Who Believed In The Bible's Inerrancy? - Robert Jeffress

By Robert Jeffress 2023

     Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture continued after the New Testament was written.

• Irenaeus, speaking for the ancient Greek church, wrote, “The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His spirit.”4

• Augustine, representing the Western church, said, “The canonical writings are free from error.”5

• Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant Reformation, declared, “Holy Scriptures cannot err.”6

• John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, concluded, “If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.”7

     The testimony of these church leaders provides compelling evidence that the inerrancy of Scripture was widely believed during early church history.8

     Some New Testament writers referred to their contemporaries’ works as “Scripture.” For example, in defending his call to pay those who preach, Paul wrote, “The Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages’” (1 Tim. 5:18). The first quote is from Deuteronomy 25:4, which was written almost fifteen hundred years earlier. The second quote is from Luke 10:7, which was written only a few years before Paul’s letter. Yet both were Scripture, as far as Paul was concerned.

     The apostle Peter returned the favor in 2 Peter 3:15–16, where he referred to the letters of Paul as part of “the Scriptures.”

     I like the way my mentor and seminary professor Dr. Charles Ryrie put it: “The Bible tells the truth.”9 Needless to say, anything that claims to tell “the truth” is going to get strong pushback. After all, there’s no way to prove conclusively that the Bible is God’s inspired and inerrant Word, just as there’s no way to prove conclusively that God exists. Therefore, the evidence we offer in support of the Bible’s inerrancy must be compelling.

Evidence for the Trustworthiness of the Bible

     The body of evidence supporting Scripture’s trustworthiness is large and convincing. Let’s take a look at four specific areas.

Evidence #1: The Dates of the New Testament Books

     Most of the New Testament was written between AD 40 and 65. Scholars reached that conclusion because none of the books mentions the destruction of the Jerusalem temple — one of the most momentous events in Jewish history — which occurred in AD 70.

     The Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the New Testament books, was written only a few years after Jesus’s death and resurrection. This timeline is important because it was too soon for myths to have worked their way into the New Testament narrative.

Plenty of witnesses to the ministry of Jesus were still alive when the New Testament writers put pen to papyrus.  Jesus’s words were still fresh in the minds of His followers. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, or the writer of Hebrews had said anything that misrepresented Jesus or His message, there were thousands of people who could have called out their lies, exaggerations, or mistakes. Yet there’s no evidence in history of any such reaction. Essentially, thousands of would-be critics with firsthand knowledge of these events heard or read the words of the New Testament and said, “Yeah, that sounds right.”

Evidence #2: The Earliest Reactions to the Message

     One of the strongest arguments for the truthfulness of the Bible — especially the New Testament — is that its message was embraced quickly by the early followers of Christianity. The New Testament writers, the majority of whom were devout Jews, replaced basic tenets of Judaism with new beliefs. They abandoned the sacrificial system that had been in place for fourteen hundred years. They changed their day of worship to the first day of the week. They replaced circumcision as the sign of faith with baptism. They relegated the law of Moses to a shadow of the newer revelation from Jesus Christ (Col. 2:17).

     This dramatic shift in beliefs and practices wasn’t limited to the New Testament writers. Almost overnight, thousands of Jews radically altered their most cherished religious convictions and embraced a new spiritual paradigm. The “overnight” event that spurred this shift was the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

     The actions of Jesus’s disciples testify to the truth of their resurrection claims. While religious zealots throughout history have died for false beliefs they thought were true, no rational person would die for a belief he or she knew was a lie.

     The disciples were willing to endure imprisonment, torture, and death rather than recant their testimony that they had seen Jesus Christ in His resurrected body. Surely one of those eleven men would have broken under such pressure and revealed the truth if the disciples had conspired to perpetrate a myth. Instead, the disciples maintained their story until the very end. The reality of Christ’s resurrection was embraced so quickly by so many people that, in three hundred years, the faith of those eleven men effectively toppled the Roman Empire. Such is the power of a truthful message.

Evidence #3: Fulfilled Prophecies

     One of the strongest arguments for the credibility of the Bible is fulfilled prophecies of Scripture. Detailed predictions about specific individuals, nations, and events were foretold hundreds of years before they occurred, and their fulfillments have been historically verified.

     For example, in about 700 BC, the prophet Isaiah predicted that Babylon — a relatively minor player on the world scene at the time — would conquer Judah and take its people captive (Isa. 39:5–6). His prediction came true in 586 BC when Babylon prevailed over Judah. Isaiah also predicted that Babylon would be conquered by another nation (21:9).

     What’s more, the prophet identified by name the king who would allow the people of Judah to return from exile in Babylon to rebuild Jerusalem. Isaiah 44:28 refers to Cyrus as the king of Persia — one hundred years before Cyrus was born! History tells us that Cyrus, king of Persia, conquered Babylon in 539 BC. In 538 BC, King Cyrus decreed that the Israelites could return to their homeland, just as Isaiah had predicted 150 years earlier.

4 William Lane Craig, “‘Men Moved by the Holy Spirit Spoke from God’ (2 Peter 1.21): A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration,” Leadership U, accessed April 5, 2022, www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/menmoved.html?vm=r.

5 Saint Augustine, “The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustine,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, accessed April 5, 2022, www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.LXXXII.html.

6 As quoted in William Barclay, “Women in Greece,” in Daily Study Bible: Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (London: Westminster, 1976).

7 John Wesley, The Journal of John Wesley, vol. 6 (London: Epworth, 1938), 1:17.

8 For more on the inerrancy of Scripture, see chapter 2, “How Can I Know the Bible Is True?” in my book How Can I Know?: Answers to Life’s 7 Most Important Questions (Nashville: Worthy, 2012), 31–68.

9 Charles Ryrie, What You Should Know about Inerrancy (Chicago: Moody, 1981), 30.

Robert Jeffress, What Every Christian Should Know: 10 Core Beliefs for Standing Strong in a Shifting World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2023)

Bearing One Another’s Burdens

By John MacArthur 1/1/2010

     The troubles of this world are manifold and relentless. It’s not easy to stay so focused on heaven that we remain unperturbed by the afflictions of earthly life. We’re commanded, of course, to set our minds on things above, not on earthly things (Col. 3:2), but even the most committed believer will testify that earthly trials sometimes obscure the heavenly perspective.

(Col 3:2) 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.   ESV

     We worry. We grieve. We stumble. We strain under the toil of our daily labors. We feel the guilt of our fallen condition. Meanwhile, we are assaulted with adversities of various kinds. Those are just a few of the many worldly burdens that frequently keep our thoughts from rising to heaven.

     And yet we are commanded repeatedly to “seek the things that are above” (Col. 3:1). We are instructed to “look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen” (2 Cor. 4:18). We must not allow the burdens of this life to divert our hearts from heaven.

(Col 3:1) If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.   ESV

(2 Co 4:18) 18 as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.   ESV

     How is that possible? When the load weighs us down and the troubles become too much for one person to bear, pie-in-the-sky sentiments can sound very hollow.

     But that is precisely why the church is so important. It is our duty as believers to help bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2). When someone staggers, we help steady the load. If he is straining, we help bear the burden. And if he stumbles, we lift him up. Helping fellow believers carry the weight of their worldly troubles is one of the chief practical duties that ought to consume every Christian.

(Ga 6:2) 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.   ESV

     Of course, that concept is contrary to the drift of our culture, with secular society’s tendency to foster self-absorption. Our generation has developed an unhealthy obsession with entertainment; we are daily assaulted with a plethora of trivial diversions; and we tend to interact with one another in sound-bites or through faceless media. We live in crowded cities and over-populated neighborhoods; yet most individuals are more isolated than ever.

     And let’s be honest — Reformed and evangelical churches nowadays often imitate the culture precisely where we most need to confront and counteract its influence. As churches seek to become bigger, flashier, and more technologically savvy, they usually tend to become more cold and impersonal. Contemporary churches sometimes even seem to encourage the “me first” agenda of self-love rather than the “one another” commands of Scripture. As a result, we don’t bear one another’s burdens as we should.

     Yet Paul made this duty a high priority. It was the centerpiece of his admonitions to the Galatian churches. The first half (or more) of Galatians is a defense of justification by faith and a series of arguments against the false teaching that threatened to place those churches in bondage to the Law. In Galatians 5:14 he reminded them: “The whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

(Ga 5:14) 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”   ESV

     How is that love best manifest? “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (6:2).

(Ga 6:2) 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.   ESV

     The first and preeminent example of burden-bearing Paul mentions involves dealing with the burden of another Christian’s sin. “If anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness” (v. Galatians 6:1). That, of course, isn’t a different approach from the steps of church discipline Jesus outlined in Matthew 18:15–17. It merely explains how that process is to be carried out (gently and meekly), and it underscores the true goal (restoration, not punishment or public rebuke per se).

(Ga 6:1) 1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.   ESV

(Mt 18:15–17) 15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.   ESV

     In other words, the person restoring the sinning brother isn’t to approach him as if he were a master over him but meekly — as one who is willing to help shoulder the burden so that the one who has stumbled can get to his feet again.

     Verse 2 then simply states the underlying principle as an imperative (“Bear one another’s burdens”). Obviously, the precept applies to all kinds of burdens — not merely the burdens of those who stumble into sin. When Paul suggests that burden-bearing “fulfill[s] the law of Christ,” he makes it clear that he has the whole moral law in view. Every act of compassion and self-sacrifice on behalf of our brethren is a practical means of displaying the love of Christ and thereby fulfilling the moral demands of His law.

(Ga 6:2) 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.   ESV

     But the apostle clearly has in mind spiritual, emotional, and temperamental encumbrances — not physical freight only. The burdens we need to help carry for one another include guilt, worry, sorrow, anxiety, and all other similar loads.

     Do you want to fulfill the moral requirements of the Law? Love your neighbor. How do you love him? By bearing his burdens.

     It’s interesting that Paul would emphasize this theme in an epistle written to confront people who were falling into legalism. It’s as if he were saying, “You want to observe a law? Let it be the law of Christ. If you have to impose burdens on yourselves, let it be through acts of love toward your neighbor.”

     If you will do that faithfully, your own burden won’t seem so heavy. Best of all, you will find it easier to keep your focus heavenward, regardless of the trials you suffer in this life.

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

Out of Control

By Ken Myers 1/1/2010

     In his book, The Way of the (Modern) World: Or, Why It's Tempting to Live As If God Doesn't Exist, Craig Gay observes that one of the major preoccupations that defines modern culture is the quest for control. “The desire to maintain autonomous control over reality by rational-technical means is particularly central to the modern world.…[A] modern society is one in which the prevailing conception of the human task in the world is that of mastery by way of systematic manipulation.”

     Francis Bacon’s assertion that knowledge is power may well serve as a slogan for modern culture. To be modern is to believe that we can bring nature and history under our dominion. Systems of all kinds — political, economic, technical, educational, even spiritual — have been designed by modern men and women to extend and ensure that control. Of course, the desire to run the cosmos is nothing new. One of the irrational symptoms of human sinfulness from the very beginning is the belief that we mortals are more reliable in running the cosmos than God is. This attitude is not distinctively modern, but only the modern West has so thoroughly institutionalized this wicked presumption.

     C.S. Lewis has this quest for control in mind in a key passage in The Abolition of Man when he compares the rise of modern science and technology to the practice of magic in the high Renaissance. “For the wise men of old,” Lewis wrote, “the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men.”

     The celebration of the possibility of human control is one of the features of Renaissance humanists. As Lewis pointed out, before the rise of modern science, the power to control nature so as to fulfill human desires was sought through the disciplines of magic, specifically astrology, numerology, and alchemy. We forget that Johannes Kepler was not only a brilliant mathematician and astronomer but also a court astrologer who believed that the movements of the planets had profound effects on human life. We still have about eight hundred horoscopes that Kepler drew up for his patrons. Isaac Newton had as much in common with Albus Dumbledore as with Stephen Hawking, being deeply committed to the pursuit of various alchemical and occultic research.

     Lewis compared Francis Bacon — the godfather of modern science — with the figure of Faustus in Christopher Marlowe’s play about temptation and ambition (The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus). “You will read in some critics that Faustus has a thirst for knowledge. In reality, he hardly mentions it. It is not truth he wants from his devils, but gold and guns and girls. ‘All things that move between the quiet poles shall be at his command’ and ‘a sound magician is a mighty god.’” Knowledge is power, indeed.

     By the eighteenth century, Western thinkers were more and more confident about the possibility of human reasoning and experimentation to control nature. Nature was understood as a mechanism following observable laws, and it was no longer seen as the site for God’s purposive activity. As Lesslie Newbigin has summarized, “Medieval thought saw divine purpose manifest everywhere in the world of nature. The revelation of that purpose had been given in those events confessed in the church’s creed, and thus all study of nature had its place within the framework that the creed articulated.…The effect of the work of the new scientists…was to replace this explanatory framework with another. The real world disclosed by the work of science was one governed not by purpose but by natural laws of cause and effect.” This view of the cosmos makes God an unnecessary hypothesis, which is convenient for those who are eager to replace His providential care for creation with their own systems.

     For more than five hundred years, Western culture has been shaped by the dream of achieving control of an allegedly purposeless nature. But many contemporary thinkers believe that such confidence is waning. Secularized science displaced God in the hopes of achieving human control over all things. But what happens when those scientific systems (including scientific approaches to economic well-being) fail to achieve the levels of control we expect?

     Some of our unbelieving contemporaries are beginning to realize that the modern project of comprehensive control may not be possible. Such a realization may drive them to despair, but only because they continue to assume that, if we aren’t in control in this chaotic cosmos, then everything is pointless and doomed. But creation is not meaningless, and we are not called to complete control. As Paul reminds us at the end of Romans 11, there is a purpose being worked out in creation and in history, a purpose that we are not able to comprehend fully. We should be grateful that many people have a dawning sense of losing control; it may be the first step toward personal and cultural repentance.

     Every few years our local television station(s) will proudly proclaim a new satellite. The expectation is better weather forecasting, but it has not happened. Control? We can't control our hearts, thoughts or tongue ... on our own..

Click here to go to source

     Per Amazon: Ken Myers is director of Mars Hill Audio, an organization devoted to helping Christians think wisely about modern culture through a variety of audio resources. Prior to that, he was a producer and editor for National Public Radio and the executive editor of Eternity magazine. Myers is a graduate of the University of Maryland and of Westminster Theological Seminary. He is married and has two children, and lives in central Virginia.

Ken Myers Books:

• 1     All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes (With a New Introduction/Redesign): Christians and Popular Culture
• 2     Beauty for Truth's Sake: On the Re-enchantment of Education
• 3     Starfish: A Fable about the Fate of Civilization
• 4     Christianity, culture, & common grace (Mars Hill monographs)

Pilgrims (and Their Hosts)

By R. Scott Clark 2/1/2010

     A wise traveler adapts to the customs and languages of the host country. When we lived abroad, people never asked us about our health. It is considered rude. The day we left England, however, we were peppered with questions by an American woman who was being polite. What was rude in England was polite in Dallas. Changing theological traditions is like traveling abroad. Upon arrival, the visitor is likely to find new language and culture, that is, a new theology, piety, and practice. This cross-cultural encounter creates opportunities and obligations for hosts and pilgrims alike.

     There are about sixty-million evangelicals in North America. By contrast, the confessional Reformed communions number fewer than one million members. One effect of these disproportionate numbers is that the theology, piety, and practice of American evangelicals shape the expectations of many Christians. That ethos is the product of a series of religious revivals that began in the eighteenth century and continued through the nineteenth century. These two episodes were different in significant ways but they were similar in important ways too. They were both organized around various kinds of religious experience. They differed on how to arrive at that experience and even on what the experience means. Nevertheless, the common thread of religious experience, whether it be a sort of direct encounter with the risen Christ or a conversion experience at the anxious bench, ties them together. Since the early eighteenth century, all American evangelicals have been shaped by a desire to have an intense, personal religious experience.

     By contrast, the theology, piety, and practice of confessional Reformed congregations has been shaped not so much by religious experience but rather by a certain kind of confession of faith, worship, and approach to the Christian life. These confessional churches believe strongly in Christ’s work in us, by His Spirit, through His gospel, but it all begins with what Christ did for sinners in history. For the revivalist traditions, the present work of the Spirit in us often displaces the objective work of Christ for us.

     American Protestant denominations trace their roots to the Protestant Reformation, and many invoke memories of that heritage. Most of those denominations and churches, however, came to agree with the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century critics of Christianity and thus rejected the old Reformation tradition. Like the revivalists, they too turned to religious experience. They replaced the Jesus of history with the “Jesus of faith,” or the Jesus of personal experience.

     There remain, however, churches that not only trace their roots to the Reformation but who also continue to believe the same faith confessed by Calvin and his successors. Those churches confess the same worship and the same approach to the Christian life that marked Calvin’s church. These Reformed churches have a vital theology, piety, and practice, but it is of a different sort than that shaped by American revivalism. It is more interested in nurture than in crisis. It is more interested in what the Reformed call the means of grace (Word, sacraments, prayer) than it is in the anxious bench or the sinner’s prayer.

     Because many parts of the American revivalist traditions retained a memory of their Reformation roots, the confessional and revivalist wings of American Protestantism coexisted and cooperated temporarily. Eventually, however, the underlying tensions surfaced and the relationship failed. Now the confessional churches are isolated from both the old liberal mainline and the revivalist traditions.

     Despite these shifts, pilgrims from the revivalist and mainline traditions often find their way into confessional Reformed churches. If you are one of those, I hope this map helps you understand a little better why your first time in a confessional Reformed congregation felt so strange: It was. You crossed a border, an international dateline, and did not know it. If you found yourself in an intentionally historic, confessional Reformed congregation, you may have even done a little time traveling to the seventeenth or even the sixteenth century. Be a wise traveler. Give yourself a moment to get oriented. Enjoy the destination.

     Now, a word to those congregations (such as mine) who find themselves host to such pilgrims. Please remember that our new friends are probably disoriented. The language, customs, and food are strange to them. They bring with them expectations not shaped by the Reformation. Our emphasis upon the gospel, sacraments, and the visible church may strike them as overly formal. We have two choices. We can pretend that we really belong to their tradition or we can gently, gradually welcome them to ours. I recommend the latter. It may take time for Americans raised on religious fastfood to learn to enjoy a new diet, language, and culture. If we try to become what the pilgrim has left behind, what use are we to the pilgrim? (Matt. 5:13). Let us welcome our brothers and sisters with open arms, open Bibles, and warm smiles. As we do so we will be imitating our great-grand father John Calvin who both welcomed pilgrims and maintained a faithful witness to the Reformation faith.

Click here to go to source

     Dr. R. Scott Clark is professor of church history and historical theology at Westminster Seminary California and associate minister of Escondido United Reformed Church. He is author of Recovering the Reformed Confessions.

R. Scott Clark Books:

• 1     Recovering the Reformed Confession
• 2     Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant (Reformed Historical-Theological Studies)

The Missing Motive

By Eric Alexander 2/1/2010

     I am notoriously bad at remembering anniversaries, and last year it was quite a surprise to discover that 2008 marked the fiftieth anniversary of my ordination to the Christian ministry. Not that the occasion was other than memorable. Indeed it was a very special day for many reasons. But I am bound to say that the truly unforgettable part of a moving service was one of the statutory questions put to me by the presbytery: “Are not zeal for the glory of God, and a desire for the salvation of men, so far as you know your own heart, your great motives and chief inducements in seeking this ministry?” I had to answer, “They are.”

     For the past fifty years that question has haunted me, especially as I have climbed the steps of various pulpits to preach, or attended the ordination service of others, or as I have reviewed the year each 31st of December. Abraham Kuyper, that extraordinary Dutch theologian who became the prime minister of his country, points out that the Reformation slogan is not just Deo gloria, but soli Deo gloria. It is a passion for the glory of God as the sole motive of everything.

     Now in recent years I have been troubled by the tendency in the evangelical church to be more taken up with methods rather than motives. So I frequently hear of conferences where brethren meet to share insights into new and better methods by which we may fulfill our ministry. I’m sure they are very valuable, and I hope I am not so naïve as to think that methods are unimportant in God’s work. But I have almost never heard of a conference where brethren have met together before God to ask each other: “In all honesty, what are the compelling motives that determine the direction of my ministry?”

     Yet Jesus laid great stress on motives: “I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me” (John 5:30). Looking back over His ministry He says, “I have glorified you by finishing the work you gave me to do” (John 17:4). The glory of the Father was the terminus of everything for Jesus. There was nothing beyond this. And He means it to be so for us.

     That is why it is such a serious thing to rob God of His glory. He will not share that glory with another just because He cherishes His own glory above everything else and is jealous of it; it is the motive of everything He does (Isa. 48:11). Paul tells us that the Father’s motive in exalting Christ to the highest place and giving Him a name that is above every name is “the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:11). If we have any other end in view, then quite simply we will labor without the blessing of God.

     Zeal for the glory of God as the controlling motive of our thinking and working will deeply affect at least four areas of our life in the evangelical church. They are worship, evangelism, unity, and church growth.

Worship

     What makes worship in heaven so remarkable and so different is that there is only one desire among God’s people there, and that is to bring glory to God and to the Lamb (see Rev. 4:11; 5:11–14). Our worship here on earth is intended to be a preparation for that pure and perfect worship in the glory. Yet, I suspect that in our concern to make our worship acceptable to those who come to our churches, we are more interested in their acceptance than God’s pleasure. The one quality that equips us to worship God in spirit and in truth is a hunger for His glory.

(Re 4:11) 11  “Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.”   ESV

(Re 5:11–14) 11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice,

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might
and honor and glory and blessing!”

13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying,

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”

14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.   ESV

Evangelism

     If you ask members of an evangelical church what the motives for evangelism are, they will almost certainly respond with two accurate and acceptable answers. One would be the Great Commission, and the other would be the condition of the lost who are without Christ. But neither of these is the ultimate motive. The ultimate motive is that throughout the world there are places where God is being robbed of His glory: in our own street, at our place of work, in professions and governments — wherever we turn it is true that men and women have “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Rom. 1:18–32). ]

(Ro 1:18–32) 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.   ESV

Unity

     The reason Jesus brings together in John 17 the glory of the Father and the Son and the unity of the disciples in the church is that the motive deriving from the former is the only effective way of securing the latter. Unless our entire motivation is set on fire by an overwhelming desire for the glory of God — all wills bowing in the same direction, all hearts burning with the same flame, all minds united by the same obedience — we shall never know the unity for which Jesus prays.

Church Growth

     How is God most glorified in the growth of the church? Not primarily by growth in numbers but by growth in depth and in quality — growth in the knowledge of God.

     So we really do need to allow that question to haunt us: “Are not zeal for the glory of God and a desire for the salvation of men, so far as we know our own hearts, our great motives and chief inducements in seeking this ministry?” God help us in the last day to reply, “They were.”

Click here to go to source

     Rev. Eric J. Alexander is a retired minister in the Church of Scotland, most recently serving as senior minister of St. George’s–Tron Church in Glasgow until his retirement. He is author of Our Great God and Saviour.

Psalm 116

By Don Carson 6/20/2018

     Sometimes translation difficulties prompt Bible translators to include footnotes that preserve alternative possibilities. Sometimes no alternative is included, and something important is lost. One instance of each kind is found in Psalm 116, and both deserve thoughtful reflection.

     (1) The NIV reads, “I believed; therefore I said, ‘I am greatly afflicted.’ And in my dismay I said, ‘All men are liars’”(116:10-11). The Revised Standard Version renders the first line, “I kept my faith, even when I said . . .” The latter is a perfectly possible rendering of the Hebrew, and most modern translations have followed it. Paul quotes from the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew, commonly called the Septuagint (or LXX), which preserves the meaning found in the NIV of Psalm 116:10-11 (see 2 Cor. 4:13).

     But in this case, surprisingly little is at stake. Perhaps the NIV rendering is a trifle stronger: the reason why the psalmist said he was greatly afflicted was that he believed (“I believed; therefore I said”). In other words, it was nothing other than his faith in God — and the entire relationship with God that such faith presupposes –that enabled him to see that when he faced terrible suffering it was nothing other than the affliction meted out by God. But more importantly, both the NIV and the RSV make a point frequently illustrated in the Psalms, and particularly illustrated in Job: when someone feels crushed (Ps. 116:10) or utterly disillusioned (Ps. 116:11), and says so, it does not follow that he or she has abandoned faith. Rather, the unguarded accents of pain, offered up to God, give evidence of both life and faith.

     (2) The NIV’s “precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints” (Ps. 116:15) is often cited at funerals, and doubtless it expresses an important truth. But there is good reason to think that the word rendered “precious” should be rendered “costly” or the like: hence Jerusalem Bible’s “The death of the devout costs Yahweh dear.” The psalmist’s rescue from the borders of death (Ps. 116:3-8) makes that rendering more likely. Certainly Jesus recognizes how costly is the death of one human being (Matt. 10:29-31).

     If that is the case, it is vitally important to see that although God in his sovereignty rules over everything, including all deaths, this reign for him is not some cold piece of accounting. He knows better than we do the sheer ugliness and abnormality of death, how it is irrefragably tied to our rebellion and the curse we have attracted. It is immensely comforting to perceive that the death of the devout costs Yahweh dear. Still more wonderful is the price he was willing to pay to supplant death by resurrection.

Click here to go to source

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

     Don Carson Books |  Go to Books Page

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 72

Give the King Your Justice
72 Of Solomon.

1 Give the king your justice, O God,
and your righteousness to the royal son!
2 May he judge your people with righteousness,
and your poor with justice!
3 Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people,
and the hills, in righteousness!
4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people,
give deliverance to the children of the needy,
and crush the oppressor!

5 May they fear you while the sun endures,
and as long as the moon, throughout all generations!
6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass,
like showers that water the earth!
7 In his days may the righteous flourish,
and peace abound, till the moon be no more!

ESV Study Bible

By John Walvoord

Prophecy In  Leviticus | Promises Relating To Their Laws

     The book of  Leviticus is a summary of many laws and regulations that governed Israel’s religious life. Promises are often attached to a regulation indicating blessing for obedience or judgment for disobedience. Promises of forgiveness are frequently found ( 5:13, 16; 6:7; 19:22 ). Certain rites would make things or people holy ( 6:18, 27 ). Some rituals resulted in ceremonial cleansing ( 14:20; 15:22; 16:30; 17:15 ). Some offerings were declared unacceptable ( 7:18 ). Certain acts of disobedience would result in individuals being cut off from Israel ( 7:27; 17:9; 23:29 ). Some acts of disobedience would result in death ( 10:6 ).

The Feasts of the Lord

     Though no major prophecies were revealed,  Leviticus 23 outlines the feasts of the Lord that are typically prophetic of future events. The Passover pointed to the sacrifice of Christ (vv.  4–5 ). The Feast of Unleavened Bread represents the holiness of communion with Christ as represented by the absence of leaven (vv.  6–8 ). The Feast of the Firstfruits anticipates Christ’s resurrection as the firstfruit from the dead (vv.  9–14 ). The Feast of Weeks, also known as Pentecost — fifty days after the Feast of Firstfruits — represents the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (vv.  15–22 ). The Feast of Trumpets anticipates the future regathering of Israel (vv.  23–25 ).

     The Day of Atonement was a feast held on the tenth day of the seventh month (cf.  Lev. 16 ), recognizing the sacrifice of atonement offered by the high priest that day and anticipating the repentance of Israel at the second coming ( 23:26–32 ). The final feast, that of Tabernacles, is a memorial of Israel’s redemption from Egypt and is prophetic of her regathering and restoration at the second coming (vv.  33–44 ).

Conditions for Blessing and Warnings of Curses

     Leviticus 26 reveals the conditions for blessing and the warnings of curses. They are commanded not to make idols, to observe the Sabbath, and to reverence the sanctuary (vv.  1–2 ).

     Conditions of blessing and resulting disobedience include bounteous crops, peace, triumph over enemies, increase in their numbers, and God’s presence among them (vv.  3–13 ).

     An extended statement of the curses for disobedience are revealed, similar to the warnings of Moses ( Deut. 28:15–68 ). They were promised distress (vv.  16–17 ), drought (vv.  18–20 ), wild animals (vv.  21–22 ), plagues (vv.  23–26 ), famine (vv.  27–31 ), and worldwide dispersion (vv.  32–39 ).

     Israel was promised forgiveness if their sins were confessed. The Abrahamic covenant was reaffirmed as being certain of fulfillment even if they sinned (vv.  40–45 ).

Prophecy In  Numbers | Prophecy at Kadesh Barnea

     Numbers 14:20–34. The people of Israel failed to follow the Lord or to trust that He would lead them into the Promised Land. The Lord predicted that none of the adult population of men who left Egypt, except for Caleb and Joshua, would be allowed to enter the Promised Land. This was fulfilled in history ( 26:63–65 ). God also predicted that the children whom they said would be taken as plunder would be the ones who would conquer the Promised Land.

      Numbers 21:8–9. The serpent that was made of bronze and elevated on a pole is a type of Christ crucified ( John 3:14–15 ).      Some may wonder how the serpent wrapped around the pole could represent Jesus Christ. Remember, He took our sins upon Himself.

The Prophecies of Balaam

     Numbers 22:1–24:25. Balak, who was king of Moab, attempted to hire Balaam, a prophet, to curse Israel. Balaam was induced to attempt to prophesy curses on Israel. He was kept from doing so and, instead, prophesied blessing upon them as recorded in  23:7–10; 23:18–24; 24:3–9, 15–19, 20–24. This prophetic utterance describes the greatness of Israel, her power as a nation, the blessing of God upon her land, and the prediction that she would conquer the Moabites. This was fulfilled in history.

The Prophetic Command of God to Drive Out the Inhabitants of the Land

     Numbers 33:51–66. God directed Israel to drive out the inhabitants of the land and prophesied that those they allowed to remain “will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live. And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them” (vv.  55–56; cf.  25:1–3; Josh. 9:1–26; 13:2–7; Judg. 1:21, 28–36; 2:11–23 ).

Prophecy In  Deuteronomy

     In Moses’ summary of the history of Israel and his final word to the children of Israel, recorded in  Deuteronomy, additional promises of prophetic nature were given.

Prophecy of the Inheritance of the Land

     Deuteronomy 3:21–22. The promise of the land being inherited by Israel was repeated once again. This prophecy will be fulfilled ( Ezek. 45–48; Amos 9:14–15 ).

     Deuteronomy 4:25–31. Israel was warned not to make idols or sin morally because God would judge them and drive them out of the land. They were promised restoration if they return to the Lord. This was fulfilled in history.

The Coming of a Great Prophet

     Deuteronomy 18:15–18. The coming of a great prophet, who would be like Moses, was revealed. They should listen to Him, or God would hold them to account. This was fulfilled by Christ ( John 1:21–45; 6:14; Acts 3:22–23; 7:37 ).

     Deuteronomy 21:23. The fact that one hanging on a tree is under divine curse is symbolic of Christ’s dying on a tree bearing the sins of the world ( Gal. 3:13 ).

Promises of Blessing and Cursing

     Deuteronomy 28:1–68. In this sweeping prophetic revelation of Israel’s future, God promised to bless them if they obeyed the Law but to curse them if they did not. To some extent this chapter charts the course of Israel’s history from here on. The closing verses of  Deuteronomy describe the worldwide dispersion of the children of Israel: “Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess. Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods — gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known. Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the LORD will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life. In the morning you will say, ‘If only it were evening!’ and in the evening, ‘If only it were morning!’ — because of the terror that will fill your hearts and the sights that your eyes will see. The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you” ( Deut. 28:63–68 ).

     As brought out in many other passages, Israel’s ultimate restoration is assured ( Jer. 23:5–8; 30:8–11; Ezek. 39:25–29 ). The worldwide dispersion of Israel predicted in  Deuteronomy 28 has been literally fulfilled. So also their ultimate regathering already begun in the twentieth century will be brought to fulfillment at the second coming.

Promise of Restoration of Israel

     Deuteronomy 30:1–10. God promised to restore His people when they turn to Him in repentance and submission. This was fulfilled in history.

Blessing Pronounced on Israel

     Deuteronomy 31:23. Joshua was promised God’s blessing as they entered the Promised Land. This was fulfilled ( Josh. 21:43–45 ).

     Deuteronomy 33:1–29. Moses recorded his final blessing on the people of Israel before his death. Throughout history, the blessings and curses pronounced by Moses continued to be fulfilled.

          __________________________________________________________________

Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times

Psalms 118

By Don Carson 1/1/2018

     When I was a boy, a plaque in our home was inscribed with the words “This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” Apart from the change from “hath” to “has,” similar words are preserved in the NIV of Psalm 118:24.

     My father gently applied this text to his children when we whined or complained about little nothings. Was the weather too hot and sticky? “This is the day which the LORD has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” Were the skies pelting rain, so we could not go out to play? “This is the day the LORD has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” What a boring day (or place, or holiday, or visit to relatives)! “This is the day the LORD has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” Sometimes the words were repeated with significant emphasis: “This is the day the LORD has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.”

     It is not that Dad would not listen to serious complaints; it is not that Scripture does not have other things to say. But every generation of Christians has to learn that whining is an affront against God’s sovereignty and goodness.

     But the text must first be read in its context. Earlier the psalmist expresses his commitment to trust in God and not in any merely human help (Ps. 118:8-9), even though he is surrounded by foes (Ps. 118:10). Now he also discloses that his foes include “the builders” (Ps. 118:22) — people with power within Israel. These builders were quite capable of rejecting certain “stones” while they built their walls — and in this case the very stone the builders rejected has become the capstone. In the first instance this stone, this capstone, is almost certainly a reference to a Davidic king, perhaps to David himself. The men of power rejected him, but he became the capstone.

     Moreover, this result was not achieved by brilliant machination or clever manipulation. Far from it: “the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes” (Ps. 118:23). In his own day Isaiah portrays people who make a lie their refuge while rejecting God’s cornerstone (Isa. 28:15-16). The ultimate instance of this pattern is found in Jesus Christ, rejected by his own creatures, yet chosen of God, the ultimate building-stone, and precious (Matt. 21:42; Rom. 9:32-33; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8) — a “stone” disclosed in all his true worth by his resurrection from the dead (Acts 4:10-11). Whether in David’s day or in the ultimate fulfillment, this marvelous triumph by God calls forth our praise: This is the day the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it (Ps. 118:24).

Click here to go to source

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

     Don Carson Books |  Go to Books Page

The Continual Burnt Offering (Mark 10:22)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

July 6

Mark 10:22  Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.   ESV

     No more searching incident than this is found in the four Gospels, unless it be the Lord’s interview with Nicodemus, as recorded in John 3. Surely, no honest person can contemplate it without facing the question, “On what do I base my hope of eternal life?” If on self-effort, I build on sinking sand. If on Christ alone, my confidence is founded upon an unshakeable rock.

     But I must be sure that my professed faith in Him is not a mere intellectual acceptance of certain historic facts. To believe in Him is to commit myself to Him. This necessarily involves my recognition of His Lordship, He who died to save me is now to have authority over my life.

     Anything short of this is but an empty profession. Let me then face the matter honestly and never be satisfied until I know beyond a doubt that I have yielded to the claims of the Lord Jesus.

     The rich young man was of charming disposition and pleasant personality, but he was devoid of divine life which is the result of new birth (John 3:3). There is a vast difference between the attractiveness of what is merely natural and the beauty of character that is spiritual in its origin. No human effort can ever change flesh into spirit. Therefore the need of the impartation of life from above, which comes through faith in Christ (John 3:6-7, 14-16).


John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:6  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

John 3:14  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  ESV

What will you do without Him
When the great White Throne is set,
And the Judge, who never can mistake
And never will forget,—
The Judge whom you have never here
As Friend and Saviour sought,
Shall summon you to give account
Of word and deed and thought?
--- F. R Havergal

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

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     28. This unassailable argument, in which they confide so much, seems already to be considerably shaken; but as we have sufficient protection in the simplicity of truth, I am unwilling to evade the point by paltry subtleties. Let them, therefore, have a solid answer. The command here given by Christ relates principally to the preaching of the gospel: to it baptism is added as a kind of appendage. Then he merely speaks of baptism in so far as the dispensation of it is subordinate to the function of teaching. For Christ sends his disciples to publish the gospel to all nations of the world, that by the doctrine of salvation they may gather men, who were previously lost, into his kingdom. But who or what are those men? It is certain that mention is made only of those who are fit to receive his doctrine. He subjoins, that such, after being taught, were to be baptised, adding the promise, Whosoever believeth and is baptised, shall be saved. Is there one syllable about infants in the whole discourse? What, then, is the form of argument with which they assail us? Those who are of adult age are to be instructed and brought to the faith before being baptised, and therefore it is unlawful to make baptism common to infants. They cannot, at the very utmost, prove any other thing out of this passage, than that the gospel must be preached to those who are capable of hearing it before they are baptised; for of such only the passage speaks. From this let them, if they can, throw an obstacle in the way of baptising infants.

29. But I will make their fallacies palpable even to the blind, by a very plain similitude. Should any one insist that infants are to be deprived of food, on the presence that the apostle permits none to eat but those who labour (2 Thess. 3:10), would he not deserve to be scouted by all? Why so? Because that which was said of a certain class of men, and a certain age, he wrests and applies to all indifferently. The dexterity of these men in the present instance is not greater. That which every one sees to be intended for adult age merely, they apply to infants, subjecting them to a rule which was laid down only for those of riper years. With regard to the example of our Saviour, it gives no countenance to their case. He was not baptised before his thirtieth year. This is indeed true, but the reason is obvious; because he then determined to lay the solid foundation of baptism by his preaching, or rather to confirm the foundation which John had previously laid. Therefore, when he was pleased with his doctrine to institute baptism, that he might give the greater authority to his institution, he sanctified it in his own person, and that at the most befitting time, namely, the commencement of his ministry. In fine, they can prove nothing more than that baptism received its origin and commencement with the preaching of the gospel. But if they are pleased to fix upon the thirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit any one to baptism according to the view which they may have formed of his proficiency? Nay, even Servetus, one of their masters, although he pertinaciously insisted on this period, had begun to act the prophet in his twenty-first year; as if any man could be tolerated in arrogating to himself the office of a teacher in the Church before he was a member of the Church.

30. At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord's Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. In the early Church indeed, the Lord's Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1); but the practice justly became obsolete. For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God; whereas, on the contrary, the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord's death, and understand its power. Can we wish anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup"? (1 Cor. 11:28.) Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants. Again, "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord's body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our Lord's injunction? "Do this in remembrance of me." And what the inference which the apostle draws from this? "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them "to show forth the Lord's death," of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?

31. Though I am unwilling to annoy the reader with the series of conceits which Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists, nay, the great honour of this crew, when girding himself for battle, deemed, when he adduced them, to be specious arguments, it will be worth while briefly to dispose of them. [634] He pretends that as the symbols of Christ are perfect, they require persons who are perfect, or at least capable of perfection. But the answer is plain. The perfection of baptism, which extends even to death, is improperly restricted to one moment of time; moreover, perfection, in which baptism invites us to make continual progress during life, is foolishly exacted by him all at once. He objects, that the symbols of Christ were appointed for remembrance, that every one may remember that he was buried together with Christ. I answer, that what he coined out of his own brain does not need refutation, nay, that which he transfers to baptism properly belongs to the Supper, as appears from Paul's words, "Let a man examine himself," words similar to which are nowhere used with reference to baptism. Whence we infer, that those who from nonage are incapable of examination are duly baptised. His third point is, That all who believe not in the Son remain in death, the wrath of God abideth on them (John 3:36); and, therefore, infants who are unable to believe lie under condemnation. I answer, that Christ does not there speak of the general guilt in which all the posterity of Adam are involved, but only threatens the despisers of the gospel, who proudly and contumaciously spurn the grace which is offered to them. But this has nothing to do with infants. At the same time, I meet him with the opposite argument. Every one whom Christ blesses is exempted from the curse of Adam, and the wrath of God. Therefore, seeing it is certain that infants are blessed by him, it follows that they are freed from death. He nexts falsely quotes a passage which is nowhere found, Whosoever is born of the Spirit, hears the voice of the Spirit. Though we should grant that such a passage occurs in Scripture, all he can extract from it is, that believers, according as the Spirit works in them, are framed to obedience. But that which is said of a certain number, it is illogical to apply to all alike. His fourth objection is, As that which precedes is animal (1 Cor. 15:46), we must wait the full time for baptism, which is spiritual. But while I admit that all the posterity of Adam, born of the flesh, bear their condemnation with them from the womb, I hold that this is no obstacle to the immediate application of the divine remedy. Servetus cannot show that by divine appointment, several years must elapse before the new spiritual life begins. Paul's testimony is, that though lost by nature, the children of believers are holy by supernatural grace. He afterwards brings forward the allegory that David, when going up into mount Zion, took with him neither the blind nor the lame, but vigorous soldiers (2 Sam. 5:8). But what if I meet this with the parable in which God invites to the heavenly feast the lame and the blind? In what way will Servetus disentangle this knot? I ask, moreover, whether the lame and the maimed had not previously served with David? But it is superfluous to dwell longer on this argument, which, as the reader will learn from the sacred history, is founded on mere misquotation. He adds another allegory-- viz. that the apostles were fishers of men, not of children. I ask, then, What does our Saviour mean when he says that in the net are caught all kinds of fishes? (Mt. 9:19; 13:47.) But as I have no pleasure in sporting with allegory, I answer, that when the office of teaching was committed to the apostles, they were not prohibited from baptising infants. Moreover, I should like to know why, when the Evangelist uses the term anthro'pous (which comprehends the whole human race without exception), he denies that infants are included. His seventh argument is, Since spiritual things accord with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13), infants, not being spiritual, are unfit for baptism. It is plain how perversely he wrests this passage of Paul. It relates to doctrine. The Corinthians, pluming themselves excessively on a vain acuteness, Paul rebukes their folly, because they still require to be imbued with the first rudiments of heavenly doctrine. Who can infer from this that baptism is to be denied to infants, whom, when begotten of the flesh, the Lord consecrates to himself by gratuitous adoption? His objection, that if they are new men, they must be fed with spiritual food, is easily obviated. By baptism they are admitted into the fold of Christ, and the symbol of adoption is sufficient for them, until they grow up and become fit to bear solid food. We must, therefore, wait for the time of examination, which God distinctly demands in the sacred Supper. His next objection is, that Christ invites all his people to the sacred Supper. But as it is plain that he admits those only who are prepared to celebrate the commemoration of his death, it follows that infants, whom he honoured with his embrace, remain in a distinct and peculiar position until they grow up, and yet are not aliens. When he objects, that it is strange why the infant does not partake of the Supper, I answer, that souls are fed by other food than the external eating of the Supper, and that accordingly Christ is the food of infants, though they partake not of the symbol. The case is different with baptism, by which the door of the Church is thrown open to them. He again objects, that a good householder distributes meat to his household in due season (Mt. 24:45). This I willingly admit; but how will he define the time of baptism, so as to prove that it is not seasonably given to infants? He, moreover, adduces Christ's command to the apostles to make haste, because the fields are already white to the harvest (John 4:35). Our Saviour only means that the apostles, seeing the present fruit of their labour, should bestir themselves with more alacrity to teach. Who will infer from this, that harvest only is the fit time for baptism? His eleventh argument is, That in the primitive Church, Christians and disciples were the same; but we have already seen that he argues unskilfully from the part to the whole. The name of disciples is given to men of full age, who had already been taught, and had assumed the name of Christ, just as the Jews behoved to be disciples under the law of Moses. Still none could rightly infer from this that infants, whom the Lord declared to be of his household, were strangers. Moreover, he alleges that all Christians are brethren, and that infants cannot belong to this class, so long as we exclude them from the Supper. But I return to my position, first, that none are heirs of the kingdom of heaven but those who are the members of Christ; and, secondly, that the embracing of Christ was the true badge of adoption, in which infants are joined in common with adults, and that temporary abstinence from the Supper does not prevent them from belonging to the body of the Church. The thief on the cross, when converted, became the brother of believers, though he never partook of the Lord's Supper. Servetus afterwards adds, that no man becomes our brother unless by the Spirit of adoption, who is only conferred by the hearing of faith. I answer, that he always falls back into the same paralogism, because he preposterously applies to infants what is said only of adults. Paul there teaches that the ordinary way in which God calls his elect, and brings them to the faith, is by raising up faithful teachers, and thus stretching out his hand to them by their ministry and labours. Who will presume from this to give the law to God, and say that he may not ingraft infants into Christ by some other secret method? He objects, that Cornelius was baptised after receiving the Holy Spirit; but how absurdly he would convert a single example into a general rule, is apparent from the case of the Eunuch and the Samaritans, in regard to whom the Lord observed a different order, baptism preceding the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The fifteenth argument is more than absurd. He says that we become gods by regeneration, but that they are gods to whom the word of God is sent (John 10:35; 2 Pet. 1:4), a thing not possible to infant children. The attributing of deity to believers is one of his ravings, which this is not the proper place to discuss; but it betrays the utmost effrontery to wrest the passage in the psalm (Ps. 82:6) to a meaning so alien to it. Christ says, that kings and magistrates are called gods by the prophet, because they perform an office divinely appointed them. This dexterous interpreter transfers what is addressed by special command to certain individuals to the doctrine of the Gospel, so as to exterminate infants from the Church. Again, he objects, that infants cannot be regarded as new men, because they are not begotten by the word. But what I have said again and again I now repeat, that, for regenerating us, doctrine is an incorruptible seed, if indeed we are fit to perceive it; but when, from nonage, we are incapable of being taught, God takes his own methods of regenerating. He afterwards returns to his allegories, and says, that under the law, the sheep and the goat were not offered in sacrifice the moment they were dropt (Exod. 12:5). Were I disposed to deal in figures, I might obviously reply, first, that all the first-born, on opening the matrix, were sacred to the Lord (Exod. 13:12); and, secondly, that a lamb of a year old was to be sacrificed: whence it follows, that it was not necessary to wait for mature age, the young and tender offspring having been selected by God for sacrifice. He contends, moreover, that none could come to Christ but those who were previously prepared by John; as if John's ministry had not been temporary. But, to omit this, assuredly there was no such preparation in the children whom Christ took up in his arms and blessed. Wherefore, let us have done with his false principle. He at length calls in the assistance of Trismegistus and the Sybils, to prove that sacred ablutions are fit only for adults. See how honourably he thinks of Christian baptism, when he tests it by the profane rites of the Gentiles, and will not have it administered except in the way pleasing to Trismegistus. We defer more to the authority of God, who has seen it meet to consecrate infants to himself, and initiate them by a sacred symbol, the significancy of which they are unable from nonage to understand. We do not think it lawful to borrow from the expiations of the Gentiles, in order to change, in our baptism, that eternal and inviolable law which God enacted in circumcision. His last argument is, If infants, without understanding, may be baptised, baptism may be mimicked and jestingly administered by boys in sport. Here let him plead the matter with God, by whose command circumcision was common to infants before they received understanding. Was it, then, a fit matter for ridicule or boyish sport, to overthrow the sacred institution of God? But no wonder that these reprobate spirits, as if they were under the influence of frenzy, introduce the grossest absurdities in defence of their errors, because God, by this spirit of giddiness, justly avenges their pride and obstinacy. I trust I have made it apparent how feebly Servetus has supported his friends the Anabaptists.

32. No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of pædobaptism. For it is of importance to observe what Satan means by all this craft--viz. to rob us of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word, but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their prosperity! Here we may see how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as David's was (Ps. 48:11), to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless the design of Satan in assaulting pædobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not on]y would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family, that is, the members of the Church.

__________________________________________________________________

[628] The French from the beginning of the chapter is as follows:--"Or d'autant que nous voyons l'observation que nous tenons de baptiser les petits enfans etre impugnée et debatue par aucuns esprits malins, comme si elle n'avoit point eté institutée de Dieu mais inventée nouvellement des hommes, ou pour le moins quelques années apres le tems des Apostres, j'estime qu'il viendra bien à propos, de confermer en cest endroit les consciences imbecilles, et refuter les objections mensonges qui pouroient faire teis seducteurs, pour renverser le verité de Dieu aux coeur des simples, qui ne seraient pas exercités pour repondre a leur cauteles et cavillations."--Now, inasmuch as we see that the practice which we have of baptising little children is impugned and assailed by some malignant spirits, as if it had not been appointed by God, but newly invented by men, or at least some years after the days of the Apostles, I think it will be very seasonable to confirm weak consciences in this matter, and refute the lying objections which such seducers might make, in order to overthrow the truth of God in the hearts of the simple, who might not be skilled in answering their cavils and objections.

[629] 127 D127 The "analogy of faith," to which we are to "bring every interpretation of Scripture," refers to the ultimate rule or standard of interpretation, the final test of all doctrine; namely, the teaching of Scripture as a whole. Analogy suggests comparison; thus we are to compare a proposed interpretation of a specific portion of Scripture with the interpretation which Scripture as a whole; either explicitly or generally, gives to itself. Analogy suggests proportion or measure; thus we are to ascertain the intention and importance of a single text of Scripture in proportion to its place and distribution in the whole body of revealed truth. Analogy also suggests relationship; thus we are to study the particular doctrines of Scriptures in relation to the system of doctrine revealed therein.

[630] 128 D128 This strong assertion must be seen in its relationship to the question of the salvation of elect infants dying in infancy. If they are to have remission of sins, a new nature, and the blessing of eternal life, it is clear that they must be regenerated.

[631] 129 D129 It is instructive to take not of Calvin's careful restraint and sense of proportion in the previous few sentences. With respect to the question of the manner in which elect infants dying in infancy are saved, Calvin, while presupposing their need and the Spirit's supply of regeneration (see note on section 18), makes no definite assertion concerning the presence or absence of faith in them. This position of indecision (as Calvin terms it) is commendable, precisely because it does not presume beyond the teaching of Scripture.

[632] 130 D130 In connection with the sacraments, there are three aspects which must be carefully distinguished: 1. the spiritual reality which is signified (what Calvin calls "the thing") 2. the external sacrament itself (what Calvin calls "the sign") 3. our understanding of the spiritual significance of the sacrament (as mediated to us by the Word and Spirit). Calvin has called our attention to the very important fact that a particular time order of these aspects is not crucial to the proper use of the sacraments. He asserts that the spiritual reality itself (e.g., regeneration) may either precede or follow the external sacrament (i.e., 1 may precede 2, or 2 may precede 1). The order then, of the three aspects enumerated above could be 1, 2, 3, or 1, 3, 2, or 2, 1, 3. (The reason why the order could not be 2, 3, 1, or 3, 1, 2, or 3, 2, 1, is that, because of that depravity which fills our minds with ignorance and spiritual darkness, our understanding of the sacrament's spiritual significance [3] must always follow the spiritual reality which is signified [1]). Calvin's specific interest in this section is, of course, to point out that the third possible order (2, 1, 3) is a live option. That is, the time order (in addition to the other possible orders) could be as follows: 2. the external sacrament itself (e.g., baptism) 1. the spiritual reality which is signified (e.g., regeneration) 3. our understanding of the spiritual significance of the sacrament. And the time lapse between number 2 and numbers 1 and 3 could amount to an indefinite number of years, just as it ordinarily did in the case of circumcised infants in Old Testament times.

[633] See Calv. Cont. Articulos Theologorum Paris. Art 4. Item, Ad. Concil. Trident. Item, Vera Eccles. Reformand. Ratio, et in Append. Nævus in August. Lib. 1 ad Bonifac. et Epist. 28. Ambros. de Vocat. Gentium, Lib. 2 cap. 8, de Abraham. Lib. 2 cap. 11.

[634] French, "Combien qu'il me fasche d'amasser tant de reveries frivoles que pourront ennuyer les lecteurs, toutesfeis pource que Servet, se meslant aussi de mesdire du baptesme des petis enfans, a cuide amener de fort belles raisons, il sera raison de les rabattre brievement."--Although I am sorry to amass so many frivolous reveries which may annoy the reader, yet as Servetus, taking it upon him to calumniate baptism also, has seemed to adduce very fine arguments, it will be right briefly to dispose of them.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

The Death of His Saints Precious to God

By J.S. Mayer

Psalm 116:15

     Precious, therefore, in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints, BECAUSE IT BRINGS THEM NEARER TO GOD. How strange, indeed how absurd, this life would be if death ended all! Think of a man like Gladstone, who lived under a high sense of duty, whose life was one of prayer, who sang "Praise to the Holiest in the height" amid the sufferings of his last days; — just imagine all this ending in nothingness! Why, it reminds one of the famous Amblongus pie of the nonsense book. It was a pie of most elaborate construction. Particular directions were given as to the making of it, what was to be put in, and in what quantities. It was to be very carefully compounded, and most scientifically baked, and then the final instructions were to "open the window and pitch it out as fast as possible." Just as laughable, so to speak, is the idea of a man, trained to high thought and holy feeling and submissive will, being, at the last, simply "cast as rubbish to the void." But Christ hath brought life and immortality to light.

     Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints, BECAUSE IT ENDS THEIR STRUGGLE. There is no surer thing about life here than that it is a struggle. The road is uphill all the way, and you must wrestle on towards heaven. But it is just this struggling that makes us, and gives us a character worth taking into the next world. It is told of the mother of Mr. Balfour that, on one occasion, when her sons were going to play in a football match, some friend advised her to keep them from going because of the danger. "Would you have me spoil a character?" was the mother's reply. She herself was anxious about them, and didn't like their playing; but to keep them back from joining their comrades merely because of any risk, she felt, would do more harm than good. All the same, you may be sure, it would be a relief to her to see them safe home again after it was all over. And so God does not separate us from the need for struggle here, and the risks attending it. We have to face them all. He wants us to gain and acquire character through a well-fought fight. But will not He too be pleased, — relieved, might we say? — when all the struggle is safely over, and death brings His children home?

     Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints, BECAUSE IT ENDS THEIR IGNORANCE. It is said, and with a good deal of truth, that most people who do any good in the world die without knowing it. That is very hard. Surely such, above all, deserve to know at least the good they have done. But often not till they are gone is the value of their work realized. They may have thought they were failures, they may have longed to be taken away as useless; and yet, when they are gone, others rise up and call them blessed. "Ah!" we say, "if they had only known, if they had only had the satisfaction of knowing that while they were with us!" But do you not think they know now? We may be sure that death ends their ignorance as to that, and as to many of the things that men here have for ages desired to look into.

 I found this short article here.