Lady Jane Grey: A Woman of Whom the World was not Worthy

Pastor Justin's message about Lady Jane Grey, whom I had never heard of previously. This was a wonderful message, and a humbling reminder of standing strong for the gospel, even when you are presented with a simple avenue of escaping persecution by renouncing faith. A message really worth listening to.

The Jesus Storybook Bible: Every Story Whispers His Name

Ideal for family worship, the Jesus Storybook Bible is an excellent retelling of many of the principle stories of the Bible.  This was used as part of this year's Family Camp, with each lesson taught at camp punctuated with some of the audio from this series.  The narration is actually fantastic:  read by David Suchet (the Inspector Poirot actor), the reading is very dramatic and entertaining, and appeals both to kids and adults (some of the narration is actually pretty funny.)

There's also a deluxe edition that includes a book with the CD narrations.  Eventually I'll get around to linking some of the sermon notes from family camp.  Every year its a tremendous blessing to be able to head out to do some camping and enjoy the teaching and fellowship, and I look forward to the family camp time each year.

I Timothy and Plurality of Elders - Notes from Macarthur

Some quick notes I took from a sermon by John Macarthur on the issue of eldership.  In I Timothy we read the Apostle Paul writing to Timothy at the church in Ephesus and giving instructions about restoring Biblical eldership.  Macarthur describes how the Bibles speaks of elders as a plurality of men, and not a "lone wolf" pastor in charge.  Paul's letters teach of elders in a plural sense, and say nothing of a pyramid layout or pecking order to this - no ruling man or board of men in charge.  The idea of a "senior pastor" is not in Scripture.

Coming from a Presbyterian background, I've long had struggles with the concept of "lay eldership", or elders who are full-time lawyers or pediatricians during the week, giving their trades full-time focus, but then along comes Sunday and then they are somehow qualified to serve as officers of the church?  And what happens in a situation where someone in the congregation needs immediate crisis counciling?  "Sorry, I have a busy work day at the office and can't help you."  The office of elder should be a full-time, dedicated role held by men with a seminary education.  Its one of the things I love about Oak Ridge Reformed Baptist, in that there isn't a "senior pastor" but rather two men who take on the eldership responsibilities together.  I'm fairly certain this is consistent with how the Bible described it should be.

I Cor. 11:17-34, the Lord's Supper and Prescient WiFi

Some reflections on the Lord's Supper, while I'm working in the local Methodist cafe using their free "prescient WiFi" (I foresaw in advance this morning that I would be using their wifi for job searches and blogging.)  The UMC is NOT my first choice theologically, but they have a nice quiet cafe for computer work, so who am I to refuse? 

At ORRB family camp this summer the pastors talked about various ordinances of the church, including the Lord's Supper and the instructions from I Cor. 11.  One of the things I found really nutty about the Methodist application of this meal was that that pastor, prior to distribution of the elements, would give a fairly watery (and non-Scriptural) warning that the elements were only to be partaken by believing Christians or those considering becoming Christians.  This struck me as odd: so basically, someone could be in the audience of a Methodist church, could think, "Hmmm, that was a nice message, and that brief sermon about self-righteous moralism felt really good to me.  Maybe I'll try some communion!"  I can't see this without finding it problematic. 

Per the church discussion this summer, this faulty UMC view of communion is apparently something like a "half-way covenant", which allows for people merely thinking about becoming believers to eat the meal.  The point made from family camp was that believers should iron out the implications and decide for themselves prior to taking the elements.  The Apostle Paul lays out some stern warnings in I Cor. for the wrongful taking of the elements, and I think it ultimately detracts for the importance and symbolism of the meal to do it is such a frivolous manner.  But the UMC has a habit of cherry-picking what they want to believe from the Holy Spirit's words through the Apostle Paul (primarily from I Tim. 2, but that's another can o' worms...)

Another thought is on the usage of the word "sacrament".  I've discussed this one with Presbyterian Dad recently, and I'm not sure its an accurate label to refer to either of the ordinances (Baptism and the Lord's Supper) as sacraments, because by definition a sacrament implies that a measure of grace is ALWAYS imparted as part of the act.  I don't agree with this position for a number of reasons, but the primary objection would be on the grounds that, much like in the UMC, an ordinance like the Lord's Supper could be taken in a totally hollow, superficial manner - so how or why would grace be imparted in that situation, to an individual who's just sitting there and appreciating the taste of the elements without giving any genuine reflective thought to the meaning of those elements?  Likewise with baptism, particularly paedobaptism, I don't see how the term of "sacrament" would apply in situations where a Presbyterian infant is sprinkled with water, and then that child grows up and walks from the faith for the rest of their life.  Where, then, is the grace?  Was it wastefully imparted to one who was never elect in the first place?

The term "ordinance" refers more to instructions from Christ - he instructed his followers to baptize and to remember him through the elements of the Supper.  *IF* grace is imparted as part of this act, then praise the Lord.  But the blanket understanding of grace always being a part of these ordinances doesn't seem to work, especially in situations of individuals who don't partake in a deeper meditative understanding of what these ordinances represent.  And how can a toddler know what those baptismal waters of death really represent?

Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics

At Oak Ridge we've recently started a series on Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ray Rhodes.  It's a fairly interesting book, and I'm about half-way through it so far.  The book is a well-written overview of some of the principle Catholic beliefs and why these often do not jive with Scripture, and while it can be read straight through it also serves as a nice reference resource when you need to look up certain topics like the Apocrypha and so on.

The only thing notable absent from the book, that I would have liked to have seen more information about, is the topic of birth control and family size, but I have a feeling that Rhodes deliberately avoided this topic simply because it is such a massive can o' worms.  The dichotomy seems to be one of: most Protestants settle for "two kids and a vasectomy", while most Catholics find curious loop-holes like NFP (or just blatant disregard of papal teaching on birth control), and in both scenarios the Biblical mandates to be "fruitful and multiply" are more or less dismissed as contextual (or inconvenient.)  I would have liked to have seen this issue covered more.  My own observation is that in recent history there was a trend of seeing "large Catholic families", but I think this practice was based more on papal-writ on avoiding birth control as "evil", and not as much on the Biblical blessing of a full quiver (Psalm 127.)

Yet to me, when I consider Roman Catholicism, although I consider such a tremendous amount of their teaching so heretical and contradictory to Scripture, I do admire their strong pro-life position, which often feels more vocally powerful than that of the protestants.  I also respect how Catholics often seem to have stronger grasp on Church history and the writings of the early church fathers, a study that it would do many Protestants good to investigate further.  But beside this, there can never really be true ecumenical union with Protestants and Catholics because at the core of true Biblical Christianity is one key, consistently backed by Scripture: Salvation by faith alone, in Christ alone, by God's grace alone, according to Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone.

Nine Marks Church Search

Mark Dever's Nine Marks site offers a comprehensive church search directory, with the caveat that the churches listed are self-selected through affirming both the 9Marks mission statement and the T4G Affirmations & Denials, having been minimally screened by 9Marks staff.  The directory is fairly comprehensive, and I'm glad to see Oak Ridge Reformed Baptist listed as well.  A handy reference if you need to relocate and are looking for a like-minded church.

Romans 6:1

Some notes on Romans 6:1, and the concept of continuing to sin for grace.  Not sure where these notes came from (I think it was a message from a Dallas Reformed Seminary mp3.)

Perfectionism is not taught in the Bible, and yet on the flip side is the attitude that sin is not all that serious.  The writer of Hebrews instructed to "pursue holiness".  Its important to understand the idea being that sanctification is just as important as justification.  Hebrews speaks especially about being set apart for God.

Sanctification of God, taken from Ezekiel, speaks about God being set apart from false gods.
Sanctification of man, in the Old Testament, was illustrated in separating from what was unclean.
Sanctification of the redeemer we see in the example of how Jesus sanctified self (John 17).

Sanctification is ultimately about the believer being set apart more and more for God.  This is a continuing process solely through the indwelling and working of the Holy Spirit.

Luke 7:11-17

Some more Oak Ridge sermon notes from Luke 7:

The preface to the message was reinforcing that Jesus Christ has eternally existed with God the Father. We understand that creation is a trinitarian work, just as redemption is, and that God speaks things into existence and they exist.

In Luke 7 we read about Jesus raising to life the widows son. In this we see providentially timed "crowd of death" meeting the "crowd of life". To the reader, Christ's instruction to the widow to "stop crying" seems like a strange one, unless it was said by someone with the authority to restore life. From the passage, there is no indication that this woman knew Christ or that she had asked anything of him, but rather He has arrived with a mission to heal.

Luke 7 also touches on the principle of touching the dead/the "unclean", and the idea that touching unclean things makes the clean unclean, but Christ is clean, and when he touches the unclean things (us) we become clean again. In vs. 14, Jesus "went up and touched the coffin", restoring the child to life.

The people here recognized that Christ was similar to the prophets of the Old Testament, and there was excitement that, 400 years following the Old Testament, God was revealing his power again. This passage in Luke is the first account of Christ raising the dead to life again.