“ Highly encouraging ” Daniel's faithfulness at such a young age is astounding. This sermon and text is highly applicable to all believers, young and old.
“ Great Sermon for PASTORS! ” I wouldn't normally do this, but I did want to recommend a sermon by a friend of mine, PCA Chaplain Jay Outen entitled "How can I pray for my pastor?" Jay preached it at our church and when I initially saw the title I was expecting something that would be intended primarily to convict *the congregation.* As it turns out, *I* ended up being the person most brought under conviction.
In the sermon Jay applies 1 Peter 5:1-5 to expose the manifold temptations Pastors are brought under, and how easily they can fall into either grave sins that will destroy a ministry or simply habitual sins that will cripple it. It reminded me in some ways of Thomas Brooks' Precious Remedies and in others of Baxter's Reformed Pastor.
Anyway, I recommned it not only because its good, but because its been my experience that men in the ministry like myself to seldom hear sermons specifically aimed at exhorting, warning, and reforming us.
Luther retained holy days honoring Christ, the Virgin Mary and the Saints in the Lutheran Church and Luther had received Christ as his Savior and yet Luther retained holy days honoring Christ, the Virgin Mary and the Saints in the Lutheran Church and Luther remained saved because having holy days honoring Christ, the Virgin Mary and the Saints is totally irrelevant in terms of salvation and gaining entrance into Heaven.
I'm not looking for an argument here and I'm almost sorry I brought the subject up becuase you appear reluctant to take constructive criticism. But by your most recent comments I trust you are not putting yourself on par with the Holy Spirit claiming that what he does in the inspiration of holy Scripture is appropriate for you or me.
This has nothing to do with egalitarianism. The only reason a Spurgeon or a Broadus is worth hearing is becuase of God's use of him. The men themselves are sinners deserving of Hell. The Bible never speaks of men who are "great" Christians. David's mighty men and even Gideon were called great for their valor and service. Jesus told the same APOSTLES who wrote much of the New Testament that they were little when it came to faith.
And, yes, my parents gave me the name Augustine when I was born.
Respectfully, I believe you are arguing for a unbiblical egalitarianism that the bible does not teach.
David did not just have "men" he had "men" and "mighty men" some of them were greater than others, and the bible even goes on to rank those mighty men according to their accomplishments (2 Sam. 23:8-39). This is not humanism, merely an acknowledgement that God gifts men differently. You yourself have tacitly acknowledged the truth of this by using "Augustine" as your online tag (unless that is really your name). By doing so, you honor Augustine, who was indeed a giant of the Christian faith.
There is a reason why we take the advice of a Spurgeon or a Broadus on preaching more seriously than the average preacher. We acknowledge that God particularly gifted them and made the mighty men of the faith in a way that he does not often do. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I am not going to deny that Spurgeon was a great preacher, any more than I would argue with the word that Gideon was a mighty man of valor.
Pastor Webb wrote: "What makes a man "great in the kingdom?" Not pomp, or titles, or ambition, but Love for God, Love for his Pure Gospel, Love for Christ, Love for His Commandments."
Absolutely!! But you chose to distinguish certain men from others by calling them great. Did you mean that they love God more than others? Why use the distinguishing title if you didn't intend to say that these men were different than others. Are there no other faithful men (or only few others) who love and serve God as much? Or are these just more famous for having drawn a crowd?
It is a shame to hold any man out as great. For all you that you wrote in your response that is correct (as Job's friends often spoke what was right, but misapplied truth) you appear to be defending a humanistic error. It sounds like you are justifying a mistake after the fact rather than admitting it was a mistake.
Surely if these men can be called great it is because they had hearts devoted to God and to the pure preaching of his gospel. For instance, Van Til, in his tribute to J. Gresham Machen wrote:
His great learning was ever in the service of the Lord.” Still further: “Dr. Machen was a great teacher.” Ministers of the gospel “must be equipped to preach the whole counsel of God in the midst of a modern, hostile world.” Dr. Machen was a great preacher.”
What makes a man "great in the kingdom?" Not pomp, or titles, or ambition, but Love for God, Love for his Pure Gospel, Love for Christ, Love for His Commandments, and a willingness to humble oneself and to serve faithfully that one might be exalted by God. I think we should thank God that he has given us great Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, and Preachers, in the past and continue to pray that he would send us more!
It is not wrong to acknowledge that a man has been greatly gifted by God or greatly used by Him or that a man has a been given a "Great Heart" for the gospel, for it is God who exalts, and God who casts down. I certainly was not saying that these men were "great" in some sense independent of God, but was commenting on the way God used them in the ministries they were given.
Is there anything wrong in saying that Spurgeon had a great faith in God? Now Spurgeon was too humble to have called himself "great" but he himself did not hesitate to call others great preachers, and I sense he would have agreed with E.M. Bounds when he wrote:
"The heart makes the preacher. Men of great hearts are great preachers. Men of bad hearts may do a measure of good, but this is rare. The hireling and the stranger may help the sheep at some points, but it is the good shepherd with the good shepherd’s heart who will bless the sheep and answer the full measure of the shepherd’s place."
Once we classify ourselves (or others) as "Great" (preachers or whatever) haven't we shown a lack of understanding for the authority of Christ and the total depravity of man?
This is not a criticism as much as it is food for thought
In answer to your original question. Calvin eschewed all the ceremonial vestments of the Roman Clergy and chose instead to wear what were for him his normal "work clothes" into the pulpit. Calvin was a teacher of theology, and therefore he wore the robes of that occupation into the pulpit, as did most of the Reformers. Although those robes are largely ceremonial for us, we need to remember that at one time that was the ordinary garb of teacher and indicated his trade as clearly as a blacksmith's garb would reveal his trade. The very act of wearing one's ordinary clothes into the pulpit was a shock for many of the people, but was in keeping with the Reformers committment to removing all the ceremonial accretions and restoring the biblical simplicity of the gospel ministry.
As John Owen put it regarding the duties of ministers: "Herein, then, alone, and not in bowing, cringing, and vestments, lies the glory and beauty of these administrations, namely, that they are compliant with and andexpressive of the institution of Christ nor is any thing done in them but in express obedience unto his authority. “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,” saith the apostle in this case, 1 Corinthians 11:23."
“ Refuting the Federal Vision, Auburn Ave. Theology ” There is a lot of useful information in this lecture. For more free resources exposing the errors of the Federal Vision / Auburn Avenue Theology please see http://www.swrb.com/newslett/FREEBOOK/DWilson.htm
It all depends on the reason for wearing special garments. If the reasons are based on the Old Testament priesthood, then there is, within that setup, a denial of the priesthood of all believers. The garments become the means for separating the "clergy" and the "laity" which is not biblical and not honouring to God. It usually also includes a salvation by works or by sacraments, which is also wrong.
Obviously, Luther had great difficulty with shaking off that which he had become used to. When you habitually wear a robe or special vestments, you do not cast them off so easily. But it can be done.
But the wearing of special garments by ministers while leading the worship services is totally irrelevant in terms of salvation and gaining entrance into Heaven. And the kind of worship service that is conducted whether it is liturgical or non liturgical is totally irrelevant in terms of salvation and gaining entrance into Heaven.
Luther kept the use of special garments for Lutheran ministers to wear while leading worship services in the Lutheran Church and Luther had received Christ as his Savior and yet Luther retained in the Lutheran Church the use of special garments for minister to wear and Luther retained the basic outline of the Mass in the Lutheran Church and Luther retained a lot of RCC doctrines in the Lutheran Church. There is nothing unscriptural about ministers wearing special garments to lead the worship service. The wearing of special garments by ministers leading the worship service is totally irrelevant in terms of salvation and gaining entrance into Heaven.
8/19/06 8:00 PM
7/28/06 9:40 AM
