A Hymn to God the Father

I.
WILT Thou forgive that sin where I begun,
    Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin, through which I run,
    And do run still, though still I do deplore?
        When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
                    For I have more.

II.
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I have won
    Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
    A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
        When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
                    For I have more.

III.
I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
    My last thread, I shall perish on the shore ;
But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son
    Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore ;
        And having done that, Thou hast done ;
                    I fear no more.

Don’t Waste Your Life – John Piper from I’ll Be Honest on Vimeo.

Babett’s Feast is a Danish movie that won the Academy Award for best Foreign Film in 1988.  It is a story of two sisters and their servant of twelve years, Babette.  The sister’s father, the founder of a strict Christian sect, has been dead for many years.  Babette receives news that she has won the French lottery and will receive 10,000 francs.  With the winnings she decides to thank the sisters for their kindness by cooking an authentic French dinner in honor of the Father’s 100th birthday.  Brothers and sisters of the parish are invited.  They pledge to partake of the meal, but not to speak of it or enjoy it so as not to sin.  As all twelve guests gather around the table, set with fine china, stemware, and candles, each participant finds their spirits buoyed as they enjoy the wonderful feast before them.  After the last course is served, a visiting general gives the following speech:

“We have all been told that grace is to be found in the universe.  But in our human foolishness and short-sightedness we imagine divine grace to be finite…. but the moment comes when our eyes are opened, and we see and realize that grace is infinite.  Grace, my friends, demands nothing from us but that we shall await it with confidence and acknowledge it in gratitude.  Grace, brothers, makes no conditions and singles out none of us in particular; grace takes us all to its bosom and proclaims general amnesty…. For mercy and truth have met together, and righteousness and bliss have kissed on another!” 1

Through the course of the meal the brothers and sisters get a small tast of Heaven and partake of grace.

1. Translation from Particia Anders in Modern Reformation Magazine volume 18.  The translation on the video is not the same.

From Michael Horton of Westminster Seminary California, 2009:

Calvin on Law and Gospel
Some of the most glaring distortions of Calvin’s ministry and doctrine are related to his understanding of the law.  First, there is the question of the law and society: Was Calvin an ayatollah, dedicated to making Geneva a revived theocracy?  Second, did Calvin embrace or depart from Luther with respect to the relation of law and gospel?  Third, what, according to Calvin, is the main purpose of the law today in the lives of Christians?  I can’t hope to do justice to those questions here, but will limit myself to this task: namely, to offer a brief summary of Calvin’s answers on the basis of both the Institutes and his commentaries.

Calvin and Theocracy: The Nature of the Law

Calvin never set out to be interesting, creative, or ground-breaking.  He managed to be all three in spite of his intentions, but he possessed a conservative temperament, satisfied to assume traditional views that he had no exegetical reason to challenge.  A good example of this is his adoption of Thomas Aquinas’ three-fold division of the law into civil, ceremonial, and moral laws.

Like Aquinas, Calvin says that the moral law summarized in the Decalogue transcends the Mosaic theocracy and in fact is “nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men”¹  However, to this moral law God attached what Calvin calls “supplements” unique to his covenant with Israel: “by which word I mean, with respect to the First Table, the Ceremonies and the outward Exercises of Worship; with respect to the Second Table, the Political Laws…”²  

According to Calvin, the second table of the moral law inscribed on the conscience in creation can be reduced to equity, which he understood as justice tempered with love.  His sharpest rebukes toward appeals to the Old Testament civil law for modern states were directed toward the radical Anabaptists: “I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray,” he writes.  “For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish” (Institutes, 4.20.14).  As natural, equity is necessarily “the same for all.”  “Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws. Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves” (Institutes, 4.20.16). 

It would be “malicious and hateful toward public welfare” to be “offended by such diversity” in the application of natural equity to the wide variations in the “condition of times, place, and nation.”  “For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain.”  The political laws of Moses cannot be abrogated by us, since they were never given to us in the first place.  “For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere; but when he had taken the Jewish nation into his safekeeping, defense, and protection, he also willed to be a lawgiver especially to it; and—as becomes a wise lawgiver—he had a special concern for it in making its laws” (Institutes, 4.20.16).

However, Calvin goes further than medieval theologians like Aquinas at least in practice with regard to the abrogation of the political laws of the old covenant.  For example, even though the medieval church forbade the practice of usury (lending money at interest) as a mortal sin, and even Luther grounded his opposition of the practice in Exodus 22:25, Calvin rejected this argument: “It is abundantly clear that the ancient people were prohibited from usury, but we must needs confess that this was a part of their political constitution.  Hence it follows that usury is not now unlawful, except in so far as it contravenes equity and brotherly union.”³  Once again, Calvin thinks that the principle of general equity offers an adequate way of navigating this issue.  “Heathen authors also saw this,” he wrote, “although not with sufficient clearness, when they declared that, since all men are born for the sake of each other, human society is not properly maintained except by an interchange of good offices.”⁴  The exercise of equity—justice tempered by love—as the summary of God’s moral law inscribed on the conscience—remains in effect even if it is applied with considerable variety in view of the particular constitutions, histories, and vices of nations.⁵  Therefore, Calvin was even more reticent than Aquinas or Luther in applying the theocratic laws of Israel to modern states.  The remainder of this article focuses on the moral law. 

The Three Uses of the Moral Law

As important for determining Calvin’s conception of the nature of the law is his understanding of the relation between law and gospel.  Not even in this case did Calvin set out to create a new theory.  However, at this point he followed Luther’s critical departure from medieval interpretation.  For Aquinas, the gospel (synonymous with the New Testament) is “the new law,” superior to the old law because it brings the realities to which the typological shadows merely pointed and also because it is more gracious.  And it corresponds to Old and New Testaments, respectively.

Just as there are three divisions of the Old Testament law (civil, ceremonial, and moral), the reformers agreed that there were three uses of God’s moral law: (1) the elenctic or pedagogical use (driving sinners to despair of their righteousness); (2) the civil use (curbing evil and injustice in society); (3) the didactic or normative use in guiding believers in a life of grateful obedience.⁶ 

Read the rest of this article.

From Justin at The Mockingbird Blog:

From Reformation Ink:

That which we call the word of God:  It’s two parts — Law and Gospel

On this subject we call the “Word of God” (for we know well that the Eternal Son of God is also so named) the canonical books of the Old and New Testament; for they proceed from the mouth of God Himself.

We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the “Law”, the other the “Gospel”. For, all the rest can be gathered under the one or the other of these two headings.

What we call Law (when it is distinguished from Gospel and is taken for one of the two parts of the Word) is a doctrine whose seed is written by nature in our hearts. However, so that we may have a more exact knowledge, it was written by God on two Tables and is briefly comprehended in ten commandments. In these He sets out for us the obedience and perfect righteousness which we owe to His majesty and our neighbours. This on contrasting terms: either perpetual life, if we perfectly keep the Law without omitting a single point, or eternal death, if we do not completely fulfil the contents of each commandment (Deut. 30:15-20; James 2:10).

What we call the Gospel (”Good News”) is a doctrine which is not at all in us by nature, but which is revealed from Heaven (Matt 16:17; John 1:13), and totally surpasses natural knowledge. By it God testifies to us that it is His purpose to save us freely by His only Son (Rom. 3:20-22), provided that, by faith, we embrace Him as our only wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption (1 Cor 1:30). By it, I say, the Lord testifies to us all these things, and even does it in such a manner that at the same time he renews our persons in a powerful way so that we may embrace the benefits which are offered to us (1 Cor 2:4).

Read the rest of this article:

From Andy Naselli at Reformation 21:

Non-Christians and Christians alike often give the same answer to difficult questions like these: Why did God allow sin in the first place? Why does God save some people and not others? Why does God send people to hell? Why can living like a Christian be so frustrating? The immediate solution often suggested is simple: “free will.” To many people, it’s a satisfying answer: “Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, God does x because he has to preserve my free will. Yeah, OK. Next question.” I’d like to suggest that we re-think this important issue.

The title of this short essay is a question: “Do We Have a Free Will?” That question may be jarring to you because it asks if something exists that most people assume exists. My short answer to that question is that it depends on what you mean by “free.” The longer answer is the rest of this essay.

We should study “free will” because it is theologically significant and because many people assume a particular definition of “free will” that is incorrect. Studying “free will” is challenging because it is not defined in Scripture. Further, it is complex because it connects to many other larger theological issues; it intersects with philosophy, historical theology, and systematic theology.

What is “free will”?

We should start by learning the standard terminology associated with the “free will” debate.

1.  “Will” means the function of choosing.

2.  Constraining causes force people to act against their will. For example, a person being robbed at gunpoint is constrained in this sense. Non-constraining causes do not force people to act against their will but are sufficient to cause an action. For example, if you have a fear of heights, you probably will not want to walk on the edge of a tall building’s roof; that fear is a non-constraining cause.

3.  Indeterminism holds that genuinely free acts are not causally determined. Determinism holds that everything is causally determined (i.e., that prior events and conditions necessitate every event).

4.  Incompatibilism holds that determinism and human freedom are incompatible; it rejects determinism and affirms human freedom. Compatibilism holds that determinism and human freedom are compatible.

5.  Libertarian free will is the ability either to do something or not. Free agency is the ability to do whatever a person wants to do (apart from constraining causes). This difference is not a small one. For example, do non-Christians have the inherent ability either to choose to trust Christ or not? Is such a decision ultimately dependent on their will?

6.  God’s general sovereignty holds that God is in charge of everything without controlling everything. God’s specific sovereignty holds that God ordains everything and that he controls everything to accomplish his purposes.

What are biblical and theological reasons for compatibilism and against incompatibilism?

1.  The Bible never says that humans are free in the sense that they are autonomously able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. Libertarian free will is often merely assumed based on common-sense experience but not proved.

2.  God is absolutely sovereign. He “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). He does whatever he wants, and no one can stop him (Psalm 115:3; Daniel 4:34-35).

3.  Humans are morally responsible, which requires that they be free. There is no biblical reason that God cannot cause real human choices. The Bible grounds human accountability in God’s authority as our creator and judge, not in libertarian free will.

4.  Both (1) God’s absolute sovereignty and (2) human freedom and responsibility are simultaneously true. Here are just a few of many passages in which both elements are present without any hint of contradiction. “The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps…. The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD” (Proverbs 16:9, 33). “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23). “For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place” (Acts 4:27- 28).

 

Read the rest of the article.

We here at Lager and Gospel love books.  That being the case, we were thrilled to stumble across a website called BeerBooks.com.  The website is full of books on many different topics, including: Favorite Beer Books, Rare Beer Books, Beer Appreciation, Homebrewing, Beer Trekking, and Beer and Food.  They also have beer T-shirts, mugs, posters, and games. The site is fun and informative and as an added bonus, the site has there own mascot, Barley Charlie.  Go to beerbooks.com and peruse the selection to find a book on any of the various beer topics.  Happy reading.

From the Collision website:

SYNOPSIS
COLLISION carves a new path in documentary film-making as it pits leading atheist, political journalist and bestselling author Christopher Hitchens against fellow author, satirist and evangelical theologian Douglas Wilson, as they go on the road to exchange blows over the question: “Is Christianity Good for the World?”. The two contrarians laugh, confide and argue, in public and in private, as they journey through three cities. And the film captures it all. The result is a magnetic conflict, a character-driven narrative that sparkles cinematically with a perfect match of arresting personalities and intellectual rivalry. COLLISION is directed by prolific independent filmmaker Darren Doane (Van Morrison: To Be Born Again, The Battle For L.A., Godmoney).

OVERVIEW
In May 2007, leading atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian apologist Douglas Wilson began to argue the topic “Is Christianity Good for the World?” in a series of written exchanges published in Christianity Today. The rowdy literary bout piqued the interest of filmmaker Darren Doane, who sought out Hitchens and Wilson to pitch the idea of making a film around the debate.

In Fall 2008, Doane and crew accompanied Hitchens and Wilson on an east coast tour to promote the book compiled from their written debate titled creatively enough, Is Christianity Good for the World?. “I loved the idea of putting one of the beltway’s most respected public intellectuals together with an ultra-conservative pastor from Idaho that looks like a lumberjack”, says Doane. “You couldn’t write two characters more contrary. What’s more real and punk rock than a fight between two guys who are on complete opposite sides of the fence on the most divisive issue in the world? We were ready to make a movie about two intellectual warriors at the top of their game going one-on-one. I knew it would make an amazing film.”

In Christopher Hitchens, Doane found a celebrated prophet of atheism. Loud. Funny. Angry. Smart. Quick. An intimidating intellectual Goliath. Well-known for bullying and mocking believers into doubt and doubters into outright unbelief. In Douglas Wilson, Doane found the man who could provide a perfect intellectual, philosophical, and cinematic counterpoint to Hitchens’ position and style. A trained philosopher and and deft debater. Big, bearded, and jolly. A pastor, a contrarian, a humorist–an unintimidated outsider, impossible to bully, capable of calling Hitchens a puritan (over a beer).

It was a collision of lives.

What Doane didn’t expect was how much Hitchens and Wilson would have in common and the respectful bond the new friend/foes would build through the course of the book tour. “These guys ended up at the bar laughing, joking, drinking. There were so many things that they had in common”, according to Doane. “Opinions on history and politics. Literature and poetry. They agreed on so many things. Except on the existence of God.”

BIOS

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Christopher Hitchens (b. April 13, 1949) is a popular political journalist and the author of several books, including “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”. Hitchens is regarded as one of the most fundamental figures of modern atheism. A regular contributor to Vanity Fair, The Atlantic Monthly and Slate, Hitchens also appears regularly on The Daily Show, Charlie Rose, Washington Journal, and Real Time with Bill Maher. He was named one of the US’s “25 Most Influential Liberals” by Forbes and one of the world’s “Top 100 Public Intellectuals” by Foreign Policy. Hitchens lives in Washington, DC.
DOUGLAS WILSON
Douglas Wilson (b. June 18, 1953) is a pastor of Christ Church, editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine, and a Senior Fellow at New Saint Andrews College. A prolific writer, he is the author of many books, including The Case for Classical Christian Education, Letter from a Christian Citizen, Reforming Marriage and Heaven Misplaced: Christ’s Kingdom on Earth. Wilson lives in Moscow, Idaho.

Our sister church, Westminster Presbyterian Church in Lancaster PA, will be hosting the latest in a number Calvin conferences that have been held throughout the country this year.  The conference will be held from October 23rd and 24th and is titled Calvin For Today.  The lectures will include:

Meeting John Calvin

What Calvinism is Not

What Calvinism Is

Calvin’s Contribution to Worship

Reading Cavlin’s Institues

This looks to be an informative conference and close to home for a number of L&G readers.

The guys at The Mockingbird Blog posted a review of The Last Days of Disco, a Whit Stillman film just realeased on DVD last week 10 years after it theatrical release.

Good Times! – Whit Stillman’s The Last Days Of Disco makes its long-awaited DVD debut this Tuesday 8/25 in an exquisite edition from the Criterion Collection. The final (and some might say finest) entry in his “doomed bourgeois in love” trilogy, Disco received nowhere near its proper due when it was released in 1998, getting swallowed up instead by a media-fabricated “disco revival” (an especially tragic fate for a film that’s not really about disco) and left to wallow unreleased while studios bickered over the rights.

A supremely touching and frequently hilarious story about young professionals coping with love and work in NYC in the very early 80s, the term “romantic comedy” would almost apply (especially in the old-fashioned sense), if that label didn’t carry all the associations it carries these days. Very few stones are left unturned: identity, romance, free will, advertising, the importance of group social life – it’s all here. Not to mention the most inspired discussion of Lady And The Tramp ever committed to film (once Stillman’s sense of humor grabs you – and it doesn’t grab everyone – you will never turn back).

Watching it again, one realizes how much Disco represents the culmination of Stillman’s style: the inimitable dialogue, the superb ensemble acting, the use of music, the endearing snottiness of Chris Eigeman, the astounding eye/ear for detail, etc. Call me a super-fan, but I cannot think of another movie of the same era that manages to pull off being both tasteful and honest, humane and ironic, smart and emotionally accessible. I can certainly think of a number that have knocked it off.

The good news is, this release actually does it justice! Criterion have knocked it out of the park once again – surprise, surprise – presenting Disco with the same care, precision and charm that Stillman brought to the film itself. The transfer is gorgeous and the extra features are a revelation. Of course, for our purposes, it should be noted that this movie features not one but two Protestant hymns (“Amazing Grace” and “Dear Lord and Father of Mankind”). As in all of Stillman’s films, religion hovers around the edges, bubbling up sympathetically in moments of crisis but never in the hysterical or patronizing way that lesser directors employ it. I had the opportunity to speak with Whit recently about Disco, biographies, church and a number of other subjects.

Read the interview here:

R. Scott Clark at the Heidelblog talks about a new book that looks as though it will be helpful for L&G readers in understanding the doctrine of the two kingdoms:

New and just in to the Bookstore at WSC, The author, Jason Stellman, is pastor of Exile PCA in the Seattle metro and author of the frequently provocative blog, De Regnis Duobus. He’s also a WSC grad and a former student. He has a great haircut!  The blurb says: New covenant believers live between “the already” and “not yet,” a point in redemptive history between the partial and complete fulfillment of God‘s promises. This means they are exiles and pilgrims in the divinely ordained overlap of the ages. As Rev. Jason J. Stellman argues in his book Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet, this biblical motif shapes the identity of Christians at every turn and affects their every activity in both the sacred and secular realms. Stellman explores the Christian pilgrimage with deep biblical insight, humor, and relevance to our contemporary context, revealing how Christians are to think of themselves and their role this side of heaven.