"ELECTION" by J.C. Ryle

---

"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God."— 1 Thessalonians i. 4
"Give diligence to make your calling and election sure."— 2 Peter i. 10

The texts which head this page contain a word of peculiar interest. It is a word which is often in men’s minds, and on men’s tongues, from one end of Great Britain to the other. That word is "Election."

There are few Englishmen who do not know something of a general election to Parliament. Many are the evils which come to the surface at such a time. Bad passions are called out. Old quarrels are dug up, and new ones are planted. Promises are made, like piecrust, only to be broken. False profession, lying, drunkenness, intimidation, oppression, flattery, abound on every side. At no time perhaps does human nature make such a poor exhibition of itself as at a general election!

Yet, it is only fair to look at all sides of an election to Parliament. There is nothing new, or peculiarly English, about its evils. In every age, and in every part of the world, the heart of man is pretty much the same. There have never been wanting men ready to persuade others that they are not so well governed as they ought to be, and that they themselves are the fittest rulers that can be found. A thousand years before Christ was born the following picture was drawn by the unerring hand of the Holy Ghost: —

Absalom rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate: and it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment, then Absalom called unto him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said, Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel.

And Absalom said unto him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee.

Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which bath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice!

And it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him." (2 Sam. xv. 2-5.)

When we read this passage we must learn not to judge. our own times too harshly. The evils that we see are neither peculiar nor new.

After all, we must never forget that popular election, with all its evils, is far better than an absolute form of government. To live under the dominion of an absolute tyrant, who allows no one to think, speak, or act for himself, is miserable slavery. For the sake of liberty we must put up with all the evils which accompany the return of members to Parliament. We must each do our duty conscientiously, and learn to expect little from any party. If those we support succeed, we must not think that all they do will be right. If those we oppose succeed, we must not think that all they do will be wrong. To expect little from any earthly ruler is one great secret of contentment. To pray for all who are in authority, and to judge all their actions charitably, is one of the principal duties of a Christian.

"False Doctrines In Christianity Today" by Ray Kane

"I HAVE NO GREATER JOY THAN TO HEAR THAT MY CHILDREN WALK IN TRUTH" [3 John 1:4] Many well meaning yet mis-taught Christians and others who claim to be Christians are preaching lots of things that sound 'good' on the surface but at the root are anything but true. Some of these lies (modern unscriptural ideas about Christianity) are discussed below as a wake-up call to all true born-again Bible-believing disciples of Jesus Christ.

---

LIE #1: God wants his children to be financially prosperous.

Matt 6:19-20 - "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal"

Luke 18:22 - "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."

Matt 8:20 - "And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head."

First and foremost, a Christian should be content in all things and should be overjoyed with the tremendous spiritual blessing of salvation that Christ paid such an enormous price for.  God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust.  Some Christians will have more money than others and some with have better health than others.  It is all a matter of God's sovereign will, as to whom He blesses, in what way, and at what time.

---

LIE #2: If you have enough faith God will give you whatever you ask for.

James 4:3 - "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."

1 John 5:14 - "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us"

God is not a genie in a bottle. He does not perform miracles based upon the power of our minds.  A true and faithful Christian will be thinking primarily about giving and serving and not about what they can get from God.

---

"John Calvin: Teacher and Practitioner of Evangelism" by Dr. Joel Beeke

Many scholars would take issue with the title of this chapter. Some would say that Roman Catholicism kept the evangelistic torch of Christianity lit via the powerful forces of the papacy, the monasteries, and the monarch while Calvin and the Reformers tried to extinguish it. (1) But others would assert that John Calvin (1509-1564), the father of Reformed and Presbyterian doctrine and theology, was largely responsible for relighting the torch of biblical evangelism during the Reformation.(2)  Some also credit Calvin with being a theological father of the Reformed missionary movement. (3) Views of Calvin’s attitude toward evangelism and missions have ranged from hearty to moderate support on the positive side, (4) and from indifference to active opposition on the negative side. (5)  A negative view of Calvin’s evangelism is a result of:

! A failure to study Calvin’s writings prior to drawing their conclusions,
! A failure to understand Calvin’s view of evangelism within his own historical context,
! Preconceived doctrinal notions about Calvin and his theology to their study. Some critics naively assert that Calvin’s doctrine of election virtually negates evangelism. To assess Calvin’s view of evangelism correctly, we must understand what Calvin himself had to say on the subject. Second, we must look at the entire scope of Calvin’s evangelism, both in his teaching and his practice. We can find scores of references to evangelism in Calvin’s Institutes, commentaries, sermons, and letters. Then we can look at Calvin’s evangelistic work (1) in his own flock, (2) in his home city of Geneva, (3) in greater Europe, and (4) in mission opportunities overseas. As we shall see, Calvin was more of an evangelist than is commonly recognized.

"Incarnate Truth" B.B. Warfield

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, . . . full of . . . truth.”—John 1:14

The obvious resemblance between the prologue to John’s Gospel and the proem of Genesis is not a matter of mere phraseology and external form. As the one, in the brief compass of a few verses, paints the whole history of the creation of a universe with a vividness which makes the quickened imagination a witness of the process, so the other in still briefer compass traces the whole history of the re-creation of a dead world into newness of life. In both we are first pointed back into the depths of eternity, when only God was. In both we are bidden to look upon the chaotic darkness of lawless matter or of lawless souls, over which the brooding Spirit was yet to move. In both, as the tremendous pageants are unrolled before our eyes, we are made to see the Living God; and to see him as the Light and the Life of the world, the Destroyer of all darkness, the Author of all good. Here too, however, the Old Testament revelation is the preparation for the better to come. In it we see God as the God of power and of wisdom, the Author and Orderer of all; in this we see him as the God of goodness and mercy, the Restorer and Redeemer of the lost. Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Through what a sublime sweep does the Apostle lead our panting thought as he strives to tell us who and what the Word is, and what he has done for men. He lifts the veil of time, that we may peer into the changeless abyss of eternity and see him as he is, in the mystery of his being, along with God and yet one with God—in some deep sense distinct from God, in some higher sense identical with God. Then he shows us the divine work which he has wrought in time. He is the All-Creator—“all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that hath been made.” He is the All-Illuminator—he “was the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” And now in these last days he has become the All-Redeemer—prepared for by his prophet, he came to his own, and his own received him not; but “as many as received him,” without regard to race or previous preparation, “he gave to them the right to become children of God, to them that believe on his name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Then the climax of this great discourse breaks on us as we are told how the Word, when he came to his own, manifested himself to flesh. It was by himself becoming flesh, and tabernacling among us, full of grace and truth. He came as Creator, as Revealer, as Redeemer: as Creator, preparing a body for his habitation; as Revealer, “trailing clouds of glory as he came”; as Redeemer, heaping grace on grace.

"RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES OF THE SCOTTISH MARTYRS" by Andrew Syminton

They (the Martyrs of the seventeenth century) held the grand Protestant doctrine of the perfection and supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures, and claimed a right to read, and think, and believe, for themselves. They embraced the system of doctrine usually known in this country by the name Calvinistic; but which we would rather call apostolical, or evangelical, for they called no man master, and would submit their consciences in this matter to no authority, excepting that of God speaking in the Scriptures. The doctrines of human guilt and depravity, salvation by the cross of Christ, and by the grace of God and influences of the Holy Spirit, formed their creed, and were the basis of that pious and holy character by which they were distinguished. They claimed a right to worship God in the institutions which he has ordained, without the interference or authority of a man.

They contended for true liberty of conscience, and would not bow to receive from any human authority, ecclesiastical or civil, rites that had no sanction in the word of God. And when they had no alternative but to wrong their consciences or sacrifice their lives, they loved not their lives unto the death. They held the exclusive supremacy of Jesus Christ in the church, and contended for the blood-chartered liberty of the church, and her independence of human authority in the early establishment of the Reformation this was a prominent feature. The Pope had assumed and exercised an authority over the church; Henry VIII in his contentions with Rome, transferred this authority to himself; and in all the contentions with the house of Stuart, this was a main point. The independence of the church was boldly asserted by Henderson in the Assembly in Glasgow, 1638. The reformers and sufferers contended for the liberty of the ministers, the courts, and the members of the church; and would not bow to prelatic more than to popish authority, nor to a civil ecclesiastic supremacy. They were persuaded of the scriptural authority of the Presbyterian polity, but held it in its unfettered freedom and independence; and viewed with jealousy every encroachment of human authority, as not only opposed to their liberty, but as reflecting dishonour upon their Saviour. Fidelity to this truth, as interfering with the taking of oaths, in which a supremacy over the church was recognized, formed one chief ground of the sufferings of those troublous times. The martyrs held the divine institution of magistracy, and of the scripture precepts in the erection of civil government and in the appointment of governors. They held that persons invested with authority should not only be persons of ability and moral character, but fearers of God, and professors of the true religion.

"A Puritan Fear of God" by J. Gresham Machen

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him, which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).

These words were not spoken by Jonathan Edwards. They were not spoken by Cotton Mather. They were not spoken by Calvin, or Augustine, or by Paul. But these words were spoken by Jesus.

And when put together with the many other words like them in the Gospels, they demonstrate the utter falsity of the picture of Jesus which is being constructed in recent years. The other day, in one of the most popular religious books of the day, The Reconstruction of Religion, by Ellwood, I came upon the amazing assertion that Jesus concerned Himself but little with the thought of a life after death. In the presence of such assertions any student of history may well stand aghast. It maybe that we do not make much of the doctrine of a future life, but the question whether Jesus did so is not a matter of taste but an historical question which can be answered only on the basis of an examination of the sources of historical information, which we call the Gospels. And if you want to answer the question, I recommend that you do what I have done, and simply go through a Gospel harmony, noting the passages where Jesus speaks of blessedness and woe in the future life. You may be surprised at the result; certainly you will be surprised if you have been affected in the slightest degree by the misrepresentation of Jesus which suffuses the religious literature of our time. You will discover that the thought not only of heaven but also the thought of hell runs all through the teaching of Jesus. It appears in all four of the Gospels; it appears in the sources, supposed to underlie the Gospels, which have been reconstructed, rightly or wrongly, by modem criticism. It is not an element which can be removed by any critical process, but simply suffuses the whole of Jesus' teaching and Jesus' life.

"The Covenant of Grace" by Charles Hodge Part III

Part III

Parties to the Covenant

At first view there appears to be some confusion in the statements of the Scriptures as to the parties to this covenant. Sometimes Christ is presented as one of the parties; at others He is represented not as a party, but as the mediator and surety of the covenant; while the parties are represented to be God and his people. As the old covenant was made between God and the Hebrews, and Moses acted as mediator, so the new covenant is commonly represented in the Bible as formed between God and his people, Christ acting as mediator. He is, therefore, called the mediator of a better covenant founded on better promises.

Some theologians propose to reconcile these modes of representation by saying that as the covenant of works was formed with Adam as the representative of his race, and therefore in him with all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation; so the covenant of grace was formed with Christ as the head and Representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father. This simplifies the matter, and agrees with the parallel which the Apostle traces between Adam and Christ in Rom 5.12-21, and 1 Cor. 15.21, 22, 47-49. Still it does not remove the incongruity of Christ's being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people. These covenants differ not only in their parties, but also in their promises and conditions. Both are so clearly presented in the Bible that they should not be confounded. The latter, the covenant of grace, is founded on the former, the covenant of redemption. Of the one Christ is the mediator and surety; of the other He is one of the contracting parties.

This is a matter which concerns only perspicuity of statement. There is no doctrinal difference between those who prefer the one statement and those who prefer the other; between those who comprise all the facts of Scripture relating to the subject under one covenant between God and Christ as the representative of his people, and those who distribute them under two. The Westminster standards seem to adopt sometimes the one and sometimes the other mode of representation. In the Confession of Faith Chap. 7 section 3) it is said, "Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant [by the covenant of works], the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." Here the implication is that God and his people are the parties; for in a covenant the promises are made to one of the parties, and here it is said that life and salvation are promised to sinners, and that faith is demanded of them. The same view is presented in the Shorter Catechism, according to the natural interpretation of the answer to the twentieth question. It is there said, "God having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer. In the Larger Catechism, however, the other view is expressly adopted. In the answer to the question, "With whom was the covenant of grace made ? " it is said, " The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as his seed" " (Q. 31).

Two Covenants to be Distinguished

This confusion is avoided by distinguishing between the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, and the covenant of grace between God and his people. The latter supposes the former, and is founded upon it. The two, however, ought not to be confounded, as both are clearly revealed in Scripture, and moreover they differ as to the parties, as to the promises, and as to the conditions.

"The Covenant of Grace" Part II by Charles Hodge

Part II

Different Views of the Nature of this Covenant

It is assumed by many that the parties to the covenant of grace are God and fallen man. Man by his apostasy having forfeited the favour of God, lost the divine image, and involved himself in sin and misery, must have perished in this state, had not God provided a plan of salvation. Moved by compassion for his fallen creatures, God determined to send his Son into the world, to assume their nature, and to do and suffer whatever was requisite for their salvation. On the ground of this redeeming work of Christ, God promises salvation to all who will comply with the terms on which it is offered. This general statement embraces forms of opinion which differ very much one from the others.

(1) It includes even the Pelagian view of the plan of salvation, which assumes that there is no difference between the covenant of works under which Adam was placed, and the covenant of grace, under which men are now, except as to the extent of the obedience required. God promised life to Adam on the condition of perfect obedience, because he was in a condition to render such obedience. He promises salvation to men now on the condition of such obedience as they are able to render, whether Jews, Pagans, or Christians. According to this view the parties to the covenant are God and man; the promise is life; the condition is obedience, such as man in the use of his natural powers is able to render.

(2.) The Remonstrant system does not differ essentially from the Pelagian,.so far as the parties, the promise and the condition of the covenant are concerned. The Remonstrants also make God and man the parties, life the promise, and obedience the condition. But they regard fallen men as in a state of sin by nature, as needing supernatural grace which is furnished to all, and the obedience required is the obedience of faith, or fides obsequiosa faith as including and securing evangelical obedience. Salvation under the gospel is as truly by works as under the law; but the obedience required is not the perfect righteousness demanded of Adam, but such as fallen man, by the aid of the Spirit, is now able to perform.

" The Greek Language and the Christian Ministry" by F.F. Bruce

Christian theology is based upon the firm belief that God; the Maker of heaven and earth, has revealed Himself to mankind as a righteous God and a Saviour, and that this revelation, at first conveyed partially and variously through those whom He called to be His spokesmen, has been perfectly  communicated in Jesus Christ His Son. The preparatory and consummating stages of the revelation have been recorded respectively in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. To these sacred writings, Evangelical theology in particular attaches unique importance, believing that they constitute the standard of faith and practice, that they contain all things necessary for salvation, and that nothing must  be pressed upon men as of the essence of Christian belief and life which cannot be established from them.

The Christian theologian, particularly if he calls himself Evangelical, must therefore pay the most painstaking attention to these writings. He must realize that sound theology rests upon true exegesis, and true exegesis requires a  number of preliminary disciplines, of which linguistic study and textual criticism are two of the most important. The Biblical theologian―and do we not all call ourselves  Biblical theologians nowadays!―cannot be content with a second-hand approach to his foundation documents, by reading them in another man’s translation. He will, no doubt, consult and value many translations, but he will wish to control them by regular, direct reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. “True,” says one reader, “true so far as the theological specialist is concerned. But I am no theological specialist; I have no ambition but to be a parish clergyman, charged with the cure of souls. I have neither the time nor perhaps the inclination to pursue linguistic study.” But, my friend, that very vocation to which  your life is dedicated, makes you a theological
specialist. Not a theological  specialist among theologians, admittedly, but a theological specialist among laymen. To whom should your  parishioners turn for an expert ruling on some point of theological or Biblical interpretation if not to you, their true pastor? Must you, like them, depend on other men’s translations and other men’s explanations for an answer?  No doubt you will have access to many more translations and explanations than they; but your answer will still, in some important respects, be second-hand.

"The Covenant of Grace" by Charles Hodge: Part 1

Part One
The Plan of Salvation is a Covenant

The plan of salvation is presented under the form of a covenant. This is evident:

First, from the constant use of the words berit and diatheke in reference to it. With regard to the former of these words, although it is sometimes used for a law, disposition, or arrangement in general, where the elements of a covenant strictly speaking are absent, yet there can be no doubt that according to its prevailing usage in the Old Testament, it means a mutual contract between two or more parties. It is very often used of compacts between individuals, and especially between kings and rulers. Abraham and Abimelech made a covenant. (Gen. 21.27) Joshua made a covenant With the people. (Josh. 24.25.) Jonathan and David. made a covenant. ( 1Sam. 18.3) Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David. (1 Sam. 20.16.) Ahab made a covenant with Benhadad, (1 Kings 20.34.) So we find it constantly. There is therefore no room to doubt that the word berit when use of transactions between man and man means a mutual compact. We have no right to give it any other sense when used of transactions between God and man. Repeated mention is made of the covenant of God with Abraham, as in Gen. 15.8; 17.13, and afterwards with Isaac and Jacob. Then with the Israelites at Mount Sinai. The Old Testament is founded on this idea of a covenant relation between God and the theocratic people.

The meaning of the word diatheke in the Greek Scriptures is just as certain and uniform. It is derived from the verb diatithemi to arrange , and, therefore, in ordinary Greek is used for any arrangement, or disposition. In the Scriptures it is almost uniformly used in the sense of a covenant. In the Septuagint it is the translation of berit in all the cases above referred to. It is the term always used in the New Testament to designate the covenant with Abraham, with the Israelites, and with believers. The old covenant and the new are presented in contrast. Both were covenants. If the word has this meaning when applied to the transaction with Abraham and with the Hebrews, it must have the same meaning when applied to the plan of salvation revealed in the gospel.

Secondly, that the plan of salvation is presented in the Bible under the form of a covenant is proved not only from the signification and usage of the words above mentioned, but also and more decisively from the fact that the elements of a covenant are included in this plan. There are parties, mutual promises or stipulations, and conditions. So that it is in fact a covenant, whatever it may be called. As this is the Scriptural mode of representation, it is of great importance that it should be retained in theology. Our only security for retaining the truths of the Bible, is to adhere to the Scriptures as closely as possible in our mode of presenting the doctrines therein revealed.

"Lectures on the Principles of the Second Reformation" BY MINISTERS OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, SCOTLAND.

                      LECTURE  I.                                                  



SECOND REFORMATION—FACTS—PRINCIPLES—OVERTHROW—REVOLUTION—RISE OF REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH—ADHERENCE TO THE SECOND REFORMATION—ITS IMPORTANT BEARINGS—REASON AND OBJECTS OF THIS SERIES OF LECTURES.

WHAT are the principles to which so much importance is attached? is a question meeting us as we introduce the proposed course of Lectures. In giving a reply to this most reasonable demand, reference must, of course, be made to the history of the memorable period with which the principles in question are associated—the principles of theSecond Reformation. But in answering this question, I am not to be expected to give lengthened historical illustrations, nor am I to adduce a body of statutory proofs, nor am I to take up the scriptural argument in support and defence of the principles in question. Besides the impossibility of comprehending all this in a single lecture, I should, were I to attempt it, necessarily anticipate the tasks assigned to the brethren that are to succeed me. My duty at present, if I do not mistake it, is to make some brief preliminary observations, preparing the way for the discussions announced in the syllabus, by placing before the mind the principles that are to be advocated, and endeavouring to awaken interest and attention by impressing the mind with a sense of their importance. To this task, then, I immediately address myself.
The Second Reformation forms a brief, but crowded and lucid, chapter in the history of our country, and of the church of God in it, a chapter in which every British Christian should be well read. The period commencing in 1638, and continuing for the ten years which follow, has been usually known, in the ecclesiastical history of this country, by the designation of the Second Reformation, to distinguish it from a period of longer duration in the preceding century, usually called from its priority, not its excellence, the First Reformation. The First was a reformation from Popery; that of which we are now to speak is a reformation from Prelacy, and was distinguished, not only by retrieving what was lost, when in 1592 and subsequent years, the first reformation was departed from, but distinguished also by a great accession of important attainment. It is worthy of remark here, that the Second Reformation, within the last ten years, has been brought into more conspicuous and honourable notice, than for the preceding century and half. The historic page has been searched and thrown open, and the knowledge of the period in question is no longer confined to the antiquary, the curious historian, or to a few persons taking a christian interest in the religious doings of that period; it has been raised from the obscurity in which it lay, and vindicated from much of that reproach which was cast upon it, where it was at all mentioned; and its great actors, and their noble Christian actings, have been held up to respect and admiration. Its attainments, after they were abandoned and lost, lingered long in the recollections and hearts of the religious people of Scotland, but had sunk into comparative oblivion when recent discussions recalled them to view; and the modern advocates of ecclesiastical reformation strengthen their arguments and pleadings, by appeals to its men, its principles, and its martyrs. Would to God that we could regard this as a token that an epoch draws near, when there will be a return to the faithful and extended application of its noble principles! "Turn thou us unto thee, O God, and we shall be turned: renew our days as of old." To state the great principles of the Second Reformation, it will be necessary to recur to prominent facts in the history of the period. ‘In a period of conflicting opinions and sentiments, producing mental and moral revolutions, it seldom happens that individuals or communities arrive all at once at the great principles which are afterwards recognized and felt.’ We are not to expect to find a system of principles, laid down and adopted by the leaders of the Reformation, and then acted upon; but, turning our attention to facts, and observing the great movements as they have proceeded, we shall be able to elicit the great principles which impelled the actors, whose doings have so large demands on our gratitude, and supply so valuable lessons for our adoption and imitation.

"The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology" by Geerhardus Vos

 At present there is general agreement that the doctrine of the covenants is a peculiarly Reformed doctrine. It emerged in Reformed theology where it was assured of a permanent place and in a way that has also remained confined within these bounds. It is true that towards the end of the seventeenth century this doctrine was taken over by several Lutheran theologians,2 but this apparently took place by way of imitation, the doctrine being unknown within the genuine Lutheran framework. With the Reformed theologians, on the other hand, its emergence occurs in the period of richest development. With full force it lays hold of theological thinking, which in many cases it bends in a distinctive direction.

The last-mentioned phenomenon has caused some to be of the opinion that the doctrine of the covenant was something new which did indeed grow up in Reformed soil, but which nevertheless first came to light in Cocceius and his school. Cocceianism and covenant theology would then amount to the same thing. If that is taken to mean that Cocceius was the first to make the covenant idea the dominant concept of his system, then there is some truth to this opinion. Yet even then it cannot be fully agreed with. Cloppenburg and Gellius Snecanus3 had already come up with a covenant theology in the Netherlands, and the same can be said of Olevianus in Germany. What was new in Cocceius was not his covenant theology as such, but rather the historical conclusions for the economy of redemption which he drew from the covenant concept. When these conclusions became apparent, the struggle against Cocceianism was on.
If we are looking only for the covenant concept itself, rather than for a covenant theology, we can go back a lot further. Many Reformed theologians had in their systems a locus on the covenant or on the testaments. Trelcatius, father and son, Junius, Gomarus, and others taught the covenant in this sense. With them the concept remained rather subordinate, so that they cannot be called federalists in the later sense of the term.

"Double Predestination" by R.C. Sproul

"A horrible decree ...." "Most ruthless statement. . . ." "A terrible theological theory. . . ." "An illegitimate inference of logic. . ." These and other similar epithets have been used frequently to articulate displeasure and revulsion at the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. Particularly abhorrent to many is the notion that God would predestinate (in any sense) the doom of the reprobate.

The "Double" of Predestination

The goal of this essay is not to provide a comprehensive analysis, exposition, or defense of the doctrine of election or predestination. Rather, the essay is limited to a concern for the "double" aspect of predestination with particular reference to the question of the relationship of God's sovereignty to reprobation or preterition.
     The use of the qualifying term "double" has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology and quite another outside that circle and at a popular level of theological discourse. The term "double" has been set in contrast with a notion of "single" predestination. It has also been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation. Both usages involve a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination.

Viewing double predestination as a distinction from single predestination may be seen in the work of Emil Brunner. Brunner argues that it is impossible to deduce the doctrine of double predestination from the Bible. He says:

The Bible does not contain the doctrine of double predestination, although in a few isolated passages it seems to come close to it. The Bible teaches that all salvation is based on the eternal Election of God in Jesus Christ, and that this eternal Election springs wholly and entirely from God's sovereign freedom. But wherever this happens, there is no mention of a decree of rejection. The Bible teaches that alongside of the elect there are those who are not elect, who are "reprobate," and indeed that the former are the minority and the latter the majority; but in these passages the point at issue is not eternal election but "separation" or "selection" in judgment. Thus the Bible teaches that there will be a double outcome of world history, salvation and ruin, Heaven and hell. But while salvation is explicitly taught as derived from the eternal election, the further conclusion is not drawn that destruction is also based upon a corresponding decree of doom.¹

"Decisional Regeneration" by James Adams

What is Regeneration?

"Except a man be born again¹, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Our Lord Jesus Christ taught that the new birth is so important that no one can see heaven without it. Mistakes concerning this doctrine have been very destructive to the Church of Christ. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God. It is not a work of man. It is not something that man does but something that God does. The new birth is a change wrought in us, not an act performed by us. This is stated so beautifully by the Apostle John when in the first chapter of his Gospel he speaks of the children of God as those "which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (v. 13).

What is "Decisional Regeneration"?

The history of the Christian Church has seen many errors concerning the new birth. These teachings depart from Scripture by attributing to man the ability to regenerate himself. When these false concepts of man and the new birth are adopted, churches soon become corrupted with false practices. The Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church, the Lutheran church and many other churches have all been corrupted at different times and to different degrees with the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration. Because of this erroneous teaching on regeneration, these churches have embraced false practices.

In the nineteenth century few controversies were so heated as the one over Baptismal Regeneration. It is interesting to note that C. H. Spurgeon (1836-1892), the most prolific preacher of that century, had printed in 1864 more copies of his sermon denouncing Baptismal Regeneration than of any other sermon. Baptismal Regeneration teaches that the new birth is conveyed by the waters of baptism. The sacrament is performed by man and is in his control.

But the twentieth century Church has, in "Decisional Regeneration," a more subtle falsehood to combat. "Decisional Regeneration" differs from Baptismal Regeneration only in the fact that it attaches the certainty of the new birth to a different act. This doctrine, just as Baptismal Regeneration, sees the new birth as the result of a mechanical process that can be performed by man. What is here called "Decisional Regeneration" has in its deceptive way permeated much of the Christian Church.

"Dr. Joel Beeke on Experimental Preaching"

What is Reformed Experimental Preaching? by Joel R. Beeke

Dr. Joel Beeke

‘And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.‘ 2 Kings 22:10-11

‘So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.‘ Nehemiah 8:8

You probably know that, historically, Reformed and Puritan preaching was ‘experimental’ preaching. But do you understand what is meant by the term experimental or experiential? The term comes from the Latin word ‘experimentum’, derived from a verb which means to ‘try, test, prove, or put to the test’. The same verb can also mean ‘to find or know by experience’, and so gives rise to the word ‘experientia’, meaning ‘trial, experiment’ and ‘the knowledge gained by experiment’.

Christian experience Calvin used experiential (experientia) and experimental (experimentum) interchangeably, since, from the perspective of biblical preaching, both words indicate the need for examining or testing experienced knowledge by the touchstone of Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). Experimental preaching stresses the need to know by experience the truths of the Word of God. It seeks to explain in terms of biblical truth, how matters ought to go, and how they do go, in the Christian life. It aims to apply divine truth to the whole range of the believer’s experience: in his walk with God as well as his relationship with family, the church, and the world around him. We can learn much from the Puritans about this type of preaching. As Paul Helm writes: ‘The situation calls for preaching that will cover the full range of Christian experience, and a developed experimental theology. The preaching must give guidance and instruction to Christians in terms of their actual experience. It must not deal in unrealities or treat congregations as if they lived in a different century or in wholly different circumstances. This involves taking the full measure of our modern situation and entering with full sympathy into the actual experiences, the hopes and fears, of Christian people’.

Preaching Christ, The experimental preaching of the Reformers and Puritans focused on preaching Christ. As Scripture clearly shows, evangelism must bear witness to the record God has given of his only begotten Son (Acts 2:3; 5:42; 8:35; Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:2; Galatians 3:1). The Puritans thus taught that any preaching in which Christ does not have the pre-eminence is not valid experiential preaching. William Perkins said that the heart of all preaching was to ‘preach [only] one Christ by Christ to the praise of Christ’. According to Thomas Adams, ‘Christ is the sum of the whole Bible, prophesied, typified, prefigured, exhibited, demonstrated, to be found in every leaf, almost in every line, the Scriptures being but as it were the swaddling bands of the child Jesus’. ‘Think of Christ as the very substance, marrow, soul, and scope of the whole Scriptures’, advised Isaac Ambrose. In this Christ-centred context, Reformed and Puritan evangelism was marked by a discriminating application of truth to experience.

Marks of grace Discriminatory preaching defines the difference between the non-Christian and the Christian. Discriminatory preaching pronounces the wrath of God and eternal condemnation upon the unbelieving and impenitent. But it offers the forgiveness of sins and eternal life to all who, by true faith, embrace Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. Such preaching teaches that if our religion is not experiential, we will perish not because experience itself saves, but because Christ who saves sinners must be experienced personally as the rock on whom our eternal hope is built (Matthew 7:22-27; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2:2). The Reformers and Puritans were very aware of the deceitfulness of the human heart. Puritan evangelists in particular took great pains to identify the marks of grace that distinguish the church from the world, true believers from merely professing believers, and saving faith from temporary faith. Thomas Shepard in The Ten Virgins, Matthew Mead in The Almost Christian Discovered, Jonathan Edwards in Religious Affections, and other Puritans wrote dozens of works to differentiate imposters from true believers. That kind of discriminatory preaching is scarce today. Even in conservative Evangelical churches, head knowledge of scriptural truth is often a substitute for heart experience, or (what is equally unscriptural) heart experience is substituted for head knowledge. Experimental preaching calls for both head knowledge and heart experience; its goal, according to John Murray, is ‘intelligent piety’.

Brought home Experimental preaching is ‘Christianity brought home to men’s business and bosoms’, said Robert Burns. ‘The principle on which experimental religion rests is simply this, that Christianity should not only be known, and understood, and believed, but also felt, and enjoyed, and practically applied’. How different this is from most contemporary preaching! The Word of God is often preached today in a way that wiII never transform anyone because it never discriminates and never applies. Preaching is reduced to a lecture, a catering to the wishes and needs of people, or a form of experientialism removed from the foundation of Scripture. Such preaching fails to expound from Scripture what the Puritans called ‘vital religion’: how a sinner is stripped of all his own righteousness; driven to Christ alone for salvation; finds joy in obedience and reliance upon Christ; encounters the plague of indwelling sin; battles against backsliding; and gains the victory through Christ.

Our great need When God’s Word is preached experimentally, the Holy Spirit uses it to transform men, women, and nations. Such preaching transforms because it corresponds to the vital experience of the children of God (Romans 5: 1-11); clearly explains the marks of saving grace in the believer (Matthew 5:3-12; Galatians 5:22-23); proclaims the high calling of believers as the servants of God in the world (Matthew 5:13-16); and shows the eternal destination of believers and unbelievers (Revelation 21:1-9), We desperately need a return to faithful, Reformed experimental preaching today

"The Minister & His Greek Testament" By J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

The widening breach between the minister and his Greek Testament may be traced to two principal causes. The modern minister objects to his Greek New Testament or is indifferent to it, first, because he is becoming less interested in his Greek, and second, because he is becoming less interested in his New Testament.


The former objection is merely one manifestation of the well known tendency in modern education to reject the "humanities" in favor of studies that are more, obviously useful, a tendency which is fully as pronounced in the universities as it is in the theological seminaries. In many colleges, the study of Greek is almost abandoned; there is little wonder, therefore, that the graduates are not prepared to use their Greek Testament. Plato and Homer are being neglected as much as Paul. A refutation of the arguments by which this tendency is justified would exceed the limits of the present article. This much, however, may be said—the refutation must recognize the opposing principles that are involved. The advocate of the study of Greek and Latin should never attempt to plead his cause merely before the bar of "efficiency." Something, no doubt, might be said even there; it might possibly be contended that an acquaintance with Greek and Latin is really necessary to acquaintance with the mother tongue, which is obviously so important for getting on in the world. But why not go straight to the root of the matter? The real trouble with the modern exaltation of "practical" studies at the expense of the humanities is that it is based upon a vicious conception of the whole purpose of education. The modern conception of the purpose of education is that education is merely intended to enable a man to live, but not to give him those things in life that make life worth living.
  In the second place, the modern minister is neglecting his Greek New Testament because he is becoming less interested in his New Testament in general—less interested in his Bible. The Bible used to be regarded as providing the very sum and substance of preaching; a preacher was true to his calling only as he succeeded in reproducing and applying the message of the Word of God. Very different is the modern attitude. The Bible is not discarded, to be sure, but it is treated only as one of the sources, even though it be still the chief source, of the preacher's inspiration. Moreover, a host of duties other than preaching and other than interpretation of the Word of God are required of the modern pastor. He must organize clubs and social activities of a dozen different kinds; he must assume a prominent part in movements for civic reform. In short, the minister has ceased to be a specialist. The change appears, for example, in the attitude of theological students, even of a devout and reverent type. One outstanding difficulty in theological education today is that the students persist in regarding themselves, not as specialists, but as laymen. Critical questions about the Bible they regard as the property of men who are training themselves for theological professorships or the like, while the ordinary minister, in their judgment, may content himself with the most superficial layman's acquaintance with the problems involved. The minister is thus no longer a specialist in the Bible, but has become merely a sort of general manager of the affairs of a congregation.
  The bearing of this modern attitude toward the study of the Bible upon the study of the Greek Testament is sufficiently obvious. If the time allotted to strictly biblical studies must be diminished, obviously the most laborious part of those studies, the part least productive of immediate results, will be the first to go. And that part, for students insufficiently prepared, is the study of Greek and Hebrew. If, on the other band, the minister is a specialist—if the one thing that he owes his congregation above all others is a thorough acquaintance, scientific as well as experimental, with the Bible—then the importance of Greek requires no elaborate argument. In the first place, almost all the most important books about the New Testament presuppose a knowledge of Greek: the student who is without at least a smattering of Greek is obliged to use for the most part works that are written, figuratively speaking, in words of one syllable. In the second place, such a student cannot deal with all the problems at first hand, but in a thousand important questions is at the mercy of the judgment of others. In the third place, our student without Greek cannot acquaint himself with the form as well as the content of the New Testament books. The New Testament, as well as all other literature, loses something in translation. But why argue the, question? Every scientific student of the New Testament without exception knows that Greek is really necessary to his work: the real question is only as to whether our ministry should be manned by scientific students.
  That question is merely one phase of the most important question that is now facing the Church—the question of Christianity and culture. The modern world is dominated by a type of thought that is either contradictory to Christianity or else out of vital connection with Christianity. This type of thought applied directly to the Bible has resulted in the naturalistic view of the biblical history-the view that rejects the supernatural not merely in the Old Testament narratives, but also in the-Gospel account of the life of Jesus. According to such a view the Bible is valuable because it teaches certain ideas about God and His relations to the world, because it teaches by symbols and example, as well as by formal presentation, certain great principles that have always been true. According to the supernaturalistic view, on the other hand, the Bible contains not merely a presentation of something that was always true, but also a record of something that happened—namely, the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. If this latter view be correct, then the Bible is unique; it is not merely one of the sources of the preacher's inspiration, but the very sum and substance of what he has to say. But, if so, then whatever else the preacher need not know, be must know the Bible; he must know it at first hand, and be able to interpret and defend it. Especially while doubt remains in the world as to the great central question, who more properly than the ministers should engage in the work of resolving such doubt—by intellectual instruction even more than by argument? The work cannot be turned over to a few professors whose work is of interest only to themselves, but must be undertaken energetically by spiritually minded men throughout the Church. But obviously, this work can be undertaken to best advantage only by those who have an important prerequisite for the study in a knowledge of the original languages upon which a large part of the discussion is based. 
  If, however, it is important for the minister to use his Greek Testament, what is to be done about it? Suppose early opportunities were neglected, or what was once required has been lost in the busy rush of ministerial life. Here we may come forward boldly with a message of hope. The Greek of the New Testament is by no means a difficult language; a very fair knowledge of it may be acquired by any minister of average intelligence. And to that end two homely directions may be given. In the first place, the Greek should be read aloud. A language cannot easily be learned by the eye alone. The sound as well as the sense of familiar passages should be impressed upon the mind, until sound and sense are connected without the medium of translation. Let this result not be hastened; it will come of itself if the simple direction be followed. In the second place, the Greek Testament should be read every day without fail, Sabbaths included. Ten minutes a day is of vastly more value than seventy minutes once a week. If the student keeps a "morning watch," the Greek Testament ought to be given a place in it; at any rate, the Greek Testament should be read devotionally. The Greek Testament is a sacred book, and should be treated as such. If it is treated so, the reading of it will soon become a source of joy and power.


This essay was originally printed in The Presbyterian (February, 1918). This article is now in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed.

 

 

"God Blesses the Well Planned Ministry" By Shane C. Montgomery

Scripture Reading: Romans 15:14-33

  We are drawing to a close in our study of this great epistle to the Romans, and the apostle ends it just as he began it, with a word from Paul about himself, and about the church in Rome. What we will be looking at today is a picture of what the Roman church looked like, a mature, disciple making church, but more importantly, we will see what Paul's ministry looked like, a well planned ministry, and we will see just all the planning that went into Paul's ministry. We will see from our text today that just as Paul had to plan out and follow this plan in order to have a effective ministry, so we must do today in our ministry here at Covenant Reformed Church.

There are Two Themes in the closing section of Chapter 15 -- one is the church at Rome, and the other is the ministry of Paul. If you would, follow with me in your Bibles, for this is a very long section of text, and it would be easy to let our minds wonder off. Paul begins in (Verse 14):

I. Step One In Paul's Well Planned Ministry.....Vs. 14-22

“And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: 21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. 22 For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you.”

In this chapter of Romans, Paul gives us a little further insight into this church, and tells us certain things that were true of it. Here, in Verse 14, there are three things that he says about this church, three great qualities that they possessed.

"What is a Covenant?" By Meredith G. Kline

Because the subject of biblical covenants and ancient treaties has been under intensive investigation and lively dispute, some introductory observations are in order here about the nature of those biblical arrangements we call "covenants." Our chief interest in these comments is in those covenantal arrangements in which God was one party.

Of the biblical words usually rendered "covenant" the primary one in the Old Testament is the Hebrew berith, for which the Greek diathekewas the translation choice of the New Testament writers. What is it that constitutes the peculiar berith-character of that which is so denominated?

Repeatedly we read of a berith being "made." The berith-making is accomplished through a solemn process of ratification. Characteristically this transaction centers in the swearing of an oath, with its sanctioning curse. Clearly a berith is a legal kind of arrangement, a formal disposition of a binding nature. At the heart of a berith is an act of commitment and the customary oath-form of this commitment reveals the religious nature of the transaction. The berith arrangement is no mere secular contract but rather belongs to the sacred sphere of divine witness and enforcement.

"Calvinism in America" By Loraine Boettner

Chapter Seven: Calvinism in America, Taken From "Calvinism in History"

When we come to study the influence of Calvinism as a political force in the history of the United States we come to one of the brightest pages of all Calvinistic history. Calvinism came to America in the Mayflower, and Bancroft, the greatest of American historians, pronounces the Pilgrim Fathers "Calvinists in their faith according to the straightest system."¹ John Endicott, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony; John Winthrop, the second governor of that Colony; Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut; John Davenport, the founder of the New Haven Colony; and Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island Colony, were all Calvinists. William Penn was a disciple of the Huguenots. It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin. Never in the world's history had a nation been founded by such people as these. Furthermore these people came to America not primarily for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various European countries had been providentially used to select out the most progressive and enlightened people for the colonization of America. At any rate it is quite generally admitted that the English, Scotch, Germans, and Dutch have been the most masterful people of Europe. Let it be especially remembered that the Puritans, who formed the great bulk of the settlers in New England, brought with them a Calvinistic Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the doctrines of the great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and oppression whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial period.

"Atheism, New Age Mysticism, vs. Biblical Christianity" By Brian Schwertley

    

God

Every system of thought, every worldview has a concept of God.1 Three predominant views of God in America are: monism (everything is God), atheism (God does not exist) and Christian theism (there is a personal, infinite God who is totally separate from the created universe). Secular humanists are atheists. They reject any concept of a transcendent Creator in favor of materialistic evolution. They believe that the universe is a closed system. There is nothing above and beyond the universe. Therefore man, as the highest form of evolution, is responsible to: create his own law and morality; save himself and the world through science and social planning; unite mankind into a one-world order; and redirect the course of evolution. Humanity is the secular humanists’ god.