As another year is about to begin, we might think about our plans to read God’s Word. Ligonier Ministries has compiled a list of Bible reading plans that may help you to achieve the goal of being sanctified by God’s truth (John 17:17). So whether you want to read as much as possible or go slowly through the Scriptures, I encourage you to adopt a plan for the coming year and enrich yourself with God’s wisdom.
It has been awhile since I last wrote on the subject of liturgy so let us review what we are trying to accomplish in these series of posts. We are following the outline of our worship services (1) and establishing the biblical nature and evidence for these elements of worship. As we explain and describe each element we want to keep in mind that we are not doing so merely to present worship as a cerebral experience. That is as long as you know what you are doing and why you are doing you and others have succeeded in worshipping God in Spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Rather we believe that our worship ought to be done in an “understandable”way (1 Corinthians 14:15) so that we might rightly commune with God.
And we examine the next portion of our liturgy we see that we are called to understand or comprehend the magnitude of our sins as well the greatness of God’s forgiveness. The law, which was just read, has demonstrated that we are guilty of transgressing it and are worthy of punishment and divine wrath. (Romans 3:19-20; Ephesians 2:3). We should be delighted to hear the assurance of pardon for our sins which is freely given in Christ. However it is appropriate first and indeed a necessity to make a confession of sins (1 John 1:9). But it is not sufficient to merely proclaim a general inclination to sin or a worldwide fall into sin but rather when God’s people hear the law they confess their sins.
And it is particularly instructive that we are confessing our (plural) sins and not just my (singular) sins. Certainly we must do the latter (Psalm 32:5) but we follow the ebb and flow of the biblical pattern when we also do so as a body in our public worship. Aaron was commanded to lay his hands on the head of the goat, and confess “over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness “ (Leviticus 16:21). In the dedication of the temple, Solomon envisioned a time when Israel, repenting of their sins and failures, would confess God’s name pray for the forgiveness of the “sin of your people” (1 Kings 8:34). Daniel prayed by himself and yet said “we have sinned and committed iniquity” (Daniel 9:5). And our Lord Himself taught us to pray “Forgive us our debts”. (Matthew 6:12)
But what practical significance does this hold or have? First of all, it reminds me that these people who I worship with and fellowship and commune with are (surprise!) just like me. It is not just I who is a sinner, nor is it only that publican over there (Luke 18:11ff.) but we all have fallen short of the glory of God. It reminds me that I ought to treat my brother and sister with compassion because, without Christ, we are all condemned and without hope (1 Corinthians 15:14-17). Rather, since I am forgiven and you are forgiven we can forgive one another and willingly so (Ephesians 4:32). So then I may not think of myself as outside the fellowship for my sins, but included as “first among equals” (as Paul would say – see 1 Timothy 1:15).(2)
Second, it tells a listening world that these Christians, amongst whom they may find themselves one day, are not so hypocritical as they thought and maybe more humble than they give them credit. For sin is a universal problem with a particular solution; the Christian has no monopoly on sin but has or knows the only way for its removal: in Jesus. To confess our sins in light of our witness to the world, then, is to say: yes, you need Christ because you are condemned without Him (John 3:18) but without Him so are we! So our corporate confession of sins gives ‘traction’ to the Gospel by proclaiming the Saviour instead of the self. For there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). The biggest hypocrites of all are not the Christians who call sin ‘sin” but those who have no need for forgiveness and (thus) have no antidote to sin.
But what then of the assurance of pardon? Like the confession of sins, it is corporate since Christ died for His people (Matthew 1:21). We have a common Saviour and we are called to serve Him. No one person in the body of Christ is to be abandoned or left behind by the Lord’s servants because Christ Himself never abandons His sheep (John 10:28). Our mutual pardon in Christ’s sacrifice is a mutual calling or reminder to our sacrifice for one another (Romans 12:1-3).
Furthermore the law should never be proclaimed without the gospel (Romans 3:21ff.). The assurance of pardon is a rich promise that all who come to Christ in true repentance and faith are truly forgiven in Him. And everyone of the pages of the God’s Word brim with this wonderful announcement or good news. Thus we should never be tired of hearing it though is repeated from Lord’s Day to Lord’s Day. It is a celebration and it should be received as such (Revelation 5:9ff.).
Finally, we might ask, how does this assurance to ‘work’? When the pastor reads the text or summary of scripture pronouncing our forgiveness, must we understand that to mean that God is forgiving us through him? We see in John 20:23, for example, that our Lord tells His disciples “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” These are strong words and, in the opinion of some, they teach that pastors and priests have power and influence over our ‘forgiven state’. Let me say first of all that the Jesus’ opponents were correct: only God can forgive our sins (Mark 2:7) and He has done so in His Son (vs. 10). Indeed Paul and the other apostles never make the forgiveness of their readers dependent upon their intercession or help. Quite the contrary Paul, like David, ‘conditions’ forgiveness on faith in God’s mercy (Romans 4:5ff.).
Rather our Lord Himself commanded that we disciple the nations thus presenting the understanding that we may call all people to forgiveness in Him regardless of what they have done. Indeed, as John Calvin notes, Jesus sent His disciples (John 20:21) for this purpose: that all who preach God’s Word forgive in the sense of proclaiming forgiveness. For we have to understand that a proclamation of forgiveness is, in a sense, as good as the act of forgiveness. Though we were not present at the cross or doing any of Jesus’ suffering and did not witness His love for us or His righteous works in our stead we do have the scriptures and we do have the gospel. And when the gospel is faithfully proclaimed we can be assured that we are truly forgiven by God Himself as we trust in His Son for that forgiveness. That is why Paul says Jesus has given him and other gospel preachers “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18) which grants them the authority as ambassadors of Christ to call others to ”be reconciled to God” though they themselves, do not reconcile anyone (1 Corinthians 1:12ff.). Thus, like Paul, the pastor or minister has an official calling to bring that gospel message of the forgiveness of sins (Romans 1:1,5; Galatians 1:1,11-12). When we believe in the assurance of pardon as brought to us by the minister we are forgiven; if we do not believe we are condemned.
“‘Now the just shall live by faith; but if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.’ But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.” (Hebrews 10:38-39)
Footnotes:
1. For an outline of our worship services I invite you to visit our “Bulletin” page. There you may download a bulletin to see the order of worship.
2. Please note that this principle does not ignore or do away with church discipline. Rather it underscores its necessity for sin in the body does not just corrupt one but all (1 Corinthians 5:6ff.). Also because sin is no respecter of persons we judge the public and scandalous transgression being worthy of church discipline on the basis of the act not the person we think they should be. (James 2:1ff.).
Next post: Liturgy – Prayer
Have you ever had anyone tell you that religion was not allowed to be discussed in a public setting? Perhaps you were talking about politics, education or some other subject that is common to civic life. And then you mentioned God or faith and suddenly you are told that you had crossed an invisible line. Namely that you are in the public arena and that religion is not allowed here: in this time and in this place. And you wonder(ed): what ought we to say to such people as we defend the hope that lies within us? (1 Peter 3:15). I suppose that there are many ways that you could answer but the following is one attempt to deal with this objection.
One might ask: has the objector really thought about what they are saying? For, in reality, they are making a religious claim themselves. To say that religion is not allowed in schools, city hall, parliament or in any public discourse is to make a universally binding rule that has been imposed upon everyone else. It is a non-negotiable principle that, it would seem, requires every person who hears it to comply. In essence here is no difference between a demand such as that and the command that “everything that has breath praise the LORD” (Psalm 150:6). Do they not both require something of their hearers?
Of course, our interlocutor will say his statement has nothing to do with God or faith. Rather this is simply the idea(l) of our culture or society. And typically we will be led at this point to consider the separation between church and state. However this is only a facile defense of his or her position. Even if it reflects the consensus of our culture or society this is no sound or sufficient reason to believe it or uphold it, whether in conversation or in the courts of the land. Simply because something ‘is’ does not make it ‘ought’ (for example: there is much racism that exists in the world today, but that does not mean there ought to be racism).
Indeed to say that their argument or worldview has nothing to do with God or faith is also wrong because they have made themselves god by requiring that, at least by my silence in matters of religion in the public sphere, not only respect but pay homage to their authority and to their worldview which has trumped my own. Indeed, as long as one requires that religion, God, faith or any other such thing not be mentioned, alluded to or otherwise referenced, they also infer, if not require, that we should not express our faith in public and will be silenced if we try. Now any attempt to do so may not be as dangerous as far as the consequences that are reaped, but there is no essential difference between this practice and that of ancient Rome’s who demanded that Christians worship the emperor. We may thank God that we are not there yet but essentially we have embraced pluralism not only as (supposed) celebration of diversity but also as a means to censor public discourse. And people should be told that is precisely what they have done.
But perhaps it is true that most of us think believe that religion is a private matter. And even the courts of our land will (likely) uphold this dogma. And yet it should be apparent that one needs to have a better defense of this principle than a bare reference to the authority of one’s fellow man. Yes it is true (and even the Christian agrees) that the government has authority over us (see Romans 13:1ff.). But the difference between the Christian and the world is that the latter thinks this authority is self-appointed (or to be taken) and the former believes that it is given by God. Thus the authority of man is limited and subject to the authority of God. It is not an end to itself. For if so it has no transcendental right or power because it only exists insofar as we agree with it or allow it to exist. And therefore the current ‘requirement’ to keep religion out of public discourse is good or right only as long as it is supported by the people who believe in it. But it could easily be overturned by the shifting tide of opinion that is our political and social landscape. Potentially one could envision a time in which only persons of (organized) faith would be allowed to hold public office. Surely this would make our objector rather irate? Perhaps he would be even more frustrated than you and I feel at the present moment.
So whatever we decide with respect to religion’s right to exist in a public fashion, we are always doing so or have done so; we just don’t know it. We don’t realize that religion will have its way, whether true of false. In this way, the Christian and the world are on equal footing.
But, we might say: is there no difference at all between our culture’s demand to heed them and the scripture’s demand to worship God? It is true; there is a difference. Indeed this is ultimately where we need to bring the objector. Namely one demand is a mere statement of man and one is the demand as stated by Almighty God. That is to say that the former is laughable (Psalm 22:4) and the latter is laudable (Psalm 22:11).
Now please don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating disrespect for our opponents. No am I saying that we should be haughty or self-righteous in our answer. For we are called to speak with grace when we answer those who are outside (Colossians 4:6). But this does not change the fact that the natural man has clearly embraced pure folly and is now on a mission to impose it on us all. And therefore we now have an opportunity to oppose it (if God gives us the means to do so).
Let us then speak the truth. Indeed I am reminded and encouraged by one man who, while in the public ‘arena,’ spoke the following to those who questioned his faith:
I perceive that in all things you are very religious... but [God] commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead (Acts 17:22,30-31).
Preferring the para-church over the local church is much like the arrogance of Naaman: insisting that the waters of his homeland were superior to that of the Jordan. It is not ours to decide where God’s blessing will preside; we ought not to be wiser than God.
Go to your local church for the dispensing of God’s sanctioned means of grace: there you will receive the water of the Word (John 4 :13-14 & Ephesians 5:26); there you will be cleansed by the blood of Christ (1 John 1:7) and there you may drink of the vine of the kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)
In a previous post, I mentioned that I would be open to receiving and answering questions from the web community. The following is a query from my physical and spiritual father:
Many Pastors at funerals openly say that the congregate at this persons funeral has gone to Heaven and is in the presence of Jesus. How can one really know that to be true? how does a Pastor know the HEART of the congregate? I hear this at reformed funerals as well. No one knows the heart of man -really – except God alone. Only the person themselves know of saving Grace in -their own- heart. Does scripture have anything to say about another person telling others he/she has gone to Heaven? [I realize the confessing of sin accepting Jesus as their Saviour....but the heart?]
First of all, I agree that only God can judge the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
But, in the case of a person who has died in the Lord, I believe we have every reason to speak of them as now with the Lord. In fact I believe that a pastor is well within his rights to speak this way because Paul (and the others apostles) does so as well. If we examine many of his letters he addresses professing Christians as “saints” and speaks to them and amongst them (that is to one another in the body of Christ) as believers. Clearly he rebukes them at times and, in some cases, warns them of their ways but he always talks of them as believing unless perhaps they have committed a sin worthy of excommunication and did not repent of it (see 1 Corinthians 5:4-5).
So, in my opinion, the pastor speaks not from what he infallibly knows but from what he is compelled from scripture to say. This is not to preach everyone into heaven (though we certainly shouldn’t preach them out of there either!) but rather to speak from our hearts: what we believe and have every reason to believe. In the case you mentioned above the person has God’s sign and seal (baptism placed on them) and so we know that they are received into His covenant and church (Ephesians 4:5). And they have professed faith in Christ, and so we know that they have done all that is necessary to be saved. (Romans 10:9-13). So even though we could be wrong about their confession and maybe, in their heart, they despised their baptism, but we cannot judge that and we have no right to judge that now after their death anymore than we did when they were alive.
What does it mean that God created all things? How did God create all things? Does the doctrine of creation contradict the teaching of evolution? What does this all mean for us?
These are the questions we seek to answer this Sunday on “A Profitable Word” as we continue to explore the scriptural teaching of the Belgic Confession. Our focus will be on Article 12, “The Creation of All Things”. If you live in Leduc or Wetaskiwin county, tune in to 93.5 FM (CIHS) at 1:00 pm (MST). Otherwise you can also listen via the internet by clicking on the live link on the CIHS homepage.
Who is the Holy Spirit? Is it proper to speak of the Holy Spirit as ‘who’ or ‘Him’? Is the Holy Spirit God or merely an extension of God?
These are the questions we seek to answer this Sunday on “A Profitable Word” as we continue to explore the scriptural teaching of the Belgic Confession (Article 11) If you live in Leduc or Wetaskiwin county, tune in to 93.5 FM (CIHS) at 1:00 pm (MST). Otherwise you can also listen via the internet by clicking on the live link on the CIHS homepage.
