Reformers and Puritans

Archive for February, 2006

Total Depravity Applied

Josh February 11th, 2006

Earlier, I asked, What good is theological knowledge if it doesn’t spur me on to biblical good works? Well, it’s time to answer this question. How should the doctrines of grace work out in their application in the life of a Christian? I would like to spend some time briefly commenting on how our theology should produce practical action.

Total Depravity
Because Adam was the representative of all mankind, when he forsook the commandment of God, and ate of the fruit, he did plunge all men into an irreversible state of spiritual death. This death renders all those born of woman, other than the perfect Lord Jesus Christ, spiritually dead, incapable of knowing, doing, or even desiring those things which are pleasing to God. By nature, man is at enmity with His Creator, thinking only of himself, and the gratification of his sinful flesh. (Romans 5, Ephesians 2:1, etc.)

The doctrine of man’s depravity in a large extent consists of the hard truth of man’s inability to please God in any way. Knowing this from a Biblical perspective, how does this practically apply in the life of a Christian? I think it can apply in many different ways, but we shall look at three for now.

How We Evangelize
Firstly, this doctrine affects how we evangelize. If we believe, in any way, that man has some inherent goodness that enables him to earn the favor of God, we are far less likely to put the same amount of emphasis on repentance and sin as the Scriptures do when dealing with the subject of man’s need for salvation. Without total depravity evangelism is anthropocentric (man-centered), thus not a biblically sound application of how God redeems sinners at all. Synergism teaches that man cooperates with God and the Holy Spirit and that, together, salvation is attained. Monergism, on the other hand, teaches that from beginning to end, “salvation is of the Lord.”

When urging one to repent of their sins and believe on the Lord Jesus, the man must be humbled to the point where he sees his utter hopelessness apart from the mercy of Christ. Some pertinent passages dealing with this subject will be listed at the end of this entry, showing the biblical basis for man’s total depravity (Many thanks to Chris Blum for this quick source). Anyway, I don’t want this to be a lesson about what total depravity is; rather, since I’m sure most who’re reading this know, I want this to show how having a deep-seated belief in such should result in a practical application of it in our daily lives.

On View of Self and Explanation of Spiritual Warfare
Secondly, this doctrine affects how we view ourselves and explains our struggles. If practically applied, we cannot (without sinning) have a pious view of ourselves over others who have not _________ (fill in the blank) like we have. I think about Christ saying, “First remove the plank from your own eye…” Understanding total depravity should bring us to great humility and contrition. The Scottish reformer John Knox said that the most heinous dart Satan ever hurled at him was on his death bead. Satan tempted him with the thought God would let him into heaven because of the faithful discharge with which Knox had executed the ministry of the Word. But immediately Knox was reminded by the passage in 1 Corinthians 4:7 stating, “For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” Knox knew, because of his initial inability and depravity, he could not earn God’s favor. No merit of his own could purchase God’s goodwill. It was the truth of total depravity which reminded him of his beginning natural state.

Total depravity also clarifies why we sometimes do the things we do. Because of our inherently evil, rebellious nature we still fight this battle. Imagine it as a lion who once weilded great power. Yet, you’ve struck him with a death blow. Though his death is inevitable and his wound is fatal, he’s still able to get in a few blows of his own before expiring. In Romans 7 we see Paul dealing with the reality of the aftershocks of total depravity, “22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”

Of Gratitude for His Undeserved Mercy Given
Thirdly, this doctrine’s truth is practically applied in our lives by springing from within us a profound gratitude for God’s grace given so freely to us. This, in turn, should cause us to be most charitable toward others, including Christian brothers and sisters, family, and even the lost. Far from being supportive of others’ sins, it’s simply knowing that we’re no better than others inherently. It is the pure grace of God which has afforded us so great a salvation. We should daily show God our gratitude via his appointed means of praise, prayer, and scriptue intake. We should apply our gratitude we have to God by doing good works and deeds to others.
——————————————————————————–
Below (Read more…) are the passages supporting the truth of total depravity:
Continue Reading »

Reformation and Repentance

Josh February 10th, 2006

As noted in the previous post, I was brought to a sobering realization in a way that was, for me, atypical. While listening to a pastor passionately lecture on the Scottish Reformation, with distinguished emphasis on John Knox, I was forced to examine the “here and now” of my sanctification.

For months now I think I may’ve been in a fog of denial. Who knows? Praise be to God who doesn’t let us stay comfortable in our wretched state(s). I’m not saying this is a big revelation or anything of the sort. Rather, I simply know that it’s something that I needed to share. So…

I repent of my “devotion” to God which is apparent in writ and speech, but lacks true sacrifice in application, thus making it a void kind, if any, of devotion.

I repent of my pursuit of theological knowledge at the expense of personal holiness, piety, and practice. What good is theological knowledge if it doesn’t spur me on to biblical good works? I abhor my sin of pursuance of such for mere selfish intellectual stimulation.

I repent of my severe neglect of substantial intake of God’s Word on a daily basis. How else shall I be conformed to the likeness of the Son? How else shall I know God’s character?

I repent of my laxity in devoted prayer to the Triune God Who graced me with this very privilege.

I repent of my previous (and obviously deficient) repentance.

The list could go on and on…

Thank You, God for working in me Your will to do according to Your good pleasure. Thank you for not leaving me to myself when I justly deserve a devil’s hell-torment.

Humbled, Silenced, and Ashamed

Josh February 10th, 2006

This morning I happened upon a History of the Reformation Series taught by Pastor Joe Morecraft III of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church. It is excellent.

The few I’ve listened to thus far have dealt with John Knox and the Scottish Reformation. Pastor Morecraft’s proclamation of Knox’s preaching (which would be a proclamation of God’s Word), application thereof, and acts of personal piety have brought me low in a sobering realization that I have been found severely lax in my personal holiness and state of sanctification.

How I have been radically different from those around me who do not even profess Christ? No, I’ve not engaged in drunken orgies, pagan idolatries, demon worship, or any of the like. Yes, I’ve spoken openly of Christ and the faith given to me by the sovereign grace of God. Yet, how have I practically shown my separation from the world, while amongst children of wrath? I fear that I’ve digressed in personal holiness and piety which results in radical separation from the world and her wicked ways.

Upon hearing these lectures, and considering men like John Knox and other Reformers, Puritans, I have realized that, lately anyway, my “godliness” has been suppressed to mere theory. I am so ashamed. God forgive my absolute neglect and disregard for the true, biblical, and simple faith that is found in Christ alone, defined by Scripture alone.

May we all pursue personal holiness and true Christian piety, spurring one another on to good works thus leading reformation from the inside outward!

Random Thought

Josh February 5th, 2006

Did man ever really have free will? I mean, even with Adam, was it truly free from any and all influence? I don’t think so. Adam was not created neutral, but upright. In fact, there’s no such thing as neutrality when it comes to our essence. We are either hot or cold. Hence, this may help us understand God’s despisal of lukewarmness. So, either way you cut it, you’re influenced by something or someone. That’s not freedom, so narrowly defined.

Free Will is more broadly and typically defined by most people as man’s ability to choose between good and evil. Such an ability was forfeited by the fall of man in the garden. This does not take away man’s ability to choose something. Rather, he can only choose something according to his nature. His inability lies in not being able to choose that which is right and pleasing to God. So, man’s will is not free, but enslaved to unrighteousness and sin.

A quote by Dr. Jonathan Edwards concerning Free Will:

Free Will. To place human liberty in a contingency of the will, or the will having nothing to determine it but its being left to happen this way or that, without any determining cause, is contrary to all use and custom of language. It is as far from the meaning of the words ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ in their original and common acceptation as the east is from the west. The original and proper meaning of a man’s being free or at liberty is that he is in such a state that he may act his pleasure and do what he will, and there never was any other meaning thought of till philosophers and metaphysicians took it in hand to fix a new meaning to the words.

And besides, when liberty is understood not for this but for that contingency or sovereignty of the will, as some call it, it not only has not its original true meaning but no meaning at all. The word ‘liberty’ used in that way is without any sense. It is a word without any notion or distinct consistent meaning to answer it. For the will to be determined without any determining cause is what nobody has any notion of any more than they have of a thing’s coming out of nothing without any cause. And to suppose that the will does firstly determine itself, or determine itself in its first volition or choice, is a contradiction. For it supposes that there is a volition or act of the will before the first act which is the determining cause of that first act.