Inerrancy and Relativism

At our consistory meetings, we’re working our way through John R. Sittema’s With A Shepherd’s Heart.  This is an excellent book that I can highly recommend.  Last night, we discussed chapter 6, “The Wolf’s Teeth – Relativism.”  Sittema ably lays out the problem, but then also gives a few suggestions for elders and pastors to combat this deadly poison.  His first point is especially worth noting:

Make clear, both from the pulpit in your local church and in personal pastoral meetings with the members of the flock under your care, that your church holds firmly to the Bible as the infallible and inerrant Word of God.  Teach clearly what these terms mean.  Declare loudly and often, both in principle and in practice, that you consider the Bible to be the absolute and infallible standard for both doctrine and life. (64)

Sittema has a footnote right behind “infallible and inerrant Word of God” and those words are also worth quoting:

I deliberately use both terms “infallible” and “inerrant,” since one of the interesting breaches in the high view of Scripture in recent decades has come as a result of the work of so-called evangelicals who argue in favor of biblical infallibility, but consider inerrancy to be a modern rationalistic term, inconsistent with the Bible’s view of itself.  I reject the distinction as a dangerous semantic game. (64)

It’s too bad that Sittema doesn’t work this out further.  However, I agree with what he states.  Remember: when Sittema wrote this book he was still a Christian Reformed pastor (he later became PCA) and he had seen first hand what the rejection of inerrancy does to a church and its doctrine.  Biblical inerrancy is a powerful anti-venom for the poison of relativism.

Whom can we blame and is it really so bad? (Lord’s Day 3)

Back in the 1980s, over 5000 Canadians received blood transfusions tainted with hepatitis C and HIV.  These transfusions were supposed to save lives, but in the long run they didn’t.  In the 1990s, this became known as the “tainted blood scandal.”  The federal government spent years discussing how they might compensate the victims and their families.

Just like those who received the tainted blood, we have received the guilt and corruption of our first father, Adam.  Through our shared humanity and ancestry, we have received a deathly condition;  in fact if we were merely sick, there might be some hope for us.  But as it is, because of Adam’s sin every single one of us comes into this world dead on arrival.  We have a condition of spiritual death and in this condition we are all inclined by nature to disobey God and his law.  Apart from Christ and apart from the Holy Spirit, we all tend towards the hatred of God and our neighbour.  The reality is that all human beings share a fallen, broken, even dead condition.

But what if we could blame someone for this?  In the tainted blood scandal, the victims and their families could blame the federal government and the Red Cross.  Especially after 1986 when tests were readily available to detect tainted blood, somebody else could be legitimately blamed.  But what about us who have received a spiritual transfusion?  Is there someone we can blame for this?  And at the end of the day, is it all really so bad?

Please click here to continue reading this sermon.

Speed Riding

When I was a youngster growing up in Edmonton, one of the annual highlights was the showing of the latest Warren Miller ski film.  However, I’m not sure that anything Miller filmed can compare to this.  This is way over the edge.

Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ — the Lutheran Edition

The other day I received this fine-looking volume, Concordia: the Lutheran Confessions.  I’ve been browsing through it and becoming more familiar with Lutheran confessional orthodoxy.  There’s an extensive and helpful index at the back.  One of the interesting omissions is the word ‘covenant.’  Maybe it’s used in this volume somewhere, but it’s not important enough to make it into the index.

Another (possibly related) point of interest is the Lutheran confession of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.  In the explanatory words before article 4 of the Augsburg Confession, the editors write,

“Through his life, Jesus satisfied God’s demand for perfect obedience.  Through his sacrificial death, Jesus took God’s wrath and atoned for the sins of the world.  The Holy Spirit through the means of grace, works in us saving faith, which personally apprehends what Christ has done for us.  Our justification before God, therefore, is brought about by the one who lived, suffered, and died for our salvation.  We cannot merit God’s favour through our obedience; we cannot offer sacrifices to pay for our sins.  But what we cannot do for ourselves, Christ has done for us.  He is the solid Rock on which God builds His Church.  On Him, and Him alone, we stand forgiven”  (32-33).

Except perhaps for hint of a problem with the intent of the atonement, that’s beautifully stated.

Later, the Formula of Concord says the same thing:

“Therefore, the righteousness that is credited to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is Christ’s obedience, suffering and resurrection, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law and paid for <expiated> our sins.  Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person.  Therefore, He was hardly subject to the Law (because He is the Lord of the Law), just as He didn’t have to suffer and die for His own sake.  For this reason, then, His obedience (not only in His suffering and dying, but also because He was voluntarily made under the Law in our place and fulfilled the Law by this obedience) is credited to us for righteousness.  So, because of this complete obedience, which He rendered to His heavenly Father for us by doing and suffering and in living and dying, God forgives our sins.  He regards us as godly and righteous, and He eternally saves us.  This righteousness is brought to us by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and in the Sacraments.  It is applied, taken, and received through faith.  Therefore, believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, God’s grace, sonship, and are heirs of eternal life.  (538)

The remarkable thing is that this doctrine does not seem to be explicitly tied to any particular covenant theology.  Hmm….just like the Belgic Confession in article 22.

De Bres and Calvin

So, can anyone guess what John Calvin and Guy de Bres had in common?  I mean, besides the fact that they were Reformed?  While both spoke French, their native tongue was likely Picard.  Noyon was the birthplace of Calvin — Noyon is in Picardy, France.  Picard was also spoken in Mons, the town in present-day Belgium where de Bres was born.  Picard was also the lingua franca of the cities where de Bres served as a pastor:  Lille, Tournai and Valenciennes.