Dealing with Differences

By Roger Nicole 5/1/2009

     We are called upon by the Lord to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3). But that does not necessarily involve being contentious; it involves avoiding compromise, standing forth for what we believe, standing forth for the truth of God — without welching at any particular moment. Thus, we are bound to meet, at various points and various levels, people with whom we disagree. We disagree in some areas of Christian doctrine. We disagree as to some details of church administration. We disagree as to the way in which certain tasks of the church should be pursued. And, in fact, if we are careful to observe a few principles that I would like to expound for you, then I would suggest that they might be valuable also in disagreements that are not in the religious field. They also would apply to disagreements in politics or difficulties with people in your job or friction within the family or contentions between husband and wife or between parents and children. Who does not encounter from time to time people who are not in complete agreement? Therefore, it is good to seek to discover certain basic principles whereby we may relate to those who differ from us.

     In order to approach this subject, there are three major questions that we must ask; and I would like to emphasize very strongly that, in my judgment, we need to ask them precisely in the right order: (1) What do I owe the person who differs from me? (2) What can I learn from the person who differs from me? (3) How can I cope with the person who differs from me?

     First, I suggest that we need to face squarely the matter of our duties. We have obligations to people who differ from us. This does not involve agreeing with them. We have an obligation to the truth that has a priority over agreement with any particular person; if someone is not in the truth, we have no right to agree. We have no right even to minimize the importance of the difference; and therefore, we do not owe consent or indifference. But what we owe that person who differs from us, whoever that may be, is what we owe every human being — we owe them to love them. And we owe them to deal with them as we ourselves would like to be dealt with or treated (Matt. 7:12).

     And how, then, do we desire to be treated? Well, the first thing that we notice here is that we want people to know what we are saying or meaning and that we have taken into consideration and understand what those with whom we disagree have said. In short, I would say we owe our opponents to deal with them in such a way that they may sense that we have a real interest in them as persons, that we are not simply trying to win an argument or show how smart we are, but that we are deeply interested in them — and are eager to learn from them as well as to help them.

     Second, we need to ask the question: “What can I learn from those who differ from me?” It is not censurable selfishness to seek to gain maximum benefits from any situation that we encounter. It is truly a pity if we fail to take advantage of opportunities to learn and develop what almost any controversy affords us.

     The first thing that I should be prepared to learn is that I am wrong and the other person is right. Obviously, this does not apply to certain basic truths of the faith like the deity of Christ or salvation by grace. Yet, apart from issues where God has spoken so that doubt and hesitancy are not permissible, there are numerous areas where we are temperamentally inclined to be very assertive and yet can quite possibly be in error. When we are unwilling to acknowledge our fallibility, we reveal that we are more interested in winning a discussion and safeguarding our reputation than in the discovery and triumph of truth.

     Moreover, we may learn from one who differs from us that our presentations, while correct as far as they go, fail to embody the truth in its entirety on the subject in view. Although what we assert is true, there are elements of truth that, in our own clumsy way, we have overlooked. The person who differs from me may render me great service by compelling me to present the truth in its completeness and thus avoid pitfalls created by under-emphasis, over-emphasis, and omissions. Thus my account will be “full-orbed” rather than “half-baked!”

     Finally, it is also proper to raise the query: “How can I cope with those who differ from me?” That is to say, how are we to argue with others?

     In evangelical circles, biblical arguments carry a maximum of weight if properly handled, for they invoke the authority of God Himself in support of a position. Yet we must ever strive to take account of the fullness of biblical revelation to have the boldness to advance as far as it leads, and the restraint to stop in our speculations where the Bible ceases to provide guidance.

     Beyond this, we must also employ general arguments, namely logic, history, and tradition. While the authority involved is not on the same level as the Bible, it has a bearing on the discussions and must be considered by those who wish to make a strong case.

     Perhaps the most important consideration for the Christian is to remain aware at all times of the goal to be achieved. Are we attempting to win an argument in order to manifest our own superior knowledge and debating ability? Or are we seeking to win another person whom we perceive as enmeshed in error or inadequacy by exposing him to the truth and light that God has given to us?

Click here to go to source

     Dr. Roger Nicole was professor emeritus of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Fla., and author of Standing Forth. A notable theologian of the twentieth century, he was very influential in the shaping of evangelical theology in America.

Doing Without the Church?

By Gene Edward Veith 5/1/2009

     The seven churches of Asia addressed in the book of Revelation had their problems. One of them looked quite lively but it was actually dead. Another was so lukewarm that the Lord was ready to spit it out of His mouth. And yet the Son of Man did not tell the Christians of Sardis or of Laodicea to pull out of their congregations.

     Today, though, a growing number of Christians are doing just that. Despite the continued visibility of megachurches, the new trend is for minichurches, microchurches, or no churches at all.

     According to pollster George Barna, the era of the institution is over. In his books Revolution: Finding Vibrant Faith Beyond the Walls of the Sanctuary and The Second Coming of the Church, Barna hails what he calls the “revolutionaries” who are abandoning the established church in favor of small group fellowships and individual devotion.

     An increasing number of Christians have dropped out of congregations to form their own “house churches.” These typically consist of a few families that meet together in someone’s home. They are essentially Bible studies and fellowship groups whose members belong to no other congregation.

     A house is indeed a good place for a church. Persecuted Christians have met in each other’s homes from the days of ancient Rome to contemporary China. House churches may be worth reviving for American Christians, whether in face of a new persecution or just because a congregation wants to do without a big, expensive building.

     But even house churches still need to have the marks of the church. The house churches Barna is lauding typically have no structure, no formal doctrines, and no organization. They usually have no ministers or elders. Instead of calling a pastor who has studied God’s Word in depth and who knows how to exercise pastoral care, the practice is usually to just take turns leading the discussions. The house churches have no affiliations with any larger church body, nor do they have specific doctrines or confessions of faith. They do little, if anything, with the sacraments. No one is subject to church discipline, as such. If conflict breaks out, people just don’t come back. They can just worship at somebody else’s house.

     House churches, though, are too institutional for some people. Many Christians take homeschooling a step further and establish a “home church.” In this arrangement a family is its own congregation. The father might teach from the Bible with the wife and children listening. They then adjourn to the dining room for Sunday dinner. No outsiders intrude.

     Having family devotions is a salutary practice, but they are not supposed to take the place of public corporate worship.

     But even home churches are too institutional for some people. Why does a Christian need other people around at all? “Based on our research,” Barna says approvingly, “I have projected that by the year 2010, 10 to 20 percent of Americans will derive all their spiritual input (and output) through the Internet” (Revolution, p. 180).

     But even worshiping at such an electronic shrine may be too much human contact for some. Why not just contemplate God by myself? After all, isn’t the inner life more spiritual than all of these externals? Isn’t the personal relationship with God all that matters? In the words of country singer Josh Turner, it’s all about “Me and God.” And for that, I need no one else. As Turner sings, “Ain’t nobody gonna come between me and God.”

     But actually I do need someone to come between me and God, the intermediary Jesus Christ; otherwise, I would fare about as well as a mosquito in a nuclear reactor. To know Jesus Christ, I need His external Word and His sacraments. I need someone other than myself to apply these to me. I need someone to teach me and to keep me in line. I need to worship God and receive His gifts. I need the body of Christ, that is, His church.

     “Ours is not the business of organized religion, corporate worship, or Bible teaching,” says Barna of his fellow anti-church revolutionaries: “We are in the business of life transformation” (The Second Coming of the Church, p. 96). But, as Michael Horton has shown in his critique of this movement, such an emphasis on “transformation” is mere moralism and mysticism. The gospel, though, involves proclamation. Preaching requires preachers. The grace of God demands the means of grace: Bible teaching, baptism, the Lord’s Supper. Such necessities beget corporate worship and, yes, organized religion (see “No Church, No Problem,” Modern Reformation, July/August 2008).

     “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,” says the apostle, “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near” (Heb. 10:24–25). It was not good for man to be alone even in Paradise, and it is certainly not good to be alone in a fallen world. God did not design us to be self-contained; rather, He made us dependent on others, both for our daily bread and for our spiritual nourishment.

Click here to go to source

     Dr. Gene Edward Veith is provost emeritus and professor of literature emeritus at Patrick Henry College and director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Ind.

     Gene Edward Veith Books |  Go to Books Page

The Lord of the Church

By John MacArthur 5/1/2009

     The truth that Christ is Lord of His church may sound somewhat benign to a casual listener in our generation, but the struggle for Christ’s authority in the church has come to us through the ages on a sea of blood. Thankfully, literal bloodshed over the issue is no longer very common. But faithful Christians are still waging a fierce moral and intellectual battle for Christ’s lordship over the church.

     One of the major early catalysts in the Protestant Reformation was a book by Jan Hus, a Bohemian Christian who preceded Martin Luther by a full century. The book was De Ecclesia (The Church), and one of Hus’ most profound points was proclaimed in the title of his fourth chapter: “Christ the Only Head of the Church.”

     Hus wrote, “Neither is the pope the head nor are the cardinals the whole body of the [true] holy, universal, catholic church. For Christ alone is the head of that church.” Pointing out that most church leaders in his era actually despised the lordship of Christ, Hus said, “To such a low pitch is the clergy come that they hate those who preach often and call Jesus Christ Lord.”

     Hus’ candor cost him his life. He was declared a heretic and burnt at the stake in 1415.

     More than a hundred years later, already at odds with the papal establishment, Martin Luther read De Ecclesia. After finishing the book, he wrote to a friend, “I have hitherto taught and held all the opinions of Jan Hus unawares; so did John Staupitz. In short, we are all Hussites without knowing it.”

     Emboldened by his reading of Hus, the reformer took up the fight for Christ’s honor as true head of His church. Luther wrote, “I am persuaded that if at this time, St. Peter, in person, should preach all the articles of Holy Scripture, and only deny the pope’s authority, power, and primacy, and say, that the pope is not the head of all Christendom, they would cause him to be hanged. Yea, if Christ himself were again on earth, and should preach, without all doubt the pope would crucify him again.”

     In many ways, the question, who is Lord of the church? was the over-arching issue of the Protestant Reformation from the start. (That’s what Luther was tacitly acknowledging when he said “we are all Hussites.”)

     Of course, Roman Catholic canon law still insists that the pope is her supreme earthly head and the ruling vicar of Christ in that capacity.

     But the historic Protestant commitment to Christ’s lordship over the church has also subtly eroded, and that is a trend that deeply concerns me. It’s an issue I have written much about over the years.

     For example, some evangelical leaders aggressively teach that it is not even necessary to confess Jesus as Lord in order to be saved. That’s what the so-called “lordship controversy” is about. It would be hard to imagine a more obvious attack against the lordship of Christ over His church, but “no-lordship theology” has thrived for years and seems to be gaining strength.

     Evangelicals also gave birth to the “seeker-sensitive” movement wherein church services are tailored to please trend-savvy unbelievers. Novelties ranging from circus acts to slapstick are deliberately injected into corporate “worship” in order to keep worldly minds entertained. That is a practical denial of Christ’s lordship over His church, relegating His Word and ordinances to secondary status while granting hedonistic fashions the right to determine even the order of worship.

     Feminists want to redefine the idea of headship, eliminating the idea of authority from the concept altogether. That, too, is a frontal attack on Christ’s lordship over His church.

     Bible translators and paraphrasers who tamper with the true sense of God’s Word; emergent church leaders who question the clarity of everything Christ has said; and above all, preachers who seem to talk about everything but Scripture — all of them do what they do in direct defiance of Christ’s rightful authority over His church.

     One thing would do more than anything else to answer every challenge to Christ’s authority: the restoration of clear, powerful, expository preaching to its rightful place at the center of all the church’s activities. If we truly believe Christ is Lord of the church, then the church needs to hear His voice. His Word must be proclaimed and its content taught accurately, systematically, and unrelentingly whenever the church comes together.

     Jan Hus said the same thing. Declaring that the lordship of Christ over His church means emphatically “that the Christian ought to follow the commandments of Christ,” Hus then cited Acts 10:42 (“[Christ] commanded us to preach to the people”) and called on church leaders of his day to preach the Word of God at every opportunity — even though a papal bull was then in force, strictly limiting how and where the Scriptures could be proclaimed.

     The church today is badly in need of reformation again. And Christ’s lordship over His church is still the central truth we must recover, which requires the unleashing of His Word among His people again. We cannot merely float along with the latest evangelical trends and expect things to get better. Like Jan Hus and Martin Luther, we need to fight for the honor and authority of Christ as Lord of His church.

Click here to go to source

     John MacArthur is pastor-teacher of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley , California , author, conference speaker, president of The Master's College and Seminary, and featured teacher with Grace to You.

     From 1964 to 1966 Dr. MacArthur served as an associate pastor at Calvary Bible Church in Burbank , California and from 1966 to 1969 as a faculty representative for Talbot Theological Seminary, where he graduated with honors.

     In 1969, John came to Grace Community Church . The emphasis of his pulpit ministry is the careful study and verse-by-verse exposition of the Bible, with special attention devoted to the historical and grammatical background behind each passage.Under John's leadership, Grace Community Church's two morning worship services fill the 3,000-seat auditorium to capacity. Several thousand members also participate each week in dozens of fellowship groups and training programs, led by members of the pastoral staff and lay leaders. These groups are dedicated to equipping members for ministry on local, national, and international levels.

     In 1985, John became president of The Master's College (formerly Los Angeles Baptist College ), an accredited, four-year, liberal arts Christian college in Santa Clarita , California . In 1986, John founded The Master's Seminary, a graduate school dedicated to training men for full-time pastoral roles and missionary work. In addition to his administrative responsibilities, John regularly teaches Expository Preaching at the seminary and frequently speaks in chapel.

     John is also president and featured teacher with Grace to You. Founded in 1969, Grace to You is the nonprofit organization responsible for developing, producing, and distributing John's books, audiocassettes, free sermons (MP3s) and the Grace to You, Portraits of Grace, and Grace to You Weekend radio programs. Grace to You airs thousands of times daily throughout the English speaking world reaching all major population centers in the United States, as well as Australia, Canada, Europe, India, New Zealand, the Philippines, and South Africa. It also airs more than 450 times daily in Spanish reaching 23 countries, including Mexico, Spain, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, and Colombia.

     Since completing his first best-selling book The Gospel According to Jesus, in 1988, John has written over 100 books and, through Grace to You and retail bookstores, distributed millions of copies worldwide.Many of John's books are available on CD-ROM and many titles have been translated into Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Marathi, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, and several other major languages.

     John and his wife, Patricia, live in Southern California and have four grown children: Matt, Marcy, Mark, and Melinda.They also enjoy the enthusiastic company of their eleven grandchildren--Johnny, Ty, Jessy, KD, Olivia, Susannah, Gracie, Kylee, Andrew, Brooke and Elizabeth.

     "MacArthur calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist"--meaning he rejects any and all "dispensational" soteriological innovations, holding to classic Reformed (i.e., Protestant, not "covenantal") soteriology. MacArthur's "dispensationalism" is eschatological and ecclesiological only. And given the fact that soteriology is central to our whole understanding of Christianity, whereas eschatology and ecclesiology deal primarily with secondary doctrines, it would be my assessment that MacArthur has far less in common with Ryrie than he would have with anyone who believes 1) that God's grace is efficacious for regeneration and sanctification as well as for justification, and 2) that God graciously guarantees the perseverance of all true believers." - Phil Johnson

     John MacArthur Books |  Go to Books Page

Love Letters

By R.C. Sproul Jr. 5/1/2009

     It is a strange habit, though I am often caught in its grip. Why is it, I wonder, that we find ourselves so often longing for those days of the early church? Where did we begin to confuse the descriptive with the prescriptive, using what was the church once upon a time as a guide to what the church should be in our own day? The source of this foolishness is likely more Rousseau and likely less the Bible. Rousseau was the father of the modern Romantic movement who argued that man is basically good and that it is the debilitating effects of culture that always make things worse. The more primitive we can get, the better off we will be. Buying into that template, we find the early church to be our ideal.

     That, however, is not at all how the Bible presents the early church. The New Testament begins with the history of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus told to us in the Gospels. Acts gives us a history of the spread of the good news of Jesus Christ. What follows after, by and large, are sundry writings designed to correct all that was wrong in the churches of the day. Acts shows us Paul establishing churches. Romans through at least Colossians shows us Paul setting those churches straight. He wrote as well to the church at Thessalonica and, I would affirm, even to the Hebrews. Even his epistles to Timothy and Titus focus on weaknesses in the church.

     It doesn’t, of course, stop with Paul. Peter deals with failures in the church. James gives some rather stern correctives to the church. John’s epistles deal with problems in the church. The Revelation to Saint John, however, ups the ante. We need to be careful to remember the nature of the calling of the apostles. Our latent distrust of those above us in authority is enough to push us toward this error. Red-letter Bibles make it worse. We tend to see, somehow, the words of Jesus as more authoritative than the words of Paul, Peter, or James. But the authority of the apostles, because it is given by Jesus Himself, is equal to the authority of Jesus Himself. When Paul asks the foolish Galatians who has bewitched them, it is the same as if Jesus Himself were asking the question.

     That said, in John’s vision it is in fact Jesus Himself who speaks to the seven churches. His letters therein, not surprisingly, challenge the churches in their sins. Jesus calls them out for their failure to love Him as they ought, for their willingness to tolerate heresy, and for their lukewarm fervor for His kingdom. His chastisements, even though they are directed at churches that have long since passed away (which in itself is a potent lesson for us), sting in our own ears. Or at least they ought. If our response is merely to be concerned for them, we are fools indeed.

     If we would understand all the epistles to churches in the whole of the New Testament, we must first understand the wisdom of this bit of Old Testament wisdom literature: “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9). The churches of the first century were not models of orthodoxy (right doctrine) and orthopraxy (right behavior). Neither, on the other hand, were they beyond the pale. Instead these churches were weak, worldly, and wishy-washy — just like us. Surely the church as a whole has ebbed and flowed over the years. But she has, from the beginning and to our own day, not only been a mixture of wheat and tares but also a body wherein even the wheat often behaves like tares. That is, our problems in the church are not merely that there are unbelievers therein, but the unbelief of the believers therein.

     This, friends, ought not to discourage us. We certainly do need to remember God’s judgment as we face up to the bold preaching against our sins that we find in the epistles in the New Testament. But we must likewise remember how these letters begin and end. These are not letters of divorce. They instead implore the churches to repent, to return, and to believe. Paul writes to the saints he loves, not the sinners he is finished with. He begins his letters with love and ends them in the same way. The book of Revelation is much the same. The whole purpose was to encourage the saints to righteousness in a context of hardship. The whole purpose was to remind the saints of their first calling — to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.

     Were we wise we would hear these prophetic utterances as addressed to us. Indeed, were we wise we would welcome the same from our own pastors and elders. We would know that as our sins are challenged from the pulpit, they are challenged that we might grow in grace. We would know that our pastors are piercing our hearts and rocking our consciences precisely because they love us. We would receive rebuke as we ought — as kisses from a friend. That is precisely what they are, kisses, ultimately from the friend we have in Jesus. This is love, that our Savior has not only redeemed us but that He is also daily about the business of purifying us, making us a bride without spot or blemish. It’s a painful process, but it has a glorious end.

Click here to go to source

     R.C. Sproul Jr. has served previously as a pastor, professor, and teacher. He is author of numerous books. Some are listed below.

     R.C. Sproul Jr. Books |  Go to Books Page

The Genuine Life

By Scotty Smith 6/1/2009

     With three decades plus change in the pastoral ministry, the gospel seems to be getting bigger and Jesus is appearing more gracious than ever. Maybe that’s because I’ve never been more aware of my brokenness and more disrupted by longings for the day when the already of the kingdom capitulates to the not yet of shalom. Can it really be that we’re destined to be as lovely and as loving as Jesus? (1 John 3:1–3). That promise has singular sustaining power when the inward groans of spiritual childbirth feel more like a tumor than a treasure (Rom. 8:22–25).

     I also find myself taking less for granted and making more time for gratitude. Being one year shy of my sixtieth birthday, I’m especially thankful for the leaders who give me a tantalizing glimpse of gospel sanity and genuine humility — those jars of clay through whom the aroma of grace is the best apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus. May God increase their tribe. I’ve never been more impressed with leaders who aren’t the least bit impressed with themselves. Put the apostle Paul at the top of that list. His words to Timothy, a son and protégé in the faith, charm and challenge my heart (please stop to read 1 Tim. 1:12–17).

     From what seminary did this guy graduate? Who progressively updates their professional vitae in this fashion? AD 57, “I’m the least of the apostles” (1 Cor. 15:9). AD 60, “I’m less than the least of all God’s people” (Eph. 3:8). AD 63, “I’m chief of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15) I’ve always been impressed with Paul’s keen mind, but now I’m even more impressed with his gentle, humble heart.

     Marinating in Paul’s doxological confession, I remember with chagrin my first pastorate after graduating from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia — not to imply that’s the only chapter in my years of ministry for which I carry non-condemning grief. I was ordained by the PCUS in 1977 at First Presbyterian Church, Winston Salem, North Carolina. Called to serve as youth pastor, I joined a pastoral staff of graduates from Yale, Princeton, and Union. I soon took on the self-appointed role of theological prosecuting attorney in the kingdom.

     Armed with answers to questions few were asking, I was more preoccupied with being right than being caring. Though a commitment to defending the truth and loving well are not mutually exclusive, it seems that spotting heresies required so much less of me than loving people. But over the course of the past thirty years, God has displayed his perfect patience and relentless providence in enabling me to accept my place alongside of Paul as “foremost sinner.” Indeed, His mercy has proven to be more than a match for my heart.

     So how would I love to finish the race, and how do I pray the next generation of leaders will begin it? There’s no better example than Paul.

     Gospel astonishment versus theological cockiness

     I learned the lyric of the gospel long before I loved its music. As pastor, husband, dad and friend, living from my head has always been easier than engaging from my heart, and not nearly as messy. But leaders who delight in the imputed righteousness of Christ seem to defend it the best. Paul never seemed to have “gotten over” the hyper-abundance of grace, faith, and love given to us in Jesus. While the gospel does free us from childishness, it should make us more and more childlike in awe, joy, and humility.

     Chief repenter versus former sinner

     When, in writing to Timothy, Paul referred to himself as “foremost sinner,” he wasn’t engaging in hype or hyperbole. His whole body of writing shows us he really meant it. A former blasphemer, persecutor, and violent man was still a current sinner, in need of the mercy and grace of God. Imagine how encouraging and empowering this was to Timothy. His spiritual father lived a life of ongoing repentance before his very eyes. God’s perfect patience for Paul must have made it easier for Timothy not to live as a poser or pretender.

     When we first planted Christ Community Church in 1986, Dr. Jack Miller preached our constitution service, challenging me and our leadership family to be the chief repenters in the church. When we’ve forgotten or ignored that charge, our congregation has suffered the most. For what is as insufferable as self-righteous leaders?

     Preaching Christ to yourself versus preaching yourself

     Paul never used an audience or epistle as a vehicle for self advertisement or personal aggrandizement. He preached Christ, not himself (2 Cor. 4:5), and yet he was constantly preaching Christ to himself. Leaders who make the most of Jesus are those who make the gospel the most beautiful and believable. Leaders who preach themselves master the effective technique of transparency, but they remain clueless about the redemptive trauma of vulnerability.

     Oh, that the King of the ages might be made visible through an emerging generation of leaders who will live and lead as genuinely as Paul.

Click here to go to source

Rev. Scotty Smith Books:

• 1     Everyday Prayers: 365 Days to a Gospel-Centered Faith
• 2     Every Season Prayers: Gospel-Centered Prayers for the Whole of Life
• 3     Objects of His Affection: Coming Alive to the Compelling Love of God
• 4     Restoring Broken Things
• 5     The Reign of Grace: The Delights and Demands of God's Love

7 things God does not want us to be ignorant of

By Kirk M. (ChristianBlog.com 6-17-2015

     The Greek word agnoeo takes the common word noeo (to know) and places an a before it meaning "not". Simply put, this word means “not to know, understand or comprehend” . Although the word agnoeo is used numerous times in the New Testament, there are seven times when it is used in conjunction with the Greek word ou (not) making the meaning in English to be "not ignorant of” . These seven things God does not want us to be ignorant of present wonderful and simple references to some of the most important elements of our Christian walk.

     All but one of these particular usages of agnoeo come in Romans, 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. For the sake of simplicity, let us look at these seven usages as they come up chronologically in the New Testament. The first usage is found in Romans 1:13:

Romans 1:13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.   ESV

     And I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you (and was hindered hitherto), that I might have some fruit in you also, even as in the rest of the Gentiles.

     The Apostle Paul did not want the believers in Rome to be ignorant of how many times he wanted to visit them in. It is obvious in verses 8 and 9 that Paul thought highly of the believers in Rome and prayed for them without ceasing. Verses 10-12 express Paul's great desire and expectation to see them and impart unto them some spiritual gift that they would be established. Paul wanted them to not be ignorant that many times he purposed to come to Rome but was hindered. The next reference is found in Romans 11:25:

Romans 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27  “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”   ESV

     For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in;

     Paul did not want the Roman believers (which were a blend of Jews and Gentiles) to be ignorant of this mystery. Time and space do not allow me to go into this difficult verse, but the mystery (secret) Paul was referring to here is found in verse 24 where he talks about grafting branches from a wild olive tree into a good olive tree. The mystery is that this process works and it is reference to grafting the Gentiles into the Jewish tree. It is indeed a secret how this can happen. The next reference is found in 1 Corinthians 10:1:

1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,

1 Corinthians 10:5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. 12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.   ESV

     For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

     This reference actually includes verses 2-4 and in these verses Paul reminds the predominantly Gentile believers in Corinth of the positives that took place in the Children of Israel's passage from Egypt to the Promised Land. It is important that we all never forget the glorious things God did for His people at this time. It is also very important that we never forget what Paul brings up in verses 5-13. The next reference is found in 1 Corinthians 12:1:

1 Corinthians 12:1  Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed.   ESV

     Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

     The words translated “spiritual gifts” are one Greek word pneumatikos which should be translated as “spiritual things or matters” . The entire realm of spiritual matters encompasses not only the matters brought up in the following verses but all matters in the Divine sphere and also in satan's realm (Ephesians 6:12). God does not want us to be ignorant concerning spiritual matters. The next reference is found in 2 Corinthians 1:8:

Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.   ESV

     For we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning our affliction which befell us in Asia, that we were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our power, insomuch that we despaired even of life:

     In light of the context of the first few chapters of 2 Corinthians (which deal with suffering, affliction and tribulation), it is not surprising that Paul expresses his desire that the Corinthian believers not be ignorant of the affliction he and his companions went through in Asia. Specifically, Paul wanted them to not be ignorant of just how dire the situation was, so much so that they feared for their very lives. The next reference is found in 2 Corinthians 2:11:

2 Corinthians 2:11 so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.   ESV

     that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

     The direct context of this verse is found in verse 10 which is FORGIVENESS. Nothing opens the door to satan faster and more effectively than lack of forgiveness. Nothing gives satan an advantage over God's people more than when they fail to forgive each other. Logically, satan does everything in his power to keep believers from manifesting forgiveness. We must not be ignorant of this truth lest satan gain an advantage over us. The final reference is found in 1 Thessalonians 4:13:

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.   ESV

     But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, who have no hope.

     What greater way to conclude this study than to bring it back to the hope we have of Christ's return! Specifically, Paul did not want the believers to be ignorant regarding the state of those who had passed away. He did not want the believers to sorrow as the unbelievers did when they lost someone. Verses 14-18 go on to give the incredible details of what our hope entails. The dead in Christ shall rise first and then we which are alive will be gathered together in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and forever be with Him.

     The opposite of being ignorant of something is to know or understand. In each of these seven references, God is laying out specific things He wants us to KNOW, UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND. The more we concentrate on “not being ignorant” of these things, the more we will tap into the heart of God as manifested in the Church Epistles.

Click here to go to source

Kirk M. A retired minister living with his wife and animals in rural eastern Missouri

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 66

How Awesome Are Your Deeds
66 To The Choirmaster. A Song. A Psalm.

13 I will come into your house with burnt offerings;
I will perform my vows to you,
14 that which my lips uttered
and my mouth promised when I was in trouble.
15 I will offer to you burnt offerings of fattened animals,
with the smoke of the sacrifice of rams;
I will make an offering of bulls and goats. Selah

16 Come and hear, all you who fear God,
and I will tell what he has done for my soul.
17 I cried to him with my mouth,
and high praise was on my tongue.
18 If I had cherished iniquity in my heart,
the Lord would not have listened.
19 But truly God has listened;
he has attended to the voice of my prayer.

20 Blessed be God,
because he has not rejected my prayer
or removed his steadfast love from me!

ESV Study Bible

By Gleason Archer Jr.

Authorship and Date of Composition of  Ecclesiastes (continued)

     If it is true that the language and style of  Ecclesiastes do not correspond to any literature known to us from any stage of Hebrew history, but present radical contrasts to every other book in the Old Testament canon (with the possible exception of Canticles) and to all extant intertestamental Hebrew literature, then it follows that there is at present no sure foundation for dating this book upon linguistic grounds (although it is no more dissimilar to tenth-century Hebrew than it is to fifth century or second century). What then shall we say of this peculiarity?

     It seems fairly obvious that we are dealing here with a conventional style peculiar to the particular genre to which  Ecclesiastes belonged. Just as in Akkadian literature, legal codes and contract tablets present a great contrast to each other in technique and style, and these too in turn differ greatly from the epistolary or historical prose from this same period, so also there grew up in Hebrew culture a conventional language in style which was felt to be peculiarly fitting for each literary genre. In the case of Greek literature, where we have much more literary data than we do from Palestine, we find that once a genre developed on a particular soil in a particular city - state, the dialect and vocabulary type of the original practitioner who exalted this genre to a classical status would then prevail throughout the rest of the history of Greek literature (until the triumph of Koinē in the Greek or Roman period). For example, since Homer was the first to develop the epic, from his time on, all epic poetry had to be written in the Old Ionic dialect which he had used, even though the more modern poet spoke a quite different dialect, such as Attic, Doric, or Aeolic. Correspondingly, since the Dorians were the first to develop choral poetry, convention demanded that whenever an Attic - speaking tragedian (like Sophocles or Aeschylus) moved into a choral passage in his play, the actors abruptly shifted from Attic Greek to Doric Greek (or at least a Doricizing type of Attic) with particular cliches and turns of expression conventional for that particular genre. It so happens that in the case of the precise genre to which  Ecclesiastes belongs, we have nothing else which has survived from Hebrew literature. Otherwise we would doubtless find abundant parallels for all the peculiar phenomena of Qohelet in the compositions which belong to the same genre. If this type of philosophical discourse was first practiced in North Israel before Solomon’s time, this would explain the Aramaic and Phoenician traits and influences of which modern critics have made so much. It would also explain the infrequency of the name Yahweh in this text.

     In this connection it may be well to mention the theory of L. Wogue, that we have in our present text of  Ecclesiastes a modernized recension. That is to say, the original version of this work as composed by Solomon was written in an older Hebrew which eventually became too obscure for ready comprehension by post-exilic generations of Jews. For this reason, says the theory, it was published anew in a more up-to-date vocabulary and style that it might be more widely enjoyed. To take an analogy, most English readers read Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in a modernized version, since Chaucer’s fourteenth-century English contains so many obsolete terms and expressions as to require a glossary for intelligibility. The weakness of this theory, however, derives from the incorrect assumption that the Hebrew of  Ecclesiastes can be clearly identified as a post-exilic product. Since in point of fact it resembles no known document from the post-exilic period, there does not seem to be much point to this suggestion. Moreover the Hebrew text itself is so difficult to understand that it would hardly serve as a popularization intended for ready comprehension.

     Apart from linguistic considerations, the objection is often raised to the Solomonic authorship of Qohelet that the author seems to speak, occasionally at least, from the standpoint of a third party or observer, rather than as the king himself. He may even be said to cherish a critical attitude toward kings, which would scarcely be compatible with the viewpoint of the historic Solomon. As an oppressive exactor of taxes whose kingdom upon his decease fell apart over the issue of excessive taxation, it would be out of character for him to say: “Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness” ( 10:17 ); or again: “Curse not the king, no not in thy thought” ( 10:20, which critics understand to imply that the king is so objectionable that his subjects are strongly tempted to curse him); and again: “Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will not be admonished” ( 4:13 ).

     To this it may be replied that none of these passages is really decisive against royal authorship. Solomon was composing a discourse upon government in general from the standpoint of a philosopher and not as a progovernment propagandist. It would be naive to suppose that he could have been ignorant of the existence of gluttonous, bibulous, cantankerous, or stubborn-minded kings, or of the unhappy consequences incurred by their subjects in having such men rule over them.  Ecclesiastes 10:17 may even be interpreted as a bit of self-congratulation on the part of the royal author;  10:20 may simply have been an admonition to malcontents to show a proper respect for the government;  4:13 may have been meant as a wholesome reminder to himself. But at any rate, the whole composition is written from the standpoint of a philosophical observer of political and social life rather than as a partisan of royalty. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius furnishes a good parallel to Qohelet in this respect, for the Roman emperor wrote this work from the standpoint of a philosopher rather than as a propagandist for his own government.

     Many modern critics such as R. H. Pfeiffer allege that  Ecclesiastes betrays the influence of Greek philosophy. The skeptical attitude toward Judaism, the occasional expressions of eudaemonism or Epicureanism, the notion of time as cosmic flow, and the attempt to understand the world as a whole — all these are thought to be of Hellenic origin (so F.C. Grant in Encyclopaedia Americana; likewise Cornill). But G. A. Barton has shown that the asserted resemblances between  Ecclesiastes and the Stoics are merely superficial, and their two viewpoints are in fundamental opposition. Moreover the indeterminism of Epicureanism contrasts sharply with the rigid, deterministic thought of Qohelet. But the often cited commendations of the general enjoyment of eating and drinking were a commonplace found as early as in the Gilgamesh Epic. In this latter connection, Oswald Loretz (Qohelet und der alte Orient, Herder, 1964) points to a specific parallel, where Gilgamesh says to Enkidu: “Mankind, its days are counted; all that it can do is of wind.” R. Gordis is disposed to concede some Greek influence, but he insists, “Efforts to prove  Ecclesiastes an Aristotelian, a Stoic, an Epicurean, a Cynic, or a Cyrenaic have not been successful. The alleged Grecisms in style have also shown it to be authentically Hebrew or Semitic.” Pedersen shows that the estimates of mankind in Greek philosophy are entirely different from those in  Ecclesiastes. Galling demonstrates that the supposed dependence upon Greek gnomists is only a superficial resemblance. Dornseiff points out the possibility that some Greek apothegms may themselves be of oriental extraction and imported into Greek thought (cf. W. Baumgartner, “The Wisdom Literature” in OTMS, p. 226).

     Attempts have been made to show a post-Solomonic authorship by various telltale anachronisms. Thus in  1:16 the preacher speaks of having attained “more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem.” This is construed by critics to mean, more than all kings who were before him, which would of course be a rather strange statement for one who was preceded by only one Israelite king in Jerusalem, namely David. It is interesting to observe that while E. J. Young feels the force of this argument in the case of  Ecclesiastes, he resorts to an alternative explanation in an exactly similar situation at  1 Kings 14:9. In this latter passage a denunciatory prophet from Judah rebukes Jeroboam I, comparing him “with all that were before thee.” Rather than conceding this to be an anachronism, Young comments, “Those who preceded him were probably elders and judges” (IOT, p. 189). In a similar way we can confidently assert that there were many more kings before Solomon in Jerusalem than just his father David. Jerusalem had been a royal city for pre-Hebrew inhabitants many hundreds of years, even back to the time of Melchizedek, Abraham’s contemporary.

     Yet there is another explanation of the phrase in  1:16. The text does not specify all kings, but only all. In the context it is fair to say that the author implies “all wise men who were before me in Jerusalem.” The statement in  1 Kings 4:31 concerning Solomon’s superiority draws the comparison with Heman, Chalcol, and Darda, who may very well have been sages in pre-Davidic Jerusalem. Melchizedek himself certainly would have rated highly as a wise man, in view of his encounter with Abraham in  Gen. 14.

     A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Continual Burnt Offering (Matthew 28:5-6)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

June 20

Matthew 28:5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.   ESV

     The empty tomb of Jesus is the silent yet effective witness to the fact of His resurrection. Had it been possible to find His body, His disciples would have received it and given it careful burial again. And if His enemies could have produced it, they would have displayed it in fiendish glee as a positive proof that His prediction that He would rise again the third day had been utterly falsified. But neither friend nor foe could locate it, for God had raised His Son from the dead in token of His perfect satisfaction in the work of the cross. The tomb was empty on that first Lord’s Day morning, not because the disciples had come by night and stolen the body while the soldiers slept (an unheard of proceeding), nor yet because the chief priests and their emissaries had dared to break the Roman seal upon the stone that covered the entrance to that rock hewn grave. The tomb was empty because Jesus had fulfilled His words when He declared that if they destroyed the temple of His body, He would raise it again in three days. The resurrection is attributed to the Father (Hebrews 13:20), to the Son (John 2:19-21; 10:17-18), and to the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11). The entire trinity had part in that glorious event, the supreme miracle of the ages, when He who died for our sins rose again for our justification. Joseph of Arimathea little thought of the honor that was to be his, when preparing the new tomb which was to be the dwelling-place for a few hours of the dead body of Him who is now alive forevermore.

Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

John 10:17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

Romans 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.   ESV

The Lord is risen; the Red Sea’s judgment flood
Is passed, in Him who bought us with His blood.
The Lord is risen: we stand beyond the doom
Of all our sin, through Jesus’ empty tomb.
--- W. P. Mackay

The Continual Burnt Offering: Daily Meditations on the Word of God

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 13.

OF VOWS. THE MISERABLE ENTANGLEMENTS CAUSED BY VOWING RASHLY.

This chapter consists of two parts,--I. Of vows in general, sec. 1-8.

II. Of monastic vows, and specially of the vow of celibacy, sec. 8-21.

Sections.

1. Some general principles with regard to the nature of vows. Superstitious errors not only of the heathen, but of Christians, in regard to vows.

2. Three points to be considered with regard to vows. First, to whom the vow is made--viz. to God. Nothing to be vowed to him but what he himself requires.

3. Second, Who we are that vow. We must measure our strength, and have regard to our calling. Fearful errors of the Popish clergy by not attending to this. Their vow of celibacy.

4. Third point to be attended to--viz. the intention with which the vow is made. Four ends in vowing. Two of them refer to the past, and two to the future. Examples and use of the former class.

5. End of vows which refer to the future.

6. The doctrine of vows in general. Common vow of Christians in Baptism, &c. This vow sacred and salutary. Particular vows how to be tested.

7. Great prevalence of superstition with regard to vows.

8. Vows of monks. Contrast between ancient and modern monasticism.

9. Portraiture of the ancient monks by Augustine.

10. Degeneracy of modern monks. 1. Inconsiderate rigour. 2. Idleness. 3. False boast of perfection.

11. This idea of monastic perfection refuted.

12. Arguments for monastic perfection. First argument answered.

13. Second argument answered.

14. Absurdity of representing the monastic profession as a second baptism.

15. Corrupt manners of monks.

16. Some defects in ancient monasticism.

17. General refutation of monastic vows.

18. Refutation continued.

19. Refutation continued.

20. Do such vows of celibacy bind the conscience? This question answered.

21. Those who abandon the monastic profession for an honest living, unjustly accused of breaking their faith.

1. It is indeed deplorable that the Church, whose freedom was purchased by the inestimable price of Christ's blood, should have been thus oppressed by a cruel tyranny, and almost buried under a huge mass of traditions; but, at the same time, the private infatuation of each individual shows, that not without just cause has so much power been given from above to Satan and his ministers. It was not enough to neglect the command of Christ, and bear anyburdens which false teachers might please to impose, but each individual behoved to have his own peculiar burdens, and thus sink deeper by digging his own cavern. This has been the result when men set about devising vows, by which a stronger and closer obligation might be added to common ties. Having already shown that the worship of God was vitiated by the audacity of those who, under the name of pastors, domineered in the Church, when they ensnared miserable souls by their iniquitous laws, it will not be out of place here to advert to a kindred evil, to make it appear that the world, in accordance with its depraved disposition, has always thrown every possible obstacle in the way of the helps by which it ought to have been brought to God. Moreover, that the very grievous mischief introduced by such vows may be more apparent, let the reader attend to the principles formerly laid down. First, we showed (Book 2 chap. 8 sec. 5) that everything requisite for the ordering of a pious and holy life is comprehended in the law. Secondly, we showed that the Lord, the better to dissuade us from devising new works, included the whole of righteousness in simple obedience to his will. If these positions are true, it is easy to see that all fictitious worship, which we ourselves devise for the purpose of serving God, is not in the least degree acceptable to him, how pleasing soever it may be to us. And, unquestionably, in many passages the Lord not only openly rejects, but grievously abhors such worship. Hence arises a doubt with regard to vows which are made without any express authority from the word of God; in what light are they to be viewed? can they be duly made by Christian men, and to what extent are they binding? What is called a promise among men is a vow when made to God. Now, we promise to men either things which we think will be acceptable to them, or things which we in duty owe them. Much more careful, therefore, ought we to be in vows which are directed to God, with whom we ought to act with the greatest seriousness. Here superstition has in all ages strangely prevailed; men at once, without judgment and without choice, vowing to God whatever came into their minds, or even rose to their lips. Hence the foolish vows, nay, monstrous absurdities, by which the heathen insolently sported with their gods. Would that Christians had not imitated them in this their audacity! Nothing, indeed, could be less becoming; but it is obvious that for some ages nothing has been more usual than this misconduct--the whole body of the people everywhere despising the Law of God, [604] and burning with an insane zeal of vowing according to any dreaming notion which they had formed. I have no wish to exaggerate invidiously, or particularise the many grievous sins which have here been committed; but it seemed right to advert to it in passing, that it may the better appear, that when we treat of vows we are not by any means discussing a superfluous question.

2. If we would avoid error in deciding what vows are legitimate, and what preposterous, three things must be attended to--viz. who he is to whom the vow is made; who we are that make it; and, lastly, with what intention we make it. In regard in the first, we should consider that we have to do with God, whom our obedience so delights, that he abominates all will-worship, how specious and splendid soever it be in the eyes of men (Col. 2:23). If all will-worship, which we devise without authority, is abomination to God, it follows that no worship can be acceptable to him save that which is approved by his word. Therefore, we must not arrogate such licence to ourselves as to presume to vow anything to God without evidence of the estimation in which he holds it. For the doctrine of Paul, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23), while it extends to all actions of every kind, certainly applies with peculiar force in the case where the thought is immediately turned towards God. Nay, if in the minutest matters (Paul was then speaking of the distinction of meats) we err or fall, where the sure light of faith shines not before us, how much more modesty ought we to use when we attempt a matter of the greatest weight? For in nothing ought we to be more serious than in the duties of religion. In vows, then, our first precaution must be, never to proceed to make any vow without having previously determined in our conscience to attempt nothing rashly. And we shall be safe from the danger of rashness when we have God going before, and, as it were, dictating from his word what is good, and what is useless.

3. In the second point which we have mentioned as requiring consideration is implied, that we measure our strength, that we attend to our vocation so as not to neglect the blessing of liberty which God has conferred upon us. For he who vows what is not within his means, or is at variance with his calling, is rash, while he who contemns the beneficence of God in making him lord of' all things, is ungrateful. When I speak thus, I mean not that anything is so placed in our hand, that, leaning on our own strength, we may promise it to God. For in the Council of Arausica (cap. 11) it was most truly decreed, that nothing is duly vowed to God save what we have received from his hand, since all things which are offered to him are merely his gifts. But seeing that some things are given to us by the goodness of God, and others withheld by his justice, every man should have respect to the measure of grace bestowed on him, as Paul enjoins (Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 12:11). All then I mean here is, that your vows should be adapted to the measure which God by his gifts prescribes to you, lest by attempting more than he permits, you arrogate too much to yourself, and fall headlong. For example, when the assassins, of whom mention is made in the Acts, vowed "that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul" (Acts 23:12), though it had not been an impious conspiracy, it would still have been intolerably presumptuous, as subjecting the life and death of a man to their own power. Thus Jephthah suffered for his folly, when with precipitate fervour he made a rash vow (Judges 11:30). Of this class, the first place of insane audacity belongs to celibacy. Priests, monks, and nuns, forgetful of their infirmity, are confident of their fitness for celibacy. [605] But by what oracle have they been instructed, that the chastity which they vow to the end of life, they will be able through life to maintain? They hear the voice of God concerning the universal condition of mankind, "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18). They understand, and I wish they did not feel that the sin remaining in us is armed with the sharpest stings. How can they presume to shake off the common feelings of their nature for a whole lifetime, seeing the gift of continence is often granted for a certain time as occasion requires? In such perverse conduct they must not expect God to be their helper; let them rather remember the words, "Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Deut. 6:16). But it is to tempt the Lord to strive against the nature implanted by him, and to spurn his present gifts as if they did not appertain to us. This they not only do, but marriage, which God did not think it unbecoming his majesty to institute, which he pronounced honourable in all, which Christ our Lord sanctified by his presence, and which he deigned to honour with his first miracle, they presume to stigmatise as pollution, so extravagant are the terms in which they eulogise every kind of celibacy; as if in their own life they did not furnish a clear proof that celibacy is one thing and chastity another. This life, however, they most impudently style angelical, thereby offering no slight insult to the angels of God, to whom they compare whoremongers and adulterers, and something much worse and fouler still. [606] And, indeed, there is here very little occasion for argument, since they are abundantly refuted by fact. For we plainly see the fearful punishments with which the Lord avenges this arrogance and contempt of his gifts from overweening confidence. More hidden crimes I spare through shame; what is known of them is too much. Beyond all controversy, we ought not to vow anything which will hinder us in fulfilling our vocation; as if the father of a family were to vow to leave his wife and children, and undertake other burdens; or one who is fit for a public office should, when elected to it, vow to live private. But the meaning of what we have said as to not despising our liberty may occasion some difficulty if not explained. Wherefore, understand it briefly thus: Since God has given us dominion over all things, and so subjected them to us that we may use them for our convenience, we cannot hope that our service will be acceptable to God if we bring ourselves into bondage to external things, which ought to be subservient to us. I say this, because some aspire to the praise of humility, for entangling themselves in a variety of observances from which God for good reason wished us to be entirely free. Hence, if we would escape this danger, let us always remember that we are by no means to withdraw from the economy which God has appointed in the Christian Church.

4. I come now to my third position--viz that if you would approve your vow to God, the mind in which you undertake it is of great moment. For seeing that God looks not to the outward appearance but to the heart, the consequence is, that according to the purpose which the mind has in view, the same thing may at one time please and be acceptable to him, and at another be most displeasing. If you vow abstinence from wine, as if there were any holiness in so doing, you are superstitious; but if you have some end in view which is not perverse, no one can disapprove. Now, as far as I can see, there are four ends to which our vows may be properly directed; two of these, for the sake of order, I refer to the past, and two to the future. To the past belong vows by which we either testify our gratitude toward God for favours received, or in order to deprecate his wrath, inflict punishment on ourselves for faults committed. The former, let us if you please call acts of thanksgiving; the latter, acts of repentance. Of the former class, we have an example in the tithes which Jacob vowed (Gen. 28:20), if the Lord would conduct him safely home from exile; and also in the ancient peace-offerings which pious kings and commanders, when about to engage in a just war, vowed that they would give if they were victorious, or, at least, if the Lord would deliver them when pressed by some greater difficulty. Thus are to be understood all the passages in the Psalms which speak of vows (Ps. 22:26; 56:13; 116:14, 18). Similar vows may also be used by us in the present day, whenever the Lord has rescued us from some disaster or dangerous disease, or other peril. For it is not abhorrent from the office of a pious man thus to consecrate a votive offering to God as a formal symbol of acknowledgment that he may not seem ungrateful for his kindness. The nature of the second class it will be sufficient to illustrate merely by one familiar example. Should any one, from gluttonous indulgence, have fallen into some iniquity, there is nothing to prevent him, with the view of chastising his intemperance, from renouncing all luxuries for a certain time, and in doing so, from employing a vow for the purpose of binding himself more firmly. And yet I do not lay down this as an invariable law to all who have similarly offended; I merely show what may be lawfully done by those who think that such a vow will be useful to them. Thus while I hold it lawful so to vow, I at the same time leave it free.

5. The vows which have reference to the future tend partly, as we have said, to render us more cautious, and partly to act as a kind of stimulus to the discharge of duty. A man sees that he is so prone to a certain vice, that in a thing which is otherwise not bad he cannot restrain himself from forthwith falling into evil: he will not act absurdly in cutting off the use of that thing for some time by a vow. If, for instance, one should perceive that this or that bodily ornament brings him into peril, and yet allured by cupidity he eagerly longs for it, what can he do better than by throwing a curb upon himself, that is, imposing the necessity of abstinence, free himself from all doubt? In like manner, should one be oblivious or sluggish in the necessary duties of piety, why should he not, by forming a vow, both awaken his memory and shake off his sloth? In both, I confess, there is a kind of tutelage, but inasmuch as they are helps to infirmity, they are used not without advantage by the ignorant and imperfect. Hence we hold that vows which have respect to one of these ends, especially in external things, are lawful, provided they are supported by the approbation of God, are suitable to our calling, and are limited to the measure of grace bestowed upon us.

6. It is not now difficult to infer what view on the whole ought to be taken of vows. There is one vow common to all believers, which taken in baptism we confirm, and as it were sanction, by our Catechism, [607] and partaking of the Lord's Supper. For the sacraments are a kind of mutual contracts by which the Lord conveys his mercy to us, and by it eternal life, while we in our turn promise him obedience. The formula, or at least substance, of the vow is, That renouncing Satan we bind ourselves to the service of God, to obey his holy commands, and no longer follow the depraved desires of our flesh. It cannot be doubted that this vow, which is sanctioned by Scripture, nay, is exacted from all the children of God, is holy and salutary. There is nothing against this in the fact, that no man in this life yields that perfect obedience to the law which God requires of us. This stipulation being included in the covenant of grace, comprehending forgiveness of sins and the spirit of holiness, the promise which we there make is combined both with entreaty for pardon and petition for assistance. It is necessary, in judging of particular vows, to keep the three former rules in remembrance: from them any one will easily estimate the character of each single vow. Do not suppose, however, that I so commend the vows which I maintain to be holy that I would have them made every day. For though I dare not give any precept as to time or number, yet if any one will take my advice, he will not undertake any but what are sober and temporary. If you are ever and anon launching out into numerous vows, the whole solemnity will be lost by the frequency, and you will readily fall into superstition. If you bind yourself by a perpetual vow, you will have great trouble and annoyance in getting free, or, worn out by length of time, you will at length make bold to break it.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion