Calvin's sensitivity to the different circumstances in which people live lead him to flip-flop, or at least to be somewhat ambivalent in his attitude to the magistrate. Citing the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 27), Scripture requires obedience to bad kings, and even to pray for the well being of the country of exile (Jer.29). No doubt Calvin has his own city of exile, Geneva, in mind. But should not rulers, who also have responsibilities, be kept on track? Yes, but not by ourselves, but by Almighty God. This leads to discussion of the vexed question of civil disobedience.
No doubt having the Anabaptists in mind, and having already defended the right to litigate, Calvin proceeds to defend the entire judicial process. He discourages using the law for the taking of revenge, but upholds the use of due process, 'through which God may work for our good'. (It is interesting that in his teaching Calvin primarily seems to have mind not Geneva, which by this time in his career he believed was governed along right lines, but countries where the law may remain hostile to evangelical Christianity).
Every organisation needs a worthy objective to thrive, and—as we saw previously—the Puritans were biblical in their approach to family life. This meant that the Puritan family took its cue from God’s word and zealously sought it. This goal directed everything they did and every decision they made.
So what was their objective?
The glory of God! They believed 1 Corinthians 10:31 with all their heart: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
This is the third post in a series related to my new book on the theology of William Strong (ca. 1611–1654). In the previous posts we defined a "covenant of works" and determined that God did actually make such a covenant with Adam in the Garden. But is the covenant of works still in effect today?
Note: The following is adapted from An Introduction to Theological Anthropology.
... That you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God (Eph. 3:19).
How is it that our perceived contentment can fluctuate so dramatically? The new clothes we used to love now seem hopelessly out of date. We appreciated that pay-raise until we acclimated to new spending habits. We thought we had a fine home until we visited that friend’s house that makes ours feel like a closet. Our happiness seems precariously dependent on how others treat us.
When you set up your shepherding plan you could not have imagined that your entire congregation would be hunkered-down attempting to stay clear of Covid-19.
These are times in which the flock needs to hear from their shepherds for comfort and assurance. I have urged our elders to put a priority on reaching out to their sheep, especially to those who are especially vulnerable.
I recently received this encouraging email from my friend Ken Jones, Shepherding Pastor at Oak Mountain Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama:
They came from California, Arizona, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, New York City, St. Louis, Pennsylvania, and, of course, Georgia. Why did they come? They came because they are all leaders of large churches and wanted to consider best practices for shepherding large numbers of people. The consultation had been in the planning for 4 years. After visiting First Presbyterian in Augusta, Georgia, First Pres. Executive Pastor John Barrett and I began to imagine a consultation of large church leaders to talk about shepherding their flocks.
William Williams Pantycelyn – The Sweet Singer of Wales
Theodore Sedgwick Wright – A Voice for the Slaves
Basic information – four ideas
Fides sola est quae justificat; fides quae justificat non est sola. Latinisms can have a wonderful way of crystallising issues in theological reflection – so with this one: ‘It is faith alone that justifies; but faith that justifies is never alone!’ This isn’t just a statement about the alone-ness of faith as the means by which we receive God’s justifying grace, but something much more far-reaching. It highlights the crucial distinction we need to grasp as we try to understand what it means to be justified.
When the Banner of Truth Trust published the second volume of his Collected Writings in 1977, John Murray’s views on effectual calling sparked off animated debate in Reformed circles at that time. He challenged the formulation found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism that defines effectual calling as ‘the work of God’s Spirit’ (Q.31), preferring instead to see it as ‘the act of God the Father’ (p.166).
The Doctrine of Angels