Category: Devotional

Devotional thoughts for my benefit and yours from here, there, and everywhere

The Blessings of a Sunday Sabbath

~ fundyreformed ~ 10 Comments

Many of us don’t give much thought as to the implications of our worship on Sunday rather than Saturday. We understand Christ rose on Sunday, and for many that is a simple enough reason for worshipping on Sunday. Now, I have had the privelege (?) of debating with a good number of Seventh Day Adventists and to them it is not such a simple question.

This post is really not going to get into the proof that the Christian Sabbath is now Sunday, nor is it going to explore the question of just how a New Testament believer is to observe the 4th commandment. Rather I want to share a beautiful insight into the ramifications of our worshipping on Sunday that I gleaned from O. Palmer Robertson’s excellent book The Christ of the Covenants.

Before I give the quotation from Robertson, you need to know that he points out 2 reasons for the command to observe the Sabbath. 1) Creation (God’s resting on and blessing/hallowing the seventh day)””Ex. 20:8-11. 2) Redemption (from Egypt)””Deut. 5:12-15.

Now I will close with the quotation from Robertson himself. I hope it will bless you all as much as it did me.

 

Now the reason for Sabbath-observance relates not only to creation but also to redemption. Because God gave rest by redemption, Israel must observe the Sabbath.

The two alternative reasons for keeping the Sabbath focus on the two great pivots of God’s historical dealings with his people. These two events have equal significance. Creation originates a people of God. Redemption recreates a people of God. In each case, the Sabbath plays a vital role.

When the place of the Sabbath under the new covenant is considered, this perspective must not be forgotten. By his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ consummated God’s redemptive purposes. His coming forth into new life must be understood as an event as significant as the creation of the world. By his resurrection, a new creation occurred.

…

For this reason, the Christian perceives history differently. He does not only look forward to a redemption yet to come. He does not merely hope for a future Sabbath rest. He looks back on a redemption fully accomplished. He stands confidently on the basis of what the past already has brought.

Therefore, it is fitting that the new covenant radically alters the Sabbath perspective. The current believer in Christ does not follow the Sabbath pattern of the people of the old covenant. He does not first labor six days, looking hopefully toward rest. Instead, he begins the week by rejoicing in the rest already accomplished by the cosmic event of Christ’s resurrection. Then he enters joyfully into his six days of labor, confident of success through the victory which Christ has already won. (emphasis added)

 

Cited from: O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1980) p. 73

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Is This Your Fundamentalism?

~ fundyreformed ~ 16 Comments

I was reared in a Fundamentalist church, and we were incredibly proud of it. We were strident, largely uneducated (even dismissive of education), theologically censorious, separatistic, intolerant, and accusatory of every smidgeon of slight alteration. There were no questions; there were answers “” and we had them. We saw our abrasiveness as a sign that the rest of the world couldn’t count the cost; rejection proved we were right. I’m embarrassed today mostly about what we were like as humans – we were ungracious if not unchristian.

The above are the reflections of Scot McKnight (the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago) (HT: Sharper Iron Filings). His recent  post concerns a movement he sees among evangelicals who are pursuing a  neo-fundamentalism. In the ensuing comments (very interesting to read through), Scot clarifies that he considers fundamentalism more a posture or attitude than a particular theology. One gets the feel that most conservative evangelicals  who are somewhat uncompromising in their beliefs would fit the bill as neo-fundamentalist in his book. And his definition of fundamentalism could include some outside of evangelicalism as well.

My question relates to his own description of the fundamentalism he knew. Is that your fundamentalism? Take a step back and consider if that describes you. Most everyone who reads this blog would qualify as a fundamentalist (or neo-fundamentalist) in Scot’s book, so the question is for all of us. Yes, truth matters. But so does our posture/attitude. Are we know-it-alls? Do we bristle at questions and prefer to pontificate answers? Are we smug with who we are? Do we care about anyone not inside our movement? Is it us four no more?

I think his description is worth pondering, and not just pondering in the sense of earmarking others who fit his description. Think of yourself and your group, and ponder how his description fits or doesn’t. Let us, as fundamentalists, seek to keep a large measure of grace along with our truth. (See this post on Grace & Truthby Randy Alcorn, for some helpful thoughts in this regard.)

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

The Lord’s Supper & Spiritual Participation in Christ’s Death

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Last Sunday, our teaching pastor, John Piper, gave a message on the importance of the Lord’s Supper. We then partook of the supper together after his message. It was a very moving service and a great message; I encourage you to read or listen to it.

That sermon prompted me to post on at least two aspects concerning the Lord’s Supper. What follows will be part 1, with part 2 following later this week.

Spiritual Participation in Christ’s Death

What do we mean by spiritual participation? If any Baptists are reading this (as most surely there are), giant, bright, red-colored flags are popping up. “Remembrance“”we only remember Christ in the Lord’s Supper.” “Oh, he’s speaking of a mystical presence of Christ to be gained or sought in this act! Ugh!” It is a fact that transubstantiation, consubstantiation or even the view that communion is a “means of grace” are scorned in Baptist circles.

I can appreciate the reasons why Baptists so resolutely give a knee-jerk reaction to such talk. Clearly there are many errors surrounding communion, and many traditions make it into a supernatural religious ceremony with powers all its own. Yet the Baptist reaction to such errors is perhaps also a serious error in itself. Many Baptists approach the Lord’s table with no expectation of any spiritual participation.

Pastor Piper in his message last week pointed out that our church elder affirmation of faith states:

Those who eat and drink in a worthy manner partake of Christ’s body and blood, not physically, but spiritually, in that, by faith, they are nourished with the benefits He obtained through His death, and thus grow in grace.

“Where does the idea of ‘spiritually’ partaking of Christ’s body and blood ‘by faith’ come from?” you may ask. You could go read Piper’s sermon because he explains why. But I will be glad to tell you. It comes from this passage of Scripture:

1 Cor. 10:16-21 “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”

Piper explains what “participation” (koinonia) means with the help of v. 18. Those who ate the sacrifices were participants in what happened on the altar. Let me quote Piper at this point, as he says this better than I could:

What does sharer/participant/partner in the altar mean? It means that they are sharing in or benefiting from what happened on the altar. They are enjoying, for example, forgiveness and restored fellowship with God.

So I take verse 16 and 17 to mean that when believers eat the bread and drink the cup physically we do another kind of eating and drinking spiritually. We eat and drink””that is, we take into our lives””what happened on the cross. By faith””by trusting in all that God is for us in Jesus””we nourish ourselves with the benefits that Jesus obtained for us when he bled and died on the cross.

Just as believing Israelites would joyfully bask in their restored fellowship with God on the basis of the shedding of blood, just as they would joyfully eat and rejoice in their hearts partaking spiritually in what was happening physically on the altar, we can joyfully participate in and experience spiritually all the benefits of Christ’s death on our behalf. His sacrifice is once for all, so our joy and fellowship is greater and fuller and more complete.

Wayne Grudem discusses this very thing in a helpful way as follows:

…Jesus promised to be present whenever believers worship: “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt.18:20). And if he is especially present when Christians gather to worship, then we would expect that he will be present in a special way in the Lord’s Supper: We meet him at his table, to which he comes to give himself to us. As we receive the elements of bread and wine in the presence of Christ, so we partake of him and his benefits. We “feed upon him in our hearts” with thanksgiving….Yet we must not say that Christ is present apart from our personal faith, but only meets and blesses us there in accordance with our faith in him….Certainly there is a symbolic presence of Christ, but it is also a genuine spiritual presence and there is a genuine spiritual blessing in this ceremony. [Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), pg. 995-996]

In his footnotes he addresses the view which denies such a spiritual presence with an insightful quote from Millard Erickson:

“Out of a zeal to avoid the conception that Jesus is present in some sort of magical way, certain Baptists among others have sometimes gone to such extremes as to give the impression that the one place where Jesus most assuredly is not to be found is the Lord’s supper. This is what one Baptist leader termed ‘the doctrine of the real absence’ of Jesus Christ” (Christian Theology, p. 1123). [Ibid, pg. 995]

One last angle on this aspect of the Lord’s Supper concerns the idea of fellowship with God around a meal. Wayne Grudem offers Ex. 24:9-11 and Deut. 14:23-26 as examples of a special fellowship with God surrounding a meal. This he describes is a restoration of the fellowship man had with God in Eden before the Fall. Yet he stresses:

The Old Testament sacrificial meals continually pointed to the fact that sins were not yet paid for, because the sacrifices in them were repeated year after year, and because they looked forward to the Messiah who was to come and take away sin (see Heb. 10:1-4). The Lord’s Supper, however, reminds us that Jesus’ payment for our sins has already been accomplished, so we now eat in the Lord’s presence with great rejoicing….Yet even the Lord’s Supper looks forward to a more wonderful fellowship meal in God’s presence in the future, when the fellowship of Eden will be restored and there will be even greater joy…. [Ibid, pg. 989]

Christian Confession: A Look at 1 John 1:9

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

Have you ever wondered what it means for Christians to seek forgiveness? I mean, didn’t we already get forgiven when we got saved?

Well, Reformation Theology has the answer for us. They posted a great post which looks in depth at 1 John 1:9 and defends the traditional Christian view of this passage against new and contrary interpretations. I encourage you to look at the post, it will both  bless and inform you.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Moralism and Christ-less Sermons

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

As long as the preaching is HOT, anything goes.... Right?

Fundamentalists love preaching. Most love it hot and heavy. We enjoy getting our toes stomped and our hearts tugged. We thrive on a sin-naming, righteousness-exalting, hell fire & brimstone, Bible-packed preaching!

So what does this post and it’s title have to do with preaching? Well, let me explain, if I may.

Remember our recent posts on wine? It was a topic here (see this post and that post) and also at Thirsty Theologian, Captain Headknowledge, and The World from Our Window. The last blog mentioned above is the one that spurred me on to do the posts on the subject at this time. Ken Fields was asking some questions and I tried to give some answers. Well, in subsequent posts Ken continued to discuss the issue. And then Billy Sunday was mentioned. Yes the beer-blasting, booze-battling, liquor-loathing, wine-hating, fiery, evangelist Billy Sunday. The world remembers him for his contribution to Prohibition and most fundamentalists remember him for that signature style–oh! and also for his gospel campaigns and numerical results. He was a preacher of yesteryear who was not afraid to call sin sin, and who also loved Jesus so much he did everything (including foam at the mouth and act like a nut) to get the message of salvation out.

And Billy Sunday’s mention resulted in this post by Ken Fields: Billy Sunday, Alcohol, and Moralism: A Fundamentalist’s Conundrum. He highlighted that Billy Sunday’s most famous sermon “Boston Booze” contained no mention of Christ, only one mention of sin or grace, and little mention of God. Of course it majored on the evils of booze. Ken found the sermon and the legacy of Sunday’s “moralistic” preaching troubling. And rightly so, although we should specify that Sunday was known for more than just moralism, and many were converted in Christ-exalting, Christ-focused sermons. But still, this kind of preaching which Sunday evidenced in at least one sermon, and which other fundamentalists’ have made all too common is very troubling.

I mentioned this very kind of preaching in a previous post, provocatively titled “Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent of Fundamentalist Preaching”. I pointed out that preaching against sin without a tie in to the gospel can be dangerous. Christ-less sermons should always be seen as dangerous. The problem is that apart from Christ there is no possibility of righteousness, no hope of acceptance with God, and so flesh-driven, self-reliant, moralism is an enemy of the Gospel. And sermons about moral virtues, character, and righteous living that do not reiterate that we are unable to attain the standards of God and thus need Christ, do more harm often than they do good. Many a person “pulls himself up with his bootstraps” and “grits his teeth” and determines to toe the line. In some circles the line is full of extra-Biblical standards. And this man does it! He does it all in his own strength, completely opposite of the teaching of:

Gal. 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Well, I gave Ken a big amen, and he was even linked to by Sharper Iron (in its filings). The ensuing thread at Sharper Iron attracted quite a few Sunday defenders. And most missed the whole point of Ken’s post. This prompted him to spit out another entitled aptly “More on Moralism in the Pulpit”. There he made it as clear as he could: “ALCOHOL IS NOT THE ISSUE, MORALISM IS!”

If you are interested in how the thread at Sharper Iron turned out, the discussion is continuing. Check it out, but especially notice my latest comment.

UPDATE: Ken Fields posted a follow up where he gives a long quote by Bryan Chapell from his book Christ Centered Preaching. I do not actually have the book, although I have flipped through it before. It is a great book which makes the point in these posts much better than I do. Anyway go over and read Ken’s post: Sub-Christian Messages in Preaching.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ken has given us yet another post with an excellent quote from Jay Adams on this very issue. Be sure to check that post out!

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7