Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Two for Tuesday

Spotlight on two great Puritans - 


Richard Baxter -

Richard Baxter was born in 1615, in Rowton, near Shrewsbury, in Shropshire. He was the only son of Beatrice Adeney and Richard Baxter, Sr. Because of his father’s gambling habit and inherited debts, and his mother’s poor health, Richard lived with his maternal grandparents for the first ten years of his life. When his father was converted through “the bare reading of the Scriptures in private,” Richard returned to his parental home, and later acknowledged that God used his father’s serious talks about God and eternity as “the Instrument of my first Convictions, and Approbation of a Holy Life” (Reliquiae Baxterianae, 1:2-4).

Baxter’s education was largely informal; he later wrote that he had four teachers in six years, all of whom were ignorant and two led immoral lives. Nevertheless, he had a fertile mind, and enjoyed reading and studying. A prolonged illness and various books—particularly William Perkins’s Works—were the means God used to “resolve me for himself,” Baxter wrote (Reliquiae Baxterianae, 1:3-4). When he was fifteen, he was deeply affected by Richard Sibbes’s The Bruised Reed: “Sibbes opened more the love of God to me, and gave me a livelier apprehension of the mystery of redemption and how much I was beholden to Jesus Christ.” Subsequently, Ezekiel Culverwell’s Treatise of Faith (1623) “did me much good” (ibid., 1:4-5).

Baxter’s education took a turn for the better when he transferred to the Wroxeter grammar school, where he received some tuition support from a schoolmaster named John Owen. His best teacher there was an erudite minister, Francis Garbet, who took a real interest in Baxter. At the age of sixteen, under Owen’s persuasion, Baxter decided to forego university in favor of placing himself under the instruction of Owen’s friend, Richard Wickstead, chaplain at Ludlow Castle, who tutored him rather half-heartedly for eighteen months.

In 1633, Baxter went to London under the patronage of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, in the court of Charles I. Joseph Symonds and Walter Cradock, two godly Puritan ministers in London, roused his sympathy for nonconformity, but he stayed in London only four weeks. Having become dissatisfied with the worldly court life in London and desiring to care for his ailing mother, he returned home in 1634; his mother died in May of 1635. He spent the next four years privately studying theology, particularly that of the scholastics, including Aquinas, Scotus, and Ockham.

At age twenty-three, having as yet “no scruple at all against subscription,” and thinking “the Conformists had the better cause” (ibid., 1:13), Baxter was ordained deacon ..... Read rest of Bio HERE



Samuel Rutherford -

Samuel Rutherford was born in 1600 in Nisbet, Roxburghshire, eldest son of a well-to-do farmer. His parents noted his intellectual gifts and believed that God would call him to the ministry, though they seldom spoke about Christ in an experiential way. Rutherford later wrote that in his birthplace “Christ was scarce named, as touching any reality or power of godliness” (Letters, p. 680). Rutherford was educated first at Jedborough, then at the University of Edinburgh, where he excelled in Latin and Greek, and earned a Master of Arts degree in 1621.

In 1623, Rutherford was chosen to serve as Professor of Humanity at Edinburgh, with responsibilities as a Latin tutor. Two years later, he was forced to resign after behaving inappropriately with a young woman named Euphame Hamilton, whom he subsequently married. God apparently used this incident to initiate or further his conversion. In a letter to Robert Stuart (1637), Rutherford wrote, “Ye have gotten a great advantage in the way of heaven, that ye have started to the gate in the morning. Like a fool, as I was, I suffered my sun to be high in the heaven, and near afternoon, before I ever took the gate by the end.”

In 1625, Rutherford studied theology at Edinburgh under Andrew Ramsay. Two years later, he was asked to pastor the church in Anwoth by the Solway in Kirkcudbrightshire—the charge with which his name is inseparably bound. John Welsh, the godly son-in-law of John Knox, had ministered at that church from 1595 to 1600. Anwoth was a rural parish; its people were scattered in farms over a hilly district.

Rutherford rose at 3 a.m. each day, devoting many hours to prayer and meditation. He wrote of a favorite place where he often walked to ponder spiritual truths: “There I wrestled with the angel and prevailed. Woods, trees, meadows and hills are my witnesses that I drew on a fair meeting between Christ and Anwoth” (cited in Nigel Clifford, Christian Preachers, p. 132).

Rutherford worked effectively and tirelessly for his congregation for nearly a decade. One aged, contemporary pastor wrote, “I have known many great and good ministers in this church, but for such a piece of clay as Mr. Rutherford was, I never knew one in Scotland like him, to whom so many great gifts were given; for he seemed to be altogether taken up with everything good, and excellent, and useful. He seemed to be always praying, always preaching, always visiting the sick, always catechizing, always writing and studying…. Many times I thought he would have flown out of the pulpit when he came to speak of Jesus Christ. He was never in his right element but when he was commending Him. He would have fallen asleep in bed speaking of Christ”               Read rest of Bio HERE

Sunday, February 12, 2012

The Gospel




My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part but the whole, Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more!

Soli Deo Gloria

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Free Will - Confusion Abounds

 From the Reformed Apologist -




The nature of man, whether pre-fall, post-fall and unconverted, post fall and converted, or glorified, does not affect the discussion of whether any moral being can act contrary to how he does. No moral being can have libertarian free will (LFW).

LFW is simply the power of contrary choice. Put another way, it is the ability to choose with equal ease between alternatives out of pure contingency and no necessity. Consequently, if one is endowed with LFW, he can choose contrary to what God knows he will choose. (In fact, if God has LFW, then he too can choose contrary to what he knows he will choose!) My position on the matter is straightforward. LFW is a philosophical surd. If it is true that one can choose something different than he will choose, then the future God believes will come to pass might not come to pass; and even if the future does come to pass as God believes, he will not have been thoroughly justified in his belief. He would have just been lucky, or at best very insightful.

A brief word about the relationship between the truth of a future choice, God’s knowledge and the grounding of that truth is in order. God’s knowledge of a future choice does not ensure its fruition. Rather, it presupposes the deterministic nature of its fruition. Knowledge is receptive not causative. Accordingly, that a choice cannot be contrary to what it ends up being is not a matter of God’s foreknowledge but rather it is a matter that it is true that the choice will come to pass. God knows it because it is true, for God knows all truth. The grounding of that truth is of course God’s determination. In sum, God determines that it will be true that X chooses Y in circumstance Z, therefore, God knows it as true.

Confusion abounds, even in Reformed circles:

John Frame once noted:


“I don't know how many times I have asked candidates for licensure and ordination whether we are free from God's decree, and they have replied ‘No, because we are fallen.’ That is to confuse libertarianism (freedom from God's decree, ability to act without cause) with freedom from sin. In the former case, the fall is entirely irrelevant. Neither before nor after the fall did Adam have freedom in the libertarian sense. But freedom from sin is something different. Adam had that before the fall, but lost it as a result of the fall.”

I resonated with John’s observation the very first time I read his lament. This is a very serious matter. These men to whom John refers may have very well been ordained and licensed in Reformed denominations (or have gone on to teach other men at seminary; or if they've really arrived, have their own Blog!) - yet without any appreciation for the implications of their religious philosophy as it pertains to free will. So many Reformed people (including Reformed ministers as John rightly observes) are willing to assert that Adam prior to the fall.......

Read rest of post HERE

Friday, February 10, 2012

Corky pays a visit to The Reformed Dawg


Nothing like a Romans 9 grenade to spiff up the place!

Thanks to Eddie at Calvinistic Cartoons!

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

The Prayer of The Arminian (Concerning His Free Will) by Charles Spurgeon

…Any one who believes that man’s will is entirely free, and that he can be saved by it, does not believe the fall…



But I tell you what will be the best proof of that; it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him. You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer – for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it.

Fancy him praying,

“Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them.”

That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, “I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?” If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, “My dear sir, I quite believe it-and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.” Do I hear one Christian man saying, “I sought Jesus before he sought me; I went to the Spirit, and the Spirit did not come to me”?

No, beloved; we are obliged, each one of us, to put our hands to our hearts and say-

“Grace taught my soul to pray,
And made my eyes to o’erflow;
‘Twas grace that kept me to this day,
And will not let me go.”

From Spurgeon’s Sermon, Free Will – A Slave

Courtesy of Monergism

Monday, February 6, 2012

Sound doctrine is useless--if.....

.... it is not accompanied by a holy life!

"The doctrine which is according to godliness" 1 Timothy 6:3



It is my firm impression that we need a thorough revival of Scriptural holiness.

I have had a deep conviction for many years, that practical holiness and consecration to God are not sufficiently attended to by modern Christians. Worldliness has eaten out the heart of vital piety in too many of us! The subject of personal godliness has fallen sadly into the background. The standard of Christian living has become painfully low in many quarters. The immense importance of "adorning the doctrine of God our Savior" (Titus 2:10), and making it lovely and beautiful by our daily habits and tempers--has been far too much overlooked!

The details and particular ingredients of which holiness is composed in daily life--ought to be fully set forth and pressed on believers. True holiness does not consist merely of believing--but of doing and a practical exhibition of the active and passive graces.

Our tongues,
our tempers,
our natural passions and inclinations,
our conduct at home and abroad,
our dress,
our employment of time,
our behavior in business,
our demeanor in sickness and health, in riches and poverty
--all, all these are matters which are fully treated by inspired writers. They go into particulars. They specify minutely, what a holy man ought to do an be in his own family, by his own fireside, and at the work-place.

True holiness is something of "the image of Christ" which can be seen and observed by others in our private life, and habits, and character, and doings!

J.C. Ryle

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Is Doctrine Necessary?




by Michael Bremmer at Reformed Theology Resource

No statement more clearly shows the lack of Biblical thinking and discernment in Evangelical Christianity then, "I don't believe in doctrine, I believe in Jesus." I have heard this silly statement, and others similar to it, too often to believe that it is only the product of a few reckless individuals. Doctrine in Evangelical Christianity has become not only despised by many, but routinely mocked with seeming spiritual sounding cliches. In place of despised doctrine the Bible is shoved into our faces by these seeming pious individuals, who assert with a certain air of spiritual elitism, "We believe in just the Bible, not church dogma."

The word doctrine, however, comes from the Greek word didache and means "teaching." In Theology, that is, the study of who God is and what He is like, doctrine means "that which is taught as a formal truth or belief OF THE FAITH" (The Compact Dictionary of Doctrinal Words, P. 75). Christian doctrines are those doctrines of our Christian faith, which were "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Therefore, to present the bible as something totally antithetical to Christian doctrine is absurd. Christian doctrines are those truths taught in Scripture that are Essential to the Christian faith.

The Apostle Paul viewed doctrine much differently then many Evangelical Christians do today. Paul used the "D" word some 12 times in his Epistles. Paul considered not only the ability to "EXHORT in sound DOCTRINE" a qualification for church leadership, but also the ability "to REFUTE those who contradict. (Titus 1:9). Later in the same letter Paul writes, "But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound DOCTRINE." (2:1). To his young friend Timothy, Paul writes, "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction [Didache]." To the believers in Rome Paul ends his epistle with these words, "Now I urge you brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching [Didache] which you have learned, and turn away from them." Paul's exhortation to the believers at Rome, and to us today, presupposes that one understands sound doctrine, therefore, one can discern false doctrine and turn away from those teaching it. How far Evangelical Christianity has moved from Paul's simple exhortations! Many Evangelical Christians today pride themselves upon the fact that they do not know doctrine, "just Jesus" therefore, are unable to discern false doctrine, let alone false teachers.

If the words of the apostle Paul are not themselves enough to convince of the necessity of doctrinal teaching and understanding, then listen to the words of Jesus Christ: "And He was teaching them many things in parables and was saying to them in His teaching [Didache]." While Jesus severally condemns the pharisees, He does not condemn the teaching of doctrine, only the teaching of FALSE doctrine: "The teaching as doctrine the precepts of men." To discern the difference between doctrine that is from the word of God from those that are merely the precepts of men, one must have a knowledge and understanding of biblical doctrine. To this end, was a large part of our Lord's earthly ministry; so much so that He often warn that those who did not abide in his teaching would perish.

The so-called Great Commission of Christ presupposes the teaching of doctrine: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit TEACHING them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Mt. 28:19-20). Christ commanded His people to disciple the nations. There is no other way to disciple one in Christianity then by the teaching of Christian doctrine.

To those who pride themselves on the fact that they have "No creed, just Christ," or "I am just a simple Christian, I believe just the Bible" I ask: Who is Jesus? Do you believe that Jesus is God come in the flesh? Then you believe in the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ. Do you believe that Christ paid the price for your sin? Then you believe the doctrine of the atonement. Do you believe that Jesus rose again from the dead? Then you believe the doctrine of the resurrection. Do you believe that we are saved by faith alone? Then you believe in the doctrine of justification by faith.

Considering the emphasis Scripture places on the importance of teaching and understanding Christian doctrine, What should be the response of the Christian? The Christian should not take pride in doctrinal ignorance, but rather study and learn carefully the doctrines of the Christian faith, so that he or she may not be led astray by false doctrine.