At the heart of the Antinomian crisis in the seventeenth century was the debate over the terms, and relationship between, the law and the gospel. Affirming a law-gospel contrast does not make one orthodox any more than affirming grace in salvation makes one Reformed. Arminians, Roman Catholics, and Reformed theologians all insist that we are saved by grace. It is what you do with those categories and how you relate them to each other, as well as how you define each category, that makes you Reformed or something else. In the seventeenth century the Antinomians had a powerful weapon in their arsenal, which has great rhetorical force even in today’s climate, namely, the idea of positioning oneself as a defender of “free grace.” The debate was not so much about the necessity of grace for holiness, but the fact that certain orthodox truths were either softened or outright denied. Moreover, the indicative-imperative model was generally agreed upon, but what was not so obvious to some was the force or necessity of the imperatives. So, for example, are good works the way of life or also the way to life? Tobias Crisp affirmed the former but denied the latter whereas the Westminster divines and Reformed orthodoxy in general held to the view that good works were both the way of life and the way to life (see WLC 32). In other words, good works are necessary for salvation, but not for justification.

In England there were theologians who constantly sounded the drum of “grace, grace, grace”, but they were nonetheless viewed as either suspicious or downright in serious error according to a number of Reformed theologians. In fact, a close reading of the Westminster documents shows that the Antinomian threat was viewed with as much, if not more, seriousness by the divines than Arminianism and Roman Catholicism. Unsurprisingly, Antinomian theologians accused their critics of Arminian, neonomian, or popish tendencies (i.e., legalism).

Even today similar rhetoric abounds; not only the strong language used to denounce others, but the types of theologies that were advanced during the seventeenth century. One present-day example that highlights the issue well is Tullian Tchividjian’s book, Jesus + Nothing = Everything, which is a sort of spiritual biography that relates a massive shift in his thinking that took place as his church merged with Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida in 2009. The change in his thinking has led him to formulate a theology that in my view has affinities with Lutheranism and the seventeenth-century English Antinomians.

Grace + Anything = Legalism

In the first place, the rhetoric of the book warrants discussion. In Tullian’s view, “a lot of preaching these days has been unwittingly, unconsciously seduced by moralism” (49). He adds that “So many contemporary sermons strengthen this slavery to self. ‘Do more, try harder’ is the constant refrain.” In fact, “Many sermons today provide nothing more than a ‘to do’ list” … “It’s all law (what we must do) and no gospel (what Jesus has done)” (49). These are, of course, strong accusations and perhaps they are true, but they seem to me to be comments that are easily made, but not quite so easily proved. As a minister, I spend the vast majority of my Sundays in my own pulpit and would be unable to make such a comment even about the city of Vancouver, much less the North American context. This brings me to a further concern about the general tone of the book, namely, that if ministers are not preaching the type of theology prescribed in this book they are inevitably legalistic to some degree. Indeed, the threat of legalism surfaces again and again throughout the book, so much so that it is the one primary threat to true gospel-centered Christianity: “I believe it’s more theologically accurate to say that there is one primary enemy of the gospel – legalism – but it comes in two forms” (50). Of course, one could easily respond and say that “Antinomianism” is the only threat to the gospel because all sin – whether refusing to believe the gospel or murdering someone – is against God’s law. Why are preachers legalistic? Because “moralistic preaching is stimulated by a fear of the scandalous freedom that gospel grace promotes and promises” (50, emphasis mine). Tullian argues that preachers fear that focusing on grace will cause people to abuse it, so instead they feel the need to “throw some law in there, to help make sure Christian people walk the straight and narrow” (50, emphasis mine). So throwing in “some law” is a bad thing in preaching? What are we to make of the letters to the seven churches in Revelation or the Sermon on the Mount?

+ > /

In reacting to perceived deficiencies in present-day preaching and theologizing, Tullian has placed himself in a position where it appears to be “either/or” instead of “both/and”. In his online interview with Ed Stetzer (part 2) he makes the argument, advanced by the Lutheran theologian, Gerhard O. Forde, “that sanctification is simply getting used to your justification–it’s receiving Christ’s words ‘It is finished’ into our rebellious regions of unbelief.” This theme recurs throughout the book. Thus “sanctification is the daily hard work of going back to the reality of our justification” (95). This seems to impact his exegesis of Philippians 2:12-13. Verse 12 tells us that “We’ve got work to do – but what exactly is it? Get better? Try harder? Pray more? Get more involved in church? Read the Bible longer? What precisely is Paul exhorting us to do?” According to Tullian, “God works his work in you, which is the work already accomplished by Christ. Our hard work, therefore, means coming to a greater understanding of his work” (96). I fail to see how Philippians 2:12-13 can be interpreted in that light, particularly since Paul exhorts believers to work out their salvation with “fear and trembling”. In Tullian’s manner of speaking, quietism (or, interior passivity) seems to be the chief characteristic of the Christian life whereby believers engage in mental appropriation of Christ’s finished work. But Reformed theology has never painted the Christian life in quite that way. Sanctification is not “simply” getting used to our justification. It certainly involves that, but the Scriptures are clear that there are other motives for holiness. Gratitude is not the only motivator; rather, for important ontological reasons, we must obey because of who we are and who God is (e.g., 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Peter 1:15, 17; 1 Jn. 3:3). Here is where Reformed theology has stressed the “both/and” to the Christian life when it comes to sanctification. John Owen’s exposition of Romans 8:13, for example, paints a very different picture of the sanctified life than the one found in Jesus + Nothing = Everything. Other examples of the “either/or” fallacy come up when he argues that “It is always the gospel of God’s free grace that should motivate our right doing; otherwise we are nothing better than Pharisees” (153). But this is wrong. The Antinomians argued that a man is under law, and not under grace, when he obeys the law as law, and obeys in light of not only its promises but also its threats. But the divines disagreed with this view (see WCF 19.6).

Justification + Nothing = Gospel?

In the book Tullian makes the point frequently that he came to understand that the gospel is not just for unbelievers but also for believers. If we make the gospel essentially synonymous with justification then I can see why this was such a breakthrough for Tullian. But this leads to a great deal of confusion, particularly since he seems to understand “Christ for us” as essentially synonymous with justification. For example, in referring to the “glorious exchange” (2 Cor. 5:21), he writes: “That’s the gospel” (84-85). And later he posits that “The gospel, in fact, transforms us precisely because it’s not itself a message about our internal transformation but about Christ’s external substitution” (94). What concerns me in the debate over the relationship between justification and sanctification is not so much the logical or temporal priority given to justification, but the view, espoused by Tullian, whereby sanctification is essentially swallowed up by justification because, to repeat, “sanctification is simply the art of getting used to justification” (see also p. 172). In my view, the gospel is not synonymous with justification. Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, which includes the guilt (Rom. 5; justification) and power (Rom. 6; sanctification) of sin. It seems that many associate “for our sins” exclusively with the guilt of our sin; but the Scriptures are clear that “for our sins” cannot be reduced to simply the guilt of our sin; the good news is that not only the guilt, but the enslaving power of my sin has been dealt with by Christ and the Spirit. Therefore, the gospel is not simply Christ for us, but also Christ in us. Redemption (the gospel) must have application or it is not redemption. While a major part of our sanctification includes looking to Christ for us, an equally important aspect of our sanctification involves Christ in us, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27). Tullian exhorts us to look outside of ourselves to Christ’s finished work, but we also need to know that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith (Eph. 3:16-17), which necessarily means that our identity shapes us in our sanctification. Indeed, contrary to Tullian’s view that sanctification feeds off justification and not vice versa, there are theologically and pastorally sensitive ways to explain how our assurance of justification may feed on sanctification. His view of sanctification – looking to justification – won’t allow for that, however.

Law ≠ Gospel & Gospel = Law

The section on the law and the gospel in the book evinces a problem with certain versions of the law-gospel antithesis, especially when this antithesis is read into the Christian life and not just simply justification. Tullian notes that the law is good, but we are not. Therefore, “Paul, as a believer in Christ, has allowed the law to continue driving him to the gospel. And that’s what we’re to do as well” (188). In my view, Paul sometimes speaks negatively of the Torah; he shows its impotence apart from the Spirit to give the life it promises. Some versions of the law-gospel antithesis seem make a mess of Paul’s own antitheses. For example, in Romans 7 the law is placed on the “Spirit” (not the “flesh”) side of the Spirit-flesh antithesis. Sin leads to condemnation because the law exposes us as sinners. But in chapter 8 the law becomes a liberating, not condemning, power because of the Spirit. I would also note that Paul often does not place “law” on the expected side of the antithesis. It is interesting that in 1 Corinthians 7:19 Paul does not say, “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but believing the gospel.” Rather, what counts, in that particular context, is “keeping God’s commandments”. The law in the New Covenant becomes a quickening power that, by the Spirit, sets us free from sin and death (Rom. 8:1-4). The Puritan, Anthony Burgess, noted that the law acts as means of grace, not simply to drive us to Christ for justification, but to make us like Christ in sanctification. Therefore, the antithesis between the law and the gospel is not an end in itself; it only entered because of sin. Instead, the gospel has in view removing the absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer because in Christ the law is my friend because God is my friend (Ps. 119). In essence, my concern has to do with the fact that a number of biblical passages are read in a manner where people automatically assume that the text is driving us to Christ for justification when in fact the text is saying nothing of the sort (e.g., Matt. 5:20, “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees”).

Historically speaking, the difference between the law and the gospel is not a distinction between demanding and forbidding, which was an Antinomian position, but rather a difference between the kinds of acts that are demanded. The law demands perfect works whereas the gospel demands faith, repentance and sincere – albeit imperfect – obedience. Faith is an antecedent condition whereas gospel obedience is a consequent condition. Samuel Rutherford, likewise, argued against the Antinomians, who posited that the gospel only persuades, by insisting that the gospel persuades and commands, and with a stronger force than the law does! In the law and the gospel there is not an oppositio contradictionis (the Antinomian view) but an oppositio contrareitatis. In fact, as Reformed divines noted, in sanctification the law and the gospel “sweetly comply” (WCF 19.7).

Love + Love = Love

I recognize that the book is not a formal theological treatise, but when dealing with such sensitive topics it seems to me that one needs to be careful with the rhetoric that is used, especially when certain Reformed truths are denied. One area where I think a good theological distinction would have helped, if not changed his view, is Tullian’s belief that “We seem to inherently assume that our performance is what will finally determine whether our relationship with God is good or bad: so much good behavior from us generates so much affection from God; or so much bad behavior from us generates so much anger from God” (98). The distinction between amor benevolentiæ and amor complacentiæ, used by almost all of the Reformed orthodox, explains how God loves us unconditionally in Christ, apart from works, and conditionally in Christ, in light of our obedience or lack thereof (see Jn. 14:21). In other words, God loves us, despite our unworthiness with the love of benevolence; but he also loves us because of our close communion and obedience with him with the love of complacency. He delights in certain graces (e.g., acts of faith). Tullian speaks of God’s love of benevolence to his creatures as if that were the only love and so our growth in grace has no bearing on God’s love for us. The love of benevolence is certainly primary or antecedent to the love of complacency (and inviolable), but our obedience or disobedience will result in a different type of complacent love between God and the saint. The English Antinomian, John Saltmarsh, denied this distinction and affirmed, in similar manner to Tullian, that God’s love for us does not change in relation to our good behavior.

Faith = Justification + Obedience

It is not that there are no good points made in the book. I acknowledge that. But I’ve read enough from John Saltmarsh and Tobias Crisp, as well as authors from Arminian and Catholic traditions, to know that even those who depart from Reformed orthodoxy can and often do say helpful things. Yet in Jesus + Nothing … there are too many statements that are either inaccurate or confusing. And the book is also highly repetitive (note, for example, the same quote from Berkouwer on pp. 173, 190). The fact is, books on this topic have been written before, but without the aforementioned shortcomings. Moreover, I can’t help but get the feeling that a number of Reformed ministers, both in the past and in the present, would be viewed as legalistic in their preaching if judged by the theology of this book. But this book does not set forth classical Reformed theology. We do have work to do. And that work involves trusting in Christ’s finished work. But we also need to “Pray more, Get more involved in church, [and] Read the Bible longer.” These are necessary components to our sanctification. Nonetheless, God’s graciousness in his Son and by the Spirit assures us that he gives what he commands.

In the end, the issue is not so much about the necessity of preaching salvation by grace. Rather, sometimes error comes in the form not by what people do say, but by what they fail to say. And, as J I Packer has so eloquently reminded us, “A half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.”

-          Mark Jones

I think those Puritans, pictured above on our blog at the Westminster Assembly, had the right idea. Teach children a catechism! Not just the doctrine, but the Bible texts that the doctrines are built from. I still remember the first time I came across the Westminster Shorter Catechism, thinking what a great thing it would have been if I had imbibed such clear and heart-warming Reformed doctrine from my youth. Sadly, I didn’t. But my own kids do – thanks to Dana Dirksen and Songs for Saplings.

They produce 3 “Questions with Answers” CDs (volume 4 is out very soon!) and they are a treat for Christian children and their families alike. Based on a children’s version of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, each song has a question, an answer, and at least one Bible verse. So very quickly the whole family is singing about how to glorify God and enjoy him forever by loving him and doing what he commands while reciting (and effortlessly learning) Micah 6:8.

Because the catechism is not just doctrine but also anchored in the plot-line of the Bible we also learn, for example, the story and text of Genesis 1-3 at the start of the first CD as well as its theological ramifications. The songs are short (about 1-2 minutes each) and in a variety of interesting genres produced to a high musical standard with catchy and memorable tunes.

Musically it is less eccentric than many kids CDs, which means it will suit a wider range of temperaments. On the other hand, its American origin should not put a British audience off, because it is far from schmaltzy or trite (I’m sorry guys, but that is what Brits expect from American Christian music very often!). Good meaty theology that kids will want to sing again and again, and adults will enjoy learning from in the car on long journeys too. They would make excellent Sunday school songtimes and help a new generation to hide God’s word in their hearts. You can listen to some samples on their website: http://www.songsforsaplings.com/index.php.

Another perfect grandparent or godparent gift are the other Songs for Saplings CDs which have a series of very short songs (c. 1 minute) from A-Z or 123  each based on a single memory verse. Singer-songwriter Dana Dirksen has a bit of fun with snappy tunes or lilting bedtime melodies to teach verses from all over the Bible (Gospels, Epistles, Psalms, Proverbs, even Zephaniah and Habakkuk!) in a memorable way. There are also verses to sing at the beach, camping, harvest time, on Valentine’s day, Father’s day and other occasions in order to redeem the time and make the most of every opportunity. Great for last thing at night or first thing in the morning before school.

Kids will soon learn “The word of the Lord endures forever 1 Peter 1:25” (track 5) and that “Happy are the people whose God is the Lord, Psalm 144:15” (track 8). Parents will particularly appreciate the reminder of track 16, “Be patient with everyone, 1 Thess 5:14” when the kids want to listen to it all over again!

Allegedly, there are even some YouTube clips of me and Dana jamming our way through “What is Sanctification?” if you want to try and find those. But I fear that my attempts to play guitar along with her may have distracted the poor woman a little (sorry sister!).

This Q&A was illuminated for me a while back as I begun reading the Sentences of the great twelfth-century theologian, St. Peter Lombard. At the beginning (Distinction 1), he delves into St. Augustine’s doctrine of things and signs. He then goes to to discuss the “use” and “enjoyment” of things. Listen to how Lombard’s words open up the medieval background of the Westminster Divines in terms of “enjoying” God already and not yet:

[from the online version. A better text is the in-print and new translation of the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies].

__________

Distinction 1

Chapter II

On the things which one is to enjoy, and/or to use, and on those which enjoy and use.

Among things, therefore, it must be considered, that as (St.) Augustine says in the same (book), there are some things, which one is to enjoy, others, which one is to use, others, which enjoy and use. Those, which one is to enjoy, make us blessed; by those others, which one is to use, as ones tending towards beatitude we are helped and, as it were [quasi], propped up, so that we can arrive at those things, which make us blessed, and cleave to them. But between both things, which are enjoyed and used, we have been constituted, as it were, as both Angels and Saints. Moreover “to enjoy” is to cleave to any thing by love on account of its very self; but “to use” (is) to refer that which has come to be used to obtain that, which one is to enjoy; otherwise it is abusing, not using. For an illicit use ought to be named abuse [abusum] and/or an abuse [abusio]. The things, therefore, which one is to enjoy, are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. However the same Trinity is a certain most high Thing and common (property) to all enjoying It, if however It ought to be called a thing and not the Cause of all things, if however even a cause. For it is not easy to find a name, which convenes with so great an excellence, which the one God is better said (to be) except “this Trinity”. Moreover the things, which one is to use, are the world and the created things in it.  Whence (St.) Augustine in the same (book): This world is to be used—not enjoyed—so that the invisible things of God, understood through those things which have been made, may be perceived [conspiciantur], that is, as from temporal things there are only eternal ones, which one is to enjoy, which are eternal and incommutable; but the all others one is to use, so that one arrives at the thorough fruition of these. Whence (St.) Augustine in the tenth book On the Trinity: We enjoy things cognized, in which very things the delighted will takes rest for its own sake; but we use those things which we refer to the other, which one is to enjoy.

Chapter III

What is it “to enjoy” and “to use”?

But it must be noted, that the same (St.) Augustine in the tenth book On the Trinity, accepting “to use” and “to enjoy” in another way than above, speaks thus: To use is to assume something into the faculty of the will; the faculty of the will; but to enjoy is to use with a joy no longer of hope, but already of a thing; and for that reason everything, which is enjoyed, is used; for one assumes something into the faculty of the will for the purpose [cum fine] of delectation. Moreover not everything, which is used, is also enjoyed; if that which is assumed into the faculty of the will, is desired [appetit] not for its own sake, but for the sake of another.

And attend, that (St.) Augustine seems to say, that those only enjoy, who rejoice in a thing, no more in hope; and thus in this life we do not seem to enjoy, but only to use, where we rejoice in hope, since it has been said above, that to enjoy is to cleave to any thing by love for its own sake, in which manner many even here adhere to God.

Therefore these things, which seem to contradict themselves, we thus determine saying, that we both here and in the future enjoy, but there properly and perfectly and fully, where through sight [per speciem] we shall see, what we enjoy; but here, while we walk in hope, we indeed enjoy, but not fully to that extent. Whence (St.) Augustine in the tenth book On the Trinity: We enjoy things cognized, in which very things the delighted will takes rest for its own sake.  Likewise in the book On Christian Doctrine he says: The Angels, enjoying Him, are already blessed, whom we also desire to enjoy; and as much as in this life we enjoy (Him) through a mirror and/or in mystery, so much more shall we both more tolerably sustain our pilgrimage and more ardently desire to finish (it).

It can also be said, that he who enjoys even in this life, not only has the joy of hope, but also of a thing, because he already delights in that which he loves [diligit], and thus he already has the thing to a certain degree. It is therefore established, because we ought to enjoy God, not use (Him). For Him, as (St.) Augustine says, you enjoy, by whom you shall be made blessed and in whom you place (your) hope, to arrive at that.  Concerning this the same says in (his) book On Christian Doctrine: We say that we enjoy that thing, which we love for its own sake, and that thing alone is to be enjoyed by us, by which we are made blessed; but all others (are) to be used. Frequently, however, one says to enjoy when it bears delectation with itself [secum]. If, however, you would pass over through this (delectation) and refer it to that, where one is to thoroughly remain, you are using it and you will be said “to enjoy” not properly, but in an abusive sense. But if you cleave (to it) and thoroughly remain (in it), placing the end of your gladness in it, then truly and properly you are said “to enjoy”; which is not to be done except in that Trinity, that is, in the Most High and Incommutable Good.

__________

Let us apply ourselves to our number one goal in life: to enjoy God by delighting in he who makes us blessed, but especially by putting on the virtue of hope, and longing for the full enjoyment of his gracious presence in his kingdom that has no end!

Tolle lege.

That beats working at Starbucks, right?

You’ll also get copies of the books I’m editing and writing.

Reformed churches believe God still speaks. While we do not believe he speaks via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we believe that via preaching God’s voice is as real and vital to us as it was through the mouths and pens of prophets and apostles. How can we say this? Here’s the doctrine formulated as simply as possible: when a lawfully called and ordained minister (Rom. 10) preaches the Word of God and not his own words (2 Tim. 2:15) and does so in sincerity to honor God and not himself (1 Thes. 2:3–6), God speaks. His words are “not . . . the word of men but . . . the word of God.” In the words of Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): “Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called [per prædicatores legitime vocatos], we believe that the very Word of God [ipsum Dei verbum] is preached, and received of the faithful” (Second Helvetic Confession, 1.4).

So how do you hear the voice of the Lord in your pastor’s sermon? Obviously I’m assuming the above is true of him. Here’s how:

1. Expectantly—“Lord, I expect you to speak”

Since we gather together on the Lord’s Day to hear what Paul says is “not . . . the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God,” we need to come expectantly, crying out to God, “Lord, I expect you to speak.” This means that we need to prepare all week to hear him speak through the preaching of his Word on the Lord’s Day. We need to be preparing our hearts all week long with a spirit of anticipation. The prophet Isaiah spoke of our day, saying, the Lord’s mountain would be exalted and the nations would flow to his house: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths” (Isa. 2:3). Because of this we need to be saying to ourselves, “God’s going to speak. What’s he going to say? I can’t wait.”

2. Hungrily—“Lord, I need you to speak”

When Sunday morning rolls around, we need to hear the Word hungrily, crying out, “Lord, I need you to speak.” Why? Why do we need him to speak through the words of men, which are in reality the Word of God? Because his Word is the food of our souls. In our age of instant gratification and having the world at our fingertips on our iPhones and Blackberries, we are ever-connected to each other and to information. But that feeling is passing. It does not last not does it satisfy our souls. Like our forefathers in the wilderness, our hungry souls need the Word. “Man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD” (Deut. 8:3). Like the prophets of old who ate their scrolls to signify the people’s need to have the Word within them to nourish them, so too we need to partake of the Word to satisfy our spiritual hunger.

What kind of an appetite do you have? Do you want the empty calories, the quick sugar high of the devil’s words, the world’s words, your own words, and sadly, the words of so many professing Christian preachers today? What kind of appetite do you have? Do you want your ears tickled with promises of a better life now, health, wealth, and happiness? Instead, we are called to have an appetite for the Word like a nursing child has an appetite for milk. As Peter says, “Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation” (1 Peter 2:2). Milk is nourishing. Milk is healthy. Milk is satisfying.

3. Attentively—“Lord, I will listen to you speak”

To make best use of that nourishment we need to hear the Word attentively. During the sermon, we need to be praying, “Lord, I will listen to you speak.” This means every week and even every moment of the sermon, we need to be saying to ourselves, “These are not the words of Pastor ____, but what they are in truth, the words of God.” As we recognize that God is in our midst and that he is speaking, we will be able to give our attentive listening to the Word. This is why the Westminster Confession calls the “conscionable hearing” of the Word an act of worship. We are hearing God, and hearing him, giving our minds and hearts’ full attention to every last word.

One example of hearing the Word attentively is in Deuteronomy 32:47. At the end of one of Moses’ last sermons, he exhorted the people to recognize the profundity of what was happening in that sermon: “For it is no empty word for you, but your very life.” Here is a challenge for pastors as well as for parishioners. Can you say of the preaching of the Word in your church that it is not empty? Can you say of the preaching of the Word that it is your very life? Let me challenge you with all that is in me to think of preaching totally different after this sermon. Let me challenge you to fight fatigue, to fight distracting thoughts, and to fight what the devil wants you to think about all this, that it’s boring. Worship is the place and the time where God speaks!

4. Faithfully—“Lord, I believe you when you speak”

You need to leave worship saying to God, “Lord, I believe you when you speak.” I know this is difficult to believe that in preaching it is not the words of men but the words of God. I know it must be hard to believe that your pastor’s words are not merely his words but God’s words, given that you know that he is a mere man, a sinful man at that. Because of this receive the preaching of the Word by faith as God’s word to you.

Because preaching must be received by faith, that faith is inevitably going to be an object of the devil’s temptation. We too easily give into the devil’s subtle designs on this point. How? He wants us to judge the minister with our eyes—his appearance, his fashion or lack thereof, or even the fact that he may wear a robe to signify his office but that turns you off to the content of what he preaches. The devil wants us to judge the minister with our hearts. Don’t ever tell him your gripes, but hold grudges, hold spite, and hold adverse opinions about him that you are saving as weapons for a later time. He wants us to judge the minister with our minds. How easy it is to fall into the trap that one of my college professors said parishioners fall into when he said, “Some people know just enough Hebrew and Greek to be dangerous.” We puff ourselves up in our minds so that we can do mental battle with the preacher. All this is so that we do not listen to him.

5. Obediently—“Lord, I will obey you when you speak”

Instead, God wants us to hear the Word obediently. He wants us to leave, saying to him, “Lord, I will obey you when you speak.” The Thessalonians heard the Word, they received the Word, and they accepted the Word. And it was that Word that was “at work” in them. The Word is never fruitless, but is always fruitful. As the prophet Isaiah said, “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
 and do not return there but water the earth,
 making it bring forth and sprout,
 giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
 it shall not return to me empty, 
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
 and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Isa. 55:10–11). Are you a doer of the Word and not merely a hearer?

We need to learn how to fine-tune our spiritual senses that we are able to hear the Lord in a world of noise. We can do that as we listen expectantly, as we listen hungrily, as we listen attentively, as we listen faithfully, and as we listen obediently. Let me challenge you to do so that your life will be saturated with the Word in every part and guided by the Word at every turn of your life. Let me close with a wonderful quote that summarizes it all. The Puritan Joseph Alleine once said—and I pray this is true for us all: “Come from your knees to the sermon, and come from the sermon to your knees.” Amen.

1. Hear it attentively (Mark 4:2, 3). This is hindered by wandering thoughts and drowsiness.
2. Hear it meekly (Jas. 1:21)
3. Hear it honestly (Luke 8:15). This means to do so with a) an understanding heart, b) a believing heart, and c) a loving heart.
4. Hear it memorably (Luke 8:15). The means of doing this is to a) repeat it to your family, b) talk of it as you leave the sermon, and c) pray the Lord will preserve his Word in your heart.

Tolle lege!

John Bower has joined historian Chad Van Dixhoorn in launching three new series of books by the Westminster Assembly, and one series of new and classic studies on the Assembly, all being published by Reformation Heritage Books. It is hoped that both texts and studies will stimulate further research in the Assembly and the religious dimension of English civil war politics. Certainly future publications on British post-Reformation theology and Puritanism will be enriched by these publications, briefly described here.

Principal Documents of the Westminster Assembly. This series will produce the six chief works authored by the Assembly for covenanted uniformity of religion in England: the Confession of Faith, Larger Catechism, Shorter Catechism, Directory for Public Worship, Directory for Church Government, and The Psalter. Each volume will contain a historical introduction, a critical text, and multi-column comparisons of original manuscripts and early editions. The inaugural volume, The Larger Catechism, has been prepared by John Bower and scheduled for a launch in March 2010.

Writings of the Westminster Divines. The aim of this series is to provide scholarly editions of texts by Westminster Assembly members and commissioners. Volumes will include previously unpublished manuscripts as well as republications of rare editions. Carefully determined editorial standards will be used to ensure an authoritative product that is accessible to modern readers, while remaining reliable for students and scholars.

Westminster Assembly Facsimiles. With this new series, Reformation Heritage Books and the Westminster Assembly Project are providing electronic and print access to publications by Assembly members in their original form. Free PDF downloads will be made available through the Westminster Assembly Project website. The same text can be purchased for your collection in paperback and hard cover from Reformation Heritage Books.

Studies of the Westminster Assembly. Complementing the primary source material in the other series, the Assembly studies will provide access to classic studies that have not been reprinted and to new studies, providing some of the best existing research on the Assembly and its members.

For more information visit the Westminster Assembly Project. Be sure to check for more information on and about this project at our RHB website and blog.