Archive for the 'J.G. Vos' Category

Come Enter the Bond

November 19, 2006

Question: Why is a new Reformation needed at the present day?

Answer: Because in our day the doctrine of justification by free grace is all but forgotten. The majority of the large denominations, although they may have it set forth in their official creeds, as a matter of fact no longer believe or preach it in any pointed or consistent way. In many cases the Protestant churches which claim to hold it yet show but little zeal or enthusiasm for preaching it. It is not an exaggeration to say that the average protestant church member knows little or nothing of it. Meantime the Roman Catholic Church, which strongly opposes this doctrine, is gaining ground daily. [Johannes G. Vos commentary on the Larger Catechism]

From the Solemn League and Covenant

I. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.

II. That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy (that is, Church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissioners, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness; lest we partake in other men’s sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his mane one, in the three kingdoms.

As James Guthrie said as he ascended the scaffold, about to be martyred, “The covenants, the covenants, they shall yet be Scotland’s reviving”

Whether in Scotland or anywhere in the world where there are parts of the scattered remnant, revival and reformation is needed, and those who claim Protestantism, yet practice prelacy and popery and refuse to boldly set forth the doctrines of grace, should either enter the covenant fully and wholly, or get out of the race rather than doing Christ’s cause and His Kingdom harm and instead of giving Him glory.

 

 

Where was God?

September 29, 2006

You often hear when disaster strikes people say "Where was God?" I heard this uttered more than once for instance over Sept 11 2001.  This quote from Johannes G. Vos commentary on the Larger Catechism seems appropriate in that light.

Q: Is Christ reigning over the nations of the world today?

A: Yes. While it is true that the nations of the world are living in neglect of, or in rebellion against, Christ’s kingly reign, still he is reigning over them and accomplishing His purposes in spite of their neglect or rebellion.

 

Where is thy sting?

September 6, 2006

Q: In what sense is physical death itself a punishment for sin?

A: Death is called "the wages of sin" (Rom 6:23). Wages means "that which we have earned" or "what we deserve." In the case of the unsaved person, death is simply the wages of sin, a judicial penalty. In the case of the Christian, however, Christ has already suffered death as his substitute. The Christian still has to die, of course, but in the case of the Christian, death is no longer a penalty. It remains an enemy, but it is not a judicial penalty. Rather to the Christian, death is a change by which God transfers him to the region and the condition of perfect holiness. Thus, physical death to the Christian, is part of God’s fatherly discipline. It proceeds not from God’s wrath, but from his love in the case of a Christian. [Johannes G Vos]

 

 

Does being good lead to Heaven?

August 22, 2006

Question: What is the extent of the corruption of nature that resulted from the fall?

Answer: This corruption of nature is complete or total in extent, and is sometimes called total depravity.

Question: Does total depravity of nature mean than an unsaved person cannot do anything good?

Answer: No. The unsaved person, by God’s common grace (or restraining power), can do things that are good within the civil or human sphere. For example, an unsaved person may save another from drowning, at the risk of his own life. But the unsaved person can do nothing that is spiritually good, that is, nothing truly good and pleasing in God’s sight. He may do things that are good in themselves, but he never does them with the right motive, namely, to love, serve, and please God; therefore even the "good" works of the unsaved person are spoiled and corrupted by sin. [Johannes G. Vos]

 

Against Evangelical Liberalism

August 18, 2006

   Though ALL of the below may not be able to be hung  on the Modern Evangelical church, it is a major beef I have with them, based on personal experience. That while they talk of God’s love, mercy, justice etc,  they completely ignore the practical aspects of talking and preaching and teaching on God’s wrath and and divine punishment.  Love is all you need seems to by the by-word, which IMO is not Biblical and makes for an airy fairy kind of Christianity.  I remember once having a discussion with a pastor from such a type of church, who told me he couldn’t tell his flock of any sins they were committing, because being  “It wouldn’t be nice, being a Christian”  So, according to that way of thinking,  as long as you seem “nice” your flock can sin their way into hell rather than the image of your “niceness” being bought into question.  Who spoke stronger words against sin that our Lord Himself,  referring to the Pharisees as “broods of vipers.”  I’m not sure where always being “nice” is Biblical in cases like that.  The Christian brothers and sisters I love most in the world on a personal level,  are not backwards at coming forward to tell someone when they are wrong.  At the time if one is on the receiving end it may not seem the best thing to happen, but  its honest, biblical and people will often carry on oblivious unless someone points out to them some fault or other.  Which would you rather have? The “liberal” evangelical movement or otherwise Liberal type of believers, or someone who will maybe speak sharp words but in doing so, may drag you back from the brink of hell,  which is what the Modern Evangelical movement will often refuse to do, such as in the personal instance named,  for fear they will be thought to be less than “nice”

Faithful are the wounds of a friend;
   profuse are the kisses of an enemy. [Proverb 27:6]

 

Q27:  What misery did the fall bring upon mankind?
A27:  The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God,[1] his displeasure and curse; so as we are by nature children of wrath,[2] bond slaves to Satan,[3] and justly liable to all punishments in this world, and that which is to come.[4] [The Larger Catechism]
1.  Gen. 3:8, 10, 24
2.  Eph. 2:2-3
3.  II Tim. 2:26
4.  Gen. 2:17; Lam. 3:39; Rom. 6:23; Matt. 25:41, 46, Jude 1:7

Q: What truth is implied by the statement that sinners are justly liable to all punishments in this world and that which is to come

A: This statement implies the truth that sin involves guilt, for it renders the sinner liable to penalties. Therefore sin is not a mere misfortune or calamity which would call forth the pity of God; nor is it a mere disease which needs to be cured; nor is it a mere moral pollution which needs to be cleansed; it is guilt which deserves the punishment and which needs to be forgiven.

Q: what is the modern “liberal” attitude toward the doctrine stated in this question in the catechism.

A: the modern “liberal” theology denies every one of the truths set forth in the answer to question 27. (a) Modern “Liberalism” teaches that all men are children of God by nature, and therefore anyone can have communion with God by simply realizing that he is already a child of God. (b) “Liberalism” speaks only of the love of God, and objects to the idea of his displeasure and curse. (c) “Liberalism” follows Pelagius and denies that we are born with a nature that is the object of divine wrath because of its sinfulness. (d) “Liberalism” does not believe in a personal devil, and therefore cannot accept the idea that we are bond slaves to Satan. (e) “Liberalism” defines sin in human and social terms, and therefore rejects the doctrine that sin is guilt before God which deserves divine punishment. [Johannes G. Vos]

 

Against Free-Masonry

August 11, 2006

 

Q: What important and popular organizations of the present day are largely founded on the doctrine of Deism?

A: The Freemasons and some other “fraternal” orders, which speak of God as the “Grand Architect of the Universe,” are largely based on the Deistic conception of God.

Q: Why should Christian people not join these lodges or “fraternal” orders?

A: There are many good reasons why a Christian should not belong to any secret, oath-bound order; but perhaps the most important reason is that these orders, especially the Masonic order, are founded on the Deistic idea of God, and therefore are really a false religion. The Christian, who holds the Bible doctrine of God, should keep separate from them.[Johannes G. Vos]

 

The Author of Scripture

August 3, 2006

Q:Why must a book which gives all glory to God be genuine?

A: It must be genuine, that is, it must be what it claims to be, the Word of God, because no one but God could have had a motive for writing it. Wicked men would not write a book which condemnsness and gives all glory to a holy, sin-hating God. Good men could not write a book of their own initiative and represent it falsely as the Word of God, for if they did that they would be decievers, and therefore not good men. For the same reaons, neither devils or holy angels could have written it. Therefor God is the only person who could be the Author of the Bible. [Johannes G. Vos]

 

Scriptures Infallibility

August 1, 2006

I was told by someone who has had more dealings with than I, that the kind of believers mentioned in THIS POST  that they often had a problem in accepting the Bible just as it is, something to do with translations, which I can see some validity to on one hand, but because I know how extreme some of their belief system was, I couldn’t say more than that without having more knowledge about exactly what it is they say or object to.  But this quote by Johannes G. Vos, from his commentary on the Larger Catechism, speaks very much to how trustworthy the Bible is.

Q: Why do we believe that the Scriptures are entirely free from errors?

A: We believe that the Scriptures are entirely free from errors, not because we find no apparent errors in the Bible, for it cannot be denied that a few apparent errors have been pointed out in the Bible, but because the Bible itself claims to be free from errors. Our belief about  the Scriptures must not be an inference from facts of our own experience, but a formulation of the teachings of the teachings of the Scriptures themselves about themselves. If we find some apparent errors in the Bible, that is a matter of our o wn experience as finders. But we observe that the Bible represents itself as being free from errors, that is an observation concerning the teachings of the Bible. We must accept the Bible’s teaching about hell and other matters. The fact is that the Bible teaches that the Bible is inerrant. Even though we may have some unsolved problems concerning apparent errors in the Bible, still these problems do not justify setting aside the Bible’s teaching about itself, unless it can be proved that the Bible really contains errors, and that they exist in the genuine text of the Hebrew or Greek original. If that could be proved, the trustworthiness of the Bible as a teacher of truth on all subjects would thereby be destroyed. If we are to trust the Bible in what it says about God and man, sin and salvation, we must also trust the Bible in what it says about its own infallibility.

 

Scriptures Infallibility

August 1, 2006

I was told by someone who has had more dealings with than I, that the kind of believers mentioned in THIS POST  that they often had a problem in accepting the Bible just as it is, something to do with translations, which I can see some validity to on one hand, but because I know how extreme some of their belief system was, I couldn’t say more than that without having more knowledge about exactly what it is they say or object to.  But this quote by Johannes G. Vos, from his commentary on the Larger Catechism, speaks very much to how trustworthy the Bible is.

Q: Why do we believe that the Scriptures are entirely free from errors?

A: We believe that the Scriptures are entirely free from errors, not because we find no apparent errors in the Bible, for it cannot be denied that a few apparent errors have been pointed out in the Bible, but because the Bible itself claims to be free from errors. Our belief about  the Scriptures must not be an inference from facts of our own experience, but a formulation of the teachings of the teachings of the Scriptures themselves about themselves. If we find some apparent errors in the Bible, that is a matter of our o wn experience as finders. But we observe that the Bible represents itself as being free from errors, that is an observation concerning the teachings of the Bible. We must accept the Bible’s teaching about hell and other matters. The fact is that the Bible teaches that the Bible is inerrant. Even though we may have some unsolved problems concerning apparent errors in the Bible, still these problems do not justify setting aside the Bible’s teaching about itself, unless it can be proved that the Bible really contains errors, and that they exist in the genuine text of the Hebrew or Greek original. If that could be proved, the trustworthiness of the Bible as a teacher of truth on all subjects would thereby be destroyed. If we are to trust the Bible in what it says about God and man, sin and salvation, we must also trust the Bible in what it says about its own infallibility.