Our editor, Danny Hyde, recently joined the team at the Reformed Forum for its 450th episode of Christ the Center for a discussion of the issue of the Sabbath/Lord's Day as it was debated and doctrinally delivered at "The Great Synod of Dort" (De Grote Synode van Dordrecht, 1618-1619).

You can listen here.

We resume our reading of the Puritan Paperback, Sermons of the Great Ejection with the first of three pieces by Anglican Thomas Watson. “The Great Ejection” was the explusion of nearly 20% of Anglican ministers from their cures in the 1662 Act of Uniformity.
 
Born in Yorkshire and graduate of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, Watson first held the parish lectureship for 10 years and the pastorate for another six of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook in London until the Ejection. He kept serving as a non-conforming minister in London for a number of years after ejection, including the great plague and fire, until his health failed. He then retired to Barnston in Essex where he died suddenly in 1686 while in private prayer. You can still visit his old parish of St. Stephen’s today, but Watson’s church was destroyed by the Great Fire in 1666. Watson is one of the English Reformed of the Church of England who identified with the presbyterian party. He did not support further radicalism in the execution of Charles I and was later indicted and imprisoned in lending support in a move to restore the monarchy in 1651. 
 
When you read Watson you gain a real understanding of the divine inititative in your salvation. There is a pride-crushing but also a soul elevating in how he writes of God’s grace. To gain a fuller understanding of his English Reformed theology, today’s Anglicans would do well to consult his Body of Divinity on the Shorter Catechism of the Westminister Assembly. 
 
Some may raise an eyebrow that I would suggest an Anglican consult the documents of the Assembly. But I am in good company. As fellow Anglican J.I. Packer has written, “My frequent quoting of the Westminster Confession may raise some eyebrows, since I am an Anglican and not a Presbyterian. But since the Confession was intended to amplify the Thirty-nine Articles, and most of its framers were Anglican clergy, and since it is something of a masterpiece, ‘the ripest fruit of Reformation creed-making’ as B. B. Warfield called it, I think I am entitled to value it as part of my Reformed Anglican heritage, and to use it as a major resource” [Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs]. 
 
The first piece from Thomas Watson is a transcription of his pastoral prayer of 8 July 1662 as the Ejection deadline drew near. He begins his pastoral prayer in praise of our communion with our heavenly Father through the Lord Jesus Christ. He declares of God: “Thou art all fulness, the quintessence of all sweetness, the centre of all blessedness.” “Quintessence” is a marvelous word! Isn’t the heart of the believer built up in the contemplation of our God’s quintessence, and doesn’t that same heart ache for more of His blessed communion? Watson affirms that our communion with God is through the purchase of Christ’s blood in the presence and influences of his Spirit in the believer. And so our heavenly Father gathers all gifts and dispenses them through the Lord Jesus. All treasures, all fullness, and the Spirit without measure, are in him.
 
And how fitting it is that we learn at the prayer’s conclusion that the congregation are to receive the Lord’s Supper where “…this blessed sacrament [will] be a poison to our lust and nourishment for our grace.” Watson clearly had a high view of the sacrament.
How can New Covenant Christians sing Old Covenant Psalms? In my previous post we looked at William Ames' (1576-1633) resolution of the "case of conscience" of singing "imprecatory Psalms." The well-known words of Jesus, "pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44), are often used as justification (I'll respond to a specific writer in a future post) that imprecations are unsuitable for Christian singing. Yet imprecations such as, "O God, do not keep silence; do not hold your peace or be still, O God!" (Ps. 83:1) were prayed aloud in Christian worship in the apostolic church: "Lord, look upon their threats" (Acts 4:29).

 
In this post I'd like to present William Gurnall's advice on this matter. Gurnall was a "conforming Puritan," meaning, he conformed to the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer after the republican experiment came to an end and Charles II was crowned King (see Henry Jansma's post for the categories of those in the English Reformation). Gurnall discussed this issue in his well-known work, The Christian in Complete Armour (1864; repr., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 2002), 2:444–448. His words are in bold and my comments are in italics.
 
1. Take heed thou dost not make thy private particular enemies the object of thy imprecation. We have no warrant, when any wrong us, presently to go and call for fire from heaven upon them.

Ames mentioned this but not with as much detail as Gurnall does here. One of the misunderstandings people have about the imprecations is that we don't like our teacher at school or a person who cut us off on the freeway and so we take up the curses of the Psalms against them. But Gurnall reminds us that it's not against our particular private enemies that we pray.

 
2. When thou prayest against the enemies of God and his church, direct thy prayers rather against their plots than person.

Following up on the first point, we pray against public enemies of God and his church. Note well that Gurnall says we pray against their plots and not their persons.
 We don't pray the Lord would curse Kim Jong Un, but that his plots to persecute the church would be cursed.
 
3. When praying against the persons of those that are open enemies to God and his church, it is safest to pray indefinitely and in general: ‘Let them all be confounded...that hate Zion,’ Ps. 129:5; because we know not who of them are implacable, and who not, and therefore cannot pray absolutely and peremptorily against particular persons.

Building on his previous two points, Gurnall says we are to pray indefinitely and generally against the public plots of enemies of God and his church. Why? We don't know absolutely which enemies may be changed or may not be changed. We don't know if they are eternally reprobate. Pray generally and let the Lord do his work, whether to change a Saul (Acts 9) or harden a Pharaoh (Rom. 9) or Herod (Acts 12:20-23).
 
4. In praying against the implacable enemies of God and his church, the glory of God should be principally aimed at, and vengeance on them in order to that.
Finally, keep these imprecations in perspective. Their purpose is not personal revenge or even the revenge of the church; the aim and goal is the glory of God alone. To him be praise through these Psalms!
Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomir Batka, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). 662pp. Hardcover.
 
Martin Luther is one of the most influential figures in world history in the past five hundred years. This is true in the West, even where his influence serves as an underappreciated backdrop to western theology and culture. It is true even in the East, where Christianity is expanding explosively and eastern Christians begin to grapple with the western part of their Christian heritage. This reviewer is not a Luther scholar, but a student of seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy, with special interest in its continuities and discontinuities with Medieval scholastic theology and the Reformation. Martin Luther is a vital link in this historical milieu and it is to their detriment if Reformed students of historical theology ignore his theology and influence. The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology is a useful comprehensive introductory text that will both challenge scholars and introduce beginners to current research on Luther’s theology. Reformed readers will find much here that is familiar and much that is foreign to their thinking. Both of these facts make this handbook a useful tool to enable readers to understand better the broader Protestant tradition and to evaluate it in light of Scripture and our respective confessional traditions.
 
This book is well-organized, well-researched, and comprehensive in scope. Forty-four recognized scholars in various fields of Luther research contributed to its chapters. The reader is led in seven sections through Luther’s life, the Medieval backgrounds of his thought, his hermeneutical principles, the traditional loci of theology, Christian living, the genres of his theological expression, and his impact of subsequent theological and philosophical reflection. Of particular interest to this reviewer are the treatments of Luther’s appropriations and rejections of Medieval theology and method in section two. The picture that emerges is that while Luther was overtly anti-scholastic regarding theological method, he inescapably appropriated portions of it from his context and education. Moreover, in contrast to seventeenth-century Lutheran and Reformed orthodox theologians, who incorporated aspects of scholastic methodology into their theological systems, Luther placed greater emphasis on reforming strains of monastic mystical piety and methodology (esp. chapter three).
 
Several of the essays in this volume helpfully present opposing views in Luther research, such as continuity and discontinuity with Medieval thought (chapters 7-8) and the Finish school on Luther’s views of union with Christ and justification (chapters 17-18). The latter example highlights poignantly where Reformed scholars will find the material both familiar and foreign. The Finish school presents the familiar concept of union with Christ in salvation, while mitigating the forensic aspects of Luther’s view of justification. However, the opposing essay maintains the decidedly forensic character of his teaching, but maintains that Luther taught a passive and an active justification. In this view, passive justification referred to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, while active justification referred to the gradual transformation of the Christian life from unrighteousness to holiness. This latter aspect of this analysis will be jarring to most Reformed readers, who subsume this teaching under the doctrine of sanctification. The remaining chapters present a well-rounded view of Luther’s theological development in a way that will lead readers to helpful theological reflection.
 
One drawback of the comprehensiveness of this book is that it devotes more than twenty-five percent of its pages to the reception of Luther’s theology from the seventeenth through twentieth centuries. While this feature enlightens readers as to what people have done with Luther’s thought, it threatens to diminish the character of the carefully wrought historical theology that marks the other three fourths of the work. The most glaring example of this danger is chapter thirty-one, which treats “Luther as a resource for dialogue with other world religions.” While the author recognizes that Luther was closed to dialogue with world religions based on the exclusive character of the gospel, he argues that modern readers can use Luther’s solas to uphold theological distinctions while building on his simuls (e.g. simultaneously sinner and saint, etc.) to open the door to ecumenical dialog with other religions. He concludes with the historically untenable conclusion, “Had Luther experienced the profound religious diversity and pluralism of today’s world, he probably would have recast the nuances of his dialectic differently for a positive engagement with the world’s religions” (444). The problem is that Luther is a historical figure who can neither be divorced from his times nor from his convictions. The historical Luther is the only Luther that exists and this Luther would most certainly not have entertained such modern ideas of ecumenicity. His solas demanded an exclusive gospel grounded in the Scriptures, and his simuls described the application of that gospel to believers in Christ exclusively. However, chapters such as those treating Marxist evaluations of Luther (chapter 42) and the reception of Luther in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (chapters 45-47) illustrate how the modern world, rightly or wrongly, has appropriated, rejected, or transformed Luther’s theology. The chapter addressing “Luther’s abiding significance for world Protestantism” (chapter 44) is particularly eye-opening in showing Luther’s inescapable impact on modern Christianity, even where his shadow is unnoticed by many.
 
This comprehensive collection of essays is a useful aid in helping historians and contemporary theologians to ground theological reflection in an informed historical theology. It has much to offer to Lutherans, Reformed theologians, and beyond.
One of my favorite Puritans is William Ames (1576–1633). Not only are his writings precise and to the point, he was so Puritan that as an English-speaker he was exiled amidst the Dutch Reformed! Sounds like someone I know.wink
 
In his monumental treatise on Puritan casuistry, De Conscientia (1630), translated and printed in London in 1639 as Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof, he dealt with a question that perpetually perplexes Reformed churches. Historically and constitutionally, we have insisted upon singing the Psalms in public worship. In the Continental tradition, the Church Order of the Synod of Dort (1619) states, "In the churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the 12 Articles of Faith, the Songs of Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon shall be sung. It is left to the option of the churches whether to use or omit the song, 'O God, who art our Father.'" In the English-speaking tradition, the Westminster Assembly's Directory for the Publick Worship of God (1645) states, "It is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family." The Assembly even directed that "every one that can read is to have a psalm book; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise, are to be exhorted to learn to read" ("Of Singing of Psalms").
 
One issue we face as biblically-reformed and historically-informed Reformed pastors and congregations is that in almost every Psalm there are the "imprecations" (from the Latin, imprecatio) or calling down a curse against our enemies. How do we sing these words when our Lord Jesus commanded us, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44), and the apostle Paul said, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" (Rom. 12:14).
 
Thankfully we can look to our forefathers for guidance. Here is William Ames' resolution of this problem in his Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof, 4.19.8–10. His words are in bold and my comments are in italics.
 
Quest. 4. How may we sing those Psalms aright, which contain dire imprecations in them?
1. We may upon occasion of those imprecations meditate with fear and trembling, on the terrible judgments of God against the sins of impenitent persons.
The imprecations remind us of the holiness and righteousness of God. And because he is holy and righteous, he must punish sin. Whenever we sing of the application of his holiness and righteousness in the corportate life of nations or individual life of humans made in God's image, but who reject their God, this should lead us to a sense of awe, fear, trembling, and wonder. 
 
2. We may thereupon profit in patience and consolation, against the temptations which are wont to [habitually] arise from the prosperity of the wicked, and affliction of the godly.
We have the same sin nature as those God's holiness and righteousness are coming against. And because of this nature, we too tempted to be just like those we sing about. So when we sing, it is a way for the Holy Spirit to create in us the fruit of the Spirit of patience as well as comfort us that the Lord is our Father and will provide what we need; we don't need to be like the wicked.
 
3. We may also pray to God that he would hasten his revenge (not against our private enemies but) against the wicked and incurable enemies of his Church.
These prayers in the Psalms are the practical outworking of that petition our Lord taught us, "Thy kingdom come." For God's rule and reign over all things in principle and practice to be accomplished, this means we pray for everything against it to be set aside. The imprecations help us pray for that new heavens and new earth to come wherein righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13).
Let me close this series on assurance (parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) with some cautions about using the "signs of grace" to gain assurance.
 
First, be careful how you define the marks of grace. On the one hand, do not require such signs of yourself as no Christian has in this life. A true Christian keeps God’s commandments (1 John 3:24), but no Christian ever comes to the point where he may say he has no sin (1 John 1:8). Although he does not hunger and thirst for God as much as he should, he does sincerely hunger and thirst for God.
 
On the other hand, do not make signs of saving grace out of qualities that unbelievers can have. Taking the sacraments, having right doctrinal beliefs, and exercising great ability in Christian service may all appear in a person who is not born again.
 
Second, only test your graces by the true standard, the Word of God. Scripture alone is the light to guide our feet (Ps. 119:105), God’s wisdom to make us wise for salvation (2 Tim. 3:15).
 
Third, never use the signs in a way that hinders you from receiving and applying Christ for your souls. Rest on Christ alone for reconciliation with God and atonement of your sins. Your graces are but signs of Christ; they are not Christ Himself.
 
Fourth, do not make signs of salvation into grounds and causes of salvation. We wrong our souls when we take pride in the evidences of God’s grace in our lives and place sinful confidence in the signs. Find comfort in signs but rest in Christ.
 
Fifth, test yourself with signs only while simultaneously casting out your self-love and self-flattery. Many lie to themselves like the ancient Jews who cried, “the temple of the Lord!” We can only know ourselves by the supernatural teaching of the Holy Spirit. At the same time however, you must cast out your unbelief which refuses to acknowledge the work of God in your heart. How can you thank God for His grace to you if you will not acknowledge it?
 
Sixth, do not examine yourself for signs of grace when your soul is full of darkness, doubts, and temptations. You cannot see clearly then.
 
Seventh, do not think that no sign will be sufficient unless you first persevere to the end. Arminians insist that no one can be sure of his election by God until he has persevered in faith and obedience. Thus no man can be happy until he dies. Perseverance is a promise to the godly (Phil. 1:6), but it is not the only distinctive sign of true godliness.
 
Eighth, when you examine yourself, pray to God for His Spirit to enlighten your eyes. The Spirit of God is the effective cause of assurance. Just as only the Spirit can bring biblical truth home to the soul, so you can have all kinds of evidence of grace but your heart will not be persuaded until the Spirit establishes you in certainty.
 
Ninth, never think that a person may not take hold of Christ until he has this certainty by signs of grace within himself. Do not look for spiritual qualifications before trusting Christ for your justification. Though it is popular to say that faith is a strong persuasion that my sins are forgiven, in reality justifying faith is not assurance. Assurance is a fruit of faith.
 
Lastly, do not resist God’s Spirit with unbelief when He comes to assure you with evidences of your salvation. It is a great sin to rebel against the Spirit when He convinces a person of sin, but it is a greater sin to rebel against Him when He moves us to claim God as our Father, for His greatest glory lies in being the Spirit of adoption (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).
 
Conclusion
Therefore, test yourself by the signs of grace laid in Scripture: obedience to God’s commandments (1 John 2:3), sincerity before God (2 Cor. 1:12), turning from sin (1 John 3:9), willingness to be searched by God (Ps. 26:2), growth in grace (John 15:2), serving God out of inner motives of Spirit-worked faith and love (1 John 4:13), and love for other Christians (1 John 3:18). And where such things are present, may the Spirit of adoption work assurance.
Trouble in Bakersfield
I started thinking about John Bunyan (and writing this post) recently after reading Carl Trueman’s article, Trouble in Bakersfield. He highlights the demise of American pluralism where the majority sets the tone of culture while respecting the convictions of even the minority. More and more it seems that those in political power dictate culture, as the “freedom to be tolerant and diverse” had given way to the “intolerant political demand that all should be the same.” In this manner, cultural hegemony dictates culture while the masses embrace change with little to no resistance. The context for the post concerns recent transgender laws in California, particularly related to the resignation of Trueman’s friend from his popular position on a local school board.
 
Within such a context, Trueman warns us: “Expect no quarter in the conflicts that are already upon us, however many of your neighbors may initially express sympathy with you.” Things are changing in our society in almost a mind-blowing way, while policy-makers become more determined to silence anyone, especially Christians it seems, who get in their way.
 
Trouble in Lower Samsell
So what’s the connection to John Bunyan? While his seventeenth-century context differs from our own in religious and political particulars, we have something to learn from his situation. “Before I came to prison,” he says in Grace Abounding, “I saw what was a-coming,” as he recollected circumstances surrounding his arrest in Lower Samsell (Nov. 12, 1660). He was eventually imprisoned for preaching at an illegal meeting during the newly established Restoration settlement under Charles II. The religious liberty enjoyed under Puritan rule, was coming to an end for Bunyan and other nonconformists.
 
Anglican and Royalist backlash for repression experienced under the Puritan Interregnum helps to explain the arrest. Likewise, Charles’s promise of religious liberty for “tender consciences” in the Declaration of Breda proved empty given the rising swell of episcopal resentment. Still, the harsh treatment of Bunyan (Nov. 12, 1660) was unexpected, since systematic persecution under the Clarendon Code (Corporation Act, 1661; Act of Uniformity, 1662; Conventicle Act, 1664; and Five-Mile Act, 1665) had not yet taken place. His arrest highlights the unique interplay of different factors including local political independence, a long-standing Elizabethan statute against seditious meetings, Bunyan’s notoriety and fame, his determination not to flee, and a desire to make an example of him to pesky nonconformists.
 
He heard about his pending arrest, a warning he ignored to avoid charges of cowardice. Whatever we might say about this decision, we can admire his conviction that we not be “daunted” in preaching God’s Word, which will be rewarded if we suffer for it. That Bunyan did for the better part of the next twelve years. Within the year before his arrest, he thought and prayed much about possible imprisonment. Political instability existing since the death of Oliver Cromwell (1658) certainly encouraged such reflection. Bunyan’s two primary concerns were how well he endure long imprisonment and even death if called to it.  His solution was to consider himself dead to all earthly things including family, health, and all enjoyments.
 
Trouble on the Horizon
I want to encourage us in our twenty-first-century context, as different as it might be from Bunyan’s, to observe what we share in common with him. First, notice how quickly religious liberties can disappear in spite of promises to the contrary. Bunyan lost longstanding freedom quite suddenly even though Charles II promised liberty. Recently in America, Christians were told by the Supreme Court that the legalization of gay marriage would in no way impose upon their convictions. They could hold them without threat of recrimination. We are already seeing Christians suffer for their stance on marriage, even when they act peacefully, since they are viewed as bigoted extremists not to be tolerated.
 
Second, notice the importance of reflection concerning what is “a-coming.” Whatever we might say about Bunyan’s refusal to avoid arrest, we should emulate his prayerful preparation to suffer as resistance grows and liberty diminishes. Without a spirit of paranoia, is it not time to do this? We truly face a growing threat of persecution in our post-pluralism society. Cultural hegemony will not allow our so-called constitutional liberties to continue unmolested. In recognition of the spiritual forces behind such oppression and the guarantee that Christians will suffer persecution (2 Tim. 3:12), we must prayerfully seek readiness for rougher days ahead.
 
We, like Bunyan, can remain undaunted in our proclamation of the gospel which continues to be good news for all sinners, even the most anti-Christian policy makers. Just ask Paul (Acts 9:1-2). We too can know the reward that comes for faithful preaching in the midst of suffering. Again, just ask Paul (Acts 9:15, 16).
Ever since I studied the Antinomian-Neonomian controversy that took place among the English Dissenters in London during the final decade of the seventeenth century, I have wanted to write on the debate itself. Part of the impetus for this was that during my studies the Federal Vision controversy was at full steam and it became quite obvious that the two controversies were not only similar in content, but also in style and tone. They resembled each other in matter and method. It seemed to me then and it seems to me now, especially in light of the current Trinity debate, that we can and ought to learn from the English Dissenters on how to, or perhaps more accurately, how not to engage in public theological controversy.
 
The invitation to contribute to this blog has opened the door and provided the necessary motivation to write a number of articles on the lessons to be learned from this old controversy. I want to begin with a brief history of the controversy, which in itself provides a valuable lesson that may be summed up by the words of a country song, The Gambler: “You’ve got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.”
 
A Brief History of the Controversry
In 1690 the Presbyterians and Congregationalists joined forces to help one another financially with a common fund and then ecclesiastically in 1691 by uniting the ministers together on the basis of a doctrinal document. This latter union was well received by many. Matthew Mead took the occasion to preach a sermon on Ezekiel 37:19 entitled, "Two Sticks Made One: Or the Excellency of Unity." Unfortunately, the celebration didn’t last long because a theological controversy that had already been brewing, in part due to the reprinting of the sermons of Tobias Crisp in 1690, would wreak havoc upon the Union.
 
Besides the lecture hall, the debate played itself out in the public eye via the printing press. Although a number of people wrote on the issues, including Richard Baxter shortly before he died in 1691, it was the book by Daniel Williams (Gospel-Truth Stated and Vindicated) that became the center of debate and the source for the charge of Neonomianism. In this book, Williams attacked the views of Tobias Crisp, but many Congregationalists believed it was aimed at them. They also believed that Williams went too far and expressed unorthodox views himself. In response, Isaac Chauncy published a lengthy reply to Williams in three parts entitled Neonomianism Unmask’d. Williams responded to the first part with his A Defense of Gospel-Truth, only to be answered by Chauncy’s A Rejoynder. Robert Traill also entered the fray when he published anonymously A Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine Concerning Justification, and of its Preachers and Professors from the unjust charge of Antinomianism. This displeased a number of Presbyterians who had recommended Williams’ book and so they prevailed upon Willliam Lorimer to pen a book length response to Traill, An Apology for the Ministers Who Subsribed only unto the Stating of The Truths and Errours in Mr. Williams’ Book.
 
Many more books and pamphlets kept rolling off the presses, even after all forms of cooperation between the two sides were severed by 1695. People on both sides kept responding and replying to one another so that one gets the impression that all parties were fueled by the need for self-vindication, which could only be accomplished by having the last word.
 
In reflecting upon the numerous writings of Isaac Chauncy, the Congregationalist historians, David Bogue and James Bennett, remarked: “for what controversialist will be outdone.” A true statement indeed, not only of Chauncy, but also of Williams and the others. And it is equally true of theological controversialists today. The temptation to defend ourselves or to defend our critiques continuously is a clear and present danger. Publishers and editorial policies are helpful in this regard because they compel us to stop. But now with the internet the safeguards are removed in many cases and we are free to post our reviews, responses, defenses, further defenses, rejoinders, surrejoinders and so on.
 
A Lesson to be Learned
One lesson then that we ought to learn from this past controversy is to know when to fold ’em and when to run away. We need to learn to put to death the desire to have the last word. After all, God’s truth will triumph and its success is not dependent upon our relentless and unending barrage of articles, posts and tweets. This is not to say, of course, that all prolonged public debate is to be dismissed. The English dissenters spent a good deal of time debating the issues in order to maintain their unity and to correct error. Surely, that time was well spent even if it didn’t result in the desired outcome. And yet wisdom dictates that there is a time when the public debate should end and someone has to end it. But what controversialist will be outdone?

 

In 2016, every two months (February, April, June, August, October, December) we will be producing a Meet the Puritans Resource, which you will be able to find linked under Our Resources. These will be classic texts with introductions, footnotes, and modernized language. The purpose is to introduce you to the treasures of the Reformed tradition.
 
August's Resource is William Bridge's The Doctrine of Justification Opened and Applied with an introduction by Daniel R. Hyde.
 

Thanks to our friends at The Latimer Trust, we have two (2) copies of Peter Adam's, Word and Spirit: The Puritan-Quaker Debate.

The deadline is Friday, August 12.

Sign up here.