Teach What is Good
Being an “older woman” is not for the faint of heart. The older we get the more we realize the more flawed we are and the more we need every ounce of grace that God graciously gives –which is probably why God gives this command to us at this time in our lives. But our young women are worth the investment. And they need us now more than ever.
Anyone paying attention knows that there is a national assault on our girls. The most recent example is the amending of Title IX, a law that was originally written to protect young women and recognize their differences from men. This law has been surreptitiously double-crossed by those who suggest that men can be women and therefore men should be protected as women and at the expense of the women it was originally meant to protect. To add insult to injury, the feminine phenom of the day, Taylor Swift, who, like the Pied Piper, has sung her way into the hearts of our girls, released a new album that openly mocks the women who hold the line for our daughters in this crazy, disordered world.
I am grateful for the cultural warriors with large audiences who expose this attack on our girls and address it at the highest levels in our country. But many of us don’t have that kind of platform. For most of us, our circle of influence is small as we endeavor to live quiet lives and love our families, church community and neighbors. We think, “What can we do that really makes a difference in this twisted, disordered world?” The answer is one that has resounded throughout the generations: “Older women…teach what is good” (Tit. 2:3).
Direction for the Disorder
Unfortunately, what we see today is a generation of younger women who are increasingly vulnerable to the disorder promoted by those that hate God. Many girls lack the foundation of truth which prevents them from standing as “corner pillars cut for the structure of a palace” (Ps. 144:12). Will they be able to withstand the elements that are shaking the foundations of our society? Do they believe what the Bible says about their identity and value as women? Do they choose God’s truth over the worldly distractions thrown at them every day? Are they taken by the influence of the “Swifties” or by the influence of godly moms, grandmas, aunts and sisters? Importantly, do they see older women standing firm and engaging them in truth and in love and kindness?
Some days it can seem like disorder is winning the day. Of course, this generation’s disorder is not a new story, but an old one from the beginning when the Author of Lies spewed the first critical theory of history: “Did God really say?” (Gen. 3:1). The majestic order that God created out of the disordered void was corrupted by one who had a history of hating God. It is not a new story. And, it was not a new story when the Apostle Paul wrote to his disciple Titus, whom he left behind on the island of Crete to bring order to the church established there. Paul wrote his letter to instruct Titus to “put what remained into order” so that the new Christians would live lives that flowed from a “knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life” (Tit.1:2).
Paul knew that order would come not only from establishing masculine authority in the church but also partnering with older women who would teach younger women what is good and in accordance with sound doctrine.
-
The Free Offer of the Gospel…Not What You’ve Been Told!
Although God does not desire the salvation of the reprobate, we may declare with full confidence and without equivocation: “God came to save sinners, like you and like me. Come now, receive and rest Christ as he is freely offered to you this day and you will be saved!”
Q. What is effectual calling?A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.WSC Q&A 31
Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.Canons of Dort 2.5
The free offer of the gospel (abbreviated “free offer”) has meant different things at different times. From a confessional standpoint, it can only mean that God sincerely offers salvation to all who repent and believe. The meaning is at best narrow. The confessions do not speak in terms of God’s desire for all men to be saved; they merely teach that God promises the gift of everlasting life to all who would turn from self to Christ. This promise of life through faith is sincere. It is a genuine offer. If you believe, you will be saved. This gospel is to go out to all men everywhere.
Arminians are often quick to point out that the free offer is inconsistent with Calvinism. They reason that if the offer of the gospel is sincere and to go out to all people without exception, then God must desire the salvation of all people without exception. Otherwise, they say, the offer isn’t sincere. How can God desire the salvation of all men without exception if God as the ultimate decider of man’s salvation chooses to pass over some? In other words, Arminians reason that unless God desires to save all men, which they observe does not comport with Calvinism, the free offer of life through faith is insincere when given to the reprobate. Their axiom is that a sincere gospel offer implies a sincere desire to see the offer accepted, a well-meant offer. More on that in a moment.
The OPC’s Majority Report
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), representative of possibly most Calvinists today on the matter of the free offer, under the leadership of John Murray and Ned Stonehouse, adopted as a majority position the Arminian view that God desires the salvation of all men. While still holding fast to the Reformed view of predestination, the OPC affirmed the view that that the free offer cannot adequately be disassociated from a divine desire of salvation for all men without exception. In other words, such Calvinists assert that the genuineness of the gospel offer presupposes God’s desire that all embrace Christ.
Subsequently, the free offer has taken on the additional meaning of a well-meant offer, or desire, that the reprobate turn and be saved. Accordingly, a major difference between Arminians and such Calvinists as these is on the question of consistency.
Back to first principles. What makes an offer genuine or sincere?
Can we judge whether an offer is genuine or sincere simply based on whether it is true or not? If God intends to keep his promise, then isn’t the offer genuine? With respect to the gospel, if one meets the condition of faith, he will one day enter the joy of Lord. Isn’t that enough to make the offer of salvation sincere?
Let’s do some basic theology…
What does it mean that God desires the salvation of the reprobate? Are we to believe that God desires the reprobate to do something he cannot do, namely regenerate himself and grant himself union with Christ? Or, is that to check our Calvinism at the door? Isn’t it Jesus who saves? Isn’t salvation of God after all? At best, if we are to remain consistent with our Calvinism, then wouldn’t it follow that to argue for a well-meant offer of the gospel we’d have to posit that God desires that he himself would regenerate the reprobate unto existential union with Christ? After all, when God desires the salvation of the elect, his desire is fulfilled not through sinners giving life to themselves but by God recreating sinners in Christ according to his predestinating decree of salvation.
Aside from the question of whether God desires that unchosen persons act contrary to the decree, what does it mean for God to desire that he himself act contrary to how he determined he would act? Of course, I know no Calvinist who affirms the well-meant offer of the gospel who would say that God desires that he had elected all unto salvation, or anything like that. Yet if man cannot turn himself, as Calvinism clearly affirms, then isn’t the implication of a well-meant offer that God desires that he would turn those he has determined not to save?
Simply stated, since Calvinism affirms total depravity, wouldn’t it stand to reason from a Calvinistic perspective that if God desires someone’s salvation, God must desire that he save that person? Accordingly, the questions that should be considered in this regard are either (a) “Does God desire the reprobate to turn himself and live?” Or (b), “Does God desire that he himself turn the reprobate so that he can live?”
Given that man is blind and deaf to spiritual things and cannot do anything to to turn himself Godward, how are we not strictly dealing with the theological plausibility of (b), that God desires to turn the reprobate contrary to what he has already decreed? If TULIP is true, then (a) would seem to be a non-starter.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Our Father
Written by R.C. Sproul |
Thursday, August 25, 2022
Prayer is one of the means God uses to bring about the ends He ordains. That is, God not only ordains ends, He ordains the means He uses to bring about those ends. God doesn’t need our preaching to save His people. Yet He has chosen to work through our preaching. He empowers our human preaching with His own power. In like manner, He has chosen to work through our prayers. He empowers our prayers so that after we pray we can step back and watch Him unleash His power in and through our prayers.My first class at the Free University of Amsterdam shattered my academic complacency. It was cultural shock, an exercise in contrasts. It started the moment the professor, Dr. G.C. Berkouwer, entered the room. At his appearance, every student stood at attention until he mounted the podium steps, opened his notebook, and silently nodded for the students to be seated. He then began his lecture, and the students, in a holy hush, dutifully listened and wrote notes for the hour. No one ever dared to interrupt or distract the master by presuming to raise his hand. The session was dominated by a single voice—the voice we were all paying to hear.
When the lecture ended, the professor closed his notebook, stepped down from the podium, and hastily left the room, but not before the students once more rose in his honor. There was no dialogue, no student appointments, no gabfest. No student ever spoke to the professor—except during privately scheduled oral exams.
My first such exam was an exercise in terror. I went to the professor’s house expecting an ordeal. But as rigorous as the exam was, it was not an ordeal. Dr. Berkouwer was warm and kind. In avuncular fashion, he asked about my family. He showed great concern for my well-being and invited me to ask him questions.
In a sense, this experience was a taste of heaven. Professor Berkouwer was, of course, mortal. But he was a man of titanic intellect and encyclopedic knowledge. I was not in his home to instruct him or to debate him—I was the student and he was the master. There was hardly anything in the realm of theology he could learn from me. And yet, he listened to me as if he really thought he could learn something from me. He took my answers to his probing questions seriously. It was as if I were a son being questioned by a caring father.
This event is the best human analogy I can come up with to answer the age-old query, “If God is sovereign, why pray?” However, I must confess that this analogy is frail. Though Berkouwer towered above me in knowledge, his knowledge was finite and limited. He was by no means omniscient.
By contrast, when I converse with God, I am not merely talking to a Great Professor in the Sky. I’m talking to one who has all knowledge, one who cannot possibly learn anything from me that He doesn’t already know. He knows everything there is to know, including what’s on my mind.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Honoring the Name of God
If He has given to us the revelation of His own character in the law there is a sense in which He has not only opened Himself to all men through that public disclosure, but especially for those dearest unto Him, the covenant family.
Next on the list is the commandment which deals with the name of God. Now, for sure this statute means we ought not use the acronym OMG nor say the full thing out loud nor use the name Jesus in a light way, but as we saw with the two previous laws there is a holistic way that we are to follow the Lord’s teaching that touches all areas of our being, both body and soul. One of the ways we become little pharisees with the law is to act as if only the outward keeping of it is what really matters, yet just like with the prohibition against imaging pictures of Jesus in our head what we see required below to the just obedience of the third commandment includes how we think about God, His titles, attributes, ordinances, etc… This is a vitally central part of the way we are to honor the name of our Lord. So, as we get into this command let us take a look at the Larger Catechism questions for the week:
Q. 111. Which is the third commandment?
A. The third commandment is, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Q. 112. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requires, That the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.
It used to be the case that young men were cautioned against public disobedience because of the fear of what it would do to the family name. It meant something to be a Glaser or a McGill or a Faulkner or a Crawford or whatever. There was an association which was important to be kept for social graces. To step out of line was to put in danger a long-term work which made even the dead embarrassed. That’s the way we need to think about the third commandment. Our sin is a humiliation not only to ourselves, but to our heavenly Father.
Israel was counseled likewise by Moses in Deuteronomy 4:5-7.
Read More
Related Posts:
