Essays On The OPC: A Brief Review

I recently picked up a copy of this 2011 publication: Confident of Better Things: Essays Commemorating Seventy-Five Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (ed. John Muether and Danny Olinger).  This is a thick book (500 pages) and I haven’t read every essay in it, but I would like to point it out to our readers.

As already noted, this book is a collection of articles and essays gathered to celebrate the 75th year of the OPC (1936-2011).  The editors put it this way:

“…We confess that there is no perfect church, that churches as well as individuals are guilty of sin and liable to error.  ‘OPC’ does not stand for the ‘Only Perfect Church.’  If anything, the OPC is the church of the broken heart.  That is, the OPC carries with it the belief that the way to Christ is found through the conviction of sin.  The good news is that sin is dealt with once for all in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then a new and joyous life follows” (p. 1).

Around 25 men contributed to this collection, including Richard Gaffin, John Fesko, Robert Godfrey, Robert Strimple, and Richard Muller (among many other able scholars, pastors, and teachers). The book has five main sections: 1) History, 2) Theology, 3) Christian Education, 4) Mission of the Church, and 5) Ecumenicity.   Each section contains around five essays.

This book isn’t a detailed history of the OPC – although it does contain some OPC history.  Between these covers you’ll find the authors explaining the truths of Scripture, the doctrines of Reformation theology, the power of preaching, the motivation for missions, the beauty of the gospel, and the importance of the confessions.  More specifically, here are the titles of a few essays: “The Legacy of Charles Hodge,” “Tongues Today?,” “Was Adam Historical?” “Catechetical Instruction in the OPC,” “Called to the Ministry,” and “The Ruling Elder in Church Planting,” among others.  So far I’ve enjoyed the article on tongues by Gaffin and the discussion of missions by Mark Bube.  I’m also looking forward to reading the chapter on redemptive historical hermeneutics as well as Godfrey’s article on the OPC/URCNA relationship (perhaps he’ll rightly tell the URC to aim towards a more Presbyterian polity!  Stay tuned….).  Actually, most of the articles look like good reading.  I hope to read them over the course of the summer.

If you’re interested, Confident of Better Things is priced fairly (around $14.00).  It is well worth the investment.  I’m thankful the editors and writers worked together to give the church a fine resource – not just for those in the OPC, but others who appreciate solid, confessional Reformed church piety, practice, and worship.

rev shane lems

Cyprian, Calvin, and Church (S)Hopping

  (This is a slightly edited repost from January, 2010)

Around 252 A.D. Cyprian wrote a letter to several Christians (Maximus, Urbanus, Sidonius, and Macharius) who had recently been received back into the church after they had left under persecution.  They repented, professed faith, and after time were allowed full fellowship once again.  Cyprian rejoices in this letter (“Epistle L” [50] in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, V.326-7) that they repented and confessed faith.  Here’s part of his counsel:

“Although there seem to be tares in the Church, yet neither our faith nor our charity ought to be hindered, so that because we see that there are tares in the Church we ourselves should withdraw from the Church: we ought only to labour that we may be wheat, that when the wheat shall begin to be gathered into the Lord’s barns, we may receive fruit for our labour and work. [Cyprian then quotes 2 Tim. 2.20]”

In other words, he calls these restored brethren to “stick with” the church even though there may be tares and impurity.  Calvin said it this way: “Add to this, that very many, under the pretense of zeal, are excessively displeased, when every thing is not conducted to their wish, and, because absolute purity is nowhere to be found, withdraw from the Church in a disorderly manner, or subvert and destroy it by unreasonable severity (Commentary on Matthew [13.24-43]).”

Cyprian then goes on to say that it is not the job of humans to make the final separation between the wheat and the tares:

[No one] …may claim to himself what the Father has given to the Son alone, so as to think that he can take the fan for winnowing and purging the threshing floor, or can separate by human judgment all the tares from the wheat.  That is a proud obstinacy and a sacrilegious presumption which a depraved madness assumes to itself.  And while some are always assuming to themselves more dominion than meek justice demands, they perish from the Church; and while they insolently extol themselves, blinded by their own swelling, they lose the light of truth.”

Fascinating.  Cyprian was hinting at the same things that the Reformers faced during the Reformation.  With some historical/contextual clarifications, one could apply Cyprian’s latter quote to the Anabaptists of the 16th and beyond.

Cyprian and Calvin’s comments are relevant today when many people hop from church to church looking for one they like the best.  Ironically even some Reformed Christians are habitual church (s)hoppers.  This is ironic – and quite inconsistent – because in Reformed theology, we have objective marks of a true church (preaching the whole counsel of God and the administration of Christ’s two sacraments).  Finding a biblical church isn’t primarily subjective (what we want), but objective (what God wants).

Reformed Christians who habitually church (s)hop are also inconsistent because Reformed eschatology doesn’t jump the eschatological gun by aiming for a perfectly pure church on this side of heaven.  A consistent Reformed Christian will understand that there is no perfectly pure or purely perfect church in the world.  He or she will also understand the Reformed truth that Christians are saints and sinners simultaneously.

If you are a habitual (chronic!?) church hopper, or if you’re counseling one, these words are worth studying again.  Sure, we should join the church that is most true to God’s word rather than the one that is most entertaining and fun.  However, we should not hop from church to church with a critical spirit, always finding something to gripe about, only to leave in pride and anger.  Not only is this attitude contra Reformed theology, it is also against the pleasant Christian virtues of humility, patience, and submission.

(Note: if you want to read Cyprian’s treatises and letters, they are available for a decent price on Kindle).

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Theology Is…

What is true, Christian, biblical theology?  What good is it?  Is it practical?  William Ames (d. 1633) has some great answers to these questions.  Here’s an edited version of Ames’ helpful discussion.

“Theology is the doctrine or teaching [doctrina] of living to God (Jn. 6:68, Acts 5:20, Rom. 6:11).  It is called doctrine, not to separate it from understanding, knowledge, wisdom, art, or prudence – for these go with every exact discipline, and most of all theology – but to mark it as a discipline which derives not from nature and human inquiry like others, but from divine revelation and appointment (Is. 51:4, Mat. 21:25, Jn. 9:29, Gal. 1:11-12).”

“Although it is within the compass of this life to live both happily and well; living well is more excellent than living happily.  What chiefly and finally ought to be striven for is not happiness which has to do with our own pleasure, but goodness which looks to God’s glory.  For this reason, theology is better defined as that good life whereby we live to God than as that happy life whereby we live to ourselves.  The apostle therefore calls it by synecdoche (a part which stands for the whole), the teaching that accords with godliness (1 Tim. 6:3).”

“The practice of life is so perfectly reflected in theology that there is no precept of universal truth relevant to living well in domestic economy, morality, political life, or lawmaking which does not rightly pertain to theology.”

“Theology, therefore, is to us the ultimate end and noblest of all exact teaching arts.  It is a guide and master plan for our highest end, sent in a special manner from God, treating of divine things, tending towards God, and leading man to God.  It may therefore rightly be called ‘theozoia,’ a living to God, or ‘theorgia,’ a working towards God, as well as ‘theology,’ a study of God.”

“The two parts of theology are faith (believing) and observance (doing) (2 Tim. 1:13, 1 Tim. 1:19, Gen 15:6, 17:1, Matt. 28:20, Titus 3:8).”

Indeed: theology is extremely practical every day of our pilgrim life.

William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, Book 1.1-2.

shane lems

By Good and Necessary Consequence

Early on in the Westminster Confession of Faith  one reads, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”(1:6).  This phrase basically means that Reformed doctrine and practice are not simply derived from a set of proof texts, but from a deeper and more exhaustive interaction with Scripture.  This interpretive method is quite essential to Reformed theology, as Ryan McGraw notes in his little booklet, By Good and Necessary Consequence.

“…The principle of good and necessary consequence as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith represents the result of the Reformed Protestant quest to justify the task of theology and to apply the Scriptures in a contemporary context for the edification of the church.  Reformed hermeneutics both built upon and amended medieval methods of biblical interpretation.  The medieval quadriga was replaced by an emphasis upon the literal and historical sense of the text with doctrinal, practical, and christological applications drawn from that sense by good and necessary consequence.  In large part, the entire Reformed tradition of doctrine and preaching hinges upon this point” (p. 28).

This is a good little book (around 80 pages) that helps explain how Reformed doctrine is derived from Scripture.  I’ve found it helpful in my context where very few people are familiar with Reformed theology.  Many Christians are familiar with proof texts but don’t understand other interpretive principles like Scripture interprets Scripture and this one, “by good and necessary consequence.”  Of course this has much to do with the doctrine of the Trinity, covenant theology, covenant baptism, the christological aspect of the Old Testament, and so forth.  It’s a pretty important topic.   Therefore, this book is a good resource that will help the reader understand and utilize this principle and also explain it to others who are unfamiliar with Reformed biblical interpretation.

Here’s the info: Ryan McGraw, By Good and Necessary Consequence (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012).

shane lems

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