Petrus Van Mastricht on Good Works

Petrus Van Mastricht gives a scriptural basis on how to evaluate whether particular actions are good works or not.

For their constitution these three things are conjointly required:

1. that they flow forth from a regenrate or renewed heart (1 Tim. 1:5; Matt. 12:35), because a bad tree cannot bear good fruits (Matt. 7:18), and that which is born of the flesh is nothing but flesh (John 3:6), just as from a depraved heart proceeds nothing but depraved thoughts (Matt. 15:19); and not only from a regenerate heart, but also from a believing heart, or from faith unfeigned (1 Tim. 1:5), because without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6); indeed, that which does not result from faith, however attractive it may be, at least before God is sin (Rom. 14:23), and our best works, apart from Christ apprehended by faith, in the divine sight are nothing but menstrual rags (Isa. 64:6). For unless that imperfection which adheres to our best works is mended by Christ's pefection, and that impurity which adheres to them from our natural impurity is covered by the purity of Christ's righteounsess, they are an abomination to God in which sense it is said that apart from Christ we can do nothing, namely, that is pleasing to God (John 15:5); but we are in Christ, and, are united with him, bu faith (Eph. 3:17).
2. That they be directed by us to the glory of God as the ultimate end(1 Cor. 10:31; Matt. 5:16; John 15:8; Phil. 1:11), by lack of which works of the Pharisees and other hypocrites, however otherise atttracteve, are rejected by Christ (Matt. 6:2, 5; 23:5). Not tha it is precisely necessary that this glory of God always be actuallly intended (although this also, as much as can be ought to be done carefully by those perfomring the works), but that the virtual and general ultimate goal of all our works ought to be the glorification of God (1 Cor. 6:20).
3. That they be supplied according to the prescription of the divine law (Gal. 6:16, ; Isa. 8:20; Deut 4:2; Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:22). For if they are not prescribed by him they do not render an obedience pleasing to God; for which reason God says, "Who has required this from your hand? (Isa. 1:12).

(Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: The Application of Redemption and the Church, Volume 5, pp. 259,260)

Petrus Van Mastricht commenting on "Justification of Those to be Redeemed"

Mastricht in his Theoretical-Practical Theology uses the "scapegoat" sacrifice outlined in Leviticus 16:21 to good effect. Here is the passage from Leviticus. In the passage, Mastricht quotes verse 16:21, but here is the surrounding verses to provide more context.

Leviticus 16:20–22
“And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. (ESV)

Mastricht laid out 4 misuses of the doctrine of justification of the believer. The fourth misuse is to "act as unjust accuser against ourselves (Rev. 12:10)." Here is Mastricht's encouragement.

Therefore instead, what the priest once did with the living goat, we should do with Christ. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel" (Lev. 16:21), in which rite the Jews observe these three things, that: (1) he had upon it both hands, and in addition with all his strength stirred up: (2) nothing at all came between the hands of the priest and the head of the sacrifice; (3) he confessed over it his sins and the sins of all Israel, saying, "Lord, I have sinned and I have committed this or that iniquity, but I turn back to you and bring the sacrifice of expiation, and I beg you, Oh good God, to accept it." So also we ourselves should lean with both hands upon Christ, and cast all our sins upon him, at least to the point that after faith we fear no actual condemnation for ourselves.

(italics mine)
(Theoretical-Practical Theology: The
Application of Redemption and the Church, Volume 5, p. 216)

Portray Christ Crucified

I came across John Piper's comments on Galatians 3:1 in his book Reading the Bible Supernaturally. I want share a few observations. Here's the verse:

Galatians 3:1
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

The are two main verbs in this verse "bewitch" and "portray." Strong's Lexicon defines "bewitch" as

βασκαίνω -- I give the evil eye to, fascinate, bewitch, overpower. (Strong's Lexicon)

The Galatians' rejection of the gospel was so surprising that Paul compared their falling away as the Galatians being bewitched or hypnotized. What they were rejecting was spelled out in the following paragraph: they rejected salvation by grace alone. They started to believe that even though they were saved by faith, their continued salvation demanded a righteousness earned by acts of the flesh, which was exemplified by circumcision. They were rejecting the core of the Gospel.

The Galatians surprised Paul because he worked hard at portraying Christ through his preaching and writing. Portray is a powerful word. It is defined in Thayer's Expanded Definition as

προγράφω -- to depict or portray openly ..., before whose eyes was portrayed the picture of Jesus Christ crucified (the attentive contemplation of which picture ought to have been a preventive against that bewitchment), i. e. who were taught most definitely and plainly concerning the meritorious efficacy of the death of Christ, Galatians 3:1. Since the simple γράφειν is often used of painters, and προγράφειν certainly signifies also to write before the eyes of all who can read (...), I see no reason why προγράφειν may not mean to depict (paint, portray) before the eyes; ...

(https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/4270.html)

Two signficant preachers expand upon the application of this verse.

Martin Luther quotes Galatians 3:1c and then comments
"Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you." As if he said, no painter with his colors can so lively set out Christ unto you as I have painted Him by my preaching; yet you remain most miserably bewitched. What did I then paint? Even Christ Himself. How was that that done? In this way, that He is crucified in you or among you."
(Commentary on Galatians: Modern-English Version, p. 128)

John Piper:
This “portrayal” came with words, not pictures. But it was so real, and so vivid, that Paul said it was an appeal to their eyes—“before your eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed." They saw the peculiar glory of Christ in the preaching of the gospel. (Reading the Bible Supernaturally)

In 1 Corinthians 2:2, Paul wrote:

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.(ESV)

The goal of Paul in his preaching and writing is to make Christ and his cruxification known to his audience. To get the message across, Paul took time to make Christ's life and death on the cross vivid and real. U. S. Presidents hire artists to paint their Presidentail portrait. The goal of the painter is to make the president known to the viewers. However, painters take license, planning, and effort to portray the personality of the president and the perception of the president by the public. A portrait is more than a mere photograph. The painter wants the viewer to interact with the painting in order to clarify the viewers' inderstanding of the person of the president and the meaning of his presidency. The want the viewer to grok the president.

Paul realized that portraying Christ as crucified was necessary to keep the Galatians from heresy. Paul continued in the rest of his letters to carefully explain the beauty of Christ and the work he accomplished on the Cross.

In the modern day, if our preaching does not exalt Christ through portraying Him crucified before eyes, we have diminished the office of preacher. Our preaching needs to be carefully crafted with this intention in mind. As receivers of the Word, we must demand better if the preachers are not preaching with proclaiming Christ alone as their goal. Heresy is a misunderstanding of who Christ is. Preaching is the main weapon to combat heresy.

Spiritual Disciplines and a Godly family

The Question
A prominent christian leader was asked by a young man how did you get such a great and obedient wife and daughter. The leader replied that the questioner should pursue the spiritual disclipines such as prayer, phone fasts, media fasts, reading the word, etc. This sounded reasonable at the time, but as I mulled over the answer, I became dissatisfied with it. The answer fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of spiritual disciplines and of marriage. This blog post is my response to the answer. I have a few caveats before I start.

First, it was an off-the-cuff answer to a random question from an audience member after a speech. The spiritual leader's answer had to be short and to the point. I am not sure I could have done any better. Although, I am sure he was asked this type of question all the time.

Second, as far I as know the leader was not a trained pastor nor did he claimed to be one. What gave his views on the Christian life import was the success of his ministry and marriage. We should double-check anyone who gives this type of advice, but especially leaders who head parchurch ministries or political movements

Third, I am not bashing spiritual disciplines, on the contrary,I strongly encourage them but spiritual disciplines can be practiced with wrong motives or expectations.

In this blog I will state a short answer to the question, a long answer to the question, and my objection to the leader's view of spiritual gifts.

Short Answer
My short answer would be I thank God for my wife and family. Proverbs 19:14 states that a "prudent wife is a gift from the Lord." A godly wife is a undeserved blessing. You cannot earn a godly wife. A godly wife is not a reward for a life that zealously practices the spiritual gifts or a life given over to sacrificial service to a ministry. If you are single, pray for a godly wife. Use godliness and prudence as qualities you look for in a wife. If you are married, then realize God placed you in this marriage. Praise God for your marriage. Pray for wisdom in how to seek God in your marriage and how to love your wife more.

Long Answer
My long answer would be that the questioner was asking the wrong question. The question should be, "How do I love God through loving my wife more?". The purpose of marriage is not to make the spouses comfortable and happy. The purpose of marriage is to glorify God in their interactions with each other and with God.

Ephesians 5:22–33
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (ESV)

Where people go awry in understanding this passage is that they tie the commands together. They make the command to the wife and the command to the husband dependent on one another. For example, if my husband loves me, I will respect him. Or likewise, if my wife is respectful, I will love her. However, the command to respect their husbands is not just when the husband is loving her; but at all times. Likewise, the husband is to love his wife all the time, not just when she is being respectful. God gives no promise to husbands and wives if they are obedient that their spouses will be come godly. Peter intimates in 1 Peter 3:1 that God may graciously use the humble behavior of the wife to win over her husband, but this is far from a promise. God wants the spouses to love each other sacrifically and unconditionally as Christ loved the church.

To illustrate my point I turn to the Old Testament. There are two examples of godly men having ungodly wives in the Old Testament: Hosea and Job. Hosea's wife was a prostitute who kept cheating on him. Job's wife, urged Job to curse God and die (Job 2:9) after Satan took away their possessions,children, and Job's health. Furthermore, there is an example in the Old Testament where a very foolish and ungodly man had a prudent wife. In 1 Samuel 25, Nabal refused to pay David for David's protection of Nabal's herds. Abigail had to step in to save Nabal's employees and possessions. Nabal was saved from David's retribution, but God struck him dead shortly thereafter. Job, Hosea, and Nabal may be rare examples, but they highlight my thesis that God does not promise a godly wife to a godly man. These examples reinforce the truth that God is sovereign overall and specifically sovereign in your marriage.

Who knows if the aforementioned spiritual leader intentionally implied that the practice of spiritual disciplines would cause God to make one's spouse godly or one's marriage happy. He may not have meant that implication, but his answer leads to that inference. Scripture shows us God designed marriage to glorify Himself. Our pursuit of God involves our treatment of our spouses in our marriage.

Spiritual Disciplines

1 Peter 3:7
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (ESV)

Note prayer is a spiritual discipline. The efficacy of a husband's prayers is dependent on how he treats his wife. There is an interdependency between one's overall obedience and the practice of the spiritual disciplines. The practice of spirtiual gifts is not a deal with God that if I practice these habits, then God will make my life comfortable and provide me with a godly wife and family. On the other hand, God may use spiritual disciplines faithfully practiced to help bring believers through difficult times in the life.

The practice of spiritual disciplines is a grateful response to God for what God has already done for us in Christ's death and resurrection. Godly living will help you escape the snares of foolish living. For example, debauchery does not lead to happiness, pornography does not lead to a fulfulling sexual relationship with one's spouse, and greed does not lead to the joy of abundant giving. Spiritual disciplines are biblically informed habits to guide you into a deeper and more profound relationship with God. A married couple practicing the spiritual disciplines together with the right attitudes will pave a way to deeper relationship with God and with each other.

The Resurrection

The following passage in 1 Corinthians 15 has been used effectively in apologetics: arguments to persuade the unbeliever that the Christian world view is reasonable. However, this approach misses the point of the passage. Paul's intention for the passage seems to be slightly different. Paul is writing to the believers at Corinth that the physical reality of the Christ's resurrection should effect change in every aspect of their lives. Let's look at the passage.

1 Corinthians 15:1-19
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Gordon Fee points out in his commentary that this passage is actually correcting the view of some of the believers in Corinth: they were denying the importance of the resurrection. Gordon Fee points out the importance of historical events that were witnessed on Easter is to reaffirm the importance of Christ's resurrection and thus, confirming our hope of our future resurrection in our daily lives.

Gordon Fee
There is a place for apologetics, that is, the defense of Christianity to the unconverted; but Easter is not that place. Easter, which should be celebrated more frequently in the church, and not just at the Easter season, calls for our reaffirming the faith to the converted. The resurrection of Christ has determined our existence for all time and eternity. We do not merely live out our length of days and then have the hope of resurrection as an addendum; rather, as Paul makes plain in this passage, Christ’s resurrection has set in motion a chain of inexorable events that absolutely determines our present and our future. Christ is the first fruits of those who are his, who will be raised at his coming. That ought both to reform the way the way we currently live and to reshape our worship into seasons of unbridled rejoicing. (Fee, p. 760)

Paul's point is that if the reality of our future bodily resurrection is false, then Christ's resurrection did not happen, thus why live for Christ?

Gordon Fee
His point, of course, is that he is indeed crazy to put his life in constant jeopardy for the sake of others, if neither he nor they have hope in the resurrection. But even more, this sentence also indicates the absolute central and crucial place that Christ’s resurrection played in his life. One must remember throughout that to deny the resurrection of the dead meant to deny the resurrection of Christ (vv. 12-19), which meant for Paul the denial of Christian life altogether. Thus everything Christians do a Christians—and especially the labors of an apostle—are an absurdity if there is no resurrection. (p. 768)

The reason we can live sacrificially and boldly for the Gospel is because our physical lives on earth is not all there is. We have eternal reward in heaven if we seek Christ now. We can have joy through suffering because God allows us to know him better through suffering and furthermore, we know will be with God with our physical bodies through all eternity.

The New International Commentary of on the New Testament: The First Epistile to the Corinthians

Favorite Movies

To Kill a Mocking Bird (1962, Robert Mulligan)
Seven Samurai (1954, Akira Kurosawa)
The Third Man (1949, Carol Reed)
Citizen Kane (1941, Orson Wells)
Twelve Angry Men (1957, Sidney Lumet)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957, David Lean)
A Christmas Carol (1951, dir. Brian Desmond Hurst)
King Kong (1933, Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack)
The Maltese Falcon (1941, John Huston)
The Searchers (1956, John Ford)
The General (1926, Clyde Bruckman, Buster Keaton)
Network (1976, Sidney Lumet)
Shawshank Redemption (1994, Frank Darabont)
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966, Sergio Leone)
Unforgiven (1992, Clint Eastwood)
The Sting (1973, George Roy Hill)
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939, Sidney Lanfield)
Rear Window (1954, Alfred Hitchcock)
The 39 Steps (1939, Alfred Hitchcock)
Parasite (2019, Bong Joon Ho)
The Natural (1984, Barry Levinson)
Young Frankenstein (1974, Mel Brokers)
To Be or Not to Be (1942, Ernst Lubitsch)
Rashoman (1950, Akira Kurosawa)
My Man Godfrey (1936, Gregory La Cava)
The Thin Man (1934, W.S. Van Dyke)
Lincoln (2012, Steven Spielberg)
Fiddler on the Roof (1971, Norman Jewison)
Singing in the Rain (1952, Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly)
Spirited Away (2001, Hayao Miyazaki)
Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Love the Bomb (1964, Stanley Kubrick)
Duck Soup (1933, Leo McCarey, Marx Brothers)
Mary Poppins (1964, Robert Stevenson)
City Lights (1931, Charlie Chaplin)
The Gold Rush (1925, Charlie Chaplin)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, Steven Spielberg)
Chinatown (1974, Roman Polanski)
Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott)
All the President's Men (1976, Alan J. Pakula)
Schindler's List (1993, Steven Spielberg)
Casablanca (1942, Michael Curtiz)
The Princess Bride (1987, Rob Reiner)
Gunga Din (1939, George Stevens)
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938, Michael Curtiz and William Keighley)
The Great Escape (1963, John Sturges)
Chariots of Fire (1981, Hugh Hudson)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957, Billy Wilder)
Anatomy of a Murder (1959, Otto Preminger)
The Big Sleep (1946, Howard Hawks)
Moneyball (2011, Bennett Miller)
The Big Short (2015, Adam McKay)
The Graduate (1967, Mike Nichols)
Annie Hall (1977, Woodie Allen)
Shane (1953, George Stevens)
Rocky (1976, Sylvester Stallone)
Goldfinger(1964, Guy Hamilton)
To Sir, with Love (1967, James Clavell)
A Man for All Seasons (1966, Fred Zinnemann)

Equality with God

I have been reading A New Testament Theology (revised edition 1993) by George Eldon Ladd. I am in the section where Ladd is covering the apostle Paul's theology. He is trying to define how Christ, "emptied himself" in Philippians 2:

Philippians 2:5–7
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (ESV)

Ladd highlights the difficulty of understanding what "emptying himself" means. He points out that "a guideline may be found from the implicit comparison between Christ and Adam" (p. 744). Here's the key passage in Genesis 3:

Genesis 3:1–6
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Adam and Eve chose to take what is not theirs to obtain equality with God. Compare this approach with how Christ lived on earth, "Christ emptied himself by taking the the form of a servant." Christ's example is proclaiming God's glory through faithful, humble service. Humans try to obtain equality with God by trying to obtain glory for themselves by grabbing glory that is not theirs.