The Jews call the 10 Commandments the 10 Words. The 10 Words reflect the future tense. You shall not. You SHALL not. If we put the right emphasis on the words, we see the 10 Words which God wrote on stone to Moses were also predictions of how Jesus would act.
That is why Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. One fulfills a prediction, one keeps a Law. And although Jesus kept the Laws, He also fulfilled them. When God wrote the 10 Words, the people were at the base of Mount Sinai worshiping a golden calf. Despite that, God wrote a description of Jesus, the child of Abraham. He said of Jesus:
- You shall have no other Gods – and Jesus didn’t. He insisted that He and the Father were one.
- And you shall not make any graven images – Jesus didn’t need to. He was the image of the invisible Creator.
- You shall remember the Sabbath Day – Jesus was dead over the Sabbath and didn’t move a muscle. His heart didn’t beat. He did no work. He didn’t decay for the Father would not allow Him to see corruption.
- You shall honor your Father and Mother – He honored them both by dying for the Father and taking care of His mother, even while on the cross.
- You shall not murder – Instead, He gave His life a ransom for many to stop the murderer Satan.
- You shall not commit adultery – Instead He created a Bride from the blood and water from His side.
- You shall not steal – He had no place to lay His head and constantly gave all He had to those lost and wandering.
- You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor – No, He told the truth, but His neighbors all managed to bear false witness against Him.
- You shall not covet your neighbor’s house – He owned the whole creation, yet did not covet it. He loved it and was willing to die to set it free. He did not want it as His own; he wanted it free to want Him and Him alone.
- You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife – He didn’t need a neighbor’s wife. He created a new wife for Himself from the blood and water from his side. The whole creation was to be the Bride of Christ with which He would and did become one flesh through the miracle of becoming flesh and the marvel of Theosis…
William Cwirla (LCMS): There is sufficient evidence from the field of archaeology to show that the Bible is historically quite accurate. Even skeptical archaeologists have learned to take the biblical narrative at face value. Of course, this doesn’t prove the Bible to be “true,” only accurate in historic details. But that’s a good place to begin.
The New Testament documents are reliable, first-source historic documents written by eyewitnesses to a unique event history-the incarnation of the Son of God culminating in his death and resurrection. The manuscript evidence gives us a reliable text, far more reliable than any other text from antiquity.
The Gospels are a form of historical narrative. Luke mentions the fact that he did historical research prior to writing his account (Luke 1:1-4). The claim of all these writers is that Jesus died on a cross and rose bodily from the dead three days later. Paul mentions that Jesus was seen risen from the dead by more than five hundred eyewitnesses (1 Cor. 15:6) in addition to the apostles, many of whom went to their death insisting they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. These eyewitnesses had everything to lose and nothing to gain for claiming Jesus was risen. In fact, the religious and political authorities had a vested interest in the contrary, so their testimony was given in view of hostile cross-examination.
This same dead and risen Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection three times before it happened. As baseball pitcher Dizzy Dean once said, “It ain’t braggin’ if you can do it.” Jesus did it. For that reason, we need to take seriously what Jesus says. He says that the Old Testament Scriptures speak of him and teach the way of eternal life (John 5:39). He says that the Scriptures teach his death and resurrection and of repentance and forgiveness in his name (Luke 24:45-47). He promised that his apostles would receive the Holy Spirit who would bring to mind all that he had taught and would guide them into all truth (John 14:26; 16;13). The Apostle Paul writes that the Old Testament Scriptures are the very “breath of God” (2 Tim. 3:16), and Peter similarly writes that the prophets spoke not on their own initiative but as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21).
The lynchpin for the veracity of the Scriptures is the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is not only the central teaching, it is also the foundation to the truth claims of the Scriptures. If Christ is not raised, then everything that is written in the Bible is suspect. But Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate who died and rose from the dead, points us to the Scriptures which he claims reliably speak concerning himself.
Jason Stellman (PCA): The Westminster Confession of Faith I.4 states that the authority of Scripture does not depend on the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God. In both the Old and New Testaments the Bible declares itself to be the very Word of God: “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether” (Ps. 19:7-9); “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).
But accepting Scripture’s self-testimony is not simply random, circular reasoning; it’s not something we do in spite of manifold evidence to the contrary (like believing that the Book of Mormon is true because we get a “burning in our bosom” when we read it). Rather, the Bible’s own internal evidence-such as “the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof” (WCF I.5)-bears witness to its truthfulness and authority.
But as with the existence of God, believing the Bible’s message is not something we can do without the work of the Holy Spirit within us. We are not passive, neutral observers who weigh the evidence in some objective, disinterested way. Rather, we are, by nature, inclined to evil and hostile to divine things. That’s why all the rational arguments in the world will not convince us to bow before our Creator and submit to his message. Only the power of the Spirit working through the Word can accomplish that.
Next in the series: How can God exist when there is so much evil and pain in the world?
There have been some interesting discussions lately on the blogs about “pastoral succession.” Don Carson discusses this issue with Tim Keller and John Piper at The Gospel Coalition site. Anyone in the middle of this process—or anticipating it—will benefit from their sage advice. Over at Reformation 21, Carl Trueman offered some wise thoughts of his own on the conversation.
Eventually, every church has to think through the connection between faith and practice when it comes time to call a new pastor. I’d like to tweak the conversation a little bit by raising the question of paradigms. Are we looking for a certain kind of minister or, first and foremost, for a certain kind of ministry? Is our “job description” determined by the charisma, style, accomplishments—and genuine gifts—of the minister or by the qualifications that Paul lays out in the pastoral epistles?
On one hand, pastoral succession can be a time of crisis. Sometimes the crisis results from poor leadership. The natural assets that make someone a great leader in business, entertainment, or politics may also become liabilities in ministry. In the church, poor leadership doesn’t necessarily mean a failure to instill the confidence of others; it can actually be just such confidence that weighs a minister down and makes it really hard on the next guy. In the church at least, poor leadership means creating a situation in which the minister, not the ministry, becomes the means of grace.
On the other hand, pastoral succession problems can also indicate a healthy church. In my circles, we care about who follows famously faithful pastors, but we should care as much about who follows a faithful pastor down the street. We care about “succession” because we care about God’s covenant faithfulness “to a thousand generations.”
Healthy churches may hit some rough water in the interim between pastors. Even when the ministry has been faithful over many years, alas, the fruit of the flesh that the apostles diagnosed in their own church plants blossoms from a conquered but sturdy weed. After years of keeping everyone’s eye on the Word, loss of godly leadership can often disintegrate quickly into squabbles over secondary issues.
However, when discussing pastoral succession, we have to beware of following a paradigm of leadership that is not consistent with our place in redemptive history. Born in the “Jesus Movement” of the 1970s, one non-denominational denomination with which many of us southern Californians are familiar adopted the “Moses Leadership” model, which places all the power in the church in the hands of the pastor, who (like Moses) was directly accountable to God. Understandably, this rather “papal” form of government raises questions of succession to a new level.
At the same time, I wonder if we all obsess too much over pastoral succession these days. We remember Calvin more than Beza because, among other things, the former turned the church in Geneva around; yet Beza had more direct influence in the international reformation in some ways than his predecessor. There is a danger in looking for successors to a minister; what we should really be looking for is the succession of the ministry: the Word rightly preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and the church’s doctrine, worship, government, and life regulated by Scripture.
Once upon a time there were no church marquees. You just walked to your neighborhood parish church. But even marquees used to have the name of the church and the text for the sermon that week. Now it’s pretty universal to have the name of the pastor—and the name of the minister who is preaching that week. Even in good churches, one sometimes hears people say, “Did you know So-and-So is preaching this week?” In some cases, people even visit another church to hear the famous preacher.
When it comes to pastoral succession, I can’t help but let my presbyterian colors show. At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), even when the apostles were still living, it was “the apostles and elders” who made the decision that all the churches were to receive. I’m always baffled when brothers and sisters say that presbyterian polity is “hierarchical” or “clerical.” Actually, it’s just the opposite. Spreading out the authority among ministers (teaching elders) and ruling elders, equally, both locally and in wider assemblies, means that no church or minister is more important than another. It also means that the majority of each local session or consistory consists of laypeople rather than clerics. Although ordained for their service, ruling elders are not full-time ministers. They do not preach and teach. Nevertheless, pastors do not rule and they definitely don’t run the temporal affairs of the church (the proper province of deacons).
In calling a pastor, the local session or consistory calls a congregational election to form a pulpit search committee and recommends a candidate. After congregational approval, the candidate is examined by the presbytery or classis and upon successful examination is installed as pastor. Following this covenantal logic, it has usually been the practice in Reformed and Presbyterian churches for the incumbent minister to recuse himself from the process entirely.
The apostolic ministry was extraordinary: the foundation-laying era of the new covenant church (1 Cor 3:10-11). Although Paul could appeal to no human authority higher than his own office, he encouraged Timothy to recall the gift he received at his ordination, “when the council of elders [presbyteriou] laid their hands on you” (1 Tim 4:14). None of us is a Moses. None is a Paul or a Peter. We are all “Timothys,” not adding to the apostolic deposit, but guarding and proclaiming it (1 Tim 6:20).
Carl Trueman wisely reminds us: “The elite watchmaker Patek Philippe had a slogan at one time that was something like this: `You never really own a Patek Philippe; you merely look after it for the next generation.’” Thus it is with churches, in terms of the vibrancy of their life and their orthodoxy. Those privileged enough to be involved in the appointment of their own successors, or those who can merely shape the nature of the session which will oversee the search, need to make sure they make the right choices. They do not own the church; they are merely looking after her for the next generation.
We rely on the faithful support of our monthly partners who commit to regular giving in support of our mission and work. But, sometimes our most faithful supporters show signs of addiction to the White Horse Inn. Now, there’s a support program for you! Thanks to our own Shane Rosenthal (executive producer of White Horse Inn) who found this great church sign yesterday.
In keeping with our funny church name theme this week, this picture of St. James-Bond United Church was sent in yesterday. The correspondent says that it was demolished in 2006. Wikipedia says that it was located in Toronto.
The Man vs. The Plan
Walk down any street in London and you will be caught on camera. Why? Because there are half a million cameras to make sure that Big Brother is watching you, making certain that every move you make is according to plan.
This week the movie The Adjustment Bureau fixed itself onto shelves and RedBoxes worldwide (coming soon to all of us who must wait for Netflix streaming). Why should this concern you? Because age old themes of free will and fate collide on celluloid giving life to an old Philip K. Dick story.
The movie begins with young hotshot politician David Norris (Matt Damon) running for senate in New York. On the night of his greatest political defeat he meets the love of his life, Elise (Emily Blunt), and departs from their potent interchange to make the greatest defeat/comeback speech a politician has ever produced. But he was never supposed to meet her. After his meeting he gets ruffed up by the Adjustment Bureau, a group determined to see the Plan carried out. These 1950’s IBM salesmen look-a-likes, armed with notebooks and fedoras, make sure that everyone stays on track and on Plan. You see, David Norris was in love and that put him off track. Now these “adjusters” will do whatever it takes to keep him on the Plan and away from Elise. Why? Because the Plan says so. Ironically, these grey stalkers don’t even understand why the Plan must be followed, only that it must.
In all of the hustle and bustle of the movie, the director and writer paid keen attention to detail. In one scene, after a character is ‘adjusted’, he walks out of his room and ‘adjusts’ the picture that is crooked providing an interesting non verbal commentary on the movie’s theme. The dialogue is clean crisp and sharp like a bite of cheddar. The attention to detail is elevated by the dialogue. When David and Elise meet, the chemists go home because the shop got blown up with their energy in the dialogue. These elements make this movie quick and enjoyable.
The Adjustment Bureau takes the place of some sort of higher power imposing its plan on lemming humans. And as the Adjustment Bureau enforces their plan, free will and fate collide. David Norris can “listen to the hand of fate, or follow his heart and go after her” says Director George Nolfi. The question strikes the audience: will you follow your free will or succumb to the nonsense of ‘The Plan’?
The point of contact with our friends, neighbors, and relatives can be found in questions such as, “Do you think anyone is watching over you?” or “Has your life ever been adjusted?” But we cannot forget the difference between free will and free agency. free agency is the ability to choose a differing path in this world while free will refers specifically to moral or spiritual good. Thus humans can choose anything they want in this world, such as chocolate or vanilla ice cream, and are held responsible for their choices, but they can never choose their way into being as good as God. Humans can never reach up to heaven and grab our destiny.
As you walk around this week and see the cameras taking pictures of people running stop lights, who’s watching you?
Reviewed by Nic Lazzareschi & John Stovall
Yesterday we pointed out that Lutherans are cool–at least in Cool, California! Today we received evidence from our Orange County correspondent that Presbyterians are hungry–at least in North Carolina.
Terrence Malick’s film, The Tree of Life, will provoke considerable discussion and debate on many levels. Malick, 68, also directed The Thin Red Line and was one of the producers of Amazing Grace.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” After enduring the theological prattle and wrestling of Job himself, God finally steps into the conversation with that famous rhetorical question (Job 38:4,7). This verse opens “The Tree of Life,” starring Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain as parents of three pre-teens growing up in Waco, Texas. Sean Penn makes a late appearance as the oldest son as an adult.
Perhaps “story” overstates the narrative character of this movie. Director and writer Terrence Malick puts the “cinema” back into movies with this controversial film. (The audience at the Cannes Film Festival, where it won the Palme d’Or, ranged from ovation to boos, and it’s provoking similar reactions this week.) Astonishing vignettes are woven throughout the film of natural wonders from the Big Bang to, apparently, something like the Big Crunch, with volcanoes, seas, and dinosaurs in between. At first, these seem distracting, but it becomes clear that they are the “big picture” context for which the family story serves as a microcosm.
There isn’t much dialogue, which has been distressing to many initial movie-goers who expected more of the usual blockbuster film with these stars. However, it’s very philosophical—even theological. And there is definitely a story that, in my view at least, doesn’t get lost in but is rather deepened by the bigger questions.
Toward the beginning—I think it may be the opening spoken lines, the narrator says that “there are two ways through life, the way of nature and the way of grace.” “Nature is willful, it only wants to please itself, to have its own way.” On the other hand, “grace” is “smiling through all things.” According to the way of grace, “the only way to be happy is to love.”
Artists like Malick will probably turn up their nose at attempts to summarize “what the film is about,, but that’s what this film is “about”: nature and grace. Besides the obvious reference to the “two ways,” the father—a strict disciplinarian—is “nature” and the mother—fountain of unconditional love and generosity—is “grace.” The last line in the movie (as I recall anyway) is the oldest son’s recognition, “Father, mother, always you wrestle inside me.”
The father takes his family to church, occasionally prays, and loves music, but basically he failed to pursue his dream early in life. He takes out the frustrations for his own self-doubt on his boys, especially the oldest, who says in one moving scene to his father, “You wish I were dead, don’t you?” (In an interview at Cannes, Bratt Pitt said he was raised much like the son, in a conservative Christian family, with a graceless father. “It was a pretty stifling environment,” he said.)
Basically, the nature-grace thing is told with a pretty Roman Catholic twist, too. Malick, who was raised in the Bible belt (interestingly, Waco), attended an Episcopal school and went on to study philosophy at Harvard and Oxford (Magdalen College, with philosopher Gilbert Ryle as his supervisor). Reformed theologians have been tweaking Roman Catholic tails for some time now over the way in which the latter seems to turn everything into a nature-grace instead of a sin-grace problem. Briefly put, Rome teaches that grace elevates or perfects nature, raising it from its imperfect natural state into a supernatural condition. A perennial Reformed objection is that this makes nature—creation—inherently flawed and demands that it becomes something other than what God created it to be in order to be truly “good.” And that also means that grace is the infusion of divine goodness and love into the soul, to raise the creature from being trapped in earthly (material) things. In ever-ascending steps, the soul climbs the ladder toward the light of the beatific vision.
Something of this almost dualistic view of nature and grace forms the philosophical backbone of this story. After a tragedy in the family (can’t divulge that one!), everyone is asking Job’s perennial questions. Nature clearly has no answers, but grace stumbles, too. Much of the dialogue is directed from the characters to God. At no point is grace identified with Christ. In fact, it’s a version of salvation-by-love. The mother still trusts God’s purposes, while the father can’t understand why this has happened to him, since he prays and tithes regularly.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, but it’s provoked by the film itself. Intentional or not, the movie exhibits some of the deep ontological flaws in Roman Catholic theology. It’s not just a doctrine here or there, but a worldview in which nature tends toward evil and grace, rather than being God’s favor toward sinners on account of Christ, is a cosmic-metaphysical substance infused into the world to make it, well, less worldly. Add to this the incarnation of the nature-grace antithesis in the father-mother antithesis, and you see some of the darker aspects of this system at a pretty deep level. Perhaps the heavenly Father, too, wishes we were dead? There is one particularly arresting prayer, “Why should we be good if you aren’t?” A close second is the simple prayer, in the face of despair, “Who are we to you?”
The nature-father vs. grace-mother business is underscored also by the powerful, arbitrary, and destructive forces of cosmic evolution in the stunning vignettes scattered throughout. At least in a lot of popular Roman Catholic devotion, Mary is larger-than-life, like the mother in this film. Wrapped in eternal light with angels in an assumption-like scene, the mother says, “I give you my son.” This is rather different from the biblical gospel, where the Father is the one who “so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son….”
For all these reasons—and more, “The Tree of Life” is a stunning visual experience that weaves big questions about God, evil, and the meaning of life with a family and its setting so concrete in its details that you can’t help but sympathize with all of the characters. As a Christian parent especially, it reminded me once again how powerfully our father-images shape our experience of God, for better and for worse—not just on the surface, but in the depth of things.
We are slowly adding White Horse Inn study kits to our new online store. These study kits include full WHI audio, clips for use in a group setting, Modern Reformation articles, study questions, group activities, and a leader’s guide. We have a number of kits in the works, including some built around Mike Horton’s books.
There are two study kits currently in the store. One is built around our popular Galatians series. The newest one is built around our series on “The Preached Word.” For $18.99 you get a seven-part study discussing “The Preached Word” with the White Horse Inn and many special guests. This study explores the primacy of preaching “Christ and him crucified” from all the Scriptures. Included in this study are:
- A Leader’s Guide
- A Group Guide
- Relevant Modern Reformation articles
- WHI Audio Clips pertaining to each lessons
- Seven complete WHI shows
All the materials available in this kit are digital downloadable files (MP3 and PDF contained in compressed ZIP files) which will be available to you immediately upon purchase along with a license to create as many copies of the study guide as you need for the size of your group.
Take advantage of these new resources from the White Horse Inn. Send us an email to let us know how you’re using them, where they could be improved, and what study kits you might like to see in the future.