From R. Scott Clark at the Heidelblog:

Stephen Ley has an interesting review and comparison between Colin Hanson’s “Restless” and Bob Godfrey’s Unexpected Journey. I’m glad that people are becoming enthused about elements (mainly soteriology) of the Reformed faith. One problem with the “Restless and Reformed” approach is that it is inexperienced and churchless (i.e., it’s not associated with any particular church tradition or confession). Godfrey is neither of these. He was young and Reformed a long time ago. He was in seminary when I was in grade school and he began teaching at WTS (PA) when I was still in Jr High. Did I mention that, even though he’s remarkably well preserved, he’s really pretty antique? Anyway, the point is that unlike the “restless” cats Godfrey settled remarkably early into a visible, institutional church. He got married, as it were, to a tradition and he’s remained married to that tradition ever since. Indeed, now a minister in the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) president of Westminster Seminary California, and professor of church history, there have been times in Bob’s life and ministry when, in certain respects, he was one of a very few voices calling us all back to Reformed basics such as justification sola gratia et sola fide and to worship according to the Word of God alone (sola scriptura). As I’ve said before in this space, if you like Horton, Hart, VanDrunen, or Clark, you’ll love Godfrey. Much of what we have learned and taught we’ve learned from Godfrey.

When Bob says “Reformed” he doesn’t simply mean “predestinarian.” Rather, he means “The Christian faith Reformed according to God’s Word and as confessed by the Reformed churches.” That’s a different, more full-blooded definition of the adjective. It includes a view of Scripture, a hermeneutic, a doctrine of God, man, Christ, salvation, church, sacraments, last things, and an ethic. In short it entails a theology, piety, and practice. The adjective “Reformed” was fundamentally defined a long time ago. Read Restless and Reformed, and with all due respect to Colin, I hope you’ll remain restless long enough to keep going and read Godfrey and to follow him toward and into the confessional Reformed tradition and churches.

Mark Dever at 9marks.org held a round table discussion with some of the leading pastors and theologians of our day discussing what one can learn from fundamentalism.  Below is the answer given by David Wells.

 

We can learn three positive and three negative things from Fundamentalism.

On the positive side: first, Fundamentalists, despite derision from within academia and scorn from the mainline liberal denominations, preserved the Word of God and sought to live by it; second, though laughed at for being socially uncaring, they actually built an astonishing record of caring, missionary work overseas; third, even while huddling together against the storm on the outside, they also showed how important the church can be in people’s lives.

On the negative side: first, we see how crippling can be the sense of being a minority, in this case, a cognitive minority, for Fundamentalists developed a siege mentality that was unhealthy; second, we see the price that they paid for their anti-intellectualism which issued in a lot of bizarre biblical interpretation and a worldview that was stunted and not wholesome; third, we also see how the passion for truth went astray so often and resulted in rancor, divisions, and the cult of personalities.

David Wells is the Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, and author of  The Courage to Be Protestant: Marketers, Emergents, and Historic Christians in the Postmodern World, to be published by Eerdmans.

Jim Hamilton welcomes visitors to the new blog in his first post:

This blog exists for the glory of God, in service to the church, to promote the study and discussion of biblical theology’s history, methodology, aims, achievements, developments, direction, and points of contact with other approaches to the study of the Bible.

The blog will be  a collaborative effort.  The contributors can be found here.  The contributors will be posting from there respective locations around the world. Dr. Hamilton closes out the first post as follows:

Posting from Ireland, Scotland (by an Australian), Canada, and the United States, we are excited about the international character of this blog, and we hope it will serve you well. We seek to know God in Christ by the power of the Spirit as revealed in the Bible.

From Tullian Tchividjian at the New City Church blog: 

Reformed people usually get charged with being doctrinal purists who are spiritually dry (hence the phrase “frozen chosen”). This charge depends, though, on one’s defintion of true spirituality. In the “Final Thoughts” column of the May/June edition of Modern Reformation magazine, Michael Horton describes Reformed spirituality by emphasizing that true spirituality is grounded first in what God has accomplished outside of us, not what he performs inside of us. “When we follow the opposite direction”, writes Horton, “we’re swimming upstream–against the current of God’s gracious condescension to sinners.” He explains:

Almost everything that is advocated as “spirituality” or “spiritual disciplines” today is private and focuses on the inner life of the individual, but Christianity is wildly, unashamedly, thoroughly public and focuses on Christ’s historical work and the way that he comes to us by his Spirit–not through private revelations or subjective experiences, but through ordinary human language (preaching), water (baptism), bread and wine (Lord’s Supper). God comes to us in Jesus Christ by his Spirit outside of our reason and experience. His visitation throws us off balance, surprising us instead of simply soothing us or confirming our piety.

So when someone asks us about our spirituality or piety, we typically talk about the public ministry of preaching and sacrament as well as prayer, Bible reading, catechism, and singing Psalms and hymns at home and at church. When the Westminster divines said that “God blesses the reading but especially the preaching of the Word as a means of grace,” they were highlighting this point. From a covenantal perspective, God works from the outside in, from that which God accomplished for us and outside of us to that which he performs within us and through us, from the public to the personal, from what has happened in the past to what is happening in the present. When we follow the opposite direction, we’re swimming upstream–against the current of God’s gracious condescension to sinners.

from Joel Borofsky at The Christian Watershed:

In the United States the election season is in full swing. It is a time when people become extremely concerned with what candidate will be elected, the direction of the country, and what they can do to change the course of America. Every four years, the American people revolt against the system and vote in a new leader, or they show support of the system by electing in the same leader (or one like the previous leader). In the midst of all this are the Christians.

Christianity in the last two centuries has been quite interesting. It was paid lip service for most of the 19^th century, became quite irrelevant in politics in the early and mid 20^th century, and came back into full-force in the early 1980’s. The ‘Religious Right’ was born and attempted to legislate Christian morality.

It was originally a reaction to the issue of abortion, but then began to tackle other issues as well (such as homosexual marriages and the disintegration of the family). As time progressed it began to take more and more stances on issues that weren’t necessarily supported Biblically, such as a Capitalist structure. More and more it found itself in bed with the Republican Party as an ally and not just a co-belligerent.

With this newfound alliance, many Christian leaders began endorsing politicians, taking up political causes, getting petitions signed, and partaking in protests. Yet, the louder Christians became the less irrelevant they seemed. There is a reason for this.

In our pursuit of political purity we forgot one simple rule; individuality. We forgot that legislation cannot change a culture, but can merely hold back the underpinnings of change within that culture. Legislation doesn’t force a person to think a certain way. Legislation doesn’t force a life change. Legislation only forces people to comply with a moral standard. We forgot about the individual.

We forget that if we truly want to see abortion – both legal and illegal – come to an end, we need to reach out to single mothers and at risk ladies. We forget that if we want to see Welfare slowly dwindle then we need to stop moving out into the suburbs, building million dollar idols to our own achievements in membership, and instead focus our monetary gains on helping the needy and under privileged. We forget that if instead of protesting a homosexual rally or banning homosexual marriage that we should instead demonstrate the love of Christ to homosexuals and bring them to Christ, where sanctification can save them from such a lifestyle.

This is not to say the law isn’t important – it is important to challenge immoral laws. One would be hard pressed to argue that William Wilberforce wasn’t an amazing Christian for engaging the law and eventually getting slavery outlawed in the British Empire. This legislative act, however, didn’t change the view white people had toward black people – the segregation, the racism, and the like still existed. The law prevented the action, but didn’t stop the sentiment. In our own day, though we should use the law to ban immoral practices (such as abortion), we should likewise reach out to the individuals.

The only way to cause actual change within a society is to convince individual people that their worldviews aren’t correct and are inconsistent. It is bringing people to Christ – or even in a minimalist view, a Judeo-Christian ethic – that changes a culture and changes a society. When this occurs, the laws naturally follow.

Instead of wondering which candidate will bring about the most change, Christians instead should concern themselves with reaching out to individuals and bringing the change themselves. 

From Challies.com:

In the past weeks I have spent some time wrestling with issues related to the environment and creation care. I have been seeking distinctly Christian wisdom on this issue, seeking to learn how we, as Christians, are to understand this world and our role in its care and protection. Last week I turned to Francis Schaeffer’s Pollution and the Death of Man hoping and even expecting that it would answer some of my deepest questions.

Schaeffer acknowledges from the beginning of this book what our society’s secular humanists cannot—that mankind has been called by God to exercise dominion over the earth. But like everything else in this world, man’s ability to exercise such dominion has been affected by the Fall. No longer do we tend the world always in love, but instead we ravage and pillage it. Though we may not believe in all of the dire claims being made about the world today, we must at least acknowledge that we have not cared for the world as God has called us to.

The answers to this crisis lie not in our own efforts and not in the dictums of former Vice Presidents. Rather, if we are to understand the crisis, its roots, and its solutions, we must turn to Scripture. And this is precisely what Schaeffer does in Pollution and the Death of Man. Originally published in 1970, the book reads as if it was written yesterday (if the reader is willing to replace the ecological crises of thirty years ago with those of today, perhaps substituting global warming for DDT). Schaeffer looks at the spirit of the day and sees how men are dealing with ecological issues. Perceptively, he sees that ecology, bereft of any firm, biblical foundation and without any consistent basis for morality, is breeding a kind of pantheism. Men deal with the environment by making themselves one with it and it one with them. He launches into what I’d consider classic Schaefferian thought: “Pantheism,” he says, “will be pressed as the only answer to ecological problems and will be one more influence in the West’s becoming increasingly Eastern in its thinking.” Almost forty years later, his words are proving true. “The only reason we are called upon to treat nature well is because of its effects on man and our children and the generations to come. So in reality…man is left with a completely egoistic position in regard to nature.” “Having no absolutes, modern man has no categories. One cannot have real answers without categories, and these men can have no categories beyond pragmatic, technological ones.” “A pantheistic stand always brings man to an impersonal and low place rather than elevating him.” In the end, pantheism pushes both man and nature into a kind of bog, leaving us unable to make any kind of necessary and rational distinctions.

After looking at a few alternative inadequate answers to pantheism, Schaeffer turns to the Bible to give the Christian view of creation care. He affirms that our understanding must begin with the world’s creation when God created things that have an objective existence in themselves. Despite the claims of pantheism, creation is not an extension of God’s essence. It is only the biblical view that gives worth to man and to all that God has created. Nature begins to look different when I understand that, though I am separate from it, I am related to it as something God has created. “So the Christian treats ‘things’ with integrity because we do not believe they are autonomous. Modern man has fallen into a dilemma because he has made things autonomous from God.” As we love the Creator, we love the creation.

Schaeffer next looks to “a substantial healing,” saying, “we should be looking now, on the basis of the work of Christ, for substantial healing in every area affected by the Fall.” As Christians we should be ones who are treated creation now as it will be treated in eternity. The problem, of course, is that “by creation man has dominion, but as a fallen creature he has used that dominion wrongly. Because he is fallen, he exploits created things as thought they were nothing in themselves, and as though he has an autonomous right to them.”

The book’s final chapter brings a few points of application, though they are more high level than practical. Still, they are insightful. “We must confess that we missed our opportunity. We have spoken loudly against materialistic science, but we have done little to show that in practice we ourselves as Christians are not dominated by a technological orientation in regard either to man or nature.” “If we treat nature as having no intrinsic value, our own value is diminished.” Ultimately, we treat nature well because we are all products of the loving Creator; we are all creatures together.

While Pollution and the Death of Man is one of Schaeffer’s lesser-known works, it is one Christians would do well to read and study even today. In this book Schaeffer does what he does best, providing a logical, consistent, biblical response to a matter that really matters.

Chapter 3

Section 2

Faith’s victories over sin and Satan, through new and farther discovieries of Christ, making believers more fruitful in holiness than all other pretenders to works.

The gospel-path lead heav’n-ward; hence the fray,

Hell pow’rs still push the bride the legal way.

So hot the war, her life’s a troubled flood,

A field of battle, and a scene of blood.

But he that once commenc’d the work in her,

Whose working fingers drop the sweetest myrrh,

Will still advance it by alluring force,

And, from her ancient mate, more clean divorce:

Since ’tis her antiquated spouse the law,

The strength of sin and hell did on her draw.

Piece-meal she finds hell’s mighty force abate,

By new recruits from her almighty Mate.

Fresh armour sent from grace’s magazine,

Makes her proclaim eternal war with sin.

The shield of faith, dipp’d in the Surety’s blood,

Drowns fiery darts, as in a crimson flood.

The Captian’s ruddy banner, lifted high,

Makes Hell retire, and all the furies fly.

Yea, of his glory every recent glance

Makes sin decay, and holiness advance.

In kindness therefore does her heav’nly Lord

Renew’d discov’ries of his love afford,

That her enamour’d soul may with the view

Be cast into his holy mould anew:

For when he manifests his glorious grace

The charming favour of his smiling face,

Into his image fair tranforms her soul*,

And wafts her upward to the heav’nly pole,

From glory unto glory by degrees,

Till vision and fruition shall suffice.

Read the rest of this entry »

Howard Sloan at the Pastor Sloan blog, reviews Recovering The Reformed Confession:

A REVIEW OF RECOVERING THE REFORMED CONFESSION

Author; R. Scott Clark (2008, P&R)

 

Do not read this book unless you are willing to be challenged by what you think it means to be Reformed! I am serious. If you think you have it all together, then do not read this book. You will only be frustrated. HOWEVER, if you are willing to be challenged, then definitely read this book. I will state from the very beginning that this book is not going to be a light read. This book will take some deep thought and your undivided attention for it to do its job. 

The first problem that Clark tackles is what he calls QIRC, or the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty. Simply put, it is a kind of rationalism that tends to to make things a test of Reformed orthodoxy that are not confessional. Clark takes on six twenty-four hour day creation, theonomy, and covenant moralism as examples of Reformed QIRC-iness. I will not even try to summarize his points, as that would be a great disservice to Dr. Clark. His historical treatment of creation is lengthy but provides great insight. 

The next problem that Clark deals with is QIRE, or the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Clark provides well-needed challenges to his readers to reconsider some of the “experiential” aspects of the theology and piety of Jonathan Edwards. We are called back to knowing God through the due use of the ordinary means of grace, rather than seeking or creating a religious experience. I personally have seen the undue anguish of soul that an emphasis on the extraordinary can cause for the believer who begins to doubt their salvation or faith because they have not had some spectacular experience. Clark does not advocate against the extraordinary, only that our piety and Christian experience should be measured by it. Clark puts it this way.

Judging by confessional Reformed piety, religious subjectivism (e.g., revivalism or pietism) is illegitimate because it seeks what is by definition an extraordinary providence of God, which is not promised in Scripture. This desire for the extraordinary tends not only to devalue the ordinary providence of God but also the expressed promises of God. He is most free to work all manner of wonderful things, e.g., instances of an intense sense of the divine presence, a surprising understanding of the application of Scripture to a given situation or some other blessing; but they cannot define the Christian life, and they are no proper standard by which to measure sanctification or Christian maturity. It is a significant mistake to make the religious experience envisioned by revivalists the organizing principle for Reformed piety. (p. 120) 

Fortunately Clark does not leave us stuck in a situation without a solution. Section two of the book is called “The Recovery” Clark engages in a lengthy historical discussion of the archetypal/ectypal distinction in theology. To be honest, it was a discussion that I did not follow very well. The big point is to recover the distinction between the Creator and the creature. This means that we can never know things the way God knows them. We know things as he has revealed them to us. His conclusion I understood very well. “The Reformed understanding of things is that we do not have immediate access to God’s being. We have mediated access through God the Son incarnate and through the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. The goal of our theology is to think God’s thoughts after him, as his image bearers, as analogues.” (p. 163) To Clark this has implications in our dealing with creation debates and Federal Vision type issues. 

In chapter 5, the value and use of our confessions and catechisms is discussed. Clark conducts a historical survey of confessional subscription tracing the drift from strict subscription to looser models of adoption by contemporary denominations. His conclusion is that we must return to the use of confessions as boundary markers. Secondly, that we need a confession that can be subscribed to without exception that is biblical. Clark raises an important question, is it time for a new or revision confession for the Reformed community? I think there is merit in that idea. 

In chapter 6, Clark presents us with “The Joy of Being Confessional” stating five good reasons for being confessional. Without stating those points for you (Clark does that well enough), his main concern in this chapter is why many are drifting to other forms of Christianity (including back to the Roman Catholic church). Clark presents for us a solid, biblical ground for remaining (or perhaps even coming back to being) confessional. 

Chapter 7 is entitled “Recovering Reformed Worship.” I imagine this chapter will generate some healthy debate. Dr. Clark’s intention is clear from the outset of the chapter.

 ”The fact that many Reformed Christians alive today have never seen or participated in a worship service that Calvin, the Heidelberg Reformers, or the Westminster Divines would recognize does not bode well for the future of Reformed theology, piety, and practice. …I argue that an essential part of recovering the Reformed confession is to recover the Reformed principle and practice of worship” (p. 241) 

What Clark advocates is the return to the regulative principle of worship. He believes that even in Reformed churches today, this principle (that of only doing in worship what is required by scripture) is either being ignored or is being used differently that our Reformation forefathers. Clark gives the reader a lengthy historical tour of the developments and redevelopments regarding the regulative principle’s use in the church. Clark’s major theme regarding the regulative principle is how the church in large measure has abandoned “exclusive psalmody” and introduced the use of musical instruments. While I do not share Dr. Clark’s conviction regarding the use of only inspired texts for singing in corporate worship, I do find his argument useful. I also find his position regarding the singing of texts from the entirety of Scripture a much more personally agreeable position than psalms only. While I have not fully come to Dr. Clark’s position, this chapter has caused me be more intentional in the inclusions of Psalms and inspired texts in our congregational singing. Clark concludes the chapter with recommendations of what would be necessary to recover the regulative principle, a task he admits would not be easy. If you have not considered the why we sing what we sing, give Dr. Clark’s chapter a careful read. 

Clark’s final chapter is entitled “Whatever Happened to the Evening Service?” In this chapter, Clark believes that in order for us to recover the Reformed practice of the second service we need to recover a Biblical view Sabbath and the means of grace. If you already have a high view of the Sabbath, you may find some of the Biblical background a bit unnecessary. Clark also provides historical background on Sunday Sabbath keeping which I found interesting. Clark also includes an interesting section of comparison and consensus of the Reformed confession on the Sabbath. In the section on the means of grace, Clark says, “It is the contention of this book that the antidote for the QIRE is to restore the means of grace to their proper place.” (p. 340) As Clark wraps up this chapter, he makes the following statement which sums up his argument regarding the second service and his whole reason for writing this book.

As our churches realized in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, so too we must again realize that the Reformed theology, piety, and practice must be intentionally, conscientiously, patiently, and thoroughly taught to our congregations, to families, to children, to singles, to newcomers, and to those who have been Reformed for generations, or our theology, piety, and practice will be quickly lost and assimilated into the American mainstream religious admixture of pietism and fundamentalism. (p. 352) 

In summary, this is not a book about recovering the Reformed doctrine of predestination or election. This is a book intended for the those who call themselves Reformed. It is a call to re-examine what it really means to be Reformed and whether we are really following the Reformed confession we claim to hold as standards. You may not agree with everything Clark has to say, but do not miss his call to examine our faith and practice in the light of the Reformation standards. Take the time and effort to challenge yourself with this book.

Today marks the 31st anniversary of the untimely death of the greatest entertainer of the 20th century.  Elvis Presley, by mixing the blues music that he had come to love with the gospel music that was sung in his church, stumbled across a sound that would change the face of American music forever. Elvis was shot to super stardom over night.  He had money and fame and anything that he could ever need.  Elvis Presley embodied the American dream.  He was “The King of Rock-n-Roll” and king of the world.  Along with his success, Elvis also encountered a great deal of temptation.  He denied himself nothing that interested him. He overindulged in women, food, and drugs.  He had the world in his hands, but he died a very sad and very lonley man.  Elvis was a great singer and entertainer, but his life is evidence of the heavy price that sin demands of us. 

The first video posted below shows Elvis in one of his first television apprearances.  Elvis is young and has his whole life in front of him.  The second video shows Elvis on his last television appearance 21 years later.  He is bloated from over-eating and drug use, and he is just a characiture of his former self. 

Al Mohler comments on the John Edwards scandal:

The fall of yet another politician in a sex scandal has added a note of Schadenfreude to the political season.  Coming so quickly after the fall of former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, the admission by former Senator John Edwards of an affair during his presidential campaign seemed to catch many observers off-guard.

Sexual immorality crosses all partisan lines.  Spitzer and Edwards are prominent Democrats, but equally prominent Republicans have been caught in the same web.  There is no room for partisan calculation here.

One interesting aspect of the Edwards saga is the near-universal assumption that, had Edwards won the primary race for the Democratic presidential nomination, he (and his party) would have been fatally wounded in terms of the November election.  This assumption, revealed in media coverage of the scandal, seems to be common to both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats.  The assumption is probably valid.

The American people are incredibly forgiving, but John Edwards violated a basic sense of public dignity and personal morality.  The fact that his wife, Elizabeth, is in the fight of her life with cancer only adds to the public’s sense of outrage at his violation of his marital vows.  His repeated lies added fuel to the fire.  On top of all this, the narcissism and recklessness of his affair revealed a poisonous disregard for his responsibilities, his supporters, his family, his friends, and the public. 

The American people were confronted once again with broken promises, broken commitments, and broken hearts laid bare in public.  Even now, the public seems braced for further revelations in this scandal.

But what of that near-universal assumption that this scandal should end the political career of John Edwards?  Some observers reject that assumption.

Writing for Psychology Today [warning: objectionable language], Roy F. Baumeister categorically rejects the idea that a sex scandal should be considered politically significant at all.  He writes:  “My thesis is that the American people and their chances for good government are the ones most harmed by these scandals. In fact, I recommend that we should stop considering sexual behavior as a qualification for political office.”

That is an audacious recommendation, but it is not unprecedented.  Similar arguments followed the fall of Elliot Spitzer.  The public is not buying the argument.

Baumeister continues:

I can imagine people objecting that sexual decision making reveals a man’s character. (I refer specifically to men here, because so far only men have had their political careers ruined by sex scandals.) This argument seems lame to me. A much better and more relevant test of character would involve how the person has managed his money. Has he always paid his bills on time? If the answer is no, that is much more reason to question his suitability for public office than an occasional bit of unsanctioned sex.

That is an amazing and revealing argument.  Christians must reject that argument on its face.  The Bible clearly affirms that what is done with the body is directly related to the soul.  Christianity is incompatible with a Gnosticism that divides the body and soul so that sexual behavior and character can be separated.

Baumeister even goes so far as to argue that the public is drawn to support high-testosterone men who, by virtue of that testosterone, are also likely to seek multiple sex partners.  “High testosterone does not promote sexual fidelity,” he asserts.  “It makes men want to have more different partners.  On top of the self-selection of adultery-prone men into politics, the opportunities probably increase for a successful politician.”

In the end, he warns that the nation is “not so oversupplied with brilliant, wonderful, effective politicians that we can afford to disqualify a substantial number of them based on something as irrelevant as a bit of wild oats.”  An extended adulterous affair encased in lies and betrayal is merely “a bit of wild oats?”

Well, there you have it –  it’s not the man . . . it’s the testosterone.  It’s not a moral scandal, just a bit of wild oats.  Most Americans recognize those arguments to be patent nonsense.  Even in these confused and confusing times, some moral sanity remains.

Chapter 3

The fruits of the believer’s marriage with Christ, particularly gospel holiness and obedience to the law as a rule.

Section 1

The sweet solemnity of the marriage now over, and the sad effects of the remains of a legal spirit.

The match is made, with little din ’tis done,

But with great power, unequal prizes won.

The Lamb has fairly won his worthless bride;

She her great Lord, and all his store beside.

He made the poorest bargain, tho’ most wise;

And she, the fool, has won the worthy prize,

Deep floods of everlasting love and grace,

That under ground ran an eternal space,

Now rise aloft ‘bove banks of sin and hell,

And o’er the tops of massy mountains swell.

In streams of blood are tow’rs of guilt o’erflown,

Down with the rapid purple current thrown.

The bride now as her all can Jesus own,

And prostrate at hs footstool cast her crown,

Disclaiming all her former groundless hope,

While in the dark her soul did weary grope.

Down tumble all the hills of self-conceit,

In him alone she sees herself complete;

Does his fair person with fond arms embrace,

And all her hopes on his full merit place;

Discard her former mate, and henceforth draw

No hope, no expectation from the law.

Though thus her new created nature soars,

And lives aloft on Jesus’ heav’nly stores;

Yet apt to stray, her old adult’rous heart

oft takes her old renounced husband’s part:

A legal cov’nant is so deep ingrain’d

Upon the human nature laps’d and stain’d,

That, till her spirit mount the purest clime,

She’s never totally divorc’d in time.

Hid in her corrupt part’s proud bosom lurks

Some hope of life still by the law of works.

Hence flow the following evils more or less;

Preferring of her partial holy dress,

Before her Husband’s perfect righteousness.

Hence joying more in grace already giv’n

Than in her Head and stock that’s all in heav’n.

Hence grieving more the want of frames and grace, 

Than of himself the spring of all solace.

Hence guilt her soul imprisons, lusts prevail,

While to the law her rents insolvent fail,

And yet her faithless heart rejects her Husband’s bail.

Hence sould disorders rise, and racking fears,

While doubtful of his clearing past arrears;

Vain dreaming, since her own obedience fails,

His likewise little for her help avails.

Hence duties are a task, while all in view

is heavy yokes of laws, or old or new:

Whereas, were once her legal bias broke,

She’d find her Lord’s commands an easy yoke.

No galling precepts on her neck he lays,

Nor any debt demands, save what he pays

By promis’d aid; but, lo! the grievous law,

Demanding brick, won’t aid her with a straw.

Hence also fretful, grudging, discontent,

Crav’d by the law, finding her treasure spent,

And doubting if her Lord will pay the rent.

Hence pride of duties too does often swell,

Presuming she perform’d so very well.

Hence pride of graces and inherent worth

Springs from her corrupt legal bias forth;

And boasting more a present with’ring frame,

Than her exalted Lord’s unfading name.

Hence many falls and plunges in the mire,

As many new conversions do require:

Because her faithless heart sad follies breed,

Much lewd departure from her living Head,

Who, to reprove her aggravated crimes,

Leaves her abandon’d to herself at times;

That, falling into frightful deeps, she may

From sad experience learn more stress to lay,

Not on her native efforts, but at length

On Christ alone, her righteousness and strength:

Conscious, while in her works she seeks repose,

her legal spirit breeds her many woes.

Within that section is a “city plan” of Rome from the time of Paul (c. A.D. 60):

In addition to five different reconstruction drawings of Jerusalem, the ESV Study Bible also has eight such “city plans”: four in the OT (Ur, Nineveh, Babylon, Jericho) and four in the NT (Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, and of course Rome).

Below is a portion of the section describing Ancient Rome in the Romans Introduction. I’ve sought to highlight in bold that which is labeled on the plan above:

The city of Rome was founded upon seven hills on the eastern shore of the Tiber River. . . .

Archaeological evidence in Rome confirms monumental structures that stood during the time of Paul, such as the Circus Maximus, Tabularium (state archives), theaters (including those of Pompey and of Marcellus), and multiple forums. Later, in the third century A.D., the Umbilicus Romae stood in the center of the city, and this cylindrical monument marked the theoretical “center” of the Roman world (likely this way of thinking about Rome’s place in the world stemmed from well before the NT period). The prestige of the early emperors was memorialized during Paul’s day in their basilicas, arches, and forums (e.g., the Forums of Caesar and of Augustus), in the Altar of Peace, in the Mausoleum of Augustus, in porticoes and images honoring their extended imperial family, and in imperial cult temples (such as the temple of Julius Caesar from 29 B.C. and the temple of Claudius). Innumerable pagan gods received worship in Rome. Especially impressive temples were dedicated to such ancient gods/goddesses as Mars, Saturn, Castor and Pollux, Vesta, Venus and Roma, Apollo, and Jupiter. Indeed, devotion to all the great Roman gods was offered in the monumental domed Pantheon, which stands in Rome to this day. (An earlier Pantheon—depicted in the illustration—was built in 27 B.C. and destroyed by fire in A.D. 80. The present-day structure was built c. A.D. 120.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Mark Driscoll has released a trailor for his new book, Death By Love.  You can read a sample chapter here.  The book is due to drop on September 30, but you can pre-order here.