Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘jesus’

Witsius on the conversion of the Jews

Posted in Eschatology, Israel; Calling of & Mission to the Jews, tagged , , , , on January 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »

XX. Sixthly. We may reckon among the benefits of the New Testament the restoration of the Israelites, who were formerly rejected, and the bringing them back to the communion of God in Christ. Paul has unfolded this mystery to the Gentiles, Rom. 11:25–27: “For, I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved; at it is written, There shall come out of Sion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”

XXI. On this place observe, 1st. That the apostle here explains some mystery; that is, a secret thing, not known but by revelation, and taken notice of by few, and happening beyond the expectation and judgment of reason; in fine, the whole method and manner of executing which, lies in a great measure concealed; see 1 Cor. 2:7, 15:51, and Eph. 3:3. 2dly. That it is the interest of the Gentiles to be acquainted with this mystery, to prevent their entertaining higher thoughts concerning themselves, and lower concerning the Israelites: we are therefore to take care to enquire diligently, and with attention, into what the prophets have foretold concerning this matter. 3dly. The apostle here speaks of the people of Israel, not figuratively but properly so called; who were at this time blind, obdurate, stupid, and hardened, of which ver. 7. Isaiah foretold this judgment of God against Israel at large, chap. 6:9, 10, compared with Acts 28:26, Isa. 29:10, 11. To this also seems applicable, that whirlwind of the Lord, that fury, and continuing whirlwind, which shall abide on the head of the wicked, of which Jer. 30:23. In short, this is that forlorn condition of the blinded nation of Jews, which taking its rise in the apostles’ time, continues to this our day. 4thly. That this blindness is in part happened to Israel. The whole nation, from its first origin even to the end of the world, is considered as one whole; a certain part of which are those, who either have, or now do, or hereafter shall live in the days of the wrath and indignation of God: blindness has seized that part only. 5thly. That blindness is to continue upon them no longer, than till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; that is, till the Gospel is preached among all nations of the world whatever. Which, indeed, began to be done by the apostles and their fellow-labourers; but could not be done perfectly, both on account of the extent of the world, and the shortness of human life, and likewise because many nations (as all the American) were at that time unknown. This therefore still remains to be done successively; God, in his admirable providence, paving the way for his word. The offer of grace was first made to the Israelites. When they refused it, it was sent to the Gentiles; but when the fulness of them shall be brought in, it will be again given to the Israelites, “that the last may be first, and the first last,” Luke 13:30; see Luke 21:24. 6thly. That when the fulness of the Gentiles is brought in, all Israel shall be saved; that is, as our Dutch commentators well observe, not a few, but a very great number, and in a manner the whole Jewish nation, in a full body. Peter Martyr has judiciously explained the fulness of the Gentiles, and the whole body of Israel, in the following words: “But we are to understand a limited fulness, and a fixed or determined collection; which is therefore called fulness, because there will be an exact and a very great number of believers, so that the church shall be publicly owned, and had in great esteem among the Gentiles, just as all Israel is to be taken for a great number of Jews, among whom Christ should be publicly acknowledged; not that some, as well of the Gentiles as Jews, shall not be lost.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Warfield, “Paul on Women Speaking in the Church”

Posted in Church Order & Discipline, Feminism & Egalitarianism, Gender & Sexuality, Paternalism & Patriarchy, tagged , , , , on December 23, 2024| Leave a Comment »

The following is an article written in 1919 by Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield. Prof. Warfield was an orthodox theological heavyweight who taught at Princeton Theological Seminary in the early 20th century, until the institution tragically succumbed to theological liberalism in the late 1920s. He here addresses the question of Paul’s words prohibiting women to speak in the assemblies of the church. A digitized version can be accessed here.

Warfield, Paul on Women Speaking in ChurchDownload

Read Full Post »

Take church to them! ‘House-churching’ the heathen

Posted in Gospel Tactics, Missiology, Parish in American Context, Parish Theory & Practice, The Gospel & the Poor, Vignettes from the Old Parish Way, tagged , , , , on December 16, 2024| Leave a Comment »

The following extract comes from Thomas Cochrane’s, Home Mission-work; Or, Twenty-five Years in a Mission Field (1873; pp. 51-52). Chalmers earlier advocated these exact same tactics years before. In my parish mission efforts, I’m already seeing the profound wisdom and insight of this policy. If they don’t yet come to church, then (assuming they let you in the door) bring church to them!

“In all Territorial districts there will be found many not only living in entire neglect of the sanctuary, but many of that number who will scarcely be persuaded by prayer and pains to avail themselves of the privilege To meet such cases, the devoted missionary will often be found to try and bridge over the difficulty by taking the church to them; sometimes, perhaps, even taking possession of the home of the neglectful, and making a church in their house. The effect of such little gatherings is often very blessed indeed. By these meetings there is not only opened a way for bringing the Gospel to the very homesteads of the careless and prayerless, but it is also, under GOD, a very fruitful source of augmenting the central gatherings.

“One of the most useful members of the Mission relates, as his own experience, how by this agency especially he was won to the public ordinances of the church. He was ill to gain over. Many months of prayerful effort were spent, but “by keeping at it,” with God’s blessing on the means, he was at last enlisted in the good cause ; and how useful he has been since in gaining others, the future only can reveal. How devoted he has been cannot be told.

“The services at these fireside gatherings should not, as a general rule, be lengthened above an hour, for many reasons. Mothers cannot conveniently give longer time from household duties. Short telling addresses at such meetings will ordinarily be most useful and acceptable. The grand object being to deal chiefly and closely with those who have not been accustomed to much serious thinking about religious subjects, anything fitted to weary and repel should be carefully avoided. How all-important to leave a good impression, and, by this short pithy service, to beget a thirst for the more extended, if not more formal, services of the house of God! It would not be an easy thing to say how many members of the church first found their footing towards the sanctuary through the influence of these district meetings. They will not only prove useful-almost essential-in the forming of a Territorial congregation, but will be of immense benefit after it has been formed, both as a means of dealing with the neglectful members of the congregation, and of reaching those beyond the pale of the church.”

[photo source]

Read Full Post »

Boston’s “Consent to the Covenant”

Posted in Church of Scotland, Church Order & Discipline, Covenant Theology, Terms of Communion, The Visible Church, Thomas Boston, tagged , , , , on December 9, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Came upon this choice piece from Boston’s Memoirs. A series of questions put to a prospective communicant. The first question I find rather insightful—I’ve long tended to think that a working understanding of the Shorter Catechism is basically the cognitive side of Presbyterian terms of communion. Without reaching that bar, the session ought to delay that applicant and give further instruction (L. Cat. 173). Also, there is explicit submission to church discipline.

I am aware that Boston arguably had some “independent” aspects to his presbyterianism, and perhaps this reflects too much a likeness to the old Congregational “church covenants?” But whatever the case, I find this explicit consent and covenanting commendable:

“And if the Session be satisfied in this also, the party is to be put explicitly to consent to the Covenant (whereof he desires the seal), to be the Lord’s, live under Him, and serve Him all the days of his life, by answering expressly the following (or the like) questions: 1. Do you believe the doctrine of the Shorter Catechism of this Church, so far as you understand the same, to be the true doctrine agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and resolve through grace to live and die in the profession of the same? 2. Do you consent to take God in Christ to be your God, the Father to be your Father, the Son to be your Saviour, and the Holy Ghost to be your Sanctifier; and that, renouncing the devil, the world and the flesh, you be the Lord’s for ever? 3. Do you consent to receive Christ, as He is offered in the gospel, for your Prophet, Priest and King; giving up yourself to Him, to be led and guided by His Word and Spirit; looking for salvation only through the obedience and death of Jesus Christ, who was crucified without the gates of Jerusalem; promising in His strength to endeavour to lead a holy life, to forsake every known sin, and to comply with every known duty? 4. Lastly, do you promise to subject yourself to exhortation, admonition, and rebuke, and the discipline of the Church, in case (which God forbid !) you fall into any scandalous sin?”


Memoirs, Appendix 3, § 10, p. 488.




Read Full Post »

“Of the Festivals of the Church, and Especially Christmas”

Posted in Audio Resources, New England Puritanism, Puritans & Puritanism, Sabbatarianism & the Church Calendar, Worship, True & False, tagged , , , , on December 1, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Just finished recording part 2 of 2 of Daniel Cawdrey’s “Of the Festivals of the Church, and Especially Christmas.” Listen to the audio here. This is the third part of a larger work, attached below. The University of Michigan has digitized the text here.

Visit the complete WPE Audio library.

Cawdrey (1588–1664) was a member of the Westminster Assembly, which produced the Westminster Confession of Faith, as well as the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Like the rest of the Puritans of England and New England, as well as the Presbyterians of Scotland, these godly men rejected all holy days of men’s devising based on what has become called the ‘regulative principle of worship,’ which requires us to have clear and undoubted certainty about the divine, scriptural origin of any worship practice, and that any worship falling short of this standard must be set aside.

The Puritans were not kill-joys or men of bigoted, narrow minds. Anyone who reads their sermons and devotional writings will find them to be the warmest lovers of God, of Christ, and of their fellow men. They were also as a rule generous, catholic-minded men who embraced all those who called upon the Lord in sincerity, even among those who might disagree with them. And above all, they were men who passionately wanted to please God, even if that went against the flow of the opinions of men. I offer these recordings in that spirit.

The following is a sample from Cawdrey, in particular on his contention that the observation of Christmas is ultimately hostile to the proper, apostolic practice of Lord’s day observance:

“[It is said that] The Birth of Christ, is a mercy of such excellent quality, that it can never be overvalued, &c. This is granted; ​But to Institute a day as Holy, without command of Christ, for an Annual commemoration of this, is above the power of any Church, and a Superstitious presumption: and [altogether] needless; considering that the Lord’s day, (which includes the commemoration, not only of his Birth, but his Resurrection, and the whole works of our Redemption by him) was instituted by himself, or his Apostles, by him authorized and inspired, for this very end; & comes [around] once in every week. To limit it therefore to one day in a year, to remember that Mercy, is not an exaltation, but a derogation from it. If this were done, on his own design[ated] Day, wee need not fixe another day.”

Friend, let appeal to you not to brush off this position. You may in the end disagree with it; by all means, search the Scriptures, and be a Berean. But none of us “have attained,” and we should always be willing to bring any of our views or practices to the touchstone of Scripture. Embracing this position would naturally involve sacrifices, hurt feelings, and misunderstandings. But I can assure you from close to 30 years of experience after becoming convinced, and after raising four children in these principles, it is well worth it. “Them that honor me, I will honor.” And you don’t have to be a Grinch! I’m not—and I keep up many, many friendships with dear brothers who aren’t persuaded.

But of course, they’ll understand sooner or later (1 Cor. 13:12)!

Cawdrey, Diatribe Triplex, or a Threefold ExercitationDownload

Read Full Post »

Chalmers’ influence on the New York City Mission: Lebanon Chapel, 1870

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , on October 29, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Chalmers’ parish mission theory made its way to the U.S. during his career and in the decades after his death in 1847. I had heard about such city missions inspired by the “territorial” method; and of course, I knew about his enthusiastic supporter of the West Port experiment, the New York philanthropist James Lenox. With a little free time, I did some poking around online and found one example: the Lebanon Chapel. Below is an 1878 report from that mission effort in the heart of New York City.

It bears all the marks of a convinced Chalmersian. We see the distinct and underscored prioritization of saving souls, above all efforts to ameliorate outward poverty. And there is also an absence of the individualistic-leaning and pietistic sort of American Christianity, but the old confessionally Reformed version that prizes the Visible (or as Kuyper eventually put it, the “Institutional”) Church with its outward and ordinary means of grace. Here’s a quote that could very easily have been written by the “Arch-Parson” himself:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Robert Bruce: What do we get in the Supper?

Posted in Audio Resources, Church of Scotland, Sacraments, The Lord's Supper, tagged , , , , on October 8, 2024| Leave a Comment »

“This is their [Romanist] argument; whereof ye see their conclusion to be this: We get no other new thing in the sacrament than we do in the word, if there be no perception but spiritual. Ergo, the sacrament, is superfluous. We admit the antecedent to be true; we get no other thing, nor no new thing in the sacrament, but the same thing which we got in the word. I would have thee devise and imagine with thyself, what new thing thou wouldest have: let the heart of man devise, imagine, and wish; he durst never have thought to have such a thing as the Son of God; he durst never have presumed, to have pierced the clouds, to have ascended so high, as to have craved the Son of God in His flesh, to be the food of his soul. Having the Son of God, thou hast Him who is the heir of all things; who is King of heaven and earth; and in Him thou hast all things. What more then canst thou wish? What better thing canst thou wish ? He is equal with the Father, one in substance with the Father, true God, and true man, what more canst thou wish? Therefore, I say, we get no other thing in the sacrament than we had in the word: content thee with this. But suppose it be so; yet the sacrament is not superfluous. For wouldest thou understand what new thing thou obtainest, what other thing tbou gettest? I will tell thee. Suppose thou get that same thing which thou hadst in the word, yet thou gettest that same thing better. What is that better? Thou obtainest a greater and surer hold of that same thing in tire sacrament, than thou hadst by the hearing of the word. That same thing which thou possessedst by the hearing of the word, thou dost possess now more largely; He has larger bounds in thy soul by the receiving of the sacrament, than otherwise He could have by the hearing of the word only. Then, wilt thou ask what new thing we get? I say, we get this new thing : we get Christ better than we did before; we get the thing which we had, more fully, that is, with a surer apprehension than we had of it before; we get a greater hold of Christ now. For by the sacrament my faith is nourished, the bounds of my soul are enlarged: and so, whereas I had but a little hold of Christ before, as it were between my finger and my thumb, now I get Him in my whole hand; and still the more that my faith grows, the better hold I get of Christ Jesus. So the sacrament is very necessary, if it were no more but to get Christ better, and to get a closer apprehension of Him, by the Sacrament than we could have before.”

The following is an extremely profound passage from Robert Bruce’s magisterial treatise on the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Listen to this chapter in audio here. Those who may not be used to the older style may benefit from a modern rendition available here. Access more titles in the WPE Audio library.

Read Full Post »

RPM: Witnessing to witnesses . . . in action

Posted in Abuse, Manipulation, Cults, Cultishness, Heresy, Reformed Parish Mission (RPM) Posts, WPE Editor, tagged , , , , on June 28, 2024| Leave a Comment »

More “shoe on the other foot” last Saturday. I was out with a new friend from Reformation Bible College, Yiourgos, canvassing for our special evangelistic meetings in Vineland. As I was moving down the street, I noticed three nicely-dressed Hispanic people getting out of their car. Had a hunch, and sure enough—they were “Testigos de Jehová” (Jehovah’s Witnesses).

As usual, very polite. And they knew their Bibles. The Watchtower had trained their drones well! With my precarious Spanish, I went to the Philippians 2 usage of Isaiah 45. The language that Paul used and applied to Jesus, “that every knee would bow” and “every tongue would confess,” was the very same language that Isaiah clearly referred to Jehovah! The Jehovah of Isaiah 45 gave to Jesus, according to Paul in Philippians, “the name that is above every name.” And what is that name, Jehovah gave to Jesus? None other than “Jehovah!”

I tracked with only parts of their response. My Spanish comprehension can be shaky; and the wife seemed to be especially zealous, probably accelerating her speech. I recall resonating with her use of Matthew 28:18-20, which God giving Jesus “all authority in heaven and earth.” We Trinitarians do not dispute the subordination of Jesus according to his human nature and in His person and office as Mediator. But clearly, I’ll have to unpack that more in a further conversation. Truly, “great is the mystery of godliness!”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Blue laws and American culture

Posted in Culture, Establishments, Sabbatarianism & the Church Calendar, Sacred & Secular, Secularization, The Church in America, tagged , , , , on June 25, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Moses atop the U.S. Supreme Court (source)

Here’s a delightful old volume on Sabbath laws in the United States. As I skim through these, a few short observations. 1. We have collectively forgotten what was once a cultural norm. Hence the fitness of the imperative, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” 2. Freedom of thought, speech, and religion obviously had a big asterisk (at least from our 2024 context). Tolerance was clearly not a free-for-all for every pagan and libertine. 3. This gives the lie to the radical secular-sanitizing narratives of liberals who decry ‘Christian nationalism,’ as well as the hardcore R2K types like Daryl Hart who make strange bedfellows with the same.

A few samples from states in which I’ve lived:

(more…)

Read Full Post »