Another son of God movie

Thank you for this helpful post.

Green Baggins

Why I’m NOT Seeing the Movie Son Of God

by Reed DePace

Yeah, expect some will disagree with this. Follow this argument with me:

  • Is Jesus God?
  • If you say “yes”, does the 2nd Commandment (Ex 20:4) apply to Jesus?
  • If you say, “yes”, nuff said – you better not go see the movie.

If you say, ‘yeah but” … A common objection to my argument is the idea that the context of the 2nd commandment is about images of God for purposes of worship. I.e., as long as the image made is not for worship (e.g., teaching), its ok. Well, let’s follow that argument:

  • What is the only proper, biblical response to God?
  • Worship (Dt 10:12; Ps 99; Mt 22:37)
  • If Jesus is God (Joh 1:1-5),
  • Then what is the only proper, the biblical response to Him?
  • Uh, worship.

Think about the response on the Mt of Transfiguration (Mt…

View original post 943 more words


Pray with an Eye on our Father and His Love (Lord’s Day 46 Sermon Excerpt)


This is an excerpt from last Sunday afternoon’s sermon at the Providence Canadian Reformed Church.  The catechism lesson was Lord’s Day 46 of the Heidelberg Catechism:


Having God as our Father is a basic Christian teaching.  We have a Father in heaven, because we have a Saviour who came to earth.  We have a Saviour who reconciled us to our Maker, and because of that reconciliation, we are in a relationship of fellowship with God.  That relationship is described in terms of a Father and his children.  God is our Father, and we are his children.  It’s a beautiful gospel reality.

Our Master teaches us to open our prayers with an eye on God as “our Father.”  Right away, we need to be clear about what that means.  There are those who say that Jesus is referring to the Father as one of the persons of the…

View original post 1,302 more words

Christ Was and Is Earnest in Seeking His People

DickAllenSmokingD.G. Hart recently had a very helpful post Is Scripture Like Sweetbreads or Broccoli? in response to an article by Daniel R. Hyde that has left some parties inflamed. Hart’s post is very helpful and so are some of the comments that should not be missed. Early in my own Christian journey, I found myself amongst the Pentecostal movement where spirituality seemed to always be compared, one’s earnestness or seriousness questioned, and the ‘discerning of the ‘spirit” leaving one to feel ‘outside the camp’.

With Dr. Hart, I must say I earnestly agree:

Hyde is not wrong to call his readers to have fellowship with God, to do so through reading the word, or to combine doing with reading. But where does the Larger Catechism actually talk about earnestness? Or why can’t my reading Scripture or attending the ORDINARY means of grace be routine, as in weekly? Why should I feel like I have failed if my worship or Bible reading has been ordinary, lacking in earnestness?

One commenter, named Warren, wrote here:

Hyde–and Calvin–got it right.

“He who knows Christ in a proper manner beholds him earnestly, embraces him with the warmest affection, is absorbed in the contemplation of him, and desires no other object.” (John Calvin, Commentary on Galatians)

Dr. Hart responded helpfully here:

Warren, and how do you know when your earnestness is not hypocritical? Have you thought about that?

And do you think it is easier to gain a following with earnestness (read sincerity) or with moderation and restraint — meaning, you don’t talk about your devotion in ways that either exalts it or that makes others question their own devotion.

And this response of Dr. Hart is not to be missed:

Warren, here here. Calvin was astute enough to write: “Others do good, not from a desire to do what is right, nor on account of the glory of God, but only to obtain for themselves fame and a reputation for holiness. This last mentioned class Christ now describes, and he properly calls them hypocrites: for, having no proper object in view in the performance of good works, they assume a different character, that they may appear to be holy and sincere worshippers of God.” (Commentary on Matt. 6)

Isn’t it conceivable that our earnestness may be a cover for less holy things going on inside us? Couldn’t it be deceptive to think that now I have arrived since I really really really feel Scripture speaking to me? Wouldn’t Calvin’s understanding of sin (not to mention Scripture’s) even in the life of the believer caution us about making too big a deal of our own zeal? Maybe we look to the earnestness of God in saving us?

R. Scott Clark makes another helpful point here:

Darryl makes a good point re exhortations to read the Bible generally. We should be a little cautious about transferring exhortations in Scripture to read Scripture from their context to ours.

1. Universal literacy (which is almost certainly in decline) is a relatively recent phenomenon. It certainly didn’t exist in the ancient world where relatively few people could read or could have been expected to be able to read Scripture.

2. Very few people had direct, unmediated access to Scripture in the ancient world.

3. Most people would have heard Scripture (as distinct from seeing Scripture with their own yes). We get a sense of this from Colossians 4:

And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. (Colossians 4:16, ESV)

4. Yes, now that most of us can read and now that Scripture is more available to us than ever, we should certainly capitalize on such blessings but we should be careful in how we draw the lines between the biblical exhortation to read and our setting.

Dr. Clark is helpful here:

1. Someone asked about “being more than earnest.” Here you go. It’s all about me.

2. I don’t think we should juxtapose the English Reformed over against the European/Continental Reformed if only because the Europeans at the time didn’t do so. The adjective “puritan” is about as slippery as the adjective “evangelical” is today. Some of the English Reformed were more subjective, some less. Some were confessional and orthodox and some, like Richard Baxter, were the Shepherdites of their day. I don’t think the piety of the orthodox, confessional British (to be more inclusive) was more intense than that of Ames (an Englishman pastoring and teaching in the Netherlands) or Voetius (an actual Dutchman) or their followers.

3. I don’t think anyone in this discussion seriously doubts that Christians should be earnest about their faith and piety. One problem is that “earnestness” is a little subjective and if we press believers on continually or ham-fistedly, “earnestness” can become a man-made test of piety: “are you earnest enough brother” Well, probably not but who’s judging and by what standard? If the standard is 1st Great Awakening revivalism, probably not but, David (Ps 63), Asaph (Ps 78), Isaiah (26:9), and Paul (1 Thess 3) were not Edwardseans. The problem isn’t with the noun, the adjective, or the adverb in themselves. These are sound translations. The problem comes in what is made of them by those who think that other believers aren’t sufficiently earnest (or whatever quality is thought to be lacking).

Yes, we probably aren’t earnest enough. Thank you for the reminder of the sin and death that clings to us and our need for sanctification. We also, however, need just as much a continual, gracious reminder of God’s unconditional favor toward wretches with their insufficiently warm hearts. We need the foolishness of the cross, the wonder of the empty tomb, the glory of his ascension and reign, and the mystery of the abiding presence of his Spirit as we await the consummation of all things.

Dr. Clark is again helpful, reminding us of the Reformed Confessions and the relationship of guilt, grace, gratitude:

On guilt, grace, and gratitude, there’s always Heidelberg Catechism 2, 86, and Belgic Art. 24 (with which the Westminster Standards agree):

HC 2

2. How many things are necessary for you to know, that in this comfort you may live and die happily?

Three things: the first, how great my sin and misery is; the second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery; the third, how I am to be thankful to God for such redemption.

HC 86

86. Since then we are redeemed from our misery by grace through Christ, without any merit of ours, why should we do good works?

Because Christ, having redeemed us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image, that with our whole life we show ourselves thankful to God for His blessing, and also that He be glorified through us; then also, that we ourselves may be assured of our faith by the fruits thereof; and by our godly walk win also others to Christ.

BC Art 24:

We believe that this true faith, produced in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a “new man,” causing him to live the “new life” and freeing him from the slavery of sin.

Therefore, far from making people cold toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and fear of being condemned. So then, it is impossible for this holy faith to be unfruitful in a human being, seeing that we do not speak of an empty faith but of what Scripture calls “faith working through love,” which leads a man to do by himself the works that God has commanded in his Word.

These works, proceeding from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified by his grace. Yet they do not count toward our justification—for by faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do good works. Otherwise they could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree could be good if the tree is not good in the first place.

So then, we do good works, but nor for merit—for what would we merit? Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he who “works in us both to will and do according to his good pleasure”60—thus keeping in mind what is written: “When you have done all that is commanded you, then you shall say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have done what it was our duty to do.’ ”

Yet we do not wish to deny that God rewards good works—but it is by his grace that he crowns his gifts. Moreover, although we do good works we do not base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work.

So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior.

Indeed, perhaps we need to consider more the faithfulness of God and the earnestness of His Son in rescuing us. As Hart wrote, “Maybe we look to the earnestness of God in saving us?”

Covenant of Redemption Defined – R. Scott Clark and David Van Drunen

CovenantJustificationPastoralMinistryIn their chapter, The Covenant before the Covenants, David VanDrunen and R. Scott Clark write:

In Reformed theology, the pactum salutis has been defined as a pretemporal, intratrinitarian agreement between the Father and Son in which the Father promises to redeem an elect people. In turn, the Son volunteers to earn the salvation of his people by becoming incarnate (the Spirit having prepared a body for him), by acting as surety of the covenant of grace for and as mediator of the covenant of grace to the elect. In his active and passive obedience, Christ fulfills the conditions of the pactum salutis and fulfills his guarantee … ratifying the Father’s promise, because of which the Father rewards the Son’s obedience with the salvation of the elect.  And because of this, the Holy Spirit applies the Son’s work to his people through the means of grace.

David VanDrunen & R. Scott Clark, Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California, (Phillipsburg, NJ:Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007), 168.

I highly recommend this book available here: Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California

The Covenant of Redemption ~ Pactum Salutis


In Sacred Bond; Covenant Theology Explored the authors, Michael G. Brown and Zach Keele, lay the ground work and define the Covenant of Redemption (or pactum salutis) as follows:

The covenant of redemption is the first of three overarching covenants in redemptive history, namely, the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace…. Sometimes referred to by its Latin title, pactum salutis, the covenant of redemption is the origin and firm foundation of the covenant of grace. Without it, there would be no election, no incarnation of the Son, no cross, no resurrection, and no promise of heaven.  In short, there would be no salvation of sinners.

The covenant of redemption is unique for at least two other reasons. First, it was made between the persons of the Trinity, and not, as in most biblical covenants , between God and humans. The covenant of redemption is a pact between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with the purpose of redeeming God’s elect. The Father gave to the Son those whom he chose to save and required him to accomplish their salvation th[r]ough his obedient life and atoning death as the second Adam. He also promised the Son a reward on the completion of his work. The Son accepted the Father’s gift, agreed to the conditions of this covenant, and submitted himself to the Father’s will. The Holy Spirit promised to apply the benefits earned by the Son to the elect and unite them with the Son forever. Thus, we say the covenant of redemption is an intratrinitarian covenant between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Second, the covenant of redemption is unique because it was established before time. All other biblical covenants were made in time and history. The covenant of redemption, however, was made in eternity, before the foundation of the world and all things temporal. Thus, we say that it is a pretemporal covenant.

Therefore, behind all of God’s covenanting with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, David, and his elect, stands the covenant of redemption. Planned from eternity by the members of the Godhead, the covenant of redemption is the basis and driving purpose of all redemptive history.  We give a summary definition of the covenant of redemption as the covenant established in eternity between the Father , who gives the Son to be the Redeemer of the elect and requires of him the conditions for their redemption; and the Son, who voluntarily agrees to fulfill these conditions; and the Spirit, who voluntarily applies the work of the Son to the elect.  (pp. 24-25 in the book).

Brown, Michael G.; Keele, Zach (2012-05-29). Sacred Bond; Covenant Theology Explored (Kindle Locations 310-330). Reformed Fellowship, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

This summary is typical among Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century. They understood Scripture to teach the covenant of redemption as one of obedience and obligation for Christ. Forgiveness of sins and eternal life for the elect was possible only by Christ fulfilling the demands of God’s justice through his life of obedience and death of atonement. Thus, Christ became the covenant-keeper in whom we place our trust for salvation. Owen also pointed out that the Holy Spirit has an essential role in the covenant of redemption. It was through the Holy Spirit that the Virgin Mary conceived the incarnate Christ, Christ offered himself to the Father, and he was raised from the dead. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is also responsible for bringing the elect into union with Christ and keeping them secure. Our salvation is Trinitarian from beginning to end. (pp. 34-35 in the book).

Brown, Michael G.; Keele, Zach (2012-05-29). Sacred Bond; Covenant Theology Explored (Kindle Locations 490-517). Reformed Fellowship, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

This book is perhaps the best introduction to covenant theology I have read.  I highly recommend it.  It is available for purchase here: Sacred Bond; Covenant Theology Explored

We Have No Righteousness of Our Own – Calvin on Luke 10:26

John_Calvin_by_HolbeinCommenting on Luke 10:26, Calvin wrote the following:

Luke 10:26 What is written in the law? He receives from Christ a reply different from what he had expected. And, indeed, no other rule of a holy and righteous life was prescribed by Christ than what had been laid down by the Law of Moses; for the perfect love of God and of our neighbors comprehends the utmost perfection of righteousness. Yet it must be observed, that Christ speaks here about obtaining salvation, in agreement with the question which had been put to him; for he does not teach absolutely, as in other passages, how men may arrive at eternal life, but how they ought to live, in order to be accounted righteous in the sight of God. Now it is certain that in the Law there is prescribed to men a rule by which they ought to regulate their life, so as to obtain salvation in the sight of God. That the Law can do nothing else than condemn, and is therefore called the doctrine of death, and is said by Paul to increase transgressions, (Romans 7:13,) arises not from any fault of its doctrine, but because it is impossible for us to perform what it enjoins. Therefore, though no man is justified by the Law yet the Law itself contains the highest righteousness, because it does not falsely hold out salvation to its followers, if any one fully observed all that it commands.72    “S’il s’en trouvoit quelqu’un qui observast entierement ce qu’elle commande;” — “if any one were found who observed entirely what it commands.”  Nor ought we to look upon this as a strange manner of teaching, that God first demands the righteousness of works, and next offers a gratuitous righteousness without works; for it is necessary that men should be convinced of their righteous condemnation, that they may betake themselves to the mercy of God. Accordingly, Paul (Romans 10:5, 6) compares both kinds of righteousness, in order to inform us that the reason why we are freely justified by God is, that we have no righteousness of our own. Now Christ in this reply accommodated himself to the lawyer, and attended to the nature of his question;   for he had inquired not how salvation must be sought, but by what works it must be obtained.

See Luke 10:25-37 in the ESV

See Calvin

Do This, and Thou Shalt Live – Calvin on Luke 10:28

john-calvinCommenting on Luke 10:28: And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” John Calvin wrote the following:

Luke 10:28. Do this, and thou shalt live. I have explained a little before, how this promise agrees with freely bestowed justification by faith; for the reason why God justifies us freely is, not that the Law does not point out perfect righteousness, but because we fail in keeping it, and the reason why it is declared to be impossible for us to obtain life by it is, that it is weak through our flesh, (Romans 8:3.)  So then these two statements are perfectly consistent with each other, that the Law teaches how men may obtain righteousness by works, and yet that no man is justified by works, because the fault lies not in the doctrine of the Law, but in men. It was the intention of Christ, in the meantime, to vindicate himself from the calumny which, he knew, was brought against him by the unlearned and ignorant, that he set aside the Law, so far as it is a perpetual rule of righteousness.

See Luke 10:25-37 in the ESV

See Calvin