The (Deceitful) Heart

Here’s a good summary of what the heart is – in biblical terms.

“‘Heart’ is used different ways in the Bible.  Sometimes it is the mind believing or being enlightened (Rom. 10:10; Eph. 1:18), the will deciding and acting (2 Cor. 9:7, Eph. 6:6), or the affections feeling (2 Cor. 2:4).  In Hebrews 4:12 the heart thinks and feels.  The best way to think of your heart is that it comprises

-Your thoughts, plans judgments, discernment (the mind);

-Your choices and actions (the will);

-Your longings, desire, revulsion, imagination, feelings (the affections);

-Your sense of right and wrong, which approves or condemns your mind, will, and affections (the conscience).

This summary is based on John Owen’s discussion of the same in Indwelling Sin and The Mortification of Sin.  Consider the above and then consider how the Bible says the heart by nature (apart from Christ) is deceitful above all things (Jer. 17:9).  Also consider what it means when the Holy Spirit graciously gives sinners new hearts (Ezek. 36:26).  Check out chapter three of The Enemy Within by Kris Lundgaard for more info on this theme of the heart.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Children, Church, New Covenant: Not Narrower, but Wider

  Since I’m the pastor of a Reformation church where there are very few Reformed churches, one question I get is, “Why do you baptize children? Are you Roman Catholic?”  The short answer is no, we’re not at all Roman Catholic, we’re Reformed.  We baptize children because we’re a Reformed church.  All Reformed/Presbyterian churches baptize infants, not just ours.  It’s written very clearly in our confessions!

I like how puritan Thomas Vincent (d. 1678) explained this in his commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism - specifically on Q/A 95.  (Side note: this commentary on the WSC received a churchly stamp of approval by John Owen, Thomas Manton, Thomas Brooks, and Thomas Watson, among other puritans).

“How do you prove that the infants of such as are visible church members may and ought to be baptized?”

“That the infants of such as are visible church members may and ought to be baptized may be proved, because they are in the covenant [of grace]; and the promise of the covenant belonging unto them, this seal of covenant doth belong to them also.  ‘The promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2.39).  It is upon account of the promise of the covenant that any have the seal; hence it was that not only Abraham, but all his seed, whilst in their infancy, received the seal of circumcision, because the promise of the covenant was made to both; and by the same reason, not only believing parents, but also their infants, are to receive the seal of baptism, the promise being made to both.  See Gen. 17:7, 10.”

The next question basically asks this: How can you prove that we should baptize our children today based on circumcision in the OT?

A: “That the infants of Christians have the promise of the covenant of grace made with Abraham is evident, because that covenant was an everlasting covenant, Gen. 17:7, which covenant Christ is the Mediator of, and is renewed in the New Testament with all believers, and that as full as under the law: and, therefore, if the infants under the law were included, the infants under the gospel are included too.  That the privilege of infants (being made church members) under the law, doth belong to the infants of Christians under the gospel, besides the parity [similarity] of reason for it, and equality of right unto it, is evident, because this privilege was never repealed and taken away under the gospel.”

I appreciate that point.  The NT doesn’t exclude children from God’s covenant people; in fact, it speaks of them as part of God’s people much like the OT does (i.e. Acts 21.5, 1 Cor 7, Eph. 6.1-4,  Col. 3.20-21, 2 Tim 3.15, etc.).  The next question Vincent asks is: how do you prove that the privilege of infants being made visible church members under the gospel was never taken away?

“1) Because, if this privilege were repealed, we would have some notice of its repeal in the Scripture; but we have no notice or signification of God’s will to repeal this privilege throughout the whole book of God.  2) Because Christ did not come to take away or straiten [narrow] the privileges of the Church, but to enlarge them; and who can, upon Scripture grounds, imagine that it was the will of Christ that the infants of the Jewish church should be church members, but the infants of the Christian church should be shut out like heathens and infidels?  3) Because the Scripture is express [clear], that the infants of Christians are holy (1 Cor. 7.14).  As the Jews are called in Scripture an holy nation, because by circumcision they were made visible church members; so the infants of Christians, as well as themselves, are called holy; that is, federally holy, as they are by baptism made visible church members.”

I summarized this very slightly; you can find the entire Q/A discussion in Thomas Vincent’s The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2004).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Owen on Holiness and the Gospel

 Here’s another great quote from John Owen.

“…Sanctification of the Spirit is peculiarly connected with, and limited to the doctrine, truth, and grace of the gospel. …Holiness is the implanting, writing, and realizing of the gospel in our souls” (p. 221).

John Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power.

shane lems

Owen on “Enthusiastical Ecstasies”

  I really appreciate this section of John Owen’s discussion of regeneration in his book, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power.  Since the arrival of Pentecostalism in the West around 100 years ago, some people have wrongly taught and thought that regeneration and conversion have to do with elation, ecstasy, frenzy, convulsions, or some sort of trance.  This causes a lot of problems in the Christian life.  Not only is it a distortion of the Spirit’s work, it also causes Christians who have never been “enraptured” to wonder if they’re really Christians.  Even worse, it makes some Christians fake ecstasy so they can say they had a “conversion experience.”  John Owen cuts through these unbiblical aspects of what we know today as Pentecostalism (which has roots in the radical Anabaptist movement after the Reformation).

“The work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration does not consist in enthusiastical raptures, ecstasies, voices, or any thing of the like kind.  Such things may have been pretended to by some weak and deluded persons: but the countenancing of such imaginations, or teaching men to expect them, or esteeming them as conversion to God, while holiness was neglected, is a calumny and false accusation, as our writings and preachings fully testify.”

“Therefore as to this negative principle we observe that the Holy Spirit usually exerts his power in the use of means, and that he works on men agreeably to their natures.  He does not come upon them with involuntary raptures, using their mental powers as the evil spirit wrests the bodies of possessed persons.  His whole work is rationally to be accounted for, by those who believe the Scriptures and have received the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive.”

“Indeed, the efficiency of the Spirit in quickening our souls (which the ancients always termed his ‘inspiration of grace’) is no otherwise to be comprehended than any other act of creating power, for as we hear the wind, but know not from where it came or where it goes, so is everyone that is born of the Spirit (John 3:8).  But this is certain, that he works nothing but what is determined and declared in the written word, and that he puts no force on the faculties of our souls, but works in them and by them suitably to their nature.”

In this same section, Owen later exhorts pastors to know what the Bible teaches about the Spirit’s work of regeneration (giving life to a spiritually dead person).  He says that if a pastor doesn’t know what the Bible teaches, then all sorts of things will be substituted for the truth, and everyone will be tricked into thinking they’re regenerate when their not, or think they are not regenerate when they are.  This is profound.  If a pastor thinks regeneration is about visions, emotions, ecstasy, tremblings, and tongues, he will preach towards those things and the people will attempt to get those things.  That is a seed-bed of legalism, pride, and/or despair.  Legalism because those things are said to be necessary; pride because those who have them think they are higher on the Christian ladder; despair because those who don’t have them will be unsure of their salvation.

Reformed Christians are not putting the Holy Spirit in a box when we agree with Owen above.  We are avoiding legalism, pride, and despair by focusing on the “ordinary means” the Bible emphasizes when it comes to the Spirit’s work of regeneration: preaching, repentance, faith, and the good works (the fruit of the Spirit) that follow.

The Owen quote above is found on page 133 of The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power.

shane lems

Definite Atonement, Particular Redemption

For me, one of the most comforting doctrines of grace is the biblical teaching that Christ’s death actually accomplished salvation for his people.  In other words, Jesus’ atoning death didn’t merely make salvation possible – it actually saved people from sin and misery.  In Calvinism this is called ‘limited atonement,’ though I prefer the terms ‘definite atonement’ or ‘particular redemption.’  In Jesus words, he said that he laid down his life for his sheep whom no one can snatch from his hand (cf. John 10).  Elsewhere in scripture his people are called the “elect” whom no one can bring a charge against because it is God is the one who justified them (Rom. 8.33).  I’ve been enjoying Mike Horton’s book, For Calvinism, to prepare for an upcoming sermon series on the doctrines of grace, and his chapter on definite atonement is a great explanation of this truth.  Here are a few excerpts.

“All orthodox Christians maintain that the atonement is limited either in its extent or its nature.  Calvinists believe that it is limited (or definite) in its extent, but unlimited in its nature or efficacy: Christ’s death actually saved the elect.  Arminians believe that it is unlimited in its extent, but limited in its nature or efficacy: Christ’s death makes possible the salvation of everyone, but does not actually save any.”

“As the seventeenth-century Puritan John Owen observed, every position that recognizes that some will finally be lost places a limit on the atonement at some point – either it is limited in its extent or in its effect.  Owen summarizes the points: Christ died for (1) all of the sins of all people; (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all of the sins of some people.  If unbelief is a sin and some people are finally condemned, there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction.”

Horton then gives some explanations that help prove the doctrine of definite atonement (I’ve summarized them):

“First, this view maintains that Christ’s death actually saves.”

“Second, this view emphasizes the relationship between the Trinity and redemption.”

“Third, this view places the focus entirely on Christ rather than on the believer.”

Near the end of the chapter Horton writes this (with which I’ll conclude).  It brings us back to the application of this doctrine: it is a great comfort for the Christian.

“…The depths of God’s love are revealed in the fact that he sent his Son to accomplish everything necessary to our salvation, not merely to make humanity ‘savable.’  He did not come halfway, as if to say, ‘I did my part, and now you need to do yours.’  Rather, he has carried his loving purposes all the way, accomplishing and applying redemption to those who were ‘dead in… trespasses and sins’ (Eph 2.1).”

Michael Horton, For Calvinism, chapter 4.

shane lems

“