They Live On Earth But Their Citizenship Is In Heaven: The Epistle to Diognetus

The Epistle to Diognetus is an early, apologetically oriented, Christian writing (c. 150-250 AD). It survived into the modern era by only one manuscript that eventually was destroyed in the Franco-Prussian War. You can find the text online in many places, one of which is here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diognetus-roberts.html

​The letter feels quite familiar to modern Christians and contains some beautifully written sections. This one describes the place of the Christian Church in the world: 

​​For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

Always In Christ Alone: Baxter On Sanctification

I am continuing slowly through Richard Baxter’s monumental Directory and am sharing various ideas and quotations I have found particularly encouraging. Immediately preceding this quotation, he has been challenging the person who wants to please God to rid himself of any thought of self-merit or deserved acceptance before God in anything but Jesus Christ. Conversion and the beginnings of new life are only in and by Christ, but so it the way of sanctification and ultimate victory:  

 Alas! without Christ,

we know not how to live an hour;

nor can have hope or peace in any thing we have or do;

nor look with comfort either upward or downward, to God, or the creature;

nor think without terrors of our sins, of God, or of the life to come.

Resolve, therefore, that as true converts,

you are wholly to live upon Jesus Christ,

and to do all that you do by his Spirit and strength;

and to expect all your acceptance with God upon his account.

Remember When Driscoll Plagiarized? An Appeal For An Explanation: Derek Thomas, P&R, and Plagiarism: Part 3

Back in 2013 Reformed social media went nuts over Mark Driscoll’s plagiarism.

Mortification of Spin even did a show about celebrity preachers and plagiarism and how it evidenced a deep flaw in the YRR movement.

Yet, even though several thousand [edited] unique visitors to thedailygenvan.com have read about P&R’s public, yet ambiguous, announcement of plagiarism in Derek Thomas’ Acts Commentary, I see no open concern or discussion about the importance of integrity in our Reformed circles in light of this. His book was nominated for awards and paraded as a great achievement on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical blog. But now even after P&R’s announcement it is still being sold at various Reformed online bookstores....

Instead of a concern that we clean up our own act regarding plagiarism, I’ve seen 1. Efforts by ministers and elders to identify “the source” who first reported the plagiarism to P&R. 2. Efforts to get me to take down the public call for an explanation. 3. Accusations of me not loving Christ, the church, and good polity because public actions by a public figure and a public publishing house are being discussed publicly. 4. A virtual emotional meltdown over my decision to post the “appeal for an explanation” anonymously—-yet, why? So the good ole boys can hunt down the unloyal and punish?

I understand the emotional sorrow over these realities among those who are close to Thomas or have particularly benefited from his ministry. Yet, frankly, that is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and potentially adds weight to the need for a more reasonable public explanation and plan for future accountability at P&R than, say, bad note taking, whoops.

So here’s a question to ponder: could it possibly be that Reformed folks are just as big of sinners as non-Reformed folks and need accountability? Could it be that celebrity and the gospel-industrial-complex aren’t just a problem out there with those other guys?

So, are we allowed to pick apart people we don’t like but not allowed to criticize our own friends? That’s unhealthy, and worse ungodly, and in fact the reverse should be true. We should hold ourselves to higher standards.

On their Alliance podcast in 2013, Carl Truman, Aimee Byrd, and Todd Pruitt discuss plagiarism the lack of ethics and accountability in the YRR movement. 

On his Alliance blog, Todd Pruitt in 2013 lamenting celebrity culture and how it promotes plagiarism.

The Aquila Report In 2012: https://www.theaquilareport.com/derek-thomas-commentary-on-acts-finalist-for-prestigious-christian-book-award/

An Appeal For An Explanation: Derek Thomas, P&R, and Plagiarism: Part 2: Some Examples

 P&R has announced publicly that Derek Thomas’ commentary on Acts, a once celebrated achievement, contains what it calls “unattributed content from sermons by another pastor.” The publisher explains that “it appears that the lack of attribution resulted from unclear note-taking more than a decade before the commentary on Acts was written, and we believe it does not reflect intentional misuse on the part of the author.” Nevertheless a simple examination of portions of the text against the sermon does not seem consistent with the explanation of “unclear note-taking” and a mere “lack of attribution.” This basic concern was discussed here.

 Sidenote: Check out this article by Mary Demuth also where she discusses how serious and pervasive plagiarism is among Christian publishers. 

Since You Asked: The reason these articles are anonymous here is that even though the charges are merely factual in nature, there is a habit in the big reformed world of attacking people who raise such questions. As to an objection from Matthew 18 that this should be handled one-on-one in private, the behavior is not personal or private, and P&R has already made a public announcement of it. Also, charitable speculations about how this could have occurred are right and reasonable. One reason this was posted is to give an opportunity to the author and publisher to come clean about the process. It’s obvious that this is a widespread problem in Christian publishing and that the pressures on men (and women these days) with large platforms to produce materials are immense. So, my prayer is that we will straighten up what is crooked when it comes to plagiarism in our circles.

The Original Sermon:  http://tapesfromscotland.org/Audio3/3603.mp3

The entire section of the sermon by Sinclair Ferguson (from minutes 04:55 – 12:21) appear almost word or word (including a parallel of development of ideas and flow of thought) on pages 378-380 in Derek’s Thomas’ commentary on Acts. I pick it up again at minutes 14:39 and transcribe it to minutes 18:55. This section of Ferguson’s sermon also appears almost word for word in Thomas’ commentary – definitely the ideas in the sermon reflect unmistakably in pages 380-382.

The most charitable assessment I can give is that the difference between Ferguson’s sermon and Thomas’s commentary is the difference between the NAS and ESV – same message just slightly varied and in many places not even. If we put this in Bible translation terms, Thomas’ commentary is better than dynamic equivalence i.e. more word for word (literal).

I’ve made the comparisons by putting extracts from Ferguson’s sermon next to Thomas’ commentary.  I’ve only referenced the page numbers for Thomas’ commentary. Ferguson’s sermon extracts are basically the continuation of the section starting at 04:55 and ends at 12:21.

COMPARISON OF SINCLAIR FERGUSON’S SERMON AND DEREK THOMAS’ COMMENTARY

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “The Acts of the Apostles which we are studying together on Sunday mornings was of course inspired by God for you and for me but it was not written either to you or to me. It was written to an isolated and unknown individual called Theophilus.”

DEREK THOMAS: “The book of Acts was written for someone else, an unknown individual called Theophilus but it was inspired by God for us.” (pg. 378)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “And it was written for Theophilus probably to help him understand that in God’s purposes for His people two things always go hand in hand. Number one, that God is keeping the promise that Jesus made, that the gospel would extend to the ends of the earth and to the end of the ages.”

DEREK THOMAS: “It was written to enable us to understand that in God’s purpose two things always go hand in hand: first, God is keeping Jesus’ promise that the gospel is to reach the nations of the world” (pg. 378)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “In the opening verses of Acts chapter 1, Jesus tells the little band of disciples that they are to be His witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria and ultimately to the ends of the earth.”

DEREK THOMAS: “Jesus tells the disciples after the resurrection that they will be his witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and ultimately, to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8)” (pg. 378)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: And the Acts of the Apostles which begins with that statement ends with the Apostle Paul at the center of the earth in those days, the great capital city of the Roman Empire, Rome itself.And the last words of the Acts of the Apostle as we’ve sometime noticed are:“without hindrance”. He was preaching the gospel “without hindrance”. And between these two bookends, Luke is telling his friend Theophilus the story of the triumph of the gospel to the ends of the earth and to the center of the Empire.

DEREK THOMAS: We have seen how Luke wrote the book of Acts with this verse in mind, noting as each boundary was crossed the significance of the advance. The book of Actscomes to a close with the apostle Paul in Rome, at the capital of the empire, noting that he was preaching the gospel “without hindrance” (Acts 28:31). Between these two bookends, Luke is telling his friend Theophilus the way in which the gospel has made it to the very heart of the Roman Empire. (pg. 378)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: But the other thing that we have notice inevitably that is woven into that story of the triumph of the gospel is the story of the trials of the Apostles which lie behind and are so often God’s way of moving forward the triumph of the gospel. As for Christ no cross no crown; so for the victory of the Christian church no cross, no crown.

DEREK THOMAS: In the second place, Luke is also telling the story of the trails of the apostles that lie behind the greater story of the advance of the kingdom of God, He wants us to see that the gospel moved forward through the trials and persecution of the apostles. As it was true for Christ – “no cross, no crown – so also it true for his disciples(pg. 378-379)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: And perhaps it’s partly because of that, no cross no crown – no crown without a cross that the early disciples, faithful as they were, were so slow to bring the gospel to the ends of the age. And we noted up until the beginning of chapter 13 it’s almost as if though God (has to) to keep nudging them because they have been so reluctant to do anything.

DEREK THOMAS: The victory of the Christian church is achieved through similar trials experienced by the Lord of the church himself. This may well explain why it is that on so many occasions God has to nudge the church forward, driving it to see the need for mission expansion, perhaps because it knew all too well that suffering awaited in almostevery city.(pg. 379)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: It’s only at the beginning of chapter 13 that we’ve seen the church moving from needing persecution or revelation to being willing to accept the God given mission of Jesus Christ to take the gospel not only the Jews but also to the Gentiles. And God has given this little church in Antioch this tremendous burden by the Holy Spirit so that they have now sent out two of their leading figures on whom they have depend so much, Barnabas and Paul, himself, with a very clear strategy.

DEREK THOMAS: Only at the beginning of chapter 13 have we seen something of the church’s willingness to accept its God-given mission to be a witness for Jesus in the entire world. The church in Syrian Antioch sent two of its best to do this work with a very clear mission. (pg. 379)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “They weren’t simply going wherever the sea would take them or the wind would blow them. They had a very clear fixed strategy. And chapter 14 verse 26 speaks about the way they have been committed to the grace of God for the work they have now completed. And this strategy was that these men would make a round trip of somewhere in the region of a 1000 miles through Barnabas’ native area and then through the Apostle Paul’s native area in order to bring to gospel to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. And this 14th chapter tells us how they moved, first of all through Crete and then across to the mainline, gone up, northwards, to Antioch and now they are moving ever so generally in an easterly direction. Through the cities of Iconium and Lystra and Derby, through the very edge of Asia Minor. And then they will return at the end of the chapter and report to God’s people at Antioch of what God has done.”

DEREK THOMAS: “They didn’t simply go wherever they felt like going. When they arrived back in the church from which they had been sent, they reported on having “fulfilled” the task appointed them (Acts 14:26).They had made a round trip of approximately a thousand miles, through the native areas of both Barnabas (Cyprus) and Paul (the region near Tarsus). In doing so Barnabas and Paul were setting the agenda for the church in every age…” (pg. 379)

SINCLAIR: FERGUSON: “And you will notice how Luke adds, the style of their preaching, Again in verse 3 they spent a considerable time there speaking boldly for the Lord…”

DEREK THOMAS: “Luke summarized what happened in Iconium using two ideas: Paul and Barnabas proclaimed the word of God, “speaking boldly for the Lord” (Acts 14:3)…”(pg. 379)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “And they preach the same message they have preached everywhere, what Luke here describes as the message of God’s grace. In verse 3 they spend a considerable time speaking and God confirmed the message of His grace. They spoke of a gospel that was free, a gospel that required no qualification. To people who were used to thinking in terms of qualifying for the grace of God. They said sinners cannot qualify for the grace of God they can only depend on God’s grace as a free gift.”

DEREK THOMAS: “How does Luke summarize it? It is “the word of his grace” (Acts 14:3). It was a gospel that was essentially free from the idea and burden of merit: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since thorough the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). The gospel requires no prior qualifications on our part. Paul and Barnabas spoke to people who has become used to thinking in terms of qualifying got the blessings of God.” (pg. 380)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: “Again in verse 3 they spent a considerable time there speaking boldly for the Lord, that’s a word that literally means “all speech”. And it is used frequently in the New Testament to designate what happens when God’s Holy Spirit fills the person who is speaking the word of God either privately or publically. There is such a sense of God’s grace and power as they speak that they are able to speak boldly for the Lord Jesus Christ.”

DEREK THOMAS: “Finally, notice the manner of their proclamation. They spoke “boldly” for the Lord (Acts 14:3). The word translated “boldly” (Gk. parresiazesthai) literally means “all speech”. It is used in the New Testament to describe the way in which the Holy Spirit fills the person who is speaking the word of God either privately or publically. There is such a sense of God’s power when they speak. There is boldness and urgency. (pg. 381)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: [14:39] You see here the word of God had been spoken about the grace of God to these people, the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Old Testament to these people and in addition to the truth of his Word God had confirmed the truth of the gospel by these miracles, these signs that the gospel was true. There was all the evidence mortal man would need to believe in Jesus Christ but they refused to believe to believe in Jesus Christ. It wasn’t that they didn’t make the connection, it wasn’t that that gospel was too difficult to understand. It was that their hearts were hardened and nothing would change them. [15;26]

DEREK THOMAS: Despite the word of grace and the confirmation of the truth by miraculous sigs they refused to believe. Their hearts were hardened, and nothing would change them. It did not matter how true it was, or how clear it was; they refused to believe.(page 382)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: [15:55] And so those who have hardened their hearts against the gospel – then do you notice stir up. In a union with others they stir up the people against the apostles. In a very strange union that you see appearing again and again in the Acts of the Apostles. Verse 5 there was a plot, a foot, among the Gentiles and Jews. These people were neither on eating terms or speaking terms. But they were joined powerfully by this hostility to the Lord Jesus Christ. Strange alliances against the word of God and the gospel of Christ are always the work of Satan [end 16:42]

SINCLAIR FERGUSON: [16;55] And those with hardened hearts who will not be alone in their heart-hardness now are not content with that but  of course want to poison the mind of those who  have begun to be drawn to the gospel.[17:09]. And like something out of Hamlet, the way in which to poison the minds of people, is to pour the poison into the ear. And they begin their little whispering and campaign, just a little drop does it. You don’t actually need to say something that’s false about the apostles. You just need to give the little hints and the result is that the plot succeeds. And the gates of hell, while they do not prevail, make it necessary for the apostle to move on.

DEREK THOMAS:Jews and Gentiles did not speak or eat with each other, and yet they formed an alliance of opposition against the gospel of Jesus Christ. Strange alliances of this kind against the work of God are always the work of Satan. Those with hardened hearts begin to poison the minds of those who have begun to be drawn to the work of God. The enemies of the gospel begin to pour poison into the ears of those how show any interest in what the apostles are saying. Just a word will suffice, discrediting the apostles, attributing, perhaps, a false motive to their message. Whatever it was collective animosity was raised against the apostles forcing them to move on. (pg. 382)

Derek Thomas does not explicitly state in the text of his commentary (as far as I can see) his reasoning for the section titles e.g. “Proclamation and Poisoning”. However, it comes directly from Sinclair Ferguson’s sermon. Ferguson remarks in his sermon at 10:10

“Now all the details of God’s work in Acts chapter 14, I think can be summed up in three pairs of words. The first pair is this – that as they visited Iconium at the beginning of the chapter their visit was marked by proclamation and poisoning - proclamation and poisoning.”

If You Aren’t The Victim

  “...Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.” Ephesians 5:15-16

If you aren't the victim, you are the perpetrator. Or so they say.

What is it with kids (men, women, actual kids, and uniquely-self-identified individuals) these days? Well, sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning say that we are in the midst of a transition of moral cultures, from a society that used to be honor based, then was dignity based, to one which is victim based.

In an honor-based society, people were obligated to maintain their reputation through direct, forceful responses to insults or slights. Think duels and such. In a dignity based culture, people maintain their dignity by ignoring insults and slights, “rising above them” and then using the force of government or other authorities to step in if things get crazy. But in a victimhood culture, the first one to cross the victimhood finish line wins! Slights and insults are to be uncovered, their naked wickedness publicly exposed and then assaulted through “empowered victims” who “are given a voice” and “a seat at the table” where they can use power to eradicate “systemic injustices.”

The implications for educational environments are already being seen. During my first undergraduate and graduate studies (1993-2001), I did not experience this approach. I reentered the education environment in 2008 for graduate studies in nursing, and I’m working on my second nursing degree now (update: finished in 2016! Now I’m a nurse practitioner in family medicine—Whoop!). At both a major private university and two public universities, I have personally witnessed the massive inroads this way of thinking has made. “Safe spaces” are being created for the student who is “triggered” by an “uncomfortable discussion.” Special educational plans are being developed for students individually, so that their special specialness is never slighted and always celebrated. Aggrievement processes and sensitivity discussions occupy a large percentage of lecture content. And “I don’t feel safe” isn’t about being mugged or raped, it’s about being “attacked” verbally, which sometimes means simply overhearing something you don’t like.

As others have noted, a victimhood culture creates perpetual conflict: drama, inefficiency, perpetual discussion and litigation.

Where does this leave us as Christians? Here are a few modest proposals for navigating this new cultural morass.

1. Be wise.
   As people around us (and we ourselves) are influenced by this way of thinking, notice it, discern when it is happening, and watch your step. Perpetual fighting, visits to HR, social media shaming, and lawsuits are in your future. So pay attention, think, be careful: “The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way, but the folly of fools is deceiving.” Proverbs 14:8

2. Don’t let this nonsense infiltrate the church.
   I have already begun to witness both within the churches and its governments the sad drift toward this approach. Is the aggrieved to be listened to more because he or she (or ze?) is more “hurt” than the one they accuse? Are we to parse the words of others to find hidden oppressive meanings and subtle “attacks” against us or whomever we are choosing to “give a voice?” Do we foster a “brokenness” culture in our churches where being a “beautiful mess” is lauded? Unless we see that this victimhood culture approach is a substitute for biblical living, we will begin to co-opt this foolish way in our lives and congregations.

Follow the Ten Commandments.
“The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul” Psalm 19:7 The way of wisdom is expressed perfectly in God’s law, and it is a light to our feet so we will sufficiently know how to live in this world. The days are evil, but the way of the righteous will prosper.

How do the Ten Commandments provide an alternative to the victimhood culture? Primarily they do this by rightly orienting all of our relationships under the saving kingship of the Triune God. Because He is our Savior in Christ, we now have the true and living God over us as our only “end game.” Our finish line is not dominance over others, by the means honor cultures, dignity cultures, or victimhood cultures offer. Our finish line is the full maturity of the complete man in Jesus Christ. The Ten Commandments lived out in faith, hope, and love point the way forward. If we believe this and are buoyed up in hope by God’s promises given to that way of life, we will navigate this cultural change just fine.

(originally posted at Torrey Gazette November 2015)

Bavinck: The Unanimous Opinion Of The Reformed Regarding Covenant Children

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4, p. 56 

“Reformed theologians unanimously agreed on the following points:

1. That the benefits of the covenant of grace were usually distributed by God in connection with the means of grace; hence regeneration is in connection with the Word;

2. That God, however, is not bound to these means, and hence he could also take an unusual route and regenerate and save especially young children without the Word;

3. That he, as a rule, worked that way in the case of children of believers who were taken by death before reaching the age of discretion;

4. That the baptized children of believers who were part of the life of the congregation had to be considered elect and regenerate until the contrary was evident from what they said and did; and

5. That this however, was a judgment of charity, which must indeed be the rule for our attitude toward these children but cannot claim to be infallible.

On the other hand, from the very beginning there was disagreement over whether the children of believers, to the extent that they were elect, were regenerated already before, or in, or only after baptism.  Some—like Martyr, a Lasco, Dathenus, Alting, Witsius, Voetius, Mastricht—tended to favor the first view.  But the majority—Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Ursinus, de Bres, Acronius, Cloppenburg, Walaeus, Maccovius, Bucanus, Turretin, Heidegger, and others—left the question undecided.”