The Aquila Report Archives - Page 7 of 942

What Is Calvinism?

By Herman Selderhuis — 4 months ago

Essential elements of Calvinist doctrine include the sovereignty of God as demonstrated in His creative power and His providential care, the authority of the Bible as the source and norm for all of life, and both the sinfulness and responsibility of man.

The Term
Calvinism is a term that John Calvin did not like and one that often makes a wrong impression. It emerged as a term of insult from Lutherans trying to separate themselves emphatically from the Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Although Calvin distanced himself from the term—just as Martin Luther protested the term Lutheran—it has nevertheless endured.
Calvinism involves much more than merely the theology of Calvin. First, there is much of Luther’s theology and Huldrych Zwingli’s theology in Calvin’s teaching, and there were quite a few other theologians who contributed to what is called Calvinism, including Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Theodore Beza. It would be more accurate, then, to speak of Reformed Protestantism. Since, however, the term Calvinism is recognizable and widely used, it is still useful.
The Theology
Essential elements of Calvinist doctrine include the sovereignty of God as demonstrated in His creative power and His providential care, the authority of the Bible as the source and norm for all of life, and both the sinfulness and responsibility of man. Calvinism is distinguished by the abiding function of the law for the Christian life. In Calvin’s mind, the law of God as summarized in the Ten Commandments has continuing meaning and is regarded as the rule for the Christian life. Combined with a focus on the person and work of the Holy Spirit, Calvinism distinguishes justification and sanctification while stressing that both are vital, and stresses the importance of a godly lifestyle, a commitment to mercy, and a continuing reflection on law and justice as evidences of the true, saving faith by which alone we are justified.
Culturally, Calvinism (inside the church) led to resistance to the cult of images as a threat to the proclamation of the Word and (outside the church) to an impulse for art and culture as a means of worshiping God. The focus on the Word on the importance of knowing God resulted in a Calvinist “culture of reading” in schools, homes, and churches, which in turn made Calvinism a home for many intellectuals over the centuries. Calvinism’s openness to science comes from Calvin’s view that God is also revealed in creation. Scientific research contributes to the recognition of God, and this view gave great impetus to academics.
Read More

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 28

Feminists, Duplicity and Hamas

By Bill Muehlenberg — 4 months ago

Ignoring Israeli women and the deplorable sexual violence they are experiencing simply because they happen to be Jewish really beggars belief and tells us all we need to know about so much of modern feminism and the MeToo movement.

The Australian Sky News host Sharri Markson has done a terrific job reporting from Israel this past week. Of course this was mainly done as an acknowledgment and a reminder of the horrific atrocities that happened on October 7, 2023 by Hamas, and are still happening by the terror organisation. We must never forget.
In her programs from Israel she had a number of moving interviews with victims of all this, including those who survived the day and were able to speak about it, and some who were finally released as hostages. We heard such tragic and shocking stories, especially as to what the women had to endure at the hands of their Islamist captors.
Sharri and others asked some obvious questions that still deserve answers: Where are all the Western feminists when you need them? Why have hardly any of them been speaking out for the Israeli—and other—females being treated so diabolically by Hamas? Why the silence? Why the selective outrage?
Yes, some voices over the past twelve months have been heard on this, but far too few. For example, late last year Candice Holdsworth asked, “Why can’t “intersectional feminists” condemn Hamas’s misogyny?” She said in part:
It is surely possible to express opposition to Israel’s military action in Gaza without whitewashing Hamas’s crimes. But in recent weeks it has been disturbing to learn just how many people are willing to deny Hamas’s atrocities, or to view its sadistic violence as a legitimate form of “resistance.”
When self-declared feminists join in with this apologism, they make clear that they do not see all women as worthy of the same moral consideration. The woke belief in an “intersectional” hierarchy of oppression, which paints Palestinians as eternal victims and Jews as oppressors, seems to have blinded them to the brutal violence that so many Israeli women were subjected to six weeks ago. Their rigid ideology will not let them see Hamas’s mass rape of women for the atrocity that it is.
Condemning Hamas’s violence against women really shouldn’t be difficult. It is a very peculiar kind of feminism that insists otherwise.
And a half year ago Nils A. Haug wrote about this as well:
The reality is that for all advocates for women’s welfare, especially in the area of sexual violence, the crucial concern at this time should be the terror perpetrated on defenceless females of all ages through acts of sexual depravity, torture, and death by Hamas in Israel on October 7.
The moral obligation of lovers of peace, and those who hold to the sanctity of human life, is to speak out against injustice. This is particularly so in crimes of violence against the defenceless. It is therefore fitting to expect women’s rights groups to speak out on behalf of traumatized females of all ethnic and religious categories.
This approach was ratified in by Nobel Peace Prize winner Eli Wiesel in his 1986 acceptance speech: “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Archbishop Charles Chaput remarked that “tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.”
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 34

4 Important Things to Remember If You Are a Doubting Believer

By Nick Batzig — 4 months ago

Though he had doubts, John wasted no time in seeking to quench them. He sent some of his disciples to Jesus to ask him about his ministry. The example of John teaches us to distinguish between doubt and unbelieving skepticism. John had made the largest and most confident confessions about the identity of Jesus. Then, in a moment of weakness, he sent disciples to Jesus to ask him, “Are you the coming One, or do we look for another?”Jesus honored John for the way in which he had faithfully prepared the way for his Messianic ministry, by responding to John’s question.

Fifteen to twenty years ago, prominent figures in the missional movement began saying things like, “Our churches have to be safe places for doubters,” or “You should feel like you can come to our church with all of your doubts.” I always felt somewhat uncomfortable whenever I heard these statements—not because I think that our churches shouldn’t be safe place for people to express doubts, but because it seemed as if many were confusing the idea of doubt with the idea of unbelieving skepticism.
It is important to recognize that Scripture does not identity doubt with unbelieving skepticism. In fact, the most serious believers may have prolonged periods in which they struggle with doubt—a fact that the Gospel writers unfold in the account of John the Baptist’s doubts about the identity of Jesus while in prison.
During his earthly ministry, Jesus made the shocking assertion, “Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist.” Christ praised John as having been “the burning and shining lamp” (John 5:35)—as one who poured himself out for the spiritual well-being of others. John’s ministry was marked by his selfless motivation to see Jesus exalted: “He must increase; I must decrease” (John 3:30). John likened himself to the friend of the bridegroom, who, upon hearing the voice of Christ, rejoiced that the Bridegroom had come (John 3:29).
John had the unique privilege of standing and pointing to the Redeemer in the flesh and declaring, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). John joyfully encouraged his own disciples to leave him in order to follow after Jesus, when Christ began his ministry. John was content to exist for the glory and exaltation of Jesus (John 1:35-37). However, after Herod had locked John up in prison as retribution for rebuking him for his sexual immorality (Luke 3:19-20), John began to have doubts.
Here are four important things to remember if you are a doubting believer.
1. Even John the Baptist Began to Have Doubts
There are two possible explanations for these doubts. Either John was struggling with the suffering that he was enduring and couldn’t square it with the prophecies of the Messiah that he read about in the Old Testament prophets; or John was doubting the identity of Jesus because he wasn’t fulfilling John’s Old Testament expectation that the Messiah would come bringing salvation and judgment.
John knew the prophet Isaiah had predicted that when Messiah came he would come “to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound” (Isa. 61:1) This was, in fact, part of Jesus’ first sermon preached in the synagogue in Nazareth about himself (Luke 4:16-21). But now John was in prison for his testimony to Christ, and Jesus was even then delivering John from his imprisonment.
Believers may begin to doubt Jesus’ identity and God’s promises on account of his or her circumstances in life and inability to square those circumstances with what Scripture teaches. This is often a cause for doubts to arise in the hearts of even the most mature believers. So much of the Christian life is learning to walk through circumstances in which God has placed us when they seem contrary to what God has promised us in his word. We go back to the word to be strengthened in faith, even when we can’t square our circumstances with God’s promises.
2. John Remembered God’s Promises in Scripture
John also knew that the Old Testament prophets made clear that “the Day of the Lord” (yom Yahweh) would bring both judgment and salvation.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 38

The Constitution of the PCA Prohibits the Ordination of Men Who Experience Unnatural Lust

By Tom Hervey — 4 months ago

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) recently adopted changes to its Book of Church Order (BCO) that specify that an elder “should conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in his descriptions of himself, and in his convictions, character, and conduct” (BCO 8-2). Similarly, deacons are to be conspicuous for “conforming to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in their descriptions of themselves and in their convictions, character, and conduct” (9-3). It may be fairly asked what this means, as the phrases “chastity” and “sexual purity” occur nowhere else in the BCO. To understand the terms we are therefore compelled to consider their use in the other elements of our constitution, the Westminster Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechisms (BCO Preface III).
In considering this it is helpful to consider the original overture (O23) from Mississippi Valley Presbytery that urged the modification of BCO 8-2 and 9-3. In its “whereas” statements, O23 plainly states “the preservation of chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior in oneself is an indispensable duty and qualification for office (1 Tim.3:2; Titus 1:5-9)” and that “any expression of sexual attraction or sexual intimacy that is not directed toward the fulfillment of a lifelong covenant of marriage between one man and one woman is contrary to nature and to nature’s God” (50th General Assembly Minutes, pp. 1022-24). In so doing it cites Larger Catechism (LC) Question 139, which says “all unnatural lusts” are “sins forbidden” by the seventh commandment, as are “all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections.” The positive duty enjoined by said commandment is “chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior” (LC 138), i.e., exactly what O23 said in its whereas statement above. From this we see that “chaste” and “sexually pure” are matters of the heart and mind as well as of the body, and that they are opposed not only to immoral deeds, but to the lust that provokes such deeds, both in general and in the case of “unclean” and “unnatural” lusts in particular.
Now let us suppose that a man comes before one of our presbyteries seeking ordination, but that he, by his own admission, experiences what he calls “same-sex attraction.” Our constitution knows nothing of such terminology, and in its framework such attraction is an unclean and unnatural lust that is against the law of God. It is not merely a temptation, weakness, or potential moral liability, but one of those “sins forbidden” that LC 139 mentions. A man who experiences it is therefore not chaste or pure “in his convictions, character, and conduct,” nor in his “imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections.” For character and conduct bear an internal form in our hearts before they show themselves as outward deeds – “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (Matt. 15:19, emphases mine) – and a man who experiences unnatural lusts is therefore awry in his internal character and the conduct and affections of his heart and mind. Failing to meet the constitution’s requirements for his character and conduct, and possibly his convictions and self-description as well,[1] such a man ought to be deemed disqualified and be denied office among us when examined by presbytery.
Why This Matters
The immediate reason this matters is that I have correspondence which states that even some of those who are opposed to the errors of Revoice cannot see where our constitution forbids office to men who experience the lust in question, even those who have a public reputation as such. As can be seen above, our constitution requires chastity in thought and affections as well as in external behavior, hence someone who experiences unclean and unnatural lust is to be accounted unchaste in mind and therefore unfit per its provisions. Internal consistency and a faithful testimony to the egregiousness of the lust in question also require such a position. In the rules of discipline relating to the trial of teaching elders we read:
When a minister, pending a trial, shall make confession, if the matter be base and flagitious, such as drunkenness, uncleanness, or crimes of a greater nature, however penitent he may appear to the satisfaction of all, the court shall without delay impose definite suspension or depose him from the ministry.
We believe that a sin involving uncleanness is so heinous that even a minister who confesses it and seems to be sincerely repentant of the offense must be immediately suspended or removed from the ministry. Now if a man who has many years of fruitful labor and faithful service must nonetheless, on account of a single act of uncleanness, be suspended from the ministry, why should a man who is yet untested but admits to persistent unclean lusts not be deemed to be prohibited from ministerial office? Will anyone dare say that it is because there is a difference between lust in one’s own heart and acting upon such lust in external deeds? But what then is the meaning of this teaching of our Lord:
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Matt. 5:27-30)
Is it not that lust is to be deprecated just as strongly in the thoughts of the heart or in the gaze as in the physical deed? For if that were not so, how is it that he says to tear out one’s eye lest it cause one to sin and be damned? How could he say to take the same radical preventive action toward both the hand that does the deed and the eye that desires it unless both were equally culpable? But as it is with adulterous lust, so it is with unnatural lust to that which God condemns by euphemism (Lev. 18:22). It is the sinful root, whereas the deed is the sinful fruit; yet both are sinful and therefore at odds with chastity and purity, hence why LC139 cites Matt. 5:28 (and the aforementioned Matt. 15:19) as proof for its statement that God forbids “all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections” in the seventh commandment.[2]
I must also point out that what our catechisms and older translations of scripture call “uncleanness” is what modern translations usually render as “impurity,” the Greek akatharsía that appears in verses such as Col. 3:5 and Rom. 1:24 that are in LC139’s scripture proofs for such concepts as “unnatural lusts” (Rom. 1:24) and “unclean imaginations, etc.” (Col. 3:5). In short, where an older work refers to something as ‘unclean” in the matter of sexual morality we can usually refer to it as ‘impure;’ and I trust that it needs no elaboration that what is impure, whether “imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections” or actual deeds, is the opposite of the “sexual purity” that our constitution requires. (For that matter, “chastity” and “sexual purity” are synonyms, the Online Etymology Dictionary giving the following definition of chastity: “c. 1200, chastete, ‘sexual purity’ (as defined by the Church), including but not limited to virginity or celibacy, from Old French chastete ‘chastity, purity’ (12c., Modern French chasteté), from Latin castitatem (nominative castitas) ‘purity, chastity.’”)
All of which is to say that our constitution, when considered in its entirety, regards a man who experiences unnatural and unclean lusts as being internally unchaste and impure, and therefore disqualified for the offices of elder and deacon. The question that now arises is whether our presbyters will have the determination to enforce this which they have sworn to approve (BCO 21-5 and 24-6, Q.3) in the case of not only prospective but also current officeholders. Further, whether any current officeholders who find themselves disqualified by these provisions will fulfill their promise of “subjection to your brethren in the Lord” (BCO 21-5, Q. 4; 24-6, Q. 5) by complying with their removal from office, or else willingly resign it of their own initiative.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks/Simpsonville (Greenville Co.), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation.

[1] If he regards his lust as being the result of an immutable sexual orientation, he is mistaken in his convictions, regarding his desires along worldly lines as a result of a fixed constituent part of man (sexuality/orientation), rather than as a result of the moral condition of his heart, mind, and will (which are susceptible to improvement as a result of sanctification). And if he has a public reputation as such because he regularly discusses it with others or refers to himself as experiencing such lust – especially if he refers to himself with the blasphemous affixing of the world’s term for a violator of Lev. 18:22 with what Acts 11:26 calls a member of our faith – then he does not conform to BCO 8-2’s requirement that he be chaste in his descriptions of himself, for he describes himself by his unchaste lusts.
[2] But does this not contradict James 1:14-15 (“each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death”)? For James suggests a distinction is to be drawn between the desire that produces temptation and the sin that results when temptation has been yielded to, which suggests that if one resists the temptation he is therefore guiltless of sin. That is a correct distinction in one sense, but sin has multiple senses in scripture, sometimes referring to actual wrong deeds that we perform, and in other cases referring to the principle of anti-God lawlessness that resides within us that animates such actual transgressions.
Thayer’s Lexicon says that in James 1:15 “sin” refers to a “committed or resultant sin” “generally,” i.e., that it refers not to the principle of sin but to actual transgression, but without specifying the sin committed. In other words, the phrase “lying is a sin” is an example of the particular actual (“committed or resultant”) sin of lying, whereas “our sins offend God” represents actual sins in a general sense, without classifying them. James 1:15 falls in the latter category, which means the sin it talks about is actual, committed transgression of God’s law, not the evil impulse that precedes it. The desire he speaks of in 1:14, however, is sin in this latter sense, as the Greek epithymía it speaks of is inordinate desire (or “lust,” which is how many translations such as the KJV and NAS render it). In short, the evil desire or lust of James 1:14 is sin in principle, and it produces the temptation to commit actual sins in deed. Both the lust that tempts and the actual sin one is tempted to commit are sin, but in these two different senses, so that one can be guiltless of actual sin (if he resists the temptation) but still have within himself the principle of sin (lust) that produces the temptation.

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 41

A Virtuous Life in an Idolatrous World

By Darren Middleton — 4 months ago

While there is no quick fix for immorality. No singular or simplistic response that will eradicate the influence of the plethora of cultural idols that shape our imaginations and calibrate our desires, forming in us a distorted vision of the good life. There is an answer. It’s not new. It’s not quick. It’s not glamorous or perhaps exciting, but God’s answer is the gracious gospel call to a virtuous life in a covenant community. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 2:8 that “…being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God, but also our own selves…” Perhaps it seems too simple, too obvious, but the starting point of a virtuous life is the local church.

The Church Is Still the Answer
All too often we hear of platformed evangelicals who have succumb to the “schemes of the devil” and the disordered “desires of the flesh” living as if they were unaware that the “passions of the flesh… wage war against your soul” (Eph. 6:11, 2John 2:16, 1Pet. 2:11). Inevitably, blogs are written, situations dissected, and reflections offered.
However, it may be a good time to reflect on the broader issue of sanctification, and the call of a plodding virtuous community life for every single disciple of Christ. The truth is, we all struggle with idolatry. In Colossians 3:5-6 we’re exhorted to ‘Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.’
Paul warns us about the pull and power of disordered desires that not only want, but actively pursue sexual pleasure, power, possessions and/or consumption. He describes these as “earthly” and ‘idolatrous’ things that we want more than God, even if they are good things, like work, family or sex. Calvin described these desires as ‘inordinate desires’, where we want good things too much, and those desires become disordered desires recalibrate our loves so we willingly or neglectfully disobey God.
We often see these disordered desires prevalent in young Christian girls who date non-Christian boys, and young Christian boys who ask and pressure girls for inappropriate or even explicit photos on Snap Chat. These disordered desires are evident in widespread immorality, ubiquitous pornography, as well as the endless stupidity and triviality that is consumed in alarming daily doses of death scrolling and streaming media. They are evident in the married men who break almost every single commandment in an illicit affair, seemingly oblivious to the truck load of pain they will inevitably dump on their family, friends and church community. Then there are the ‘acceptable’ sins of greed and pride that redirect the good of work from provision and service to careerism and materialism. Not all such sins will get publicly dissected and discussed, but they are prevalent in almost every congregation in Australia, weakening and undermining gospel communities and their witness.
Augustine in his famous book ‘City of God’ pictured the spiritual battle between the two spiritual forces, the city of man (flesh) and the city of God (spirit).
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 35

Quit Playing Games With Sin

By Jacob Crouch — 4 months ago

The devil doesn’t want you to think that way about sin. He doesn’t want you to know about the “deceitfulness of sin” (Heb 3:13). He wants you to hide your sin. He wants you to secretly love your sin. He definitely doesn’t want you to kill it. He wants to convince you that all will be well if you just cut back on sin. He’s going to hide from you that sin is crouching at the door. He’s going to let you get away with sin and stop opposing you while you persist in sin. He wants to lull you to sleep. He loves a good hypocrite.

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you… Colossians 3:5
When God calls you to deal with your sin, He has very specific instructions. He doesn’t tell you to maim sin. He doesn’t tell you to wound sin grievously. He doesn’t tell you to lock sin in a box and never look at it again. He tells you to kill it. We’ve got to quit playing games with sin.
The Games We Play
What are the games we play with sin? We hide sin from others in order to appear better than we are. We put sin away for a while and only entertain it in certain seasons. We disguise sin as a virtue. We dress it up in new clothes and call it by a new name so as to persist in it respectably. But these are the games that must stop if anyone is ever to see the Lord (Heb 12:14).
Sin Will Kill You
Sin is dangerous. Sin does not have light consequences. Before we come to Christ, we come to an understanding that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). John writes that the one who makes a practice of sinning has not been born of God (1 John 3:9).
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 46

Autonomous Man: Battling the Tyranny of Selfism

By Nate Schill — 4 months ago

To battle the spirit of selfism, individuals must repent of their pride-filled selves. The apostle Peter exhorts that it is high time to “humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:6). Only those individuals truly “under God” (His governance) as saved by and submitted to Jesus Christ and sanctified by the Holy Spirit can embrace a complete identity built on the gospel of His grace (Matt. 7:24–25; John 3:3–6).

The Emergence of Autonomous Man
The worldview of human beings is ultimately built on one of two foundations: either man’s word or God’s Word. Christians understand there is no other true foundation than Jesus Christ and the importance of building spiritual fruit by His grace (1 Cor. 3:11–15). Yet, by cultivating the self-exalting ideas of mankind apart from God’s authority, the “autonomous man” emerges, naturally desiring to become an authority unto himself. As the definition goes, the autonomous man believes and attempts to demonstrate that he can govern himself without acknowledging the Creator God. Instead, his worldview becomes one of selfism, fueled by postmodern thinking, and affecting his personal and public spheres of influence. As individuals look to the subjective self for answers to issues of morality, identity (including race, gender, and sexual orientation), and politics, the biblical God and Holy Scriptures are suppressed as the true means of objective, ultimate authority. This essay will examine the tyranny of selfism and how the so-called autonomous man cannot save himself. Rather, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ and His selfless demonstration of love that saves sinners.
Selfism and the Real Me
To further understand selfism, twentieth-century apologist Cornelius Van Til rightly highlighted the heart behind the notion of “fallen man.” He wrote, “[T]hrough the fall of Adam man has set aside the law of his Creator and therewith has become a law to himself.”[1] Van Til’s reasoning for man’s pursuit of self-governance included his “carnal mind” leading to death, whereby the spiritually minded man experiences life and peace (Rom. 8:6). Theologian and professor Carl Trueman helpfully defines the self as “expressive individualism,” or the “deeper notion of where the ‘real me’ is to be found, how that shapes my view of life, and in what the fulfillment or happiness of that ‘real me’ consists.”[2] To extend the connection to the level of autonomy, Trueman continues, “The modern self assumes the authority of inner feelings and sees authenticity as defined by the ability to give social expression to the same.”[3]
Restated simply, selfism believes that as long as an individual’s behavior on theoutside is consistent with the individual’s feelings on the inside, then that individual is therefore an authentic person, demonstrating self-governance. However, allowing emotions to lead an individual’s behavior at the expense of truth’s anchor marks the beginnings of all types of sabotage, as Joe Rigney has brilliantly written in his discerning book on leadership.[4] Historically, selfism was arguably the fuel that sparked the sexual revolution, which has accelerated since the 1960’s counter-cultural revolution, or what Os Guinness has rightly termed “optimistic humanism.”[5] The chain reaction from selfism’s lie of “making a lifestyle choice” has curved in upon itself, causing tyranny to rule man’s identity—an identity idolized and affirmed through sexual desire. Selfism tyrannizes identity and biblical sexuality.
The subjective nature of pursuing personal autonomy for definitive answers about identity sharply conflicts with the authority of God’s Word. In Jeremiah 17:9, the LORD God says, “The heart is deceitful about all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” This passage indicates that individuals cannot discern their own internal motives. External sources of objective authority are necessary, namely, God’s Word (Ps. 119:105) and His Spirit (Rom. 8:27). So then, if we cannot trust our motives, how can we govern them?
Selfism’s Tyranny on Culture
Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor offered an insightful analysis of the modern secular age and the culture of emotion-based authenticity. He saw it as the normative modern conception of selfism in the West, where individuals realize their humanity on the “inside” rather than surrendering it to some “outside” source (society, tradition, religion, etc.). He wrote, “Each one of us has his/her own way of realizing our humanity, and . . . it is important to find and live out one’s own, as against surrendering to conformity with a model imposed on us from the outside.”[6]
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 39

The Church at Election Time

By Kevin DeYoung — 4 months ago

I believe Christians would do well to get informed and vote. And yet, I am hard pressed to find scriptural warrant for thinking Christians must vote as a matter of obedience to Christ. By conducting voter registration in the church we are communicating, “This is what Christians should do.” Voting is generally a good thing, but I have no biblical authority to say a Christian must vote (would we exercise church discipline on someone who didn’t?), nor do I think that voting is such a necessary expression of the fruit of the Spirit that it is the church’s responsibility to get people registered.

I have always been interested in politics. I studied religion and political science in college. I continue to read consistently in economics, sociology, politics, and current events. As a pastor, I hope the members of my church are well-informed and engaged in the political process. As Christians, we should take seriously our responsibility to be salt and light in a world that is often rotten and dark.
And yet, I believe pastors must be careful how they lead their churches in our politically polarized culture. I know there are good brothers and sisters who may disagree with these principles and their practical implications. But at the very least, pastors must disciple their leaders and their congregations in thinking through these matters wisely and theologically.
Let me mention two things I do as a pastor and three things I do not do.
As a pastor, I pray publicly for leaders and for controversial issues. We are commanded to pray for the governing authorities, whether we agree with them, like them, or trust them (1 Tim. 2:1-2). Likewise, I think it’s appropriate to include some current events in the weekly pastoral prayer. Over the past few years, I’ve included items related to Ferguson, Charlottesville, the police shootings in Dallas, the presidential election, gay marriage, Roe v. Wade, the anniversary of MLK’s assassination, and dozens of events that could be construed as “political.” I trust, however, that the prayers were not political in the worst sense of that word. I take pains to be sure that everything I pray for has scriptural warrant. During an election season, pastors should pray that God would work through the political process to give us godly leaders who are marked by ability, prudence, honesty, courage, humility, and compassion.
As a pastor, I speak to controversial issues as they arise from the text of Scripture. In preaching on Exodus 21, I talked about the history of slavery and the evils of it in our country. Later in the chapter I talked about the evil of abortion. In chapter 22, I talked about the biblical definition of justice. I also talked about the biblical understanding of the sojourner and how Christians are to love the stranger and the alien (and how this does not automatically translate into a given immigration policy). All of these touched on political topics. I didn’t mention a candidate, a political party, or advocate for any specific policy or legislation. I simply spoke to issues that were manifestly in the text. We cannot teach the whole counsel of God without venturing once in a while into difficult territory that may be unpopular in our cultural context.
As a pastor, I do not provide voter guides for the congregation. I know there are other pastors who advocate the practice, but in my experience even non-partisan voter guides are never completely non-partisan. In 2016 I saw a non-partisan voter guide from the Family Research Council and another one from Sojourners. Both guides were designed to inform Christians about the important issues facing us in the election and how to think about those issues from a Christian perspective. Not surprisingly, the two guides talked about very different issues and presented the Christian view in very different ways. Only a die-hard Republican could think the FRC guide was non-partisan. Only a die-hard Democrat could think the Sojourners guide was non-partisan.
Granted, other guides are less didactic and more informational. Many non-partisan guides ask the candidates a series of questions and then record where they stand on the key issues. But even here, the guides I’ve seen over the years all have a definite angle. If you have only 12 questions to ask the candidates, what you ask says a lot about what issues you think are important, and the wording of each question usually reflects certain priorities. In short, I don’t believe non-partisan voter guides are actually non-partisan.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 38

Christ’s Work in the ‘Heavenly Places’

By Jeff Brannon — 4 months ago

Paul’s teaching on “the heavenly places” in Ephesians reminds us of important truths. Jesus’s reign at God’s right hand in heaven is foundational for God’s purpose to make all things right in heaven and on earth (1:20–23). On account of their union with Christ, believers have been blessed with every blessing of the Spirit (1:3) and have been made alive in Christ (2:5) and seated with Christ in the heavenly places (2:6).

Pastors love to preach from Ephesians, where Paul weds rich theology and Christian living. But one of the most perplexing statements is “in the heavenly places,” which Paul repeats throughout the letter (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12). Presented with this enigmatic phrase, pastors may wish they could ignore it.
Unlocking this expression requires us to square it within the context of Ephesians and in light of Paul’s theology. We’ll discover that Paul’s teaching on “the heavenly places” emphasizes Christ’s reign in heaven (1:20), a doctrine that has incredible implications for how believers have been blessed in Christ (1:3; 2:6) and how they should understand their role in waging spiritual warfare (3:10; 6:12).
Heavenly Blessing
At the beginning of Paul’s outburst of praise in Ephesians 1:3–14, he writes, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” (1:3). The three prepositional phrases—“in Christ,” “with every spiritual blessing,” and “in the heavenly places”—prove essential for determining the passage’s meaning. The phrase “in Christ” highlights that believers have received blessing because they’re united to Christ through faith. The word “spiritual” in “every spiritual blessing” refers to the Holy Spirit.
The phrase “in the heavenly places” refers to the blessing’s source. The God of heaven has blessed Christians with every blessing of the Spirit through faith in Christ, but these blessings await their consummation when Christ returns.
In Ephesians 1:20, Paul writes that God “raised [Christ] from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places.” Jesus is the “firstfruits” of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20–23), and he reigns at God’s right hand “in the heavenly places” over the church and all evil powers (Eph. 1:20–23). Christ’s heavenly reign represents a significant step in uniting all things in heaven and has implications for God’s plan to make all things right on earth.
Seated with Christ in the Heavenly Places
In Ephesians 2:6, Paul writes that God “raised us up with [Christ] and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” The difficulty is that Christians are not physically seated with Christ in the heavenly places. From the passage’s context and Paul’s theological outlook, three important salvation realities can be deduced from this verse.
First, whereas Jesus has been bodily raised from the dead (1:20), Christians have been spiritually (of the Holy Spirit) raised from the dead (2:4–6).
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 28

Circumstantial Evidence: A Lesson from Gideon

By Michael Kelley — 4 months ago

The Lord is with you, mighty warrior? Now that is a shocking statement. It is shocking because Gideon was not a mighty warrior. He was threshing wheat, a common and necessary practice, but the usual practice of threshing wheat was to cut the stalks and then beat them with a rod. You would then discard the straw and then toss the mixture up into the air. The wind would catch the chaff and blow it away and the heavier grains would fall to the ground. But Gideon was so afraid of the Midianites that he was doing an “outside activity” while hiding in a sheltered vat that was used for pressing grapes. Mighty warrior indeed.

Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord, and for seven years he gave them into the hands of the Midianites. Because the power of Midian was so oppressive, the Israelites prepared shelters for themselves in mountain clefts, caves and strongholds. Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country. They camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys. They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it. Midian so impoverished the Israelites that they cried out to the Lord for help (Judges 6:1-6).
I’ve never known what it was like to live in fear. Not really.
I’m not familiar with the feeling of waking up on a daily basis and immediately looking over my shoulder or wondering what violence I’d have to run from. I’ve not experienced the anxiety that comes with raising children in a truly dangerous environment and worrying whether or not they will be safe playing outside. But those were the times for the children of Israel in Judges 6.
And what a terrible time it must have been. The Midianites were actually distant relatives of the Jews; they were the descendants of Abraham and his second wife. They had grown into a semi-nomadic people in western Arabia and became part of a confederation of desert peoples who periodically would cross over the Jordan to pillage and wreak havoc on the Israelites. Just when the freshly seeded crops were sprouting, they would invade and destroy. They were so fierce that the Israelites lived looking over their shoulders, knowing that they might look across the river and see the Midianites coming. They were so afraid that they actually hollowed out caves in the mountainside to hide in.
This was life for Israel for seven years. For seven years their crops and animals were destroyed. For seven years invading peoples oppressed them and caused them to run. And you can imagine the effect both economically and psychologically.
Verse 6 expresses it best because the word there for “impoverished” is literally translated “made small.”
The Midianites made the Israelites small in emotion, courage and prosperity, so much so that they finally cried out to the Lord for help.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.