We aren’t pulling the plug for any of the typical “no time to write” type of reasons. In fact, just the opposite. Justin and I, along with our friends Stephen and Scott, have launched a new project called Confront Culture. The mission is still the same: Reformed laymen engaging culture both in the Church and outside it. Its expanded though. Scott and Stephen will be playing a bigger role in that we will be doing, and all four of us will be doing  a bi-monthly podcast called, “The Great Exchange“.

Many of our “best” articles from The New Puritans have been moved over to Confront Culture so you can still find all the hits! We are super excited about this new project. I believe that one of the Reformed church’s greatest assets is that it has always confronted and engaged the culture both in and around the Church. We want to continue in that tradition. Justin and I both feel that Confront Culture will allow us to continue in what we began here on a much larger level.

There seems to be much confusion in American Evangelicalism as to what the word “church” means. Evangelicals tend to define the church in terms of denominations, buildings, and Christian traditions. While these terms are not wrong when thinking of the local, visible church, they are narrow and fail to capture the essence of the one true Church. The true Church is nothing short of the body of Christ, the family of God, Christ’s pure and spotless bride. She crosses denominational lines, is not confined to buildings, nor is she to be restricted to any one Christian tradition. The historic Nicene Creed, which has been widely accepted by many Christian traditions as a coherent statement of orthodoxy, puts forth several terms that are helpful in understanding the essence of the Church. If we are to understand the Church’s true nature, we must understand her in the terms put forth by this creed when it states, “We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” (Roberts et al. 523).

When defining the Church as holy we must be clear as to what we mean. It does not mean that she is perfect. As John Calvin writes, “If we are not willing to admit to a Church unless it be perfect in every respect, we leave no Church at all” (Book IV, i, 2 ). It is not the Church’s works that make her holy, although those works are a testimony of her holiness, rather she is holy because Christ gave himself up for her (Eph. 5:25-27). Christ has purified and perfected his bride already in the sense that her sins have been atoned for at the cross. However, the Church is also being made holy on a daily basis. It is a tension between what theologians call the “already/not yet” (Horton 30). The Church has already been proclaimed to be holy because of Christ, but that holiness has not yet been fully realized in her. The sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is constantly at work in her, and the Church has the assurance, despite her flaws, of being presented before the Lord as a pure and spotless bride upon Christ’s Second Advent.

We must also be clear as to what it means to define the Church as catholic. The term catholic can carry with it a negative connotation, particularly for Protestant Evangelicals. Many tend to think of the Roman Catholic Church when they hear the word, rather than the historic definition. The word catholic in this context simply means “universal” (Cross, Livingstone 308). When the writers of creeds such as the Apostle’s Creed or Nicene Creed wrote that they believed in the holy catholic Church, what they were stating is a belief in a Church that is not limited by time, culture, race, or geographical location. They were stating a belief that the Church is fully united in Christ, made up of all believers throughout all of history and all geographical locations. This reality may be hard to see at times, given the wide array of traditions and denominations within Christianity, but this visible division in no way takes away from the spiritual unity of the Church. Michael Horton writes that, “The Church is one, not in the sense of being visibly united, but in the sense of the faithful-in spite of appearances to the contrary-being the one people of God” (30). To define the one true Church as catholic is to confess in one people of God, united by Christ, with him serving as the head of this spiritual body.

Furthermore, if we are to understand the true nature of the Church, we must understand what it means to confess that the Church is apostolic. To state a belief that the Church is apostolic is to state a belief in the idea that the Church today is one in the same with the Church who’s foundation was laid by Christ and the Apostles. Lutheran scholar Mickey L. Mattox puts it this way:

“We devote ourselves unreservedly ‘to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers’ (Acts 2:42). The faith believed and practiced in the Church is the one faith, given in ‘the pattern of the sound words’ (2 Tim. 1:13) by which the apostles witnessed to Christ the Savior. The Word proclaimed and administered by the apostles unites us and makes us their successors” (42-43).

By sharing in the same faith as the apostles, we are members of the very same Church as the apostles. Christ is the Church’s head, however her foundation was laid by the ministry of the apostles. By following the apostle’s teachings, by administering the very same sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper that the apostles administered, we are giving testimony to the apostolic nature of the Church.

Our local congregations, denominations, and traditions are all good things. They are vital parts of the body of Christ. However, they are small pieces of a greater community. They must not overshadow the great truth of the one true Church. We must always remember the greater reality. The Church is the body of Christ. She is his bride for whom he died, making her holy so that she will be presented as pure and spotless. She is catholic, not limited by time and space, but rather encompassing all true believers throughout all of history. She is apostolic, united in teaching and practice with Christ and the apostles. This is the true nature of the Church. We as Christians are fortunate to be part of such a mysterious and wonderful community.

Cited Works:
Horton, Michael. “Truly Catholic: The Impossible Dream?” Modern Reformation March/April 2003: 25-38. Print.
Mattox, Mickey L. “Being and Remaining: The Apostolicity of the Church in Lutheran Perspective.” Modern Reformation March/April 2003: 39-46. Print.
Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VII : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997.
Cross, F. L. and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997

The New York Times sets the record straight on the Puritans

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Doctrine of Limite Atonement Defended
Of all the Reformed doctrines of salvation, perhaps the most controversial is the doctrine of limited atonement (Clark, sec. 1). The doctrine, which states that Christ died to pay for the sins of the Elect, rather than the sins of all the world, is not only disputed from outside Calvinist circles, but also sometimes within (Boice 114). People take issue with not only the term ‘limited’ being used in association with the atonement, but also with a teaching that says that the atonement is not universal in nature (Clark, sec. 1). John Murray points to this objection when he writes, “The term “limited” atonement has given much offense. It may not indeed be the most fortunate terminology. It is capable of misunderstanding and misrepresentation” (200). This essay is not an attempt to provide an air tight Biblical exegesis on the doctrine of limited atonement. Rather, it defends the doctrine of limited atonement by showing what some of the most respected Reformed theologians say about this issue in response to those who would teach that Christ’s atonement is universal (Schaff 545). This essay will show that the doctrine of limited atonement clearly illustrates how the work of Christ in salvation is in unity with the Trinity, how the atonement is particular in its intent, and how it is active in its nature.

One of Limited Atonement’s strongest assets is that it shows complete unity in the Trinity (Sproul 276-277). This was John Owen’s starting point in his classic work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. He writes, “The agent in, and chief authority of, our redemption is the whole Blessed Trinity; for all the works which outwardly are of Deity are undivided and belong equally to each person, their distinct manner of subsistence and order being observed” (51). Owen is stating that the work of salvation is one that involves all the persons of the Trinity. He then goes on to outline what role each person of the Trinity plays in salvation in the following three chapters (51-67). In the introduction for Owen’s work, J.I.Packer summarizes Owen’s Trinitarian argument. “One view [limited atonement] presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind-election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit-as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly” (4). The point of this argument is to show that a universal atonement puts the Trinity at odds with itself. The Father’s election is not universal, or all would be saved. Furthermore, it is only the Elect in whom the Holy Spirit does the work of renewal. The Holy Spirit and the Father are completely unified in their tasks of salvation, and therefore the Son must also be in harmony (4). If Christ’s atonement is universal as some propose, then the Son is not in harmony with the works of the Father and Holy Spirit. This cannot be. As Owen points out, “all the works which outwardly are of Deity are undivided” (51). Therefore it can be shown that universal atonement puts the Trinity in conflict with itself, but limited atonement teaches a Trinity that is in complete harmony (51-67).

If the atonement is to be in unity with the Trinity as we have discussed, then we can confidently confess that the atonement is particular in its intent. This is where the title “limited atonement” comes from. It is not referring to the power of the atonement but rather the scope of its intent and effect (Sproul 277). R.C. Sproul writes, “If God has determined from all eternity to save the Elect, and part of his plan of redemption is to save them, and only them, then it follows that Christ died for the Elect and only for them” (276). Several objections to this point are raised, pointing to sources of Scripture that associate Christ’s death with words likes “all” and “world”. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary in California spends ample time examining these objections in light of Biblical interpretation. Scott insists that Scripture uses inclusive language like “all” and “world” in several instances where the terms do not literally mean “all the people everywhere” or “all the world”. He notes that context must always be considered, and that Scripture interprets itself (secs. 5.1-5.2). Scott also notes that,

The work of Christ must also be interpreted against the background of more than 2000 years of sacrifices pointing to his advent, life and death. These sacrifices were offered by Israelites for themselves and their families. They were offered by the high priests for all Israel. They were not offered for everyone who ever lived (sec. 5.2).

The Old Testament sacrificial system is a foreshadowing of Christ’s work on the cross. Here Scott shows that the intent of Christ’s atonement is particular because the intent of the Old Testament sacrificial system was also particular (sec. 5.2). He summarizes the Reformed position by stating, “If God did not intend to redeem any in particular, then it means that the atonement was indefinite. If it was indefinite, then Christ died for no one particularly” (sec. 2). He is stating that an indefinite atonement, or universal atonement, makes the cross of Christ out to be impersonal. He goes on to say, “It is the Reformed contention that God’s Word teaches that Christ died for persons, his sheep, those whom he loved, from all eternity” (sec. 3). Scott believes that by making the atonement particular in its intent, the atonement actually becomes personal. Christ died for us, the Church. A personal God, a personal Savior, is at the very heart of the Christian faith (sec. 3).

Finally, if we believe that the atonement is particular in its intent, then we can state that the atonement is active in its nature. The Reformed church confesses an atonement that actively achieves salvation (Sproul 272-279). In contrast, this is what the Arminian Remonstrance, which confesses a universal atonement, says in regards to the atonement’s nature.

Jesus Christ, the Saviour of all the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer (Schaff 545).

John Murray responds to this point of the Remonstrance when he writes, “[Universal atonement] is in its essence that Christ died for all men alike and procured for them equally and without distinction redemption and forgiveness of sins. The atonement as such, it says in effect, has as its intention the provision of salvation for all, the making of salvation of all men possible, the placing of all men and every man in a salvable state or condition” (200). Therefore, according to the Arminian Remonstrance, universal atonement actively saves no one, but rather it makes salvation possible for all (Murray 200). This is a consistent view in the scope of universal atonement. To avoid universal salvation the Arminian Remonstrance recognized that it must confess an atonement that is passive in nature. If they were to teach that the atonement is universal in intent and active in nature then they must teach that all men are saved, for all the sins of all the world would be paid for and salvation procured for them at the cross (Sproul 277-288). However, James Montgomery Boice points out the problem with a passive view of the atonement. “A redemption that does not redeem, a propitiation that does not propitiate, a reconciliation that does not reconcile, and an atonement that does not atone cannot help anybody” (123). John Owen also points out the flaws in a passive atonement.

The merit of the death of Christ being to them as an ointment in a box, that hath neither virtue nor power to act or reach out its own application unto particulars, being only set out in the gospel to the view of all, that those who will, by their own strength, lay hold on it and apply it to themselves may be healed (38).

However, because of the atonement’s particularity, the Reformed believe in an atonement that doesn’t merely make salvation possible, but actively achieves it. At the cross, Christ actively and effectively achieved and secured salvation for all the Elect. Limited atonement states that because the atonement is active in nature, the power of the atonement comes from Christ alone. Man’s belief or unbelief does not determine its power. As Boice points out, an active atonement is “a redemption that redeems, a propitiation that propitiates, a reconciliation that reconciles and an atonement that atones” (123). R.C. Sproul reflects on the power of an active atonement as well by saying, “We want to understand that the atonement that Christ offered was both real and effectual. It certainly brought to pass what God has intended to accomplish by it” (273). This is the heart of the doctrine of limited atonement. The atonement did not simply make salvation possible; it actively achieved it at the cross for the Elect (Sproul 276).

So much more could be said about the doctrine of limited atonement, and more has been said on both sides of the argument. This debate has been going on in the Church for centuries (Clark, sec. 4). To some, this issue may seem trivial. Many people simply see this issue as one more doctrine that divides the body of Christ. For the Reformed church though, this issue is about giving God all the glory in salvation (Sproul 276). Would we believe that Christ’s precious blood was spilt to merely make salvation possible, achieving it for no one in particular? Can we believe in an atonement that divides the work of the Trinity? How does such a view give God glory? Ultimately it allows man’s belief or unbelief to determine the power of the atonement. Rather, if we confess that Christ’s atoning work is united with the works of Father and Holy Spirit, if we confess an atonement that is particular in intent and active in nature, then the work of salvation is God’s alone, and to God alone goes the glory(Sproul 276; Owen 4).

The pre critical era, which would have spanned the time from the apostles up to around the 1600s or later depending on who’s making the timeline, was an era which approached Biblical interpretation universally. The Church, in order to declare right and proper doctrine, convened in counsels and synods. They gathered theologians from all around the Church. These men came together for months and sometimes years at a time to study the Word of God. Interpretation was not seen as an individual effort, but rather the effort of the Holy Catholic Church, that is to say, the Body of Christ. They saw the Scriptures as the infallible, inerrant word of God. On top of that, the Church read the Bible for the Church’s edification. It was an approach that did not have the flaws of the modernist systems, where one scholar sits alone in his room and finds an interpretation and then declares it as truth. Rather, it was a system that gathered the opinions of many scholars and theologians and then came to a consensus. There were flaws, of course. Were they aware of their presuppositions? Were they considering the historical context of the texts they were studying as much as they should? Kevin Vanhoozer points out all of these flaws in his introduction to the Dictionary of Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Despite the flaws though, the Church, not the individual, was tasked with Biblical interpretation and because of that, interpretation was more organic. We see this method used from the time of the Ante-Nicene Fathers all the way through to our great Reformed confessions.

With the rise of modernism though, there was a shift. Modernism created a gap between theology and interpretation. Faith no longer played a roll; rather interpretation became a product of method. If an interpreter would simply follow the correct method, it would lead them to the right understanding of the text. The upside to this was that interpreters became more aware of their own presuppositions. The downside is that interpretation no longer became the exercise of the Church, but rather the individual. On top of this, modernism showed a huge shift away from the idea that the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant. As Kevin Vanhoozer points out, its tendency was “to treat the biblical texts as sources for reconstructing human history and religion rather than as texts that testify to God’s presence and action in history.” In other words, the modernists were missing the point of the Bible. If the modernists are right, and it is proper method that leads to the right understanding of Scripture, then one would expect to have a great Ecumenical unity in the modern era. After all, anyone can be taught method. The problem of course is that we do not have that unity. Interpreters still come to their own conclusions and many of them are vastly different than someone else’s interpretations. Unfortunately, instead of making the modernist pause and question this approach to interpretation, it leads to them questioning the methods themselves. Perhaps there are more steps needed in the method. Instead of fifty steps to proper Biblical interpretation, we need seventy two steps. This has become a running joke in my hermeneutics class. How many steps will need to be added before the modernist finally throws his hands up and says, “This methodology stuff may not be the best way to approach interpretation”?

Fortunately it appears as if we are coming into an era where the modernist approach is being abandoned. While it may be easy to classify post modernism as an abandonment of absolute truth, what the post modern era is really about is moving out of and away from modernism. This has its downsides, but it also has some serious benefits to the Church. Biblical interpretation stands to benefit greatly from a stepping out of modernism. Interpretation is seen again as a communal effort, not the effort of individuals armed with the proper methods. Again, there are flaws here as Kevin Vanhoozer points out. He writes, “Postmoderns typically deny that we can escape our location in history, culture, class, and gender. Our readings of the biblical text will be shaped, perhaps decisively so, by our particular location and identity. The goal of interpretation is therefore to discover “what it means to my community, to those with my interpretative interest.” Still, the benefit is that the roll of community in interpretation is once again seen. While the modernist era did away with the synods and Church counsels, the post modern era may see us returning to that holistic way of interpretation. The Gospel Coalition, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and even organizations like Evangelicals and Catholics Together are examples of the Church coming together to understand what the Scriptures say and mean. Are we interested in brushing our differences under the rug? No, but that’s not the point. The point is to recapture the idea that to be in Christ is to be part of a covenant community. We are not interested in doing away with our confessional convictions; rather, we are striving to recapture the importance of the community. We are striving to bring the Church back to a point where we can all confess, “I believe in the communion of the saints”.

“Nobody wants to have to work when they go to a movie, but that is exactly what a God-glorifying worldview requires of someone when they go to the movies. Christians are not prohibited from enjoying entertainment, but they must be aware of where their entertainment is coming from and what message it is sending to them and their families. Unfortunately most are poorly equipped for this task.” – Adam Parker, Watching Movies to the Glory of God

My teenage years were spent in a fundamentalist youth group where I was taught to work out my own salvation by way of legalism; no smoking, no swearing, no R-rated movies, no dating and no secular music. If we followed the rules we were sanctified and in God’s grace, if we didn’t we backslid and were out of God’s grace. Between faith teachings and sanctifying laws there’s no wonder I always felt inadequate to please God. We weren’t falling in and out of God’s grace, we were living with imputed sin, a doctrine we were never taught.

In my late twenties I came to a reformed theology and felt a great sense of relief. I was no longer bound by the laws of my youth, I was freed by Christian liberty. But now in my choices of entertainment I’m afraid I may be in danger of finding myself on the other end of the extreme having ignored all discernment and therefore lack inhibition. To be honest I’m guilty of using my liberty as a crutch to be entertained by things that run contrary to the Word of God. I’ve at times embraced negligence by enjoying anything, so long as it’s not so obviously extreme as something like pornography, without first questioning the material or my motive against Scripture. Parker’s right, it’s more than likely because I’m unequipped to do so.

Biblical guidelines for sanctification aren’t taboo among reformed Christians, but in an effort to stay as far away from legalism as possible any interpretation of those guidelines seem like they are. We like to leave them up to the individual and I agree there’s some leniency; the amount of crude humor one is willing to tolerate may vary from person to person. My question is often if I should be willingly subjecting myself to it in the first place and if I do how that glorifies God.

I think we can infer a set of fundamental truths to apply from Scripture even though I often wonder where the line is corporately. I most often hear that it’s left up to personal conviction or discernment. My problem with that is those things are supposed to be based on Scripture and most people take them merely for some type of spiritual gut-check. I get the sense that most Christians don’t feel that watching unrated films chock full of nudity is convicting therefore it must not need to be convicting. I think Parker is encouraging Christians to rightly challenge their convictions with the Word of God.

I’ve been considering that if something is convicting to another Christian then the fact that it’s convicting to them should be convicting to me, not to the degree that I must abstain from what they’re convicted by, but to the degree that I place their conviction in high regard. Doing that may lead me to be convicted in the same way as iron sharpens iron. If another Christian’s convictions are based on Scripture and not simply a gut-check then I think that should cause me to yield.

Something else I’ve been considering is that I don’t like to hide. How often are we entertained by things that would make our pastors blush? I’m more prone to think that if I feel the need to hide something I probably shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

How are we equipped to make these decisions? What are your personal convictions and can you justify them with Scripture? I’m by no means an authority on the issue and though I have some idea I really have no clear picture of my personal convictions at this time. In the future I may post them as an opportunity for comparison since no one seems willing to do so. Reformers like Luther, Edwards and Spurgeon were so blunt, oh what I would give to hear their take on modern entertainment! But in the meantime here’s a question I struggle to answer:

Is there ever a time for the sake of entertainment when willingly subjecting ourselves to nudity, sexual acts, crude humor, gratuitous profanity or realistic fantasy killing glorifies God? Is there ever a time where tolerating these things, something all Christians agree are sensitive, can be justified by Scripture?

Articles I’ve been reading on the issue are listed below (please feel free to suggest more articles or quotes):

• Watching Movies to the Glory of God (Adam Parker)
• Is it OK for Christians to enjoy art produced by unbelievers? (Dr. John Piper)
• Q&A: Movies (John MacArthur)
• Why Are There Never Enough Spaces at the Prostate Clinic? (Carl Trueman)
• My Interview with Matt Chandler (Matt Chandler)
• In Search of Good Film: 9 Signposts (Greg Veltman)
• Should Christians Watch Rated R Movies (R.C. Sproul Jr.)

My wife knows Rick because they grew up together in the same class and he’s always been a friend of her family. I met Rick on the road in 2000 when we were both about twenty years old. Our bands were on the same record label who had sent us out together on a summer tour. For 40 days we traveled the U.S. in a caravan of vans and trailers from the east coast to the west coast and back again. To this day we reflect together and talk about how those days shaped our lives.

Rick comes from a Christian family. At the wedding I could tell they were very well respected by their community and so it’s no surprise that Rick is well respected among our community as well. He’s very loud, he loves the Lord, loves music, he strives to please God and is extremely passionate about life. Rick is a good steward of the life God’s given him and a great testimony for the gospel.

My wife and I had the pleasure of meeting Faith in the fall of 2009. Her reputation preceded her. She always seems connected in some way to anyone new we meet in Lancaster; it’s a sort of six degrees of Faith Ecenroad around here. She also comes from a Christian family. She’s well known among Christian circles from Lancaster to Philadelphia for her missionary work in Africa, for being a woman of God and now for being married to Rick. Faith too is a great testimony for the gospel – they’re a perfect match.

We found Rick and Faith’s wedding to be incredibly edifying. The ceremony was Christ-centered from start to finish, weaved with doctrine that communicated their marriage was a reflection of Christ’s relationship with the Church and a biblical reflection of the way in which God instructs his people to enter into and enjoy the gift of marriage. When we think of Rick and Faith we will think of a living model for marriage as set forth by God in Scripture, something all Christians should strive for.

Friends and family worshiped God by singing the modern hymn In Christ Alone, setting the precedent to the events that would follow. It was a worshipful ceremony. One of the most powerful moments was when the four parents joined their new son and new daughter at the pulpit to pray over their marriage, to agree with their decision and to usher them into holy matrimony. It was a true testimony of the God we serve to those who looked on.

Thank you, Rick and Faith, for being such a great example to us all in your marriage. Enjoy your gift. To God be the glory!

“Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3: Of God’s Eternal Decree, Sec. 5)

One of the things I often witness in the lives of my family and friends is their struggle to understand God’s will for their lives. No matter their success it seems like the question is always being asked or returned to. I consider myself successful in my line of work, but because Christianity is more important to me than that I often ask God if what I’m doing  is really all there is for me, if I should continue doing it and if not what I should do instead.

It can become a sore subject for those we love. It’s enough to just struggle with the question, but when the desires of our heart bring their own struggles an agonizing battle can sometimes rush in. I’ve witnessed this in my wife; ever since I’ve known her she’s struggled with what she should do with her life. She loves lots of things, hospitality, decorating, cooking, baking, but the greatest desire of her heart is to be a mother, to care and make a home for a family of our own. Unfortunately, as if to add insult to injury, we’ve come to find out that we struggle with infertility. She’s an incredible, successful homemaker, but she feels her home is incomplete and therefore continually second-guesses herself; without a family she never feels completely accomplished in her work. For her, not only is the question itself complex, but the desires of her heart have brought their own complexities as well.

As I painfully watch on I feel I’ve failed time and again to provide any sort of satisfying comfort to those around me who are hurting from this ultimate question as well as never being able to fully satisfy my own questioning. My prescribed solution has always been to suffer well and to remember that we serve a most perfect God who works all things together for the good of those who love him (Rom. 8:28). These things are absolutely valid because they are biblical, but I feel I’ve recently found more insight on the matter.

In volume one of his three-volume set entitled Truths We Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Dr. R.C. Sproul writes this concerning God’s will for our lives:

“If we say we want to know the will of God, we must specify which will of God we are talking about: his revealed will or his secret counsel. If the former, then we must pour ourselves into a study of God’s Word. We cannot depend on a pamphlet that tells us three ways to know the will of God for one’s life. His will for our life is our sanctification, and how to get there is set forth for us throughout sacred Scripture.

If we are asking instead to know God’s secret will, the answer is that we cannot. God has chosen not to reveal it, one reason for which is that his secret counsel is none of our business. Trying to probe the secret counsel of God is an exercise, not of piety and spirituality but of impiety. We should not pursue matters that God has not been please to reveal. …

We must look at God’s revealed will. That gives us manifold principles on which to make ethical decisions and judgements. The Bible reveals that we are to act according to the gifts that God has bestowed upon us, and we are to seek the counsel of others to help us understand our gifts.”

I’m guilty of selfishly being more interested in God’s secret will than His revealed will. The hard truth is that wanting to know God’s secret will for our lives is to work against God’s revealed will for our lives. Horoscopes, tarot cards and palm-readings are popular means by which our secular culture tries to reveal the secret will of God for their lives. Those things along with college recruiters, motivational speakers, self-help books and mankind’s propensity to worship themselves have created a culture where knowing what you’re supposed to do in life has become an idol where people are identified by the things they do. My struggle comes from wanting first the security and peace that knowing would bring me and second God’s glory.

I want to be careful not to negate the sensitivity of our struggles. It’s a good thing to want to know what God wants for our lives, to pursue happiness, to have a righteous pride in our work, to enjoy the fruits of our labor, the ability to provide for our families and the self-worth we gain from it. Sproul discourages an impious, selfish path in order to alleviate the pain of our struggle and encourage a pious, biblical path for pursuing God’s revealed will that brings us into communion with His secret counsel.

We’re predestined by a most perfect, omniscient and soverign God. There’s nothing we can do to change His secret will for our lives whether we know that will or not. Sproul encourages us to invest in God’s revealed Word, the gifts we’ve been given and to have those gifts verified by the community of those around us in order to make the best decisions for moving forward in our lives. This is insight that I personally delight in and am eager to share with those around me who struggle to understand God’s will for their lives.

I’m glad. I think we have something cool going on here and I didn’t WANT to pull the plug. Its just hard to keep up with things. We’re all busy with life and blogging is far from top priority. Still, we want to keep moving forward with this in hopes that in the near future we can find more time to write.

I’ll be starting college this fall at Lancaster Bible College where I’ve enrolled in their Pre-Seminary program. While working two jobs, going to school part time, and raising a family will be a lot to balance, I also know that I’ll have to be writing more for college. Hopefully some of what I write for school will translate well to this site.

Another thing we’d like to get into is posting audio of round table discussions. We have a few things recorded now that once edited a bit will add some value to this site.

Sit tight. We haven’t gone away or put the ax to this project. We still believe in what we’re doing here. We want to continue to “engage culture both inside the Church and outside it”.

The above scenario is nothing but pure fantasy. If we ever found such an artifact, do we really believe that the discovery would lead many to Christ? No doubt, God could use such a discovery. No doubt that the classical approach to apologetics, a method which relies on historic, archeological and scientific evidence, has had an important impact on evangelism. Still, I maintain a belief that such finds in and of themselves would not be enough to convince the world of the reality of the God of the Bible. Things like this are always interpreted according to one’s world view. For those of us who already believe in the stories of the Bible, such a find would be validation for our beliefs. For those who hate God, who despise the truths of scripture, such a find would be explained away and scoffed at as being ridiculous at best.

Need evidence that my statements are true? Let us look no further than Scripture. Is not the Bible full of stories where God’s power was on full display and yet those who were eye witnesses to such displays still went away cursing and hating God? From the Old Testament to the New Testament the Scriptures tell of those who saw the power of God and still refused to bow the knee. Consider the life of Christ. Many, including those in high places, saw for their own eyes the miracles of Christ. They witnessed the healings, the raising of the dead, the miraculous signs, the resurrected Christ himself and still went away in disbelief. Such accounts are a testimony to the true state of man. Man’s heart is so cold, so depraved, so bent towards hatred of God that no amount of physical evidence, no logical argument could ever turn man away from his path towards damnation.

So what is our hope? Why practice apologetics, be it classical or presuppositional? Why even evangelize? These are fair questions to ask. We know that logical arguments, that historical, scientific and archeological evidence is not enough so why even bother? In the end we must look to our God and to the great helper, the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who awakens men’s hearts to the truths of Christ. He could do this in and of Himself with no outside influence, but that is not how God works in history. God deemed it better to include man in His great plan of redemption and it is our honor and duty to be involved in Redemptive History. The Holy Spirit does use logic and evidence to awaken men’s hearts. In and of themselves such things are useless, but when the Spirit works through them they become powerful tools. They become the means in which God raises the dead to eternal life in Christ. We must always remember that it is the Holy Spirit who gives such things their power. Evangelicals must always be reminded of this fact. The temptation is to always look towards such discoveries as having power in and of themselves. The tendency to believe that “if only the ark would be found, people would surely turn to Christ!” is always there. It’s as if we believe that the discovery of archeological evidence, that logical arguments, that history and science give God His power to turn the non believer towards Him. No, that is backwards thinking. None of us truly believe that,yet we all slip into that mindset from time to time. We all must constantly remind ourselves that it is God who gives human wisdom and physical evidence its power. He certainly doesn’t need such things, but He has chosen to use them anyway. Praise God for including humans in His redemptive plan.