  The filth of false teaching is found in its anemic view of Christ and Paul says we must cleanse ourselves from such filth.

 And what is the result of such cleansing?  The result is that one becomes a vessel of honor.  This is where the reality rises above the picture.  That man, that one, focused on Christ becomes sanctified (set apart) and useful for the Master of the house, Jesus Christ, prepared or every good work, which Ephesians reminds us are prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

 This is the result, brothers and sisters, of a Christ-focused, Christ-centered life, cleansed by the blood of Christ.  It is a life that is useful to Christ in the service of his kingdom, equipped for every good work.

 Are we so enraptured, brothers and sisters, with the false teaching of the world, that our usefulness in  Christ’s kingdom is dishonorable?  Have we so bought into the me-centered mentality of our culture that our lives, if they could be describes in terms of vessels are more fit for garbage and human excrement, than honorable things?

 What do we do if that is the case?  We cleanse ourselves by turning to Christ, repent, and become useful, because, you see, in Christ, that is what God has ordained us to be, that is what God has declared us to be!  Be who you are, brothers and sisters, be what the Lord has ordained you to be.  Instruments in his hands, doing his will, for his glory, and the good of his church.  Well, we must move on.

 SECONDLY,  the Lord calls us, his church, to be honorable vessels in his kingdom.  And secondly, we need to see what is involved in the maintenance of such a vessel.  Paul not only lays out the making of such a vessel by cleaning, but now the maintenance of such a vessel (read 22).  Notice two things, an honorable vessel is maintained by fleeing certain things, and an honorable vessel is maintained by pursuing certain things.

 First, and honorable vessel is maintained by flight.  Paul tells Timothy to flee youthful lusts.  Paul does not specifically identify what those lusts are.  He simply describes them as those inordinate desires and passions which are characteristic of youth.  And Paul is not thinking simply of sexual desire.  The young minister, the new minister, Paul says must flee those things which youth so easily calls him to.  Impatience when someone doesn’t see things his way; harshness when dealing with someone who is hard to deal with; contentiousness at the drop of a hat are all temptations and sins of youth.  One minister described young ministers who believe they know everything as thunder-puppies.  They bark like they are going to rip your leg off, not really  knowing how small they are.  Paul tells Timothy to flee such lusts. 

 But it is not enough simply to turn ones back to these things.   There are other things which must be diligently pursued.  Righteousness, Faith, and peace.  The minister of the gospel, brothers and sisters, is a minister of Christ, and as such should reflect Christ himself.  And Christ’s ministry, brothers and sisters, was marked, at every point with the pursuit of these things.  Christ’s righteousness was beyond compare.  He’s even referred to in John’s epistle as Jesus Christ, the righteous.  His faith in his Father and his Father’s plan of redemption took him all the way to the cross where he suffered and died, and he loved those who where his, John 13 tells us to the very end, and is the prince of peace.  What is the point here?  The point is that as those who have called to be ministers of the gospel pursue these things, they do so in the power of Christ Jesus who himself ran this race before them.  They do not pursue these things in vain, but they must pursue them.  Their lives must be marked by them.

 Such fleeing, such pursuing, ensure the maintenance of a vessel in Christ’s kingdom and honorable.

 Well, THIRDLY, and there is so much we could look at here, the Lord calls his people to be honorable vessels in his kingdom.  And third we need to see the ministry of such a vessel (read 24-26).

 God’s honorable instrument, his honorable vessel, brothers and sisters.  His minister, must not quarrel.  The arguments of the false teachers are described literally as moronic and ignorant, generating nothing but strife.  And in contrast to that Paul tells Timothy that those involved in the ministry of the gospel must avoid those sorts of disputes.  And in the process of doing so, the Christian ministry must not be quarrelsome.  Timothy could have exposed these mean for who they were….literally, moronic, but Paul says, “no Timothy, do not quarrel with such men.

 You perhaps know folk, brothers and sisters, who like to fight.  They like to debate, and there are up for a good quarrel at the drop of a hat.  You also know that such people are not pleasant to be around.  When I was in college, I got into a debate with someone who I was acquainted with and as I got more and more caught up in the debate the whole tone and demeanor of the debate become more and more unedifying, and by the time the end came, I was confident that what I said was theologically sound, but I hated every word I said, because I was just in to win, to shut the individual up..  The Lord’s servant must not do this.

 Rather than quarrel, the Lord’s vessel is marked by four things.  He is gentle to be all, even to those who are harsh to him.  He does not lash out, he does not bite back when bitten at.  He is able to teach, that is, he is able to gently, but soundly refute the teaching of false teachers.  He is patient.  The idea of the word here is that he does not become resentful.

 In the ministry, brothers and sisters, there are times when people will say things that are unkind, uncalled for, and unchristian.  But the Christian minister, in those times, is called to patience.  William Barclay remarks regarding resentment, “There may be greater sins than touchiness, but none which does greater damage in the Christian church.”  Patience at being wronged, brothers and sisters, is what Christ calls all his vessels to. 

 And then building on this, God’s chosen vessel, his chosen instrument is to correct in humility, those who oppose.  Ministers of the gospel should not be known for being proud peacocks as they correct naysayers and trouble-makers.  Rather, as the consider their own unworthiness to be entrusted with the preaching and teaching of God’s Word, they correct with humility, and they do so with this hope in mind (read 25).

 The goal of all correction as Paul lays it out here, brothers and sisters is repentance (turning away from sin), recognition of their error (come to their senses), and release from the power and bondage of Satan.

 That can only come with the preaching of the gospel!  That is why God’s chosen vessel must be a gospel-centered vessel.

 And so here we see the making, maintenance, and ministry of God’s chosen vessel.  Glorious has been the train of such vessels of Christ, and may we strive to follow them, as they have followed Christ.

 AMEN