Grief, Grace, and Growing

A friend from church recently told me about this book that has to do with grief: Jerry Sittser’s A Grace Disguised (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, 2004). This book is the outcome of Sittser’s deep, dark, emotional, and faith-filled fight with grief after he lost his mother, young daughter, and wife in a single car accident.  He had to continue with life after the tragedy, however, because three of his children survived the accident.  A Grace Disguised is definitely not a macho “suck-it-up-and-drive-on” self-help book, nor is it feminine “get-in-touch-with-your-inner-feelings” fluff; rather, it is more like a modern-day psalm of lament with bright glimmers of Christian hope dispersed throughout.

It did hurt me to read this book.  Even to think of losing my little girl, my wife, or my mother in such a tragic manner brings me to tears.  I had to set the book down from time to time because I didn’t like the pain.  When you read this book you go through the grief with Sittser.  However, he doesn’t really talk about his experience in order to put himself or his family front and center.  In fact, over and over he says how many times he failed to deal with grief and its effects in a proper way.  Sittser doesn’t make himself out to be a saint in this book!  But he does explain his experience and brokenness in order to put the focus on God’s grace which penetrates through grief to cause growth.

Here are a few lines from the book that I highlighted.

“…I lost all hope, collapsed to the ground, and fell into despair.  I thought at that moment that I would live in darkness forever.  I felt absolute terror in my soul” (p. 41).

“Sorrow is noble and gracious.  It enlarges the soul until the soul is capable of mourning and rejoicing simultaneously…however painful, sorrow is good for the soul” (p. 74).

“Catastrophic loss is like undergoing an amputation of our identity” (p. 81).

“What is bad will always be bad.  But grace will bring good out of a bad situation; it will take an evil and somehow turn it into something that results in good.  That is what God accomplished through the crucifixion.  He turned the evil of an unjust murder into the good of salvation.  God can do the same for us as well” (p. 105).

“The sorrow I feel has not disappeared, but it has been integrated into my life as a painful part of a healthy whole” (p. 51).

I cannot recommend this book enough.  If I were a rich man, I’d purchase a few cases of these and give them out to any of our readers who have faced grief in the past or are facing it now.  And I’d send a copy to many pastors and elders (and others) who minister to those in sorrow.  I’m confident most of our readers would benefit from this book. It is short, clear, vivid, and full of grace.  Please, get this book: A Grace Disguised.  It will hurt, but it will open your eyes to see hope amidst the hurt.

rev shane lems

A Closed Canon

   In 1934, Walter Bauer argued that there was no clear line between heresy and orthodoxy in the early church, but since the orthodox were stronger, their views eventually prevailed in what we now call the New Testament (a sort of survival of the fittest).  Bart Ehrman has taken this thesis and run with it.  Similarly, others like Hal Taussig are talking about “A New New Testament” made up of other early religious writings.  These men and their ideas essentially cast loads of doubt on the historic New Testament canon that Christians have always accepted, studied, believed, defended, and died for.

In light of Bauer’s thesis, it’s important to have a biblical and apostolic view of the New Testament canon.  Authentic diversity should not be the standard that leads us; rather, apostolic doctrine is what we Christians should hold tightly.  After all, the apostles are the foundation and Jesus is the cornerstone (Eph 2.20).  We accept the apostles’ words because Jesus commissioned and sent them in his name and by his authority (Mark 3:14, 6:7-13, etc.).  In the Old Covenant there were prophets and prophetical writings; in the New Covenant there are apostles and apostolic writings.  I appreciate Herman Ridderbos’ words on this topic.

“When understood in terms of the history of redemption, the canon cannot be opened; in principle it must be closed.  That follows directly from the unique and exclusive nature of the power the apostles received from Christ and from the commission he gave them to be witnesses to what they had seen and heard of the salvation he had brought.  The result of this power and commission is the foundation of the church and the creation of the canon, and therefore these are naturally unrepeatable and exclusive in character.”

“The closed nature of the canon thus rests ultimately on the once-and-for-all significance of the New Testament history of redemption itself, as that history is presented by the apostolic witness.  All the more, then, the New Testament cannot be qualified fundamentally as a witness to the faith of the early church.  Such thinking not only fails to understand the revelatory nature of the canon, it also destroys the principle distinction between the canon of the church and the subsequent faith of the church.  The closed character of the canon, in contrast, fully preserves this principial distinction between faith and revelation” (Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, p.25).

As I’ve mentioned before, if you’re interested in the study of the NT canon, I highly recommend Michael Kruger’s work – specifically Canon Revisited and The Heresy of Orthodoxy (with A. Kostenberger).  These books, along with Ridderbos’ aforementioned work, are great resources to refute the recent attacks on the NT canon and the emphasis of diversity.

rev shane lems

 

Arminians, Calvinists, and Limited Atonement

Here’s a great insight from a great book: What’s So Great About The Doctrines of Grace? by Richard Phillips.

“…It is helpful to note that both Arminians and Calvinists believe in limited atonement.  The question is with regard to what is limited.  Arminians believe that the atonement is limited in terms of its efficacy.  Calvinists believe the atonement is limited in the scope of people for whom it was intended.  Arminians believe the atonement is unlimited in scope but limited in effect: it offers everyone the chance of salvation.  Calvinists believe the atonement is limited in scope but unlimited in effect: it effectually saves the elect.” 

“If we think of the atonement as a bridge spanning a great river, Arminians see it as infinitely wide, but not reaching all the way to the far bank; Calvinists hold that the atonement is a narrow bridge, wide enough only for the elect, but reaching all the way to the other side.  We [Calvinists] believe that Christ’s death actually saves those for whom He died” (p. 56).

Richard Phillips, What’s So Great About The Doctrines of Grace?

rev. shane lems

Francis Schaeffer on Science and Scripture

In the past week, the conservative-Reformed blogosphere has been a frenzy of activity with the web release of an article in the Banner outlining the need to redraw Christian beliefs in light of the purported “established fact” of evolution. This has understandably sparked much discussion, both from conservatives within the CRCNA who feel that the denominational magazine is presenting an unbalanced approach to this issue, and from conservatives who are not in the CRCNA but feel a connection to it nonetheless.

Some of this later group is touting an unfortunate “I told you so” attitude which does little to support confessional members of the CRCNA. Others, like myself, are saddened by this, but are also waiting and watching. What will happen next? Will any concrete steps be taken to address this? Or will conservatives just resign themselves to disappointment as the progressive agenda mutes their confessional voice?

In using this article as an opportunity to think again about matters of science and the Bible, I came across the following quotes by Francis Schaeffer from his book No Final Conflict (in vol. 2 of The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer). I thought they were a fine summary of some of the issues Christians must consider when seeking to properly interpret both general and special revelation.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook – in the sense that science is not its central theme, and we do not have a comprehensive statement about the cosmos. But the Bible tells us much about the cosmos in reference to the central theme. In Genesis 1 we have the statement of the creation of the cosmos, and thus as we come to Genesis 2 and the central focus is placed upon man, we can understand man’s setting.

“The Bible is not a scientific textbook” is true in the sense in which we have just spoken. But many people today use the statement in a different way – that is, to say that the Bible does not affirm anything about that in which science has an interest. When the statement is used to mean this, it must be totally rejected. The Bible does give affirmations about that in which science has an interest.

No Final Conflict in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 2, pg. 129.

When we face apparent problems between present scientific theories and the teaching of the Bible, the first rule is not to panic, as though scientific theory is always right. The history of science, including science in our own day, has often seen great dogmatism about theories which later have been discarded. Thus there is no inherent reason why a current scientific theory should immediately be accepted. And there is no inherent reason why a Christian should be put in a panic because the current scientific theory is opposite to what is taught in the Bible.

When we come to a problem, we should take time as educated people to reconsider both the special and general revelations; that is, we should take time to think through the question. There is a tendency among many today to consider that the scientific truth will always be more true. This we must reject. We must take ample time, and sometimes this will mean a long time, to consider whether the apparent clash between science and revelation means that the theory set for by science is wrong or whether we must reconsider what we thought the Bible says.

No Final Conflict in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 2, pg. 130

There indeed must be a place for the study of general revelation (the universe and its form, and man with his “mannishness”) – that is, a place for true science. But on the other side, it must be understood that there is no automatic need to accommodate the Bible to the statements of science. There is a tendency for some who are Christians and scientists to always place special revelation (the teaching of the Bible) under the control of general revelation and science, and never or rarely to place general revelation and what science teaches under the control of the Bible’s teaching. That is, though they think of that which the Bible teaches as true and that which science teaches as true, in reality they tend to end with the truth of science as more truth than the truth of the Bible.

No Final Conflict in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 2, pg. 140

______________________________
Rev. Andrew Compton

Christ Reformed Church (URCNA)

Anaheim, CA

The Synod of Orange (529 AD)

In the early church, some people rejected Augustine’s view of the will, sin, grace, and predestination.  Teachers like John Cassianus (d. ca. 430) and Faustus of Riez (d. ca. 490) argued for for freedom of the will, the ability to reject God’s grace, and they disagreed with Augustine’s emphasis on predestination.  This is usually referred to as Semi-Pelagianism; it was huge controversy in the 5th and 6th century Christian church.  It also resurfaced in the later middle ages and was one factor that led to the Protestant Reformation.  Luther and Calvin stood with Augustine and opposed the Semi-Pelagianism of the Roman Catholic Church.

But back to the early church.  In 529 a synod (held in Orange, France) was called to deal with this controversy.  Bengt Hagglund explains the Synod of Orange:

“The Synod of Orange, whose 25 canons were drawn for the most part from a collection of quotations from Augustine prepared by Prosper [of Aquitaine], sanctioned Augustine’s teaching of original sin.  The synod agreed that as a result of original sin the entire man is changed for the worse, both in body and soul, and that the free will is not undamaged.  Both sin and death have come to the entire human race through one man.”

“Furthermore, the anticipatory activity of grace was strongly emphasized: the very prayers in which we pray for grace are themselves stimulated by grace.  By ourselves we are unable to take the first step to receive grace.  God does not wait until man wills to be cleansed from sin; He rather works through the Spirit to implant this desire within us.  Neither is the longing for wholeness, or the beginning of faith, or the feeling of faith something that is part of man by nature.  When a man consents to the preaching of the Gospel, this must be attributed to the enlightenment and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  Man is not good in himself; God must work all good within him.  Even the regenerate must pray to God for help in order to persevere in doing good.”

“…Canon 22 of the Synod of Orange summarizes the content of the entire confession: ‘Of himself, no man is anything but lies and sins.  If one does possess something of faith and righteousness, it comes from that fountain after which we ought to thirst in this desert, so that, sprinkled as it were, by some of its drops, we might not succumb on the way.’”

There’s more to it, of course, but suffice it to say the Synod of Orange was a very important assembly in the early church.  You can read more about it in chapter 12 of Bengt Hagglund’s History of Theology.

rev shane lems