Of Trout and Men

Sad But True

2011-06-21T12:59:00.000-07:00

An Associated Press article appeared in our local paper yesterday, June 20, 2011, entitled
"NC Grapples With Legacy of Sterilization Programs". The article began as follows:

Nearly 35 years after ending the country's most active post-war sterilization program, North Carolina is the only state trying to make amends to thousands of people who cannot have children because of eugenics-inspired theories about
social improvement.

It went on to say
Eugenics programs gained popularity in the U.S. and other countries in the early 1900s, but most abandoned those efforts after World War II because of the association with Nazi Germany's program aimed at racial purity. However, North Carolina's expanded, with sterilizations peaking in the 1950s and early 1960s. About 70 percent of the state's 7,600 sterilizations occurred after the war, state figures show.

Here are my thoughts;
While the state of North Carolina may be the only state in America "trying to make amends to thousands of people who cannot have children because of eugenics-inspired theories about social improvement”(June 20, 2011), all of America has been strapped with the legacy left behind by such theories and programs. It is hard to believe that the theory, that the less desirables of society ought not to be permitted equal opportunity to reproduce as others, gained a foothold in America. It is sad but true that it did. It may seem hard to believe that eugenics is still being implemented in the world today as a means of population control, again it's sad but true. Beware if you happen to be conceived and born a female in some countries. Your right to life may not be protected either in or out of the womb. Consider, for example, China’s brutal one- child per family policy, Closer to home, let us consider the well-documented fact that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was highly involved in and influenced by the eugenics movement in America in the post-Civil War era. It is no accident that the abortion industry flourishes in America or that abortion clinics are often situated in poorer, often black communities. Yes, it’s quite a legacy we have been handed. But it is not too late to make amends.If we repent, will God be yet merciful to America?What shall we pass on to generations yet to come?

Do you love Me?

2011-01-15T12:04:00.000-08:00

He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "(Shepherd My sheep.")
17He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, "(Tend My sheep.)
18"Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go."
19Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "(Follow Me!" [John 21:16-19].
Following the resurrectionJesus appeared to HIs disciples on the Sea of Tiberius.At His command they let down again their empty net. They brought it up so full of fish they could barely get it to shore.Does this not speak of the upcoming apostolic ministry of these men whom Jesus called to be "fishers of men"? Jesus has promised a great worldwide catch. After breakfast, Jesus there spoke to Peter, three times asking the question, "Do you love Me?"Peter affirms and reaffirms his love for Jesus his Lord. Meanwhile,Jesus presses home Peter's ministerial responsibility to feed Jesus' sheep and also as the text makes clear, He speaks of what kind of death by which Peter 'would glorify God.'
THis text has been much on my mind recently.The fly tying desk lies idle this winter, and the keyboard at the computer collects dust. SOMEONE ELSE MUST HELP ME DRESS AND TIE my shoes in the morning. My stroke at the end of October has left my left hand limp and my left foot fitted with an orthotic device. No longer do I simply walk wherever I wish to go, although the quad cane certainly helps.My heart yearns to be man-fishing and to be feeding Jesus' sheep, but providence has indicated I needed a seaon to learn something about dying. Shall I be able to return to the woods or to the streams or to full ministerial labor? God knows. BUT, oh to follow Jesus and to glorify God in our death! Lord, help us.
Dear readers, As a dying man speaking to dying men, allow me to exhort you to greater love and greater service to Christ. Together, Let us redeem the time that remains for us, making the most of every opportunity to glorify God.Amen.

"A Blessing": the poem by Ken Hada

2010-10-29T10:37:00.000-07:00

To read a poem on fly fishing by Ken Hada and to hear it read by Garrison Keillor on The Writer's Almanac, visit http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/index.php?date=2010/10/27. Click on "Listen."

Of Baptism and Young Children

2010-09-24T08:43:00.000-07:00

Suppose a husband and wife come to Christ, already having children aged 3 through 13. In being received into the visible church, should the children be baptized or should they be made to wait until they make a profession of faith?
This is an important recurring question in one form or another. My answer follows:
The Reformed and Presbyterian understanding of covenant children, of course, is that they are to be included in the membership of the visible church. Our Westminster Confession of Faith (XXV.II) says the following:
“The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel(not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” [Emphasis added].
The children of believers, who have not yet professed faith (nor have denied it), are to be received as members with their parents. Baptism is to be administered at the time of admission into the church. Again, our Confession of Faith (XXVIII.I) says,
“Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world."
Baptism is a sign and seal of God’s covenant administered to all received into the visible church and the covenant community. As an Old Testament example, by way of analogy and biblical precedent, at the time of the institution of the sign and seal of circumcision, it was to be administered to all the males in Abraham’s household. Our OPC Directory of Worship (IV.A.2) clearly states, “The baptism of infants is not to be unnecessarily delayed. Notice of intention to present a child for baptism must be given to the session by a parent who is a believer. The baptism of adults must await their public profession of faith in Christ.”

Your specific question about the ages of 3 through 10 is significant. I believe that the reference to “infants” in the Confession of Faith (XXVIII.IV) and in the Directory for Worship (cited above) should be understood in terms of an age of a minor. Are these children to be considered as adults? As stated above, “The baptism of adults must await their public profession of faith in Christ.” In some congregations some young people in the age range you mentioned might be deemed by the respective sessions ready to take a communicants’ class and to be received as communicant members, wherein a young person would be received as and treated as an adult in terms of membership status. This is understood to mean that there is evidence of a credible profession of faith and such necessary discernment to participate as a communicant member with all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities belonging to such membership (which includes communing at the Lord’s Supper; voting in congregational meetings, including the selection of church officers; etc.).

I emphasized the word “some” in the above paragraph. There is not a prescribed age in the Scriptures nor in our OPC Book of Church Order which prescribes the age at which it is appropriate to receive a young person as an adult professed believer. For example, in our own congregation, young people typically pass through an intensive study of the Shorter Catechism before being considered ready to profess faith. The session has adopted a plan of instruction that builds a study of the Shorter Catechism into the 10th grade morning instruction class (Sunday School). We have judged that that is typically an appropriate time for such an in depth study in the WSC to occur before a young person is ready to stand as an adult on their own profession in the congregation, and not simply on the basis of his or her believing parent(s).
In short, then, unless the children in question are being treated as adults, it is entirely appropriate to baptize them as covenant children without expecting or waiting for them to profess faith.

In the specific cases of the young people referred to in the inquiries, it is the responsibility of the parents and of the particular session to make a judgment about the spiritual discernment and the credibility of profession these children are able to demonstrate. It is good to pray for those men of the session and to submit to their judgment, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that they have erred in their judgment of these cases.

This question is an important one in the life of a congregation. May God bless His church and may He give much wisdom in such matters. To that end, I hope that this answer is helpful.

In Christ,

R. Daniel Knox, Pastor
Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Sewickley, PA

Of Mosque Building and Koran Burning

2010-09-16T07:18:00.000-07:00

The threat of building a mosque near Ground Zero or of burning the Koran has sparked worldwide outrage. “How dare the Muslims build so near the site where terrorists killed so many innocent lives!” “How dare anyone burn another’s sacred book!” The American Constitution, however, defends the peoples’ right to build worship facilities or burn books.

Even so, being lawful does not mean it is helpful (I Corinthians 10:23); and being Constitutional does not mean God approves. Realize the Constitution is not a Christian document. This nation as a nation has never confessed Jesus Christ as the Lord, fully God and fully man, who died for our sins, raised for our salvation, and ascended to the Father's right hand in heaven to reign forever. Yes, that is what Christians believe as truth, distinct from Islam, but also from Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American spiritism, Christian Scientism, and other religions.

Ironically, when the citizens of Ephesus, living in the shadow of the great temple of Diana, heard the gospel, “many of those who had practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of all . . . so the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing” (Acts 19:19-20). Oh, that 9-11 would cause all people in America and in the whole world to burn their magic books and to seek after the true word of the Lord and build upon it!

Of Music in Public Worship

2010-08-27T08:08:00.000-07:00

Recently I have received a couple of questions about music in public worship, particularly whether certain pieces should or should not be included. Allow me to express a few thoughts.

As you read the constitutional documents of the OPC, you will note that in the OPC the emphasis concerning music in worship is on congregational singing and every-member participation with the spirit and understanding and with prayer and praise to God. Here are a couple of things the OPC officially says about music in worship (as found in our Directory for the Public Worship of God to be published next year, which can be viewed at the OPC website http://opc.org/GA/FPR/DPW2011.pdf):

As public worship is for the praise and glory of God and the building up of the saints, not for the entertainment of the congregation nor the praise of man, the character of the songs used therein is to befit the nature of God and the purpose of worship (line 520).

In the choice of song for public worship, great care must be taken that all the materials of song are fully in accord with the Scriptures. The words are to be suitable for the worship of God and the tunes are to be appropriate to the meaning of the words and to the occasion of public worship. Care should be taken to the end that the songs chosen will express those specific truths and sentiments which are appropriate at the time of their use in the worship service (line 528).

As reformed believers, we think in terms of the “regulative principle of worship,” which is summarized in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith as follows:

"But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture" (WCF XXI.1).

Scripturally, we think of the words of the apostle Paul:

"Let all things be done for edification" (I Corinthians 14:26c)

"But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner" (I Corinthians 14:40).

SOME QUESTIONS WE MIGHT ASK ABOUT A PARTICULAR PIECE OF MUSIC:

I. Is God glorified in the words and the tune? After all, this is the chief end--not for entertainment, nor for the praise of men.

II. Is it in conformity to Scripture?

III. Are the words and the music edifying? How is the congregation built up? In other words, how does the inclusion of this piece serve the gospel?

IV. What specific truths and godly sentiments are being expressed?

The topic is certainly worthy of greater consideration than we have offered here, but I hope that this is at least a helpful starting point and a bit thought-provoking. Until next time...

In Christ,

R. Daniel Knox, Pastor
Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Sewickley, PA

Of Israel and the Church

2010-07-28T07:00:00.000-07:00

A recent inquirer asked:

My mother is a Christian woman who has been wounded severely by church scandal in the past. She has since stopped attending church for fear of being hurt again, and because "there are no simple Bible-preaching churches around here now". When I invite her to our OPC church, she snaps, "How can you believe that the church has taken Israel's place? The Bible doesn't teach that!!" I believe that the only part of my mother's faith that she holds onto still is the Zionistic, premillennial prophecy views that I formerly held before I came to see the truth of the Reformed view in the Bible. Every time I try to talk to her about it, it ends up in fruitless bickering. I pray for my mother, but I want to know how to explain to her more clearly the biblical basis for our views on Israel concerning the Zionist movement and end time prophecies. Big question, I know, but anything you can give me would be helpful. Thank you.

It is indeed "a big question," deserving a big answer, but I shall try to answer briefly and hopefully helpfully.

Let us focus on the epistle to the Ephesians 2 as a biblical foundation for an answer. I am quoting the King James Version just in case Mother may have an appreciation for it, but other reliable translations could be used also.

Ephesians 2
1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

As Bible believers, let us find some common ground by simply letting the biblical text be our guide.

Ephesians is written by the apostle Paul to the saints (who are at Ephesus), that is, to Gentile believers.

As fellow believers, who once were dead in trespasses and sins (2:1), those to whom Paul writes have been "quickened", that is, made alive "together with Christ" (2:5). They have been "raised up with Him" (2:6) and "made to sit", that is, they are "seated with Him in the heavenly places" (2:6). Notice that these verbs all indicate completed action ('made alive', 'raised up', and 'seated'). The salvation that Jesus has secured for His people has a heavenly dimension.

By grace they have been saved through faith (2:8).

Chapter 2, verse 11, confirms that Paul writes to Gentiles. As such, Paul tells them that "in time past" (2:11) or "formerly" they were at that time "without Christ" (2:12) and "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" (2:12).

But verses 13 to 22, clearly and emphatically, teach that now, however, the wall of separation and hostility has been removed by Christ and in Christ and that Jews and Gentiles alike have been brought near to God and to one another "in one body" (2:16) so that both now have access to God the Father "by one Spirit" (2:18). Together they are "fellowcitizens" in God's house and kingdom, being built together "unto an holy temple in the Lord" (2:21), built together on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Himself as the cornerstone through whom they are being "fitly framed together" (2:21).

The church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the head of the body. In the church Jews and Gentiles are joined together with a heavenly hope of being "builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (2:23).

It is important to remember that Israel was "the church in the wilderness" in the Old Testament (See Acts 7:38) and the good news in the New Testament that is being fulfilled is "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (Galatians 3:14). The Lord promised Abraham to be God to him and to his seed after him, and in the working of grace in Christ, Abraham has become the father of many nations (Genesis 17:5).

As God dwelt in the midst of the Old Testament Israel as expressed through the types and shadows of the tabernacle and the temple, in these latter days He came to dwell among us in Christ (Immanuel--God with us). When Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to send another Comforter and to abide with us always. So it is that now God is with us and dwells in and among us in the Spirit in the church, the whole church, comprised of Jews and Gentiles, as fellow Christians and as fellow saints, forever. As an apostle, it was given to Paul to understand the things revealed in Christ, things "which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Ephesians 3:5-6). Ephesians is exceedingly clear. Jews and Gentiles have been joined together in Christ. Together they have been saved by Christ, the Messiah. Together they have been shown that theirs is a heavenly hope. In the resurrection they shall always be together with the Lord (I Thessalonians 4:17). Therefore, those whom God has joined together, let no one put asunder.

It is truly amazing that Paul, himself a Jew, should be sent to the Gentiles to preach the good news. As a zealous Jew, he once persecuted the church unto death, but by God's grace he was transformed into an apostle (Ephesians 4:11). for the building of the church, given by Christ "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12).

The church is "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). The people of God's choosing includes both Jews and Gentiles.

May God bless you richly, as I hope this is a helpful starting place for interaction with Mother. I would be happy to follow up and to interact further if you would like.

Yours in Christ,

R. Daniel Knox, Pastor
Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Sewickley, PA

Of Just War and Christian Conscience

2010-06-09T05:44:00.000-07:00

An inquirer asked,

I believe that the majority view (historically anyway) of the church is that Scripture teaches that it is proper to conduct "just" wars. Since the American military (and government) does not distinguish between just and unjust wars and requires all servicemen and women to fight regardless, is it advisable for Christians to volunteer for military service?

Your question touches upon at least two important matters that I will try to address, namely, the Christian understanding of just war and the Christian's conscience. I would point to our constitutional standards.

In regards to the Christian understanding of just war, we can consider the explication of the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not kill.") in the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others ... by just defense thereof against violence,...
Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense;

So, yes, we do acknowledge the propriety of "just war."

You asked, "Since the American military (and government) does not distinguish between just and unjust wars and requires all servicemen and women to fight regardless, is it advisable for Christians to volunteer for military service?"

I would have to differ with the premise of your question. In that civil governments bear "the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good and for the punishment of evil doers" (Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XXIII.I), all governments, including the American government, must necessarily make decisions about the justice or injustice of war. Whenever a government, any government, chooses to go to war or to take military action, they are, in effect, making the determination that it is just to do so.

Of course, governments are capable of acting unjustly and have often done so. But in their own eyes, at least, they do what they do on the basis of what they perceive is best, or prudent, or expedient, or beneficial. The decision is made on the basis of perceived "justice." Even atrocities have been perpetrated on the basis that it seemed "just" to those who have carried them out; and in the end governments may only be trying to 'justify themselves'. But the point is this, the question of whether to go to war or not, that is, to wield the power of the sword, is always a matter of justice.

The problem, of course, is that justice, true justice, is not defined by men but by God. The Scriptures clearly teach that the decisions of civil governments ultimately will be weighed in the balance of God's justice. Simply because a government decides to use force does not insure that true justice is being done.

In one sense, the American government and its military is no different from any other government in history. Whether the government is a monarchy, or a constitutional republic, those who make the decisions to wield the sword are making decisions that impinge on the question of justice. The soldiers of the armies of such governments are thus being called on to carry out those decisions, and such governments expect them to do so.

It is here that we point to the biblical understanding of conscience. An extremely important principle is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (XX.II) as follows:

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

This is the confessional way of saying what Peter says in answer to the high priest in Acts 5:29, "We must obey God rather than men." No one can bind the conscience of the Christian contrary to the Word of God. No government, no military officer, can so bind the conscience. As Christians, we are obliged to honor those who are over us in the Lord and to obey lawful commands of our superiors. But if the command is contrary to the word of God, "we must obey God rather than men."

Your question is an important one, not just for the military man or woman, but for us all. As Orthodox Presbyterians we believe being a soldier is a lawful calling as we believe being a doctor or nurse or a teacher or a salesman or an athlete is a lawful calling. The OPC is not a pacifist denomination. We believe it is lawful to be a soldier and to fight wars.

Does that mean, then, that every war is just? Of course not! So what is a soldier to do when confronted with unlawful commands or asked to fight unjust wars? We could ask a similar question of others. What should a doctor or nurse do when the hospital requires him or her to participate in abortions for the sake of convenience? What should a teacher do when required to teach evolution rather than creation as fact? What should a salesman do when asked to shortchange the customer? What should the athlete do when required to compete on the Sabbath?

What would happen to the soldier who refuses to obey unlawful commands? That is a weighty question, but remember many Christians in many different vocations have suffered for preserving conscience and determining to obey God rather than men. Pray that we all would have the courage to do so. We remember the sober words of Jesus, "My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear; fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him" (Luke 12:4-5). How many of us have been asked to sacrifice our lives for conscience' sake? Yet in Christ all of us have been asked "to present our bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is our spiritual service of worship" (Romans 12:1).

In the end, we do well not to bind beyond or contrary to the Word of God the consciences of those who would be soldiers. Even so, we believe the responsibility of bearing the sword is weighty. Therefore, we ought to encourage those who do choose to be soldiers with our prayers and counsel and together endeavor with them to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. We must each count the cost of following Christ.

May God bless you richly.

In Christ,
R. Daniel Knox, Pastor
Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Sewickley, PA

Of Matters of Conscience

2010-04-30T10:16:00.000-07:00

The following question was passed on to me by a church member, he having received from a non-reformed friend.

I have a spiritual question for you. My parents still go to the United Methodist Church that I was raised going to. Recently, they got a new senior pastor, and she's a woman. Well, [my wife] and I don't feel like it's Biblical for a woman to be a pastor, especially a senior pastor like that. So that has caused some problems with what we're going to do when we visit there on weekends. We have talked about telling my parents that we don't think it's Biblical to have a woman pastor, and so we don't feel right about attending church with them. But, that feels to me like a pretty harsh approach to take, because we are then saying that we'll never to go church with them when we visit, and this pastor will surely be there for a few years. I'm sure they wouldn't want to go to church without us, so that just creates problems. The other issue is, if [our son] goes to visit by himself, do we just let him go to church with them, even though we disagree with the pastor issue?

[My wife] and I had a pretty intense discussion about this tonight. She feels very strongly about it, and has said that she just would not feel comfortable going to church there, but that if we talk to my parents about it and share our beliefs with them, then she'd be willing to go to church with them on the occasional visit. Last time we went, we had to just tell them we would rather stay home instead of go to church, because [my wife] and I hadn't resolved this. She and I have each sought counsel from godly people through our church, and the man I spoke to told me he would probably sit down with his parents and tell them that he didn't agree with the female pastor thing, so he wouldn't be going to church with them. The women [my wife] spoke to all told her that she needed to consider her own witness in the matter, and not hurting it. They thought the best course of action would be to speak the truth, and let it be known how we feel about it, but to still be ok with going to church with them when we're there. The problem I have with that approach is, if we're going to go to church with them, why even confront that issue and voice our opinion? What good would that do, or what benefit would that have? Then my family would always just feel like we didn't really want to be going to their church.

It's a difficult and delicate matter, and I have to say, it has worn me plumb out tonight. I decided to call my mom and just tell her that it wouldn't work with our schedule to have [our son] visit over the weekend, but that he could come on Sunday afternoon. That way, we can just avoid the whole church issue until we're able to pray about it and reach some kind of resolution.

Anyway, if you have any insight, advice, opinion, counsel, whatever on this issue, I'd welcome it.

Dear M____,

Greetings in Christ.

I truly do appreciate your desire to do the right and helpful thing.

Let me begin by saying that your conviction about a woman pastor is biblically justified. The apostle Paul writes, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (I Timothy 2:11-12). And also he writes, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church” (I Corinthians 14:34-35). Of course, there is also the instruction that the overseer is to be “the husband of one wife” (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:5). We could multiply texts of biblical warrant. Important to remember is that the apostle does not root this in culture but in creation. In both I Timothy 2 and in I Corinthians 11, the apostle points to the order of creation in that the man was created first, and the woman was created “from man” and “for the man” (I Corinthians 11:8-9). Now I Corinthians 11 is, of course, a much debated passage as it relates to what Paul means about “head coverings”, but I think it is important to understand that Paul begins with an absolutely clear principle: “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (I Corinthians 11:3). [Note: without trying to argue all the details, I believe very strongly that I Corinthians 11:1-16 is about right order, about honoring one’s head (whether that head be a husband of a wife, or Christ who is the head of the church, or God the Father who is head over God the Son. In other words, in my opinion, headship is the overriding issue.]

Having said that, I believe, M______, that it behooves you to take the lead in this matter and to lead your family well as head of your family.

God would have you and your family worship Him where He is honored, where His word is kept, preached, and obeyed. If a female pastor is a violation of His word; it is thus a dishonor to Him. Is that not your conviction of conscience?

Many of the mainline churches have sorely compromised God’s word in many ways. Many churches have long since compromised the Biblical command regarding the ordination of women to the office of minister or elder. The more recent furor over the ordination of homosexuals in the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches is even more notorious. But even deeper to the core, over the past century many of the churches/denominations have denied the authority and infallibility of the Scriptures, the deity of Jesus Christ (the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word become flesh (John 1:14)), and the necessity of the blood atonement.

I believe, M_____, that it behooves you to lead your family (your wife, your son) into worship in a church where the Word of God is honored on a weekly basis. Do we compromise that conviction when we are visiting family or on vacation? Should we? I think you know the answer to the latter question. Does it require some courage of faith to speak forth your convictions? Of course, it does. But God will help you do the right thing by the presence of the power of the Holy Spirit. I encourage you to pray for that courage and conviction, and that you not compromise. Speaking a firm but gentle word to your parents would be a great testimony, especially if that is coupled with you, on those Lord's Days when you are visiting your parents, finding another place of worship you where you and your wife and son can attend and worship in good conscience. A good conscience is a gift of God’s grace, knowing that our sins are forgiven and that we are endeavoring by faith to walk in a manner pleasing and honoring to the Lord, our Head.

And, yes, you do have a responsibility for your son on those occasions when you are absent. I think it is right that you take measures to insure that he is in a place of worship where your consciences as parents are clear, even when you are not there. If that means avoiding those times over a Lord’s Day with your parents, then so be it. That may sound severe, but love looks out for the well being of another, doesn’t it?

Allow me to conclude with a personal note. I grew up with my parents in what was then the United Presbyterian Church of North America (which in 1958 became the UPCUSA and as of 1983 is now known as the PCUSA). I was baptized in that denomination; I professed faith in that denomination; I attended a United Presbyterian Church seminary; I was ordained in the United Presbyterian Church; our daughter S_____ and our son J_____ were baptized in that denomination. In my first two years of ordained ministry, however, I witnessed my denomination accept a minister who denied the deity of Christ, who denied the blood atonement, and who would not affirm the bodily resurrection. Despite appeals to our church’s General Assembly (the highest judicatory in the church) over the course of successive years, his acceptance into the ministry was upheld. My conscience required that I with my family leave that denomination in 1981. Eventually my wife and children and I joined the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a Bible-believing denomination. That was nearly thirty years ago. My point is this; while I loved my parents very dearly at the time and still do, even more, and while they love me very dearly, they know why I chose to leave the denomination of which they are still a part and why, over those 29+ years and to this day, we have not worshiped with them on a Lord’s Day in one of the churches of their denomination. I might say that on occasion they have visited our churches and worshiped with us; and to this day we rejoice in those family times we have together with them. They have remained at their same church for all these years, and while they have never had a female pastor, they have had a number of female ruling elders. Still, they consider their congregation pretty conservative and it is my hope that their Christian confession is genuine. Even so, it remains my conviction that their denomination as a whole remains apostate.

M____, I cannot predict what reaction your parents might give if you speak with them about your concerns and if you take the steps I have suggested above. Even so, you can be sure that the truth spoken in love to them would be a good thing with which God would be well pleased. If we confess Christ before others and do not deny Him, He will confess us before the Father. He is faithful, and His Word is true.

May God bless you richly and may His grace toward you abound. I am praying for you.

In Christ,

Dan

Of Forests and Brooks and the Things that Dwell Therein

2010-04-27T05:40:00.000-07:00

An Anxious Moment (Currier and Ives, 1874)

An open letter to my state representative:

I write to request your support of Pennsylvania House Bill 2235, a bill that would place a moratorium on leasing state forest lands for natural gas drilling. I do not know if the proposed 5-year moratorium is the appropriate time constraint, but I do believe a throrough, unhurried environmental impact study needs to be done to insure the protection of important public land for its various uses with minimal or no damage done to valuable streams, wildlife habitat, wildlife, and fishes.

Pennsylvania's state forests are one of our greatest public assets and are home to many of the state's highest quality trout streams. Much of this area is habitat for native Eastern brook trout; such habitat is a precious and already-diminishing resource. But these forests provide more than just hunting, fishing and other recreational opportunities. They support tourism, local businesses and a sustainable timber supply while ensuring valuable 'green space' and beauty. These forest lands must be protected and well-maintained.

Jumping Trout (Winslow Homer, 1889)

Currently, one-third of our state forests are open to natural gas drilling and exploration. Many of these lands are being leased to help balance Pennsylvania's budget deficit. As a resident of Pennsylvania, along with Trout Unlimited and many other nature conservation organizations and agencies, I believe that the budget should not be balanced at the expense of permanent damage to the precious public lands in terms of loss of forest habitat, of pure flowing waters, and of the flora and fauna that depend on such habitat. Putting a freeze on new leasing until a comprehensive environmental impact study is completed is crucial to ensure our streams are protected and state lands are managed responsibly.

On behalf of not only anglers and hunters in Pennsylvania but for all of us who care about the valuable and varied treasures of the commonwealth, I plead with you and the other lawmakers of our state to provide a wise stewardship of our state forest lands for the good of all.

A reckless pursuit of natural gas through the process of Marcellus Shale drilling could well produce a disastrous diminishment of quality of life for us all rather than the increase it claims to offer. This is NOT simply a matter of economics. The love of money continues to be the root of all kinds of evil.

I am grateful for your consideration.

Sincerely,

R. Daniel Knox

Of the Cross and Images

2010-03-26T12:03:00.000-07:00

A recent inquirer asked:

I have seen some people praying while kneeling before the image of the cross in the church. Is this a practice of disobeying the Second Commandment?

My answer follows:

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is committed to what is known as the regulative principle of worship. It is summarized in the following statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 21, Section 1), to which the OPC subscribes:

"The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture."

We believe that this is a proper interpretation of the second commandment:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments" (Exodus 20:4-6).

The second commandment clearly forbids the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word.

Further, the Confession of Faith also states (Chapter 21, Section 6):

"Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed: but God is to be worshiped everywhere, in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or willfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by his Word or providence, calleth thereunto."

Praying is neither tied to nor made more acceptable at the foot of the image of a cross. In fact, as summarized in the second commandment, to make worship depend on such an image is superstition and idolatry.

Surely, the death of Christ on the cross is an historical reality with deep theological and religious meaning. The Word of God certainly teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ has saved His people from their sin by His death on the cross, wherein He bore the curse due to them that they might be blessed.

Thus, the apostle Paul says the word of the cross is "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (I Corinthians 1:24, cf. I Cor. 1:18); and he was determined to preach "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (I Corinthians 2:2).

Further, as Christians we are commanded to take up our cross and follow Jesus (Matthew 10:38 and 16:24), which means a life of humility and suffering service and of denying oneself in submission to the will of God.

Nevertheless, the Scriptures nowhere teach us to erect the symbol of a cross as an aid to prayer or as a help to worshiping God. Thus, we should not make a cross as an object of worship or even as a means of worship, and we certainly should not bow down to such a graven image.

Blessings,

R. Daniel Knox

　

Of the Casting of Lots

2010-03-26T11:54:00.000-07:00

A friend wrote,

I have a theological question:

Was casting lots an acceptable practice in the Bible, or was it just another sinful habit of God's people? If it was acceptable, is casting lots a practice that the modern Church would accept under certain situations. We are reading thru Acts for morning instruction and inquiring minds want to know.The Urim and the Thummim, which were placed in the ephod of the high priest, are generally considered to have been lots to be cast to learn the will of God for Israel.

My short answer follows:

The Urim and the Thummim, which were placed in the ephod of the high priest, are generally considered to have been lots to be cast to learn the will of God for Israel.

In Leviticus 16:8, the scape goat was to be selected by the casting of lots, according to God’s command.

In a certain sense, the casting of ballots is akin to the practice of casting lots, wherein we choose persons for office, committees, etc. The overriding principle is that the people of God who vote are expressing the discernment of the Spirit given to them.

Proverbs 16:33 tells us that the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. In other words, God governs what we call “chance” outcomes.

It is conceivable to me that the casting of lots could still be used (without sinning, i. e. gambling) to make a decision where a choice is made between two or more equal alternatives on a matter.

Dan

Of the Holy Scriptures

2010-03-06T19:09:00.000-08:00

I first saw this poem more than thirty years ago hanging on the wall of the shop of Hazen Sumney, a real old-time blacksmith in Eighty-Four, Pennsylvania.

"The Hammer and The Anvil"

Last eve I passed a blacksmith's door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
When looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers worn with beating years of time.

"How many anvils have you had,' said I,
"To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
"Just one," said he, then said with twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out you know."

And so, I thought, the anvil of God's word
For ages skeptics blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed--the hammers gone!

Of the Gospel, Repentance and Forgiveness

2010-01-26T08:39:00.000-08:00

A recent inquirer wrote:

In the past, I have lived a gay lifestyle, including drinking, and smoking and taking prescription drugs. For a year now, I have given up all of these things, and am attempting to live more Christian lifestyle. I am reading my bible daily, praying and asking for God's forgiveness. It is very clear in the Bible that homosexuality as many other sins are punishable by death. Therefore are we forgiven if we repent and turn our back on this lifestyle? Or once we have lived this way are we beyond forgiveness? Any verses of scripture would be appreciated.I know that Christ died for our sins, and I have asked God into my heart. Could you give me some further direction on what I should be doing?

My answer follows:

Greetings to you in Christ.

We are grateful for your recent inquiry through the OPC website. Your question is a most important one for you and, no doubt, for many others.

The Scriptures are clear about sin. "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). All sin, every sin is breaking God's law and therefore punishable by God. Not just some sins, but all sins are sins against God, the Holy Creator, Lawgiver and Judge of man, who has declared that all sin is worthy of His wrath.

From the beginning, man's first sin, the sin of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit was punishable by death. God said to the man, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat from it you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:16-17). The Scriptures teach that as a consequence of Adam's original sin, death has come upon all mankind. Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." This squares with the words in Romans 3:23 which tells us that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." And "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23); thus, all men (all mankind) are worthy of death, and indeed all die.

But Romans 6:23 does not end there. It goes on to say, "but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

This free gift is offered to all believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31). The free gift of eternal life comes through Jesus Christ alone. The apostle Paul writes, "But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one [Adam] the many died, much more did the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many" (Romans 5:15).

Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and died an awful death in the place of sinners as a substitute for sinful men and women and children. He died that we might live. Indeed, He was cursed that we might be blessed. I trust you know the familiar verse, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes on Him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). This is the good news. Jesus, the very Son of God, the eternal Son of God, became man. He who was and is eternally God took on human nature in time and space. As a man, Jesus stood in the place of sinners and satisfied God's divine justice for them so that they might be spared that justice. Thus, as many as believe on Him will be saved.

The merits of His perfect life and His sacrificial death are counted toward all those who trust in Him for salvation. Their sins were counted against Him, and conversely His righteousness is counted toward those who trust in Him. This is the great teaching of Scripture, which we call 'justification by faith'. Sinners are justified before God, accepted as righteous, and forgiven, because of what Christ has done for them. He has paid the price for their sin. That gift is received by faith alone; we could never earn it or deserve it. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

You asked, "Therefore are we forgiven if we repent and turn our back on this lifestyle? Or once we have lived this way are we beyond forgiveness." Our answer is that 'we are forgiven, not because we repent, but we repent as a response to our having been forgiven'. What do I mean?

Our repenting, no matter how complete, will never be perfect in this life, no matter how long or how hard we try. In addition, our repenting does not do away with all our past sins. In other words, our repenting could never make us righteous before God; we all are sinners. The only remedy is the one that God gave (John 3:16): He gave His Son as our Substitute to do for us what we could never do for ourselves. Again, He lived a perfect life and then offered Himself as the perfect substitute to be cursed and to die on the cross, to accept the curse and death we deserved. Galatians 3:13 says, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' [a quote from the Old Testament Law, cf. Deuteronomy 21:23]. Thus, Jesus took away our curse; our death has lost its sting (I Corinthians 15:55).

Thus, it is only through faith in Christ that we are COUNTED righteous and declared forgiven by God, justified by God Himself in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who died once for all for His people. His name is Jesus, because "He saves His people from their sins"--that is what His very name means (Matthew 1:21).

In keeping with that salvation, it is God the Father, the Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit who enable us now to repent and to live the life He wants us to live. "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" (II Corinthians 5:17).

______, if you are trusting not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone, you are indeed a new creation. Once we all were dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1), and we walked according to the course of this sinful world (Ephesians 2:2). But God who is rich in mercy makes us alive by joining us to Christ (Ephesians 2:5). We are joined to Jesus, who is raised with resurrection power from the dead. Being joined to Him by faith, we too have been raised from death to life, from spiritual death to spiritual life. God is working in our hearts to repent and believe on Christ. "Apart from Christ, we can do nothing" (John 15:5); we cannot even repent and believe apart from Christ. But in Christ, now being joined together with Christ by faith, we "can do all things through Christ who strengthens [us]" (Philippians 4:13).

You also asked, "Could you give me some further direction on what I should be doing?

The Christian life is a life of repenting and believing in Christ, believing and repenting. These are not one-time things. We are to keep on believing and keep on repenting. Knowing that we need the power of God through the Holy Spirit we are to keep on praying for wisdom and strength to know and to do God's will. Ask the Lord to help you understand His word. But know, too, that you are not alone. The Lord promises not to forsake His people (Hebrews 13:5-6); He will be with you. Further, as Christians joined to Christ, we are also to be joined to Christ's body, which is the church. Christ gives gifts to men for the building up of the body (Ephesians 4:11-12). We have the words of the apostles and prophets in the Scriptures. We have pastors and teachers and evangelists in the church to help us in our understanding of the word and will of God. The body of Christ has many members, each with his or her own gift for the good of the body, and we are to help and encourage one another. That includes pastors and elders who are to lead and govern in the churches. Therefore, Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account."

This means you need to make sure that you find a good church that faithfully believes and teaches the Scriptures to guide and help you in your Christian life. We would be happy to help you find such a church if you do not already have one. May God be with as you make progress in your Christian life.

I hope these words are helpful. Please let us know if we can be of further help.

Yours in Christ,

R. Daniel Knox, Pastor
Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Sewickley, PA

Of the Ones That Got Away and of the Perseverance of the Saints

2010-01-20T07:56:00.000-08:00

OF TROUT: It dawned on me today that some of my most memorable trout are the ones that got away. Specifically, three fish hooked on three different streams come to mind. The first may well be the most memorable of all.

It all began back in the 1950s when I was a toddler and my dad, unbeknownst to me, had taken a fly tying course at the local YMCA from George Harvey, the premiere Penn State fly fishing authority. But Dad quickly thereafter abandoned the craft for other kinds of fishing. For some reason, however, he kept his fly tying vice and thread and hooks, mostly unused, and a copy of Harvey's A Simplified Course in Fly Tying, stashed away in an old black suitcase. Years later as a child I discovered that case and would from time to time pull it out and ponder someday taking up fly tying and fly fishing. And I can still remember at about the age of ten the absolute excitement of picking out and buying with my own money my first fly rod, a seven-foot Eagle Claw, at the old Ace Auto store in downtown Washington, PA.

Well, finally that day came when I tackled my first clumsy attempts at tying a fly--a cork bass popper. At least it stuck to the hook and with a little green paint and deer hair legs it kind of looked like a frog. I can't recall ever catching anything on it, but I was hooked.

Number 1: The first memorable trout that got away came some years later on a tiny cork bug that I had duplicated on Dad's vice from an issue of Outdoor Life. Perhaps it wasn't fly tying in the classic sense with feathers and all, but it was fairly simple and the pictures of the fellow having a field day on the trout of Pennsylvania was good enough for me. I tied up a handful and waited eagerly for the day when I could actually try them out. I shall never forget the day that Dad took me to Dunbar Creek, and standing on the shore and flipping that cork bug into the middle of a deep still pool, and having the most extraordinary sensation of watching that trout, well over a foot long, come out of nowhere to rise and suck in that bug. And then to feverishly raise my rod tip and know it was hooked--the fight was on. After several minutes I had worked the trout to the edge of the stream, ready to lift him out, and swoosh....he was gone.

Number 2: Fishing for the first time in Colorado on a family vacation, wading in the Arkansas River upstream from Salida. My son-in-law for several days had been having a terrific time with his spinning rod catching and releasing brown trout of immense proportions, in my humble estimation. Did I tell you that I have never really been a very good fisherman? Well, let's just say I had not caught a one in the Arkansas. This was fly fishing a major trout river, a first for me, and I was obviously having trouble picking the right fly and fishing it in the right way. I was at least a little disappointed. I decided to tie on a Mickey Finn, a brightly colored streamer, casted it upstream and drifted it down in the edge of a deep current. And bam, a take! After several breathless minutes of the fight I finally saw this enormous brown trout ripping through the water with my fly in its mouth. Upstream, downstream, upstream! Around my feet, then gone again. Time and again I sought to get the net in just the right position. So close, then, with a final tug, the line went limp and the trout disappeared into the deep.

Number 3: Again fishing with my son-in-law--this time we were fishing in southwest North Carolina on Big Snowbird Creek, a nice size stream, but the water was running high and murky from recent rains. Neither of us were having much success, but I was glued to a particular deep hole that had several pockets, runs, submerged logs and boulders. Surely there had to be a trout lurking somewhere. Cast after cast--nothing, not even the slightest strike. I had to have been there nearly a couple of hours but who is counting time when you're fishing. This angle and that--nothing.

Finally, I cast across the current to the far bank where the exposed roots of a tree jutted out into a swirl that paused only a second or two before swept away in a rush. The current would pull the line away quickly, so it was only possible to drop the fly in the swirl in the hopes of enticing a trout that might have been taking refuge under the bank under the roots. It worked. The Black-nosed Dace hit the water, sunk a few inches, and swoosh--out rushed the trout, grabbed the fly, and immediately sought to retreat to his lair. Somehow I was able to bring him out into the current where the combination of the force of the water and the strength of a nice-sized fish again made the landing difficult. It went on for several minutes. But once again, alas, he was gone and so was the flex of the fly rod. It was over. I could only lean back against a larger boulder and sigh. Unbeknownst to me my son-in-law from behind had witnessed most of the ordeal.

The ones that got away. Did I really catch them? Well, yes and no. In the end, they got away. So near and yet so far....Well, enough about trout. What about men?

OF MEN: An inquirer recently asked: Does the OPC believe that one can lose his salvation once he has accepted Christ as his savior?

My answer follows:

Your question relates to the doctrine of "the perseverance of the saints." The OPC believes in the perseverance of the saints, which teaches that true saving faith perseveres unto eternal life. A person who has received eternal life does not lose it. In this regard, the OPC accepts the Westminster Confession of Faith (http://opc.org/wcf.html) as a faithful summary of what the Scripture teach on this important doctrine. Indeed an entire chapter is devoted to this very matter as follows:

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH

CHAPTER 17
Of the Perseverance of the Saints

1. They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

3. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

In scriptural terms, we can think of the prayer that Jesus says He prayed for Peter, when Satan sought to ‘sift him like wheat’ (Luke 22:31). Jesus says, however, “but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32). Jesus obviously knows that Peter’s faith will not fail, for He knows that Peter shall turn again, even after his sorrowful three-fold denial, to prove himself as a faithful apostle. Yes, true Christians sometimes stumble, even fall into grievous sins; but they shall not finally and eternally fall away.

True faith, saving faith, is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8). The Westminster Shorter Catechism (http://opc.org/sc.html) says, “Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel” (Answer to Question 86). He who believes in Christ has eternal life (John 6:47). Jesus will lose none of those whom the Father has given to Him (compare John 6:37 with John 6:39). No one can snatch the true sheep of the Good Shepherd out of His hand (John 10:28). “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish” (John 10:27-28). True believers “are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (I Peter 1:5).

Still, we must recognize that not all who profess faith necessarily have true saving faith. The true, God-given faith perseveres to the end. But in the gospel of John, we read of folks who ‘believed’ in Christ, who eventually turned away from Him. That is, they believed He was a good teacher. They believed He could do miracles. They even believed to the extent that they wanted to make Him their earthly king John 6:15). But we read of some of those very followers of Christ (‘disciples’) who “withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore” (John 6:66). They withdrew because they could not accept Jesus as the ‘true food’…‘the bread that came down out of heaven’ (John 6:53-58). Amazingly, this was just a short time after they had witnessed the feeding of the 5000 that they stopped following Him. And it is in that same context that Jesus speaks to the twelve, saying that He had chosen them, yet He knew that one of them was a devil (John 6:70).

Jesus knew whom He had chosen; He knew one would betray Him. We do not know God’s secret decrees, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him” (John 6:64). We cannot look into men’s hearts as Jesus the Son of God could. So it is that wolves sometimes disguise themselves as sheep and make their way into the church. Members are received into the church on their testimony and the credibility of their walk in keeping with those words. Elders should exercise great care in receiving members, but even so, they cannot be infallibly sure that true saving faith is at work in a person’s heart. Sometimes, those who seem to have faith, fall away and are lost, proving that their ‘faith’ was not real saving faith after all and that they were never really saved.

This is a most sobering and humbling truth. May God’s grace comfort and encourage you according to that true faith that looks to Jesus Christ alone for salvation from sin and Satan and death.

To God be the glory,

In Christ,

R. Daniel Knox, Pastor
Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Sewickley, PA

Of Health Care Reform

2010-01-05T09:07:00.000-08:00

I am all for reform; after all, I am a son of the Protestant Reformation. Reformation in the 1500s was a return in the church to the Scriptures as the Word of God; and in large measure the culture was reformed also as an indirect result.

Would that the church of our day would experience reformation anew. After all, how is it that as a society we have reached the place where abortion is commonplace? How have we arrived at a place in our thinking where the murder of an unborn child is acceptable for convenience sake or as a way of dealing with promiscuity or with poverty? Why is it that Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger saw abortion as a way of population control to purge society of undesirables [See the film Maafa 21.]? What has been the church's witness while this was happening?

We have heard of the furor in the House and Senate over health care reform, especially touching on the issue of abortion. I am all for health care reform, especially if it would mean the reformation of the way we think about human life and the society's obligation to preserve it. Let the church of Jesus Christ lead the way.

No, I am not suggesting that the church as church become politically activistic. What I am saying is that the church should preach the whole counsel of God, faithfully demonstrating all three marks of the church: faithful preaching of the Word, faithful administration of the sacraments, and the faithful exercise of church discipline. How can we expect society to exercise wise self-discipline if the church cannot discipline herself? Again I say, let the church of Jesus Christ lead the way.

Blessings,
Dan

Of Illegal Aliens and the Church

2009-12-08T06:33:00.000-08:00

A recent inquirer to the webmaster of http://www.opc.org/ recently asked the following question regarding the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the issue of illegal aliens:

Does our denomination support amnesty for illegal immigrants? This would possibly include government funded health care & education. I certainly hope not! We have enough unemployed Americans here without jobs now. We don't need to encourage illegal immigration to take those jobs.

Here are my comments:

The 73rd General Assembly of the OPC (2006) responded to an overture from the Presbytery of Southern California seeking advice for "presbyteries and sessions regarding the reception of illegal aliens into membership in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church."

The 73rd General Assembly responded "by electing a committee of three, and one alternate, to study the issue regarding the reception of illegal aliens into membership in the OPC and to propose to the 74th General Assembly advice for presbyteries and sessions" (Minutes of the Seventy-Fourth General Assembly, item 93.). That committee did, in fact, present a study report to the 74th General Assembly (2007) which can be seen in the Appendix, pages 334-367 of the Minutes of the Seventy-Fourth General Assembly. This document can be viewed online at http://opc.org/GA/aliens.pdf.

In the report, the Committee argued:

Can an illegal alien, then, honestly promise to obey Christ when he knows that he will continue intentionally or perhaps unintentionally to break the third, fifth, eighth, and ninth commandments? We believe a credible profession of faith requires that the illegal alien seeking church membership should be willing to repent of these sins as he comes to understand them in the light of God's Word and through the ministry of the pastor/evangelist and the elders. What does this mean for the illegal alien? We believe that the illegal alien, out of a desire to serve the Lord with all that is in him, should honor the government by attempting to remedy his unlawful immigration status.

Committee members, however, offered differing views as to what steps should be taken to remedy one's immigration status prior to reception into church membership.

You must understand that study reports that come to the General Assembly in the OPC do not bear constitutional status. They are in the realm of pastoral advice. The OPC has historically, on principle, understood the church’s power in terms of the definition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter XXXI (“Of Synods and Councils”), Section 4, states the following:
Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

Thus it is that the OPC, as a church denomination, has not spoken on the issue you raise. The responsibility for doing justly belongs to the courts of the church (sessions, presbyteries, and the general assembly) on a case by case basis in keeping with our constitutional standards—-the Scriptures (our primary standard), the Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

We are well aware that many denominations in America have gone the direction of attempting to speak authoritatively on the many issues that come before the state. We are also aware that the National Association of Evangelicals has recently adopted a Resolution calling for immigration reform in the US and that several churches, including the Christian Reformed Church, have endorsed that resolution. The OPC, however, on principle, is not a member of the NAE and has not endorsed their Resolution or otherwise made any official statement. The study report presented to the 74th G.A. is offered solely as a help.

May God bless you richly.

In Christ,

Dan

Of the Waters of Infant Baptism: A Follow-Up

2009-11-05T05:50:00.000-08:00

Infant baptism continues to perplex many. An unpersuaded inquirer offered the following follow-up question/comment:

I was baptized as an infant, and I came to understand that I was completely unable to change my attitude towards God (much less His creation) until He graciously intervened and brought me out of the darkness. So I wonder, is it because of some "Covenant" that God made with Abraham, or was it the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that ultimately brings us to the real kingdom of God? Also, I still cannot find any biblical testimony which would lead me to the conclusion that infant baptism is a necessity, much less an inference. I reread Galatians and the Apostle Paul repeatedly restates that it is not "circumcision" which counts but a renewed and changed heart/life in Christ!

This is worthy a response. So here goes:

First of all, is baptism a necessity? Clearly, Jesus commanded His church to go into all the world and baptize (Matthew 28:18-20). Is obedience to a command of Jesus a 'necessity'? I think so. So the question is really whether infant baptism is included in the command.

To put it another way, however, we might ask whether water baptism is a necessity for salvation. Here we would reply that the sacrament itself saves no one, neither adult nor infant. It is the reality of the cleansing that comes in being joined to Jesus Christ that saves. Thus, we would affirm that not the sacrament of baptism but the baptism in the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for salvation for all who would be saved.

It only by grace through faith that we are saved, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. By the original covenant God made with Adam, when he sinned, all his descendants (the whole human race) fell into sin and under condemnation. Infants are children of Adam; they are sinners from the womb. They need salvation like the rest.

Baptism does not save them, but baptism is a sign. This means it signifies something. It signifies cleansing. It signifies the outpouring of the Spirit from heaven. It signifies being joined with Christ.

Baptism is also a seal. This means it confirms something, like a seal placed on a document by a notary public. Baptism confirms the truthfulness of God's promise and the obligation placed upon the members of the church. Church membership saves no one. Water baptism saves no one, neither infants nor adults. But when the members are received into the visible church, they are to be baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Their baptism is the rite of initiation which confirms them as members of the church and obliged to obey all that Christ has commanded us, including the commands to repent and believe. Children in the church are to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They are to taught to obey the commandments of Christ. They are to be called to repent and believe. Again, their baptism does not save them, but they are to be pointed to their baptism (infants don't remember the day of their baptism, but they can be reminded of the MEANING of baptism.) They can be reminded that God graciously allowed them to be born of Christian parents, in a Christian home, and to be baptized into a Christian church. Those are great privileges; and they place great responsibility on the child to heed and obey the gospel they are hearing.

So we say again, water baptism does not save anyone, but baptism means something, and it confirms something.

The Reformed faith affirms the continuity of the Old Testament (Old Covenant) and the New Testament (New Covenant). There is only one way of salvation, through faith in Jesus Christ. The old covenant pointed to Christ; the new covenant is the fulfillment of the salvation by Christ. There is a continuity and a fulfillment. The promises made to Abraham are fulfilled in Jesus Christ (specifically, the promised Seed of Abraham would bring blessing to all the nations: see Genesis 12:1-3, 15:5, and chapter 17.). Baptism in the new covenant corresponds to circumcision in the old. The old was a bloody ritual; Jesus' once for all death was the once for all end and fulfillment of the blood sacrifice. The blood of circumcision has given way to the water of baptism, but they mean the same--cleansing; and the true cleansing they represent (signify) is to be found only in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ and the outpouring of His Spirit.

To close, here is a quote from the instruction we give from the OPC Directory for the Public Worship of God as it relates to infant baptism:

Although our young children do not yet understand these things, they are nevertheless to be baptized. For the promise of the covenant is made to believers and to their seed, as God declared unto Abraham: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." In the new dispensation no less than in the old, the seed of the faithful, born within the church, have, by virtue of their birth, interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the church. For the covenant of grace is the same in substance under both dispensations, and the grace of God for the consolation of believers is even more fully manifested in the new dispensation. Moreover, our Saviour admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, and saying, "Of such is the kingdom of God." So the children of the covenant are by baptism distinguished from the world and solemnly received into the visible church.

You are absolutely right in saying, "I was completely unable to change my attitude towards God (much less His creation) until He graciously intervened and brought me out of the darkness." And that is precisely what baptism says, "Unless you are cleansed from above by the GRACE of JESUS and by the HOLY SPIRIT you remain in your uncleanness." That is what baptism says to us and to our children, and that is very biblical!

Yours in Christ,
Dan Knox
　

Of the OPC, PCUSA, and EPC: How Do They Differ?

2009-10-22T06:03:00.000-07:00

An inquirer asked:

Do you have any information on specifically what ways the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) differs with the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC)?

This is a most timely question. To begin my answer, here is a quotation from a helpful online publication at the OPC website (http://www.opc.org), entitled "What is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?" (http://opc.org/whatis.html#I). You may want to read it in its entirety.

"During the nineteenth century, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. was largely a strong and faithful church. But liberalism began to creep in from Europe, and little was done to check its spread. In 1924 about 1,300 (out of 10,000) Presbyterian ministers signed the liberal Auburn Affirmation, which denied that the Bible was without error and declared that belief in such essential doctrines as Christ's substitutionary atonement and his bodily resurrection should not be made "tests for ordination or for good standing in our church." Unbelief was taking over the church.
"Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, New Jersey, remained a bastion of Presbyterian orthodoxy. But in 1929 its Board was reorganized with a mandate to put liberal professors on the faculty. Four Princeton professors resigned and (with the support of others) established Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia as an independent institution to continue teaching biblical Christianity.
"The leading opponent of liberalism in those days was J. Gresham Machen, a Presbyterian minister and professor at Princeton (and later Westminster). When he exposed the modernist unbelief that permeated the foreign missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., the General Assembly in 1933 refused to do anything about it. Because he and others would only support missionaries who were actually preaching the gospel, they established the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. The 1934 Assembly condemned their action, and they were soon deposed from office. In response, 34 ministers, 17 ruling elders, and 79 laymen met in Philadelphia on June 11, 1936, to constitute the Presbyterian Church of America. (Because of a lawsuit brought by the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., the name of the new church was changed to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1939.) They wanted to "continue the true spiritual succession of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A." They hoped that a mass exodus of Bible-believing Christians would swell the ranks of the new denomination, but it never happened. Then, on January 1, 1937, Machen's untimely death dealt a severe blow to the new church."

Since its beginning, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has been committed with integrity to the Scriptures as the inspired, infallible Word of God. Counting the cost of standing for truth, we are persuaded that the Word of God is without error and that the teaching of Scripture is not bound by cultural limitations. We wholeheartedly subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechism in its entirety. Ministers and elders are required to subscribe to those documents and to uphold their teachings.

This in itself is a radical difference from the PCUSA where the Westminster Confession and catechisms are more looked upon as historical documents that summarize what the church USED TO BELIEVE. Ministers and elders in the PCUSA are not required to subscribe to those confessional statements. In fact, I myself experienced first hand in 1979-1981 in what was then the UPCUSA, the courts of the church upholding a minister who openly denied the deity of Christ and who would not affirm either the bodily resurrection of Christ or the blood atonement. That is what led me to join the OPC shortly thereafter. The PCUSA has condoned denials of the Biblical faith and disciplined those men like Dr. Machen and others who have sought to hold her accountable to the Word of God.

In the OPC we believe that the marks of the true church are the faithful preaching of the Word of God, the faithful administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, and the faithful administration of church discipline. In all things the Scriptures are the rule of faith and practice. Those who are delinquent in doctrine or life are subject to the discipline of the church.

While the Evangelical Presbyterian Church generally has a more biblically conservative bent than the PCUSA, the OPC differs from the Evangelical Presbyterian Church particularly in two matters.

First, we wholeheartedly affirm the teaching of the apostle Paul which forbids women teaching or having authority over men. Thus, we do not ordain women to the offices of minister, ruling elder, or deacon. The EPC does permit the ordination of women.

Second, the OPC is also united in its belief that the charismatic gifts such as prophecy and the speaking of tongues ceased with the end of the apostolic age. The EPC believes that those gifts continue into the present day. The OPC is persuaded that those gifts were specifically associated with the apostolic era while the Scriptures were still being written as signs of the authenticity of the apostles. Once the canon of Scripture was completed, those gifts ceased and the Scriptures alone are the sole, sufficient authority given by God for the instruction of His church. We confess, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (WCF I.6). And further we confess, "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" (WCF I.10).

While more could be said, I hope this is helpful.

May the Lord bless your continued pursuit of His truth.

In Christ,
R. Daniel Knox, Pastor
Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Sewickley, PA　

Of Gluttony and Other Such Sins

2009-09-24T18:22:00.000-07:00

Greetings to you in Christ.

Have you noticed that there are some sins we do not like to talk about? Gluttony, I think, is one of those less than popular subjects. When is the last time you heard a good sermon on the sin of gluttony? Or can you remember the last time you read a good book on the sin of gluttony? Even so, a recent inquirer dared to submit a question to the OPC website about it. The writer asked:

How do you handle the sin of gluttony in your church?

My first question was why the Q. and A. administrator handed this question off to me. And then almost immediately I began thinking about my own aptness to overindulge in food, or drink, or fishing, or reading Facebook, or ... So maybe I could write from experience.

My second question was who is apt to read this Web Log entry?? But fools rush in where angels fear to tread. So at the risk of further promoting my own unpopularity, here goes:

Gluttony, like all other sins, can be defined in terms of the Ten Commandments. The OPC is committed to the teaching of Scripture on the matter, and we receive and adopt the Westminster Standards (The Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms) as a reliable summation of what we believe the Scriptures teach.

As you can see in what follows, the exposition in the Westminster Larger Catechism that would describe ‘gluttony’ is found under the sixth commandment (Questions 134-136, cf. http://opc.org/lc.html). I have highlighted the relevant phrases of what is required and what is forbidden that would pertain to gluttony.

Q. 134. Which is the sixth commandment?
A. The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent. [Note: the older meaning of ‘physic’ is medicine.]

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

In addition, gluttony can be understood as a kind of idolatry, which is the sin of serving and living for created things rather than for the Creator.

Thus, we would definitely view gluttony as a sin--a sin against oneself, a sin that can and often does affect one’s neighbor, and a sin against God. As such, we view it as one of those sins for which Christ died and from which those in Christ have been set free from the bondage thereof. It is a sin and behavior that belongs to the old nature. As those redeemed in Christ, made alive in Him, raised to newness of life with Him, and adopted into the family of God as members of Christ and citizens of a heavenly kingdom, gluttony is to be repented of and put away, and the new life in Christ is to be put on. The power to do is in the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. We receive the help of the Spirit through the means of grace--the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. We also receive help through the counsel and encouragement of fellow believers, particularly of those who are over us in the Lord, our ministers and ruling elders.

Oftentimes gluttony and obesity are compounded by slothfulness, by inactivity, or by natural weaknesses of the flesh that could include physical or mental illnesses or disorders. Such situations call for wisdom and patience, and the remedy may well include exercise, good work habits, medical help, and counsel in addition to biblical instruction and growth in grace in repentance and faith. At the same time, it is certainly conceivable that unrepentant gluttony could be the ground of church discipline. I can think of cases, for example, where drunkenness (a kind of gluttony) has been the chargeable offense.

As you can see, we view gluttony as not unlike other sins that have been summarily paid for in Christ and are overcome in the victory of Christ. As with other particular sins, even habitual sins, what we cannot do to change ourselves, God can do; with Him all things are possible.

Again, allow me to express my gratitude for the opportunity to attempt an answer to your question. I hope it is helpful, and I would welcome any follow-up questions you may have. You could email me directly if you would like, and certainly feel free to write to the OPC website.

Blessings to you in our Savior.

In His Service,

R. Daniel Knox, Pastor
Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Sewickley, PA

Of Football and the Christian Sabbath

2009-09-04T19:36:00.000-07:00

A recent inquirer wrote,

Recently we have been studying "Celebrating the Sabbath" by Bruce Ray. In our discussions the matter of professional athletes came up. Often their schedule would inhibit them from attending church during the season of their sport. Some of whom may commit themselves to regular Bible Study. This issue did not seem to be addressed in the book and it created quite a controversy at our study as to whether they should give up their vocation because of being unable to attend regular church service in season?

To further complicate matters one of the members gives Golf Lessons on Sunday but still attends the evening service. The difficult economic times have led to him undertaking this.

Any guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

My answer follows:

Your question is one that has occupied my thinking for a long time. In elementary school, I had visions of becoming a professional football player. Lack of talent, however, coupled with knee and ankle surgeries in successive years of high school football, pretty much was God's providential answer that such a career was not going to happen.

But as I came to deeper Christian convictions, the matter was settled on principle as well.

The OPC's doctrinal statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith is quite clear on the matter. Chapter XXI, section 8, reads as follows:

This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

The Confession understands the Scriptures to teach that the first day of the week is to be kept as the Christian Sabbath and to teach us to keep a holy rest that day from our own "works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations."

That, however, does not disqualify duties of 'necessity' and 'mercy'. The OPC has adopted the following proof texts (citations from the King James Version, without prejudice to other versions) to provide the Scriptural support for such works of necessity and mercy:

Isa. 58:13-14. If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Luke 4:16. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Matt. 12:1-13. At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: and, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

Mark 3:1-5. And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

We recognize Jesus and His disciples putting forth their hand to pluck some grain for their daily bread on the Sabbath was not a violation of the Sabbath. The picture is that of the Son of Man and his followers as the poor of the earth gleaning from the field of another, which had been mercifully left available to them (cf. Leviticus 23:22). It is certainly not the picture of the
farmer harvesting his field on the Sabbath.

We recognize too the propriety of Jesus' merciful healing of the man with the withered hand, and of His implied approval of releasing one's sheep or son or ox that fell into a pit (well) on a Sabbath (cf. Luke 14:5).

Thus, we can certainly think of similar acts of goodly service and mercy that would be in keeping with the heart of the Sabbath commandment to do good and to show mercy and to enter into the worship of the living God and to encourage others to do the same.

The question then is, "Do professional sports and other such employments and activities qualify as either works of necessity or mercy?"

As Christians we called to stand for Christ and to confess Him before men. The prevailing culture has little or no respect for the Sabbath. Should we? Should we be willing to suffer loss in worldly goods as those who whose hearts are set on an eternal inheritance in the heavenlies?

Am I saying that Christians should be willing to look for jobs that will enable them to keep the Sabbath? Am I saying that Christians should be willing to express their convictions about the Lord’s Day in job interviews? Am I saying that we ought to trust God to provide for us as we seek first the kingdom of our heavenly Father and His righteousness? Yes, I am.

Blessings to you,
in Christ,

R. Daniel Knox, Pastor
Grace OPC in Sewickley, PA

P.S. What follows is an open letter I recently sent to Ben Roethlisberger, the star quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers:

August 8, 2009

Pittsburgh Steelers
Attn. Ben Roethlisberger
3400 South Water
Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15203

Dear Mr. Roethlisberger,

Greetings in Christ.

My heart goes out to you in the face of the civil suit currently before you.

Like others, I listened with great interest to your public statement. In what I heard in the media presentation, you rightly expressed concern for your own name and reputation, and for your obligation to preserve the respect and reputation of your family, your teammates, the Steelers organization, and your fans.

The one thing I did not hear was a concern for the glory and honor of the name of your Savior. Whether you have committed immoralities or not (I trust as a Christian that you believe sexual union outside of marriage is a sin), your reputation as a Christian athlete, as one who professes Christ, is at issue. Your conduct in public and in private is a reflection upon Him and His good name. Thus, I would hope that you would take that to heart. Many, including many children, look up to you and to your example.

While I am writing, I would take opportunity to express an ongoing concern for you and others. How is a professional athlete able to maintain a right relationship with Christ and His church when he or she is continually being put in the situation of compromising the Lord's Day and the public assembling of the saints? As much as I like football and many other sports, as much as I might enjoy watching you or others play, I cannot see professional sports as either a work of necessity or a work of mercy in reference to the Fourth Commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy. I remember a former Pittsburgh Pirate, Vernon Law, who refused to pitch on a Sunday, and of course, there is the example of Eric Liddell (Chariots of Fire), who refused to run a particular race on the Lord's Day. What is a football player to do? Our culture has little concern for such things as Sabbath-keeping, but you must answer to the Lord. You must face the dilemma, and thus I say again, my heart goes out to you. But the nagging question of Jesus remains, "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul?"

I truly do hope the best for you. That is why I write.

Yours in Christ,

R. Daniel Knox, Pastor
Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Sewickley, PA

Of Mountains and Rivers

2009-07-02T07:22:00.000-07:00

Standing before a group of ministers gathered in Philadelphia on November 27, 1933, J. Gresham Machen read an essay he had written. The topic was perhaps surprising given Machen’s stature as a theologian and the church wars in which he was embroiled at the time. The essay was neither about the nature of true faith nor about the dreadful effects of liberalism. It was not about the virgin birth or the infallibility of the Scriptures or the origin of Paul’s religion. We can imagine a group of ministers hanging on every word if the topic had been any one of those mentioned. For that reason, “Mountains and Why We Love Them” might seem to have been far removed from the concerns of the day, but nothing could have been further from the truth.

Machen begins his essay in a most unassuming manner, asking the question, “What right have I to speak about mountain-climbing?” and answering, “The answer is very simple. I have none whatever. I have, indeed, been in the Alps four times.” Machen viewed himself a novice by comparison to those guides upon whom he depended to ascend mountain peaks; but he loved mountains, and of this he wrote. In Machen’s own words, his essay is not about the mountains, per se, but “about the love of the mountains.”

So it is then that for several minutes, Machen shared his love of the mountains. He spoke in the first person, describing his ascent in the Alps near Zermatt, endeavoring as it were to bring us along on a novice climb to enjoy the heights with him. But ever so humbly, J. Gresham Machen demonstrates again why he is considered by many to be a mountaineer of the first rank in the church, having led them to see things clearly from on high. Indeed, even here, by essay’s end, we the hearers and readers are with Machen looking out from the summit of the Matterhorn upon the vista of the world and the entire scope of human history, seeing things from the lofty vantage point of God and His grace. Machen writes,

What will be the end of that European civilization, of which I had a survey from my mountain vantage ground—of that European civilization and its daughter in America? What does the future hold in store? Will Luther prove to have lived in vain? Will all the dreams of liberty issue into some vast industrial machine? Will even nature be reduced to standard, as in our country the sweetness of the woods and hills is being destroyed, as I have seen them destroyed in Maine, by the uniformities and artificialities and officialdom of our national parks? Will the so-called "Child Labor Amendment" and other similar measures be adopted, to the destruction of all the decencies and privacies of the home? Will some dreadful second law of thermodynamics apply in the spiritual as in the material realm? Will all things in church and state be reduced to one dead level, coming at last to an equilibrium in which all liberty and all high aspirations will be gone? Will that be the end of all humanity's hopes? I can see no escape from that conclusion in the signs of the times; too inexorable seems to me to be the march of events. No, I can see only one alternative. The alternative is that there is a God—a God who in His own good time will bring forward great men again to do His will, great men to resist the tyranny of experts and lead humanity out again into the realms of light and freedom, great men, above all, who will be messengers of His grace. There is, far above any earthly mountain peak of vision, a God high and lifted up who, though He is infinitely exalted, yet cares for His children among men.

I too love mountains. In my high school speech class my ‘persuasive speech” was an endeavor to convince the class that the mountains were the place to go. Vacations for me growing up meant a four hour drive to the Allegheny Mountains in the northern tier of Pennsylvania. My dad had a cabin in the mountains, well actually an old bus that was terminally parked on a mountain-top on a small plot of land adjoining the great woods of the mountains, where we hunted, and hiked, and fished, especially fished.

The memories vividly remain. Once in a small woodland clearing, we saw a pair of fox pups, playfully sparring with one another on their hind feet. One spring day, I recall hiking toward a mountain stream and coming upon a newborn fawn nestled beside a log in the woods, not daring to leap from its ‘hiding’, but its tiny nose twitching in my direction. And another time, crawling on hands and knees to approach a promising-looking fishing hole, I eventually glanced up to see a huge, shimmering black bear sitting on her haunches just a few feet across the stream from me, watching my every move.

I love mountains, but I also love rivers and I love fly-fishing. Taking my cue from Machen, I might ask what right have I to write about river fly-fishing? The answer is very simple. I have none whatever. Oh sure, I have watched A River Runs Through It several times and read Norman Maclean’s tiny novella that lies behind it. Indeed I have, dampened my wading boots in some pretty impressive streams like the Yellow Breeches Creek and the Letort Spring Run in Pennsylvania, the Nantahala River in North Carolina, the Arkansas River in Colorado, and the White River in Arkansas. As a youngster I even waded clear across the Allegheny River near Tidioute years before the Kinzua Dam changed that fishery forever and there cast my Heddon Midget River Runt Spook (What a great name for a lure!).

But the number of trout I have caught on a fly on those and a score of other streams in my lifetime, all combined, probably would not equal the best single day catch in the life of a top-notch fly fishing guide. Yes, I have read a number of books and articles (more than I would like to admit) on fly fishing, fly casting, and fly tying, and even dabbled in stream entomology (the study of insects); and the flies I have tied have actually snagged an occasional trout or two. And yes, I have reflected on environmental issues and the importance of conserving fresh, flowing waters, have joined Trout Unlimited and have sent off a few letters to congressmen and senators. I have even read The River Why, another book about to make its way to theaters everywhere, describing a young man’s quest for the meaning of life set against the backdrop of a river and fly-fishing, before it became a movie.

But why do I love rivers? Rivers are full of life. Rivers are refreshing. Rivers start somewhere and they go somewhere with lots of changes along the way, gaining volume, increasing momentum, irresistibly drawing things along in their path. Around every bend is something new, a new turn, a new view, a new opportunity. I guess that’s why I never quite knew when to turn back on a day of fishing. One more promising hole, one more sunken tree, one more undercut bank, just one more cast might offer up the trout of the day.

Why is it that standing in a mall, within minutes my back stiffens, my legs ache, and I am ready to make a dash for the parking lot? But let me stand in a river or stream, and for some odd reason I am able to stand for hours, perhaps even glued to the same spot and never once think about my back or legs? And why is that crossing a stream, I have this sudden urge to flip over rocks to see what is clinging underneath?

I think I will always cherish the little runs and brooks, the tiny, gurgling and clear-as-crystal mountain springs that emerge out of the rock of a mountain slope. There, you might bend the knee to take a sip of the coldest, clearest, and sweetest water the earth has to offer up. First making its way down a little crevice, it begins cascading over boulders and logs, creating little nooks guarded by native brook trout that snatch every bite size morsel that dares intrude. Streams so narrow, you can step across or wade barely wetting the top side of your boot, yet there beneath miniature waterfalls, a little brookie would in a flash, dart out of nowhere to rip into a worm or a sunken fly and then race for cover. I always want to go back there.

But streams and rivers, like life and time, never turn back. Did you know there is a river that runs through the Scriptures that appears in the beginning, flows through the pages of history, and reaches out to eternity? Here are three texts to consider, one from the beginning, one from the middle, and one from the end of the Bible:

Genesis 2:10 "Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers."
Psalm 46:4"There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, The holy dwelling places of the Most High."
Revelation 22:1-2 "Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street (On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

In the beginning God provided refreshment to the Garden He had made. His word speaks of the life and blessing He offers as refreshment to His people. It is no accident that the revelation of God in the flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ, speaks of Himself as the "living water." It is He who gives life and refreshment in a dry and thirsty land. It is He who waters the garden; it is He who makes glad the city of God; it is who He brings healing to the nations. The river precedes time, He appears in history; He goes somewhere; He has an end, a destination. So do we have an end, a destination, in Him--"to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever."

R. Daniel Knox

P.S. Dedicated to my Dad, who in large measure helped to instill in me a love for mountains and rivers.

Who Watches the Shepherds?

2009-06-19T11:53:00.000-07:00

A church member asked me a while ago, "Should the OPC ruling bodies check their minister's beliefs are not changing over time and becoming more liberal or not aligning with our confession and catechism? As they grow as shepherds and pastors it would be easy for these men to stray from our confessions and catechisms, and no one in the presbytery or general assembly would know otherwise. Wouldn't it be wise to develop a system where pastors check their belief systems/doctrine on a regular basis, instead of 'once ordained, always ordained' current system?"

My answer follows:

The OPC charitably operates from the standpoint that a man's ordination to office is valid so long as he remains faithful and has neither demitted his office nor been deposed by judicial discipline from it. Thus, while we do not repeatedly reexamine men to insure that their ordination is valid, that ordination is always subject to the review of the church. That is not doubletalk. Let me explain.

The question raised here definitely addresses an important concern for the church. The apostle Paul's injunction to the elders from Ephesus rings true throughout the present experience of the church: "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:28-30).

Indeed, Paul's various writings suggest that times of trial and trouble are sure to come upon the church. For example, in I Timothy 4:1 and following, he states, "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paing attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, ..." Again in II Timothy 4:3-4, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." And the apostle Peter speaks likewise, "But false prophets also arose among the people, just there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves" (II Peter 2:1).

The ministers and ruling elders who comprise sessions, presbyteries, and general assemblies must continually be on guard, watching the gates and caring for the flock of Christ. As the OPC's Form of Government states, "Ruling elders, individually and jointly with the pastor in the session, are to lead the church in the service of Christ. They are to watch diligently over the people committed to their charge to prevent corruption of doctrine or morals" (X.3.).

The person asked, "Wouldn't it be wise to develop a system where pastors check their belief systems/doctrine on a regular basis...?" My answer to that is that the Lord Jesus indeed ordained the system of presbyterian church government for the very purpose you indicate. Church governors are to be ever diligent and watchful! None of us are to be left to our devices. We are to be continually measured by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit and measuring what we hear (and what we read) from those who preach and teach in the church.

Presbyterian church government is the system the Lord ordained to provide for the safety that comes from a multitude of counselors (cf. Proverbs 24:6, KJV). True presbyterianism takes seriously man's total depravity and his aptness to err, and it is the very system the Lord has provided to practically deal with this. Each minister or elder is not his own judge, but the Lord has provided for a plurality of ministers and ruling elders to keep watch in the churches.

Unbiblical forms of church government miss the mark. On the one hand, independent church government fails to properly and adequately take into account the need we have for the connectiveness of the whole church and the need for the various governing assemblies that keep check on one another. On the other hand, hierarchial church government fails to acknowledge the parity of those church governors that the Lord has ordained to keep check on one another.

The OPC Form of Government, chapter XII, makes the following provision for governing assemblies:

All governing assemblies have the same kinds of rights and powers. These are to be used to maintain truth and righteousness and to oppose erroneous opinions and sinful practices that threaten the purity, peace, or progress of the church. All assemblies have the right to resolve questions of doctrine and discipline reasonably proposed and the power to obtain evidence and inflict censures. A person charged with an offense may be required to appear only before the assembly having jurisdiction over him, but any member of the church may be called by any assembly to give testimony.
Each governing assembly exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters belonging to it. The session exercises jurisdiction over the local church; the presbytery over what is common to the ministers, sessions, and the church within a prescribed region; and the general assembly over such matters as concern the whole church. Disputed matters of doctrine and discipline may be referred to a higher governing assembly. The lower assemblies are subject to the review and control of higher assemblies, in regular graduation. These assemblies are not separate and independent, but they have a mutual relation and every act of jurisdiction is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate body.

The responsibility of keeping watch, however, does not fall exclusively on ministers and elders. The whole church shares in that responsibility. The Form of Government states, "The power which Christ has committed to his church is not vested in the special officers alone, but in the whole body. All believers are endued with the Spirit and called of Christ to join in the worship, edification, and witness of the church which grows as the body of Christ fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplies, according to the working in due measure of each part. The power of believers in their general office includes the right to acknowledge and desire the exercise of the gifts and calling of the special offices" (III.1.). What that means is that the members of the body of Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, are to be discerning in their hearing. The members of the body, in accordance with the measure of the grace given to them, are to be constantly measuring what they hear from their ministers by the Word and the Spirit also.

Thus, if the officers or the members of the body discern doctrinal deviation or error in an office bearer, they have the right and the responsibility to pursue those matters with their brother in agreement with Matthew 18:15ff. If not resolved, such matters may be pursued in the courts of the church.

The OPC Book of Discipline states, "A charge of an offense may be brought by an injured party, by a person not an injured party, or by a judicatory. The offense alleged in the charge should be serious enough to warrant a trial...No charge shall be admitted against an elder, unless it is brought by two or more persons, according to I Timothy 5:19" (III.1.). In that same section the Book of Discipline goes on to state that, "an offense in the area of doctrine for the ordained officer which would constitute a violation of the system of doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures as that system of doctrine is set forth in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms", is an offense serious enough to warrant a trial. Any two or more witnesses to such doctrinal aberration could enter charges in order to pursue orderly disciplinary process.

To sum up, the Church with its officers and its many members, are to be always watching, always praying for the preservation of sound doctrine and for the maintenance of the integrity of the ordained offices.

May the Lord continue to encourage you to such watchfulness and prayer. May He bless and keep you.
　
In Christ,
Dan

What's the Difference?

2009-06-06T05:26:00.000-07:00

Recently I was handed the question, "Does the Orthodox Presbyterian Church have any theological differences with the commentaries of C.H.Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, Horatius Bonar, Andrew Bonar, J.C. Ryle, L.R. Shelton, Jr.?"

My response follows:

The works of the men whom you have mentioned are found generously in the libraries of men in the OPC. We certainly see them as men who embrace the Reformed doctrine of salvation (soteriology) in God's electing grace (by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone). Each of those you have mentioned would have seen himself as deeply indebted to the Reformation and to the older Puritan writers.

Of the list, the two Bonars were Presbyterians, Ryle was a bishop in the Church of England, and Spurgeon, Pink, and Shelton were Baptists.

That statement, in itself, says something about their doctrine of the church (ecclesiology). But it also points to their difference in views in regards to the sacraments (sacramentology).

Presbyterians are committed to the Presbyterian form of government, which stands over against the hierarchialism of the Church of England on the one hand, and independency or congregationalism of the Baptist churches on the other hand. In Presbyterianism the emphasis is upon the governance of the church through elders (presbyters) who may be ministers or ruling elders who together hold office and share rule in the church. Presbyterianism, also, sees biblical warrant for the various judicatories of the church: sessions, presbyteries, and synods or general assemblies. To my knowledge Ryle, Spurgeon, Pink, and Shelton did not particularly address themselves to ecclesiology in most of their writings.

For them and for many of the older Puritans, the great tendency is to focus on individual salvation in what might be called experimental (or experiential) religion in which the doctrines of grace are dealt with in terms of the order of salvation (predestination, election, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification), applicable to the individual believer.

The Westminster Confession of Faith and catechisms, however, very much emphasize what might be called the history of salvation, the doctrines of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, and the theology of the church as church, collectively rather than individualistically. That is not to deny the order of salvation applicable to individuals but to also give due weight to the whole scope of redemption in the church, and the corporate expression of the kingdom of God coming to bear in the church in the world.

And, of course, in terms of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, the Presbyterian confession and standards emphasize them as sacraments, serving not merely as ordinances given to the church, but also means of grace through which the Spirit is communicated, not in any mechanical or magical sense, but as the administration of the signs and seals of the Lord's covenant of grace.

Baptists and Presbyterians think quite differently about baptism and children in the church. Whereas Presbyterians receive the children of believing parents as holy and thus set apart to the Lord and rightly the recipients of baptism and included in the church, the Baptist writers tend to view their infants as little devils, not members of the church, and not to baptized until they profess faith. The Presbyterians see them as those privileged to be born and reared in the bosom of the church and to be treated as such, with the ongoing call to repentance and faith in keeping with their covenant status.

Assuming that Ryle and the Baptists you mentioned were true to their convictions, Anglican and Baptistic, respectively, they would not have been able to be ordained in the OPC. Even so, we would still rejoice in those many places where we so wholeheartedly agree with them in the things of God.

In Christ,
Dan

A River Runs Through It

2009-05-19T18:43:00.000-07:00

A River Runs Through It--what is it about the movie that captures our attention and imagination? The artistry of fly fishing? The beauty of Montana? The aspirations and recollections of youth? The love story? The tragic life? Or the mystery of a river that runs through it?

I love rivers. I also love fly-fishing, even though I am not particularly good at it. But the book and the movie are about more than just fly-fishing.

Sixteen years before the movie had been produced, I had read a quote in a fishing magazine, not even realizing at the time that it was from the book A River Runs Through It. It was a fly-fishing columnist picking up on the humorous impression that a particular fly-fishing, Presbyterian minister had left upon his sons.

Listen to the author Norman Maclean:

"In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing. We lived at the junction of great trout rivers in western Montana, and our father was a Presbyterian minister and a fly fisherman who tied his own flies and taught others. He told us about Christ's disciples being fishermen, and we were left to assume, as my brother and I did, that all first-class fishermen were fly fishermen and that John, the favorite, was a dry-fly fisherman."

The quote in the magazine ended there; but the book, I would discover years later, goes further.

"It is true that one day a week was given over wholly to religion. On Sunday mornings my brother, Paul, and I went to Sunday school and then to "morning services" to hear our father preach and then in the evening to Christian Endeavor and afterwards to "evening services" to hear our father preach again. In between on Sunday afternoons we had to study The Westminster Shorter Catechism for an hour and then recite before we could walk the hills with him while he unwound between services. But he never asked us more than the first question in the catechism, "What is the chief end of man?" And we answered together so one of us could carry on if the other forgot, "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever." This always seemed to satisfy him, as indeed such a beautiful answer should have, and besides he was anxious to be on the hills where he could restore his soul and be filled again to overflowing for the evening sermon. His chief way of recharging himself was to recite to us from the sermon that was coming, enriched here and there with selections from the most successful passages of his morning sermon.

“Even so, in a typical week of our childhood Paul and I probably received as many hours of instruction in fly fishing as we did in all other spiritual matters."

But wait! Is fly fishing a spiritual matter? Is that just a clever turn of phrase? Or does it mean we give ourselves to things of this world with religion-like fervor? Or is fly fishing or writing a book or producing a film a spiritual matter? Is going to school or the office or the factory or raising the children a spiritual matter? What is not a spiritual matter? Or to put it another way, is there one cubic inch in the universe that does not belong to God? Does not even a river tell us something about the God who made it? Hear Maclean also in his concluding lines:

"Of course, now I am too old to be much of a fisherman, and now I course I usually fish the big waters alone, although some friends think I shouldn't. Like many fly fishermen in western Montana where the summer days are almost Arctic in length, I often do not start fishing until the cool of the evening. Then in the Arctic half-light of the canyon, all existence fades to a being with my soul and memories and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise.
"Eventually, all thing merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs.
"I am haunted by waters."

Beautiful! The longing for the transcendent. Did you know there is a river that runs through the Scriptures that appears in the beginning, flows through the pages of history, and reaches out to eternity? Here are three texts to consider, one from the beginning, one from the middle, and one from the end of the Bible:

Genesis 2:10 "Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers."

Psalm 46:4
"There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,The holy dwelling places of the Most High."

Revelation 22:1-2 "Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street (On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

A Fisherman's Take on Original Sin and Total Depravity

2009-05-15T13:23:00.000-07:00

We ask a simple question
And that is all we wish:
Are fishermen all liars?
Or do only liars fish?

~by William Sherwood Fox, Silken Lines and Silver Hooks, 1954

Overheard:

Two men in a boat:

One said to the other, "All fishermen are liars, except you and me; and sometimes I am not so sure about you."

What About the Altar?

2009-05-05T07:10:00.000-07:00

Part of the enjoyment of trout fishing for me is creating a few flies each winter at the tying vise in preparation for the upcoming season. Thus, I am happy to report the first catches of the 2009 PA trout season. In a few hours last week on Big Sewickley Creek, the Lord was pleased to bring to net a brown trout and two rainbows that were attracted to a March Brown wet fly (bottom photo) and a Bead-Head Prince Nymph (top photo), respectively. Yes, the sovereignty of God applies both to fishing and man-fishing. The fly is cast into the brook, but its every decision is from the LORD (That is a paraphrase of Proverbs 16:33, by the way.)

On another matter, ______ asked the following:

"I belong to a conservative Presbyterian Church. Although we don't practice "altar calls," which I understand the reasoning behind, I often still hear the front of the church referred to as "the altar." What is the origin of this terminology in the church? Is the origin fairly recent? How does referring to "an altar" in our churches today relate to Scripture? Does this type of terminology really have any Scriptural warrant, or method, especially in view of Christ's death and resurrection?"

My answer follows:

Your question is a discerning one. Typically, the term "altar" is understood to refer to a raised structure on which sacrifices are offered or incense is burned in religious worship.
The word "altar" first appears in Holy Scripture in Genesis 8:20 which says, "Then Noah built an altar tothe LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar" (NASB). In Genesis 12:7 Abram built an altar unto the LORD at Shechem and called upon the name of the LORD; we note that there is no mention of a sacrifice there. But in Genesis 22:7, Abram built an altar in Moriah on which he intended to offer his son Isaac. In Exodus 17:15 before receiving the Law at Mt. Sinai, Moses "built an altar, and named it The LORD is My Banner"; again there is no specific mention of a sacrifice.

The Law given at Mount Sinai included provisions for Moses to build altars unto the LORD (See Exodus 27:1-8 and 30:1-10.). These particularly had reference to the offering up of burnt sacrifices of animals and grains, on the one, and incense, on the other. Those types and shadows of the Old Testament had their fulfillment in Christ, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

In that Christ, by His once for all sacrifice on the cross, brought to an end the ceremonial sacrificial system of the Old Testament, we might have expected that the altar would have disappeared from the Christian places of worship. The churches, however, throughout the centuries after Christ retained the use of ornate wood and stone "altars" which served as communion tables. Over time, however, Roman Catholicism corrupted the Lord's Supper in their conception of the mass. They understood the mass to be a renewed sacrifice of Christ through the breaking of His body and the pouring out of His blood, in accordance with their doctrine known as transubstantiation (that is, the elements are believed to undergo a change of substance from common bread and wine to the actual body and blood of Christ). Thus, the "altar" in Romanism's understanding returned to a being a place of sacrifice. This the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century found to be abhorrent and an insult to the finality and completeness of Jesus' death. With that, the Reformation churches in Switzerland, Holland, and Scotland determined to remove the ornate "altars" from the places of worship and introduce plain, even removable, communion tables.

Typically, then, Presbyterians do not refer to the communion table or even the raised platform where the preacher stands as the "altar." Again, this is to emphasize the end of the O.T. sacrificial system and the "priesthood of all believers" in the New Testament church. Worship is offered up by the whole congregation who have been brought near to God through the death of Christ. The church members "are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (I Peter 2:5). Thus, the writer of Hebrews says, "Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name" (Hebrews 13:15). Not on a physical altar but "in Spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24) are we to worship God, presenting ourselves as "a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God" (Romans 12:1).

Thus, Christians would do well to avoid the use of the term "altar" to refer either to the communion table or to the "front of the church."

Words, however, tend to have a certain flexibility of connotation. Well-meaning Christians have been apt to speak about "the family altar." What they mean is simply the regular practice of offering up family worship and devotion to God through Bible reading and instruction, hymn-singing, and prayer. They do not, at least for the most part, mean an actual place or an altar of sacrifice in the Old Testament sense; rather they are simply thinking in spiritual terms--the act of offering up prayer and praise to God. In fact, a well known Reformed denomination at one time, not very many years ago, even named the daily, devotional booklet that it published for private and family use, The Family Altar.

One final note is in order. Significantly, we see the book of Revelation (certainly a New Testament book that takes into account the death and resurrection of Christ) referring to a golden altar before God that yet remains in heaven (6:9, 8:3, 9:13, 11:1, 14:18, and 16:7). How shall we understand this? Is there a literal, physical altar in heaven that covers the souls of the martyrs? No, for we see something of the symbolism intended here when in Revelation 16:7, the altar speaks! The very presence in heaven of a worshipping congregation that has overcome the world is a living testimony to God that declares, "Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Thy judgments."

May God bless you in your understanding of His Word and in the offering up of true and faithful worship in Christ. We hope you continue to seek the truth.

Blessings,
Dan

A Blessing from God

2009-04-18T06:03:00.000-07:00

What follows is a revision and update of an article that appeared in the June-July 1985 issue of Priorities (Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 1ff.), the newsletter of the then-existent Protestants for Life in Pittsburgh. The original occasion was the birth of the author’s and his wife’s fourth child in January 1985. Now there is more good news.

"Behold, children are a gift of the Lord;
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them;
They shall not be ashamed,
When they speak with their enemies in the gate" (Psalm 127:3-5).

Do we believe these words of Psalm 127? Do we really see children as a blessing from the Lord? Or have we been deceived by the spirit of this age which counts any form of responsibility, including the rearing of children, as part of the curse? After all, was not the apostle Paul culture-bound when he wrote, “But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint” (I Tim. 2:15)?

On January 18, 1985, we had a “blessed event” in our household in which we received our fourth child from the Lord. Rachel was (and still is to us) a special child in that she was born with spina bifida and, as we were to discover later, hypothyroidism. These two conditions resulted in serious leg deformities and renal complications, as well as an initial growth deficiency. Considering the severity of the problems, Rachel has done very well, for which we are very grateful. Enduring a multi-year process of surgery, leg-casting, medication, and rehabilitation, Children’s Hospital and the Children’s Institute of Pittsburgh became our homes away from home. Learning to walk with the assistance of braces and a child’s walker eventually gave way to splints and crutches and the continuing use of a wheel chair.

Prior to Rachel’s conception we had contemplated the thoughts of Psalm 127 quoted above. “Surely children are a gift.” And we casually pondered the prospects of having a fourth child, to make an even number, two boys and two girls. After all, we thought together, “Christians need not be ashamed of large families.” But no sooner had we discovered that a child was on the way, that we began to think, “Oh no, another mouth to feed, more diapers and just when we were about to get on with our lives. What would people think? What would they say? Perhaps these might be called “normal’ thoughts, but does this kind of thinking not express some doubt of God’s Word on the matter? Little did we know at the time how much further our faith would be tested.

Little by little, we got used to the idea of a new baby coming, and the pregnancy went quite routinely. Regular checkups made us think all seemed well—until the eighth month. At that point the doctors became concerned that perhaps the calculated due date was wrong for our child seemed unexpectedly small. A sonogram was ordered, which was not all routine in those days. The doctor’s comments stunned us when we were informed that there appeared to be a “deformity on the spine,” which might be only a cyst of no real consequence or perhaps it was an indication of spina bifida with the possibility of severe physical and mental handicaps.

Suddenly, all those “normal” doubts and fears, questioning God’s word on the matter, which we had experienced earlier, now burst forth with a passion. “Why would God allow this to happen!” Here we were, Bible-believing Christians who would never have an abortion, harboring angry thoughts toward one another and toward God.

In the days that followed her birth, we were astounded how much our contentment rested upon Rachel’s “quality of life” reports. We were quite anxious whether the initial thyroid deficiency would cause developmental problems for her. What would life look like, dealing with severe physical handicaps? The very things we ‘pro-lifers’ would reject as unacceptable, illegitimate reasons for justifying abortions (concerns about brain power, muscular control, appearance) were the things that caused our hopes to rise and fall. Suddenly, we were confronted with the challenge of the potential difficulties that lay ahead, and the arguments were not abstractions. Through it all, we came more and more to understand the Lord’s providential hand of discipline upon us. We were being called to love our child, and made more and more to understand that we needed God’s help to love as we ought to love. The Lord was making more and more clear that true godly love must not be a respecter of persons, but we must love another simply because that person is precious and created “in the image of God.” What was being exposed, however, in our culture and in our own hearts was that we tend to love only insofar as it does not interfere with our comfort, our freedom, or our autonomy to live as we want.

Not that we accept spina bifida and sin and death as normal—they are not. As the Scriptures teach, sickness and death are in the world because of sin’s entrance into the world. As such they ought to make us all the more to desire life and the restoration and perfections of heaven and of resurrection life in Christ. Meanwhile, in the world, we are being called to love one another and to bear with one another’s infirmities, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. We are reminded that Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us sinners when we were still weak and helpless, and He commands us to love others in the same way.

Several persons attempted to comfort us in those days after Rachel’s birth by suggesting to us that God gives special-needs children to special parents. We are convinced that that is not so. Instead, we are persuaded that such children are a gift of the Lord to us.

God is good. More than twenty-four years have now passed. Yesterday was a special day for my wife and me as our son-in-law called from Chattanooga to inform us that his wife, our Rachel, had given birth to their first child. As we think back we are amazed. Now we see that grandchildren, too, are a gift of the Lord, for which we give thanks. We invite you to rejoice with us.

R. Daniel Knox
Ambridge, PA
April 17, 2009

The Guide to Fishers of Men

2009-04-10T17:53:00.000-07:00

I just caught on cable a few minutes of the Outdoor Channel program "Adventure Guides:Fishing Edition." The host is John Dietsch, the expert who taught Brad Pitt a bit of of fly fishing and then doubled for Pitt in the climactic fishing scene in "A River Runs Through It." Tonight's episode focused on fly fishing guides, who for a fee take their clients on the prime trout rivers of Colorado, teaching them to become fly fishers.

On this good Friday, I would rather speak of The Guide to Fishers of Men, Himself the Chief of Fishers, who said, "Come, follow Me; and I will make you fishers of men."

Is Jesus God? Are those who deny Christ's deity really Christians and should we fellowship with them in the church? Such questions were posed to me recently by an honest inquirer.

Here's my answer:

Your questions immediately bring to mind the book Christianity and Liberalism written by J. Gresham Machen in 1923.

As you may know, Machen was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1915-1929 and at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia from 1929-1937. He witnessed firsthand the effects of liberalism and a lack of church discipline that impacted the Presbyterian Church in the USA in those days. One of the issues that particularly drew his attention was the fact that the PCUSA was sending out missionaries who did not affirm the essential tenets of the Christian faith, like the deity of Christ.

In Christianity and Liberalism, as the title itself suggests, Machen argued that Christianity and liberalism were in fact different religions. As you suggest, Christianity without the Christ who is the eternal Son of the Father, the great "I am" who existed before Abraham, the Word of God by whom and through whom all things were created and who became flesh in the fullness of time, is simply a contradiction in terms.

Machen’s stand against liberalism eventually led to a separation and to the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936. Machen and others refused to accommodate themselves to those who denied Christ. Machen himself was defrocked by the PCUSA for his refusal to support the liberal agenda, but his courage and willingness to suffer loss for the sake of Christ has been an encouragement to many others to stand faithfully for Christ. The OPC has understood her calling to “to go to (Jesus) outside the camp and bear the reproach He endured” (Hebrews 13:13).

True Christianity affirms Jesus as the King of kings, the Lord of lords, who was and is and ever more shall be and to whom all authority in heaven and on earth has been given. He the Lord's Anointed, the Prophet, Priest, and King to whom the whole of Scripture points. He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He has returned to the glory that He had with the Father before the world began. He powerfully and effectively loved the Church and gave Himself up for her that she might be saved and share in His glory. He has been raised in resurrection body to ascend to heaven at the right hand of the Father.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s official statement of faith, speaks to your question regarding the deity of Christ in chapter IX, “Of Christ the Mediator,” especially in sections 2 and 3 which read as follows:

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
3. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator, and surety. Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father, who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.

Remember the strong instruction and exhortation of the short epistle of II John, especially verses 7-11 which says,

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”

As the apostle Paul writes in II Corinthians 6: 14-15, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?” This passage speaks to church membership and to marriage. Believers should be equally yoked, believers joined to believers. The cup and the bread we share at the Lord’s Supper testify that we are holily joined to the God-man Jesus Christ and to one another in Him. The church, holy and catholic (that is, worldwide), is His body, and the church is to be composed of those who believe in Him and their children. Those children are to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

As Christians, then, in love, we call men, women, and children everywhere to repent of their sin and rebellion and to embrace Jesus Christ with us, as He is so freely offered to us in the gospel. He is named Jesus, which means “Jehovah (or Yahweh) saves.” “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Blessings to you in the name of the Resurrected Son of God,
Dan

Spring Water Rites: A Question about Maundy Thursday

2009-04-08T08:59:00.000-07:00

Springtime traditionally has marked the opening of trout season. After a winter of anticipation, men, women, boys and girls will be lining the banks of streams and lakes for the ritual of casting a line on "first day." That ritual has been repeated for decades as eager fishermen and fisherwomen hit the waters, scurrying to claim their spot. It is not uncommon for zealous anglers soon to have their lines tangled (I remember the time as a child I caught a boat that was passing too close to shore.). On the other hand, it takes a measure of self-control not to follow the multitude to the places where the stocking truck had only weeks earlier unloaded its hatchery-fed, legal-sized cargo. Some seek out the more more pristine and secluded reaches where stream-bred trout populate the waters, fishing the way it was meant to be.

Last time we did a brief piece entitled "Of the Waters of Infant Baptism. It was but a brief introduction to a topic that has been keenly debated over the centuries of the Christian Church. Rightly reading the Scriptures and rightly interpreting the waters, we argued, is of the essence.

This time we take up an inquiry about another water ritual. Some time ago a question was posed to me about a tradition in the Roman Catholic Church that has begun to make its way into Reformed terminology. What about Maundy Thursday? This particular inquirer was asking why Grace Church did not have a Maundy Thursday communion service like another church in our presbytery was having. My answer follows:

We believe that the Scriptures do not command such a service on that day. Maundy Thursday, as understood in Roman Catholic terms, is a mandated feast in the so-called Holy Week. It is associated with the Passover gathering of Jesus with His disciples presumably on the Thursday before His crucifixion. The word Maundy [“Origin: 1250–1300; ME maunde < OF mande < L mandātum command, mandate (from the opening phrase novum mandātum (Vulgate) of Jesus' words to the disciples after He had washed their feet)” (See Dictionary.com.)] has its origin in the Latin Vulgate. Rome has taken the “mandate” to mean that the church ought to hold a special foot washing and mass on ‘Maundy Thursday’.

As Protestants we understand Jesus is our Passover. He speaks of the Lord’s Supper being administered “as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup.” Obviously, we administer the Supper typically on the Lord’s Day, the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week. As far as the foot washing, we have not understood that as a mandated ritual, but as the pattern of Christian service wherein we humble ourselves to serve one another as Christ served His disciples. That is the ‘mandate’, as we understand it.

Having said that, we recognize the Christian church as having the liberty to call for worship on other occasions besides the Lord’s Day. We state in our church Directory for the Public Worship of God the following: “Although it is fitting and proper that the members of Christ's church meet for worship on other occasions also, which are left to the discretion of the particular churches, it is the sacred duty and high privilege of God's people everywhere to convene for public worship on the Lord's Day. God has expressly enjoined them in his holy Word not to forsake the assembling of themselves together” (DPW I.6.).

In other words, it is certainly appropriate for churches to exercise their discretion to meet on a Thursday to worship and to celebrate the Lord’s Supper if they choose to do so. A concern, however, is that we not make a command out of something that was not meant to be such. We believe the keeping of the Lord’s Day and the administration of the Lord’s Supper are commands; Maundy Thursday is not.

Of the Waters of Infant Baptism

2009-04-01T18:29:00.000-07:00

Let's begin by wading into the water, the water of infant baptism, in the hopes of catching 'little ones'. The water seems shallow enough, but many have slipped on slippery stones, even close to shore, and many 'little ones' have gotten away. Any successful trout fisherman will tell you, you must first learn to 'read the water' to learn the secrets that lie underneath the surface.

Yes, Roman Catholicism says that infants should be baptized in the church. And they believe that infants need to saved from sin and the power of the devil. But their misunderstanding of the sacraments makes salvation dependent upon the power in the sacraments themselves, failing to understand the sacraments as signs and seals of the covenant of grace. This is a crucial distinction and difference from the faith professed in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

In the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XXVIII, paragraphs 1 and 4, we in the OPC affirm the following:

1. "Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world."

4. "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized."

Further, in Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 95, we confess the following:

Q. 95. "To whom is baptism to be administered?"
A. "Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized."

Underlying the importance of baptism in the Reformed churches like the OPC is the whole biblical understanding of the covenant. In the old covenant, the sign and seal of circumcision pointed to the covenant made with Abraham and his descendants the Jews. God promised to be their God and for them to be His people; He would be their shield and their great reward. All males were to be given the sign and seal of the covenant, namely circumcision. The descendants of Abraham and those received into his house were to be circumcised. In Romans 4:11, Paul describes circumcision as a sign and seal of a faith and salvation, which Abraham already had by God's grace. To be sure, not everyone circumcised in the covenant community (Israel) was saved, but only those who had true saving faith. Still the sign and seal were to be applied to the many, including the infants, before they evidenced any faith or not.

We confess (WCF XXV.II.) that the visible church, which is ... catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children. The new covenant includes both Jews and Gentiles. The new covenant like the old includes the believers and their children and also includes both privilege and responsibility.

Baptism marks a person as a member of the covenant community (the church). But baptism, like circumcision, does not save. It does, however, stand as a sign and seal of the covenant, pointing both the parents and the child to the promises and the warnings, the privileges and the responsibilities of being included in the covenant in the church.

We believe baptism sets us apart from the world. Scripture says that the children of a believing parent(s) are holy (I Cor. 7).

The baptism of our children says to them that they belong not to themselves but to God in Christ. Therefore, they are continually reminded and called by their baptism to covenant faithfulness. Woe to that child who does not improve upon his baptism, who does not repent and believe. Like a Bethsaida or Jerusalem to whom the ministry of Christ had come, only to be rejected, how great will be the woe to come upon the child who does not respond to God's covenant faithfulness and His testimony of compassion and love in Christ.

In a certain sense, infant baptism epitomizes covenant grace. Like the child who cannot understand, who cannot say yes or no, the baptism of an infant points to the wonderful truth that our sovereign God saves the weak, the helpless. Again, I say, God speaks to us through baptism; it is, as it were, a sermon in picture (sign) and an awesome confirmation that binds us to the covenant (seal).

We acknowledge that the covenant sign and seal set before us both God's covenant blessing and curse, both promise and warning. The child included among those receiving the covenant privileges of the ministry of word, sacrament, and discipline are more than doubly accountable. Not only are they created and included in the original covenant with Adam, but they are privileged to be accounted among the people of God. Thus, their baptism continually beckons them to obedience and faith.

Baptism no more saves our children than circumcision saved an Esau, for example. Nevertheless, the sign of the covenant testifies to us and to our children of the new covenant. Baptism is not so much what we say to God as it is God's testimony to us. It says to us that it is God alone who saves, God alone who washes and sanctifies. It is the washing of the Spirit from above, the washing that comes through the blood of Christ, that saves us.

This will have to do this evening for a first lesson in 'reading the water', an essential in 'man-fishing'.

Stepping into New Waters: Of Trout and Men

2009-03-31T08:57:00.000-07:00

Welcome to this new WebLog, i.e. 'blog' for short, entitled Of Trout and Men, a play on the book title Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, and reminiscent of Robert Burns' famous line: "The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men Gang aft agley," from his poem "To A Mouse, On Turning Her Up In Her Nest With The Plough."

Preaching and fishing, at least for me, are full of surprises.

The famous print in the heading is Fly Fishing, Saranac by Winslow Homer.

In Christ,
Dan