The Lord's Supper Part 1 - The Roman Catholic View

Ever since I partook of the Lord's Supper for the first time when I was 14, I have had a keen interest in studying and learning about this sacrament in the New Covenant.  Like most significant doctrines in Christianity, there are a long list of disagreements over this Supper, disagreements ranging from discussions over the presence of Christ in the sacrament, to the question over who could participate (only professing believers versus believers and their children, a.k.a. paedocommunion), and the effects that come from a faithful participation in this sacrament.  Because of the variety of opinions, I decided to try and get a brief synopsis of some of the major views in the Christian church, written by their respective adherents.  So I picked up this book:

The Lord's Supper; Five Views 

 

The editor, Gordon T. Smith compiles essays from five seminary professors: a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, a Reformed, a Baptist, and a Pentecostal.  These five denominations represent the majority of the groups of believers who call themselves Christians.  I really benefited from this book and wanted to share some of the key statements of each position with you all.  I have tried to be brief but because of the number of views, the original post was tediously long.  So, it seemed good to me to break this down into three parts: the first being the Roman Catholic position, the second being the Lutheran, and the third being the remaining three views and my conclusion.  With that introduction out of the way, here is the first position on the Lord's Supper!


1)  Roman Catholic - written by Brother Jeffrey Gros
     The Roman Catholic position is best summed up in the word "transubstantiation".  This doctrine was and continues to be a hallmark of the Catholic doctrine of the Lord's Supper.  The 1994 Roman Catholic Catechism defines transubstantiation as follows:

"By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change in the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood."

Some key quotes from the essay in the book are taken from page 18,
"The Catholic theologians emphasize the importance of affirming the real presence of Chris and the change of the elements of bread and wine.  The doctrine of transubstantiation has been used to give a theological articulation to this faith.  Although other explanations of this presence would be possible, none has yet been approved by the Catholic Church."  (emphasis added)
             I add the emphasis to bring out another key aspect to Catholic doctrine, the necessity of affirmation by a Church council (most notably the Council of Trent) or a pope.  Additionally, the Catholic doctrine of the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist as they call it) brings into light the idea of "re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice":
"In addition to re-presenting Christ's sacrifice, the Eucharistic sacrifice perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross: At the Lord's Supper, on the night He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood.  This He did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the ages until He should come again..." (The Lord's Supper; Five Views, page 19)
               While Roman Catholics vehemently deny that this belief takes away from the final and complete nature of Christ's atonement, they nonetheless uphold the idea that Christ's work is supplemented by the sacrament, a doctrine which we Protestants repudiate.



If you enjoyed reading this article, check out my second article on the Lutheran position!

The Lord's Supper, Part 2 - The Lutheran View

Ever since I partook of the Lord's Supper for the first time when I was 14, I have had a keen interest in studying and learning about this sacrament in the New Covenant.  Like most significant doctrines in Christianity, there are a long list of disagreements over this Supper, disagreements ranging from discussions over the presence of Christ in the sacrament, to the question over who could participate (only professing believers versus believers and their children, a.k.a. paedocommunion), and the effects that come from a faithful participation in this sacrament.  Because of the variety of opinions, I decided to try and get a brief synopsis of some of the major views in the Christian church, written by their respective adherents.  So I picked up this book:

The Lord's Supper; Five Views 

 

 

The editor, Gordon T. Smith compiles essays from five seminary professors: a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, a Reformed, a Baptist, and a Pentecostal.  These five denominations represent the majority of the groups of believers who call themselves Christians.  I really benefited from this book and wanted to share some of the key statements of each position with you all.  I have tried to be brief but because of the number of views, the original post was tediously long.  So, it seemed good to me to break this down into three parts: the first being the Roman Catholic position, the second being the Lutheran, and the third being the remaining three views and my conclusion.  With that introduction out of the way, here is the second view on the Lord's Supper!

2) Lutheran - written by John Stephenson

   The Lutheran position bears some resemblances with both Reformed positions and, strangely enough, the Roman Catholic position.  Luther and his theological heirs created and coined the term "consubstantiation" in order to express their unique doctrine of Christ and the Lord's Supper.  The Lutheran Confession (The Book of Concord) defines consubstantiation as follows:
"The Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself." (emphasis added).  While this view may look very close to Roman Catholicism, there is a subtle difference in the word "under".  My understanding of this complex doctrine is that Christ's body and blood truly come and infuse the bread and the wine, so that the believer really does consume the Lord's body and blood.  The analogy is used of a bar of iron which is placed in the furnace.  The heat surrounds the bar of iron, infusing it with energy and making it hot and turn bright red.  Thus Lutherans believe that they consume Christ literally yet in a distinctly different way from the Roman Catholic position.  Personally, I think the line is very fine, but if they insist on the difference, so be it.
    Some key quotes from the essay are taken from page 50,
"For Luther - and the Book of Concord - the sacramental presence is realized in the divine service at the consecration of the elements, which occurs through the celebrant's pronouncing the words of institution over the elements 'in Christ's person and name.'  We speak the divine, almighty, heavenly, and holy words which Christ Himself spoke at the supper with His holy lips and commanded us to speak.  For as soon as Christ says, 'This is My body', His body is present through the Word and the power of the Holy Spirit.  If the Word is not there, it is mere bread; but as soon as the words are added they bring with them that of which they speak."  This is why the Lutheran Church has such a carefully laid out liturgy for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
"Luther insisted that the Lord's body and blood are not present in the same way as the elements themselves, occupying space and bounded by it.  Rather, the body and blood are supernaturally present and in such a way that each tiniest portion of consecrated bread and wine is the Lord's whole body and whole blood." (The Lord's Supper; Five Views, page 52)
Finally, and perhaps here the difference between Lutherans and Catholics is most clearly shown, Lutherans do join the rest of their Protestant brothers in affirming the once-for-all nature of Christ's sacrifice.
"To the extent that Roman Catholics teach that the celebrant actively offers the really-present body and blood [of Christ] to the Father for the living and the dead, Lutherans react in horror that 'synergism' has swamped what we call the 'divine monergism'.  That is to say, man is now cooperating towards his own justification, rather than simply passively receiving the fruits of the work uniquely and solely accomplished by the God-man, Christ Jesus."  (The Lord's Supper; Five Views, page 53) With this statement, we can breathe a little easier around our Lutheran brothers, though we still have significant disagreement with them over Christ's presence in the Supper.


If you enjoyed reading this article, check out my third article on the remaining three positions! 

The Lord's Supper, Part 3 - The Reformed, Baptist, & Pentecostal Positions

Ever since I partook of the Lord's Supper for the first time when I was 14, I have had a keen interest in studying and learning about this sacrament in the New Covenant.  Like most significant doctrines in Christianity, there are a long list of disagreements over this Supper, disagreements ranging from discussions over the presence of Christ in the sacrament, to the question over who could participate (only professing believers versus believers and their children, a.k.a. paedocommunion), and the effects that come from a faithful participation in this sacrament.  Because of the variety of opinions, I decided to try and get a brief synopsis of some of the major views in the Christian church, written by their respective adherents.  So I picked up this book:

The Lord's Supper; Five Views 

 

 

The editor, Gordon T. Smith compiles essays from five seminary professors: a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, a Reformed, a Baptist, and a Pentecostal.  These five denominations represent the majority of the groups of believers who call themselves Christians.  I really benefited from this book and wanted to share some of the key statements of each position with you all.  I have tried to be brief but because of the number of views, the original post was tediously long.  So, it seemed good to me to break this down into three parts: the first being the Roman Catholic position, the second being the Lutheran, and the third being the remaining three views and my conclusion.  With that introduction out of the way, here is my final article on the Reformed, Baptist, and Pentecostal positions!

3) Reformed - written by Leanne Van Dyk
     This position is the one held by yours truly, so I naturally enjoyed this article the most.  Basically, the historic Reformed position can actually be subdivided into three types: Parallelism advocated by Heinrich Bullinger, Memorialism advocated by Ulrich Zwingli, and Instrumentalism advocated by John Calvin.
Memorialism is by far the most common in Protestant circles (both Reformed and non-Reformed).  Simply stated, memorialism is "a symbolic or representational approach.  The bread and wine indicate a spiritual reality, and the Holy Spirit is active in the sacrament as the Spirit is in the whole life of the community of believers.  But the sacrament is primarily a sign that points beyond itself tot he reality of the risen and ascended Christ." (The Lord's Supper; Five Views, page 68-69)
Heinrich Bullinger took Zwingli's position just one step further, trying to bring harmony between Zwingli and Calvin.  He believed that the Lord's Supper, "'is an holy action instituted unto the Church from God, wherein the Lord, by the setting of bread and wine before us at the banquet, doth certify unto us His promise and communion, and sheweth unto us His gifts and layeth them before our senses.'  The affirmation of divine gracious activity in the Lord's Supper signals an important difference from Zwingli, who understood the [church] congregation, in its acts of dedication and gratitude, to be the primary subjects in the sacrament." (The Lord's Supper; Five Views, page 72)

Lastly, and this is the position that I adhere to, Calvin systematically laid out the idea of the Lord's Supper being an instrument of grace; one of the means of grace.
"Calvin has three primary affirmations on the Lord's Supper.  First, Calvin affirms the divine origin of all goodness, all graces, all gifts.  The Lord's Supper is a gift of God for the purpose of supporting and nourishing the faith of the community of believers...Second, the Lord's Supper always points beyond itself to Jesus Christ...Third, the prominent role of the Holy Spirit....For Calvin, everything depends on the Spirit.  Neither sermon nor sacrament will point to Jesus Christ without the action of the Holy Spirit."  For Calvin, the mere memorialism of Zwingli failed to capture the true power and nourishment of which Christ spoke when He said that, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." (John 6:53).
"Calvin made a bolder sacramental claim, that although Christ is in Heaven, we are nourished in the Lord's Supper by His body and blood as the food of our souls, united to Him in the Spirit....The Lord's Supper is not under the control of the church, the minister, or the people.  Instead, the grace of the Lord's Supper is always a fresh gift of God through the Holy Spirit."
(The Lord's Supper; Five Views, page 78-79)
In closing, we of the Reformed persuasion hold that "the holy Supper we are about to celebrate is a feast of remembrance, of communion, and of hope...We celebrate in remembrance for the past revelation of God throughout history and especially in Jesus Christ.  We celebrate in communion by being united to Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.  We celebrate in hope by glimpsing in the sacrament a foretaste of the great heavenly banquet, when all saints and angels together will join in the praise of God.  In this way, the congregation truly receives the gifts of God for the people of God." (The Lord's Supper; Five Views, page 82)

4) Baptist - written by Roger Olson
Whenever one tries to encapsulate a Baptist position, it is daunting due to the wide variety of Baptists (over 56 varieties in the USA alone) and the independence of each church.  There is no one confession which can be appealed to (as the Westminster Confession for Presbyterians) or one body or head which issues definitive declarations (the Pope for Catholics).  But a general definition can be given.  Mr. Olson proposes this definition,
"The almost constant theme of...baptist confessional statements is that the Lord's Supper is a memorial or commemoration that also has the effect of bringing the believer into encounter and union with Christ through the Holy Spirit when faith is present.  There is little or no hint of anything special about the elements beyond their symbolic representation of Christ's death and proclamation of His return." (The Lord's Supper; Five Views, page 100)
"Thus the Lord's Supper is a way of communing with each other and with Christ; it is a communal event of memory and proclamation that strengthens the unity of the church.  There is no special priesthood that officiates; any believer can lead in the Lord's Supper as a priest unto God...so the Lord's Supper draws faithful participants closer to Christ and each other." (The Lord's Supper; Five Views, page 108)  This is basically Zwingli's memorialism, which I mentioned earlier.

5) Pentecostal - written by Veli-Matti Karkkainen
    You might be surprised that the Pentecostal churches have a distinct doctrine of the Lord's Supper to the Reformed and Baptists.  The truth is that there is very little difference and what difference does exist is challenging to identify as the Pentecostal church is still in the process of defining their theology of the Lord's Supper.  However, this statement from the United Pentecostal Church International Articles of Faith seems to encapsulate the views pretty well:
"We do not believe superstitiously that the bread and wine actually become the physical body and blood of Christ, nor do we believe that there is any virtue in the physical elements themselves apart from their power as figures to point us to the deeper reality which they typify.  We do believe, however, that an act of faith in partaking of the elements results in the real operation of the Spirit in us to strengthen us in the inner man and to heal us in our physical bodies.  We, furthermore, believe that the reality which the Lord's Supper signifies is our daily 'bread' of which we partake day by day." (emphasis added, The Lord's Supper; Five Views, page 124)  I added emphasis because the healing nature of the Lord's Supper is something which the Pentecostals bring out in their worship service more so than any other Protestant denomination.  Oftentimes, this phrase will be used during the Lord' Supper, "There is healing at the Table!".

-Conclusion-

Hopefully, those of my readers who persevered to this point will be glad to see that my conclusion is brief.  All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this little book (148 pages total).  My understanding of my own beliefs about the Lord's Supper was greatly improved and I felt that I was able to get an overview of the five most common belief systems of this sacrament, written by the men (and woman) who wrote their articles.  Reading a Roman Catholic explanation or Lutheran explanation of the Lord's Supper helps you avoid constructing straw men and incorrect assumptions about their beliefs.  As always, we must go back to the Scriptures when we try to state what we believe about the ordinances of God.  Lastly, I would urge all my readers not to lose sight of the awe and reverence we should have for this gift of God, despite all the disagreement.  To quote The Lord's Supper; Five Views, one last time...
"The two disciples on the road to Emmaus declare, 'We had hoped that He was the one to redeem Israel.' (Luke 24:21), and in response Jesus does two things: He explicates for them the story of redemption, the story of the cross, and then He meets them in the breaking of the bread.  From the moment of despair, Jesus takes His disciples to the Word and then to the Table.  At the Lord's Supper, we do look back, remembering the once-for-all gift of salvation in Christ Jesus.  And in this meal we are conscious of present realities...But it is vital that we also remember that the Lord's Supper is an act of anticipation.  It is but a foretaste of a meal that is yet to come.  In times of despair and disillusionment, this meal is God's unique gift through which we remember that evil and darkness do not have the last word.  We are increasingly made one with Christ as we abide in Him, and we are made one with one another in the fellowship of the Spirit.  And in this event, in the practice of the Lord's Supper, we surely know that evil does not have the last word!"

"While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.' And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.'"  Matthew 26:26-28

John Calvin and the Trinity

Over the past month, I have set out to read through John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion

As I have been reading this phenomenal defense of orthodox Christianity, I can understand now why it has stood the test of time.  The thoroughness, richness, reverence, and simplicity of style which Calvin wrote the Institutes makes it a foundational book of systematic theology for the Christian layman and minister alike!

I currently am in the middle of Calvin's section on the Trinity and I wanted to share some of the quotes which impacted me the most.

To begin with, it should be stated why we must study the Trinity.  Calvin says,

"Moreover, Satan, in order to tear our faith from its very roots, has always been instigating great battles, partly concerning the divine essence of the Son and the Spirit, partly concerning the distinction of the Three Persons.  He has during nearly all ages stirred up ungodly spirits to harry orthodox (true and right) teachers over this matters and today also is trying to kindle a new fire from the old embers.  For these reasons, it is important...to resist the perverse ravings of ungodly men."  (Book 1, pages 144-145)

Mormons, Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnesses anyone?  In order to stand strong for the truth against our sometimes well-equipped opponents, we have to "know our stuff".  If you need more reasons, check out my earlier post about 10 reasons to study the Trinity.

 
Additionally, whenever we probe into the mystery of the Trinity, we absolutely must maintain a strong sense of caution and reverence.  God reveals Himself to us and opens our eyes to comprehend who He is.  That said, there is a limit to what our finite minds can grasp and inevitablely every single Christian must cease his inquiry and simply believe.  Here is an excellent atittude which every student of the Trinity should possess:

"...[this] passage from Gregory of Nazianzus vastly delights me:
'I cannot think on the One without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the Three, nor can I discern the Three without being straightaway carried back to the One.'" 

It is always useful, when dealing with a difficult doctrine, to clearly set forth what we do affirm and confess.

"Therefore, let those who dearly love soberness, and who will be content with the measure of faith, receive in brief form what is useful to know: namely, that when we profess to believe in one God, under the name of God is understood a single, simple essence, in which we comprehend three persons...

Therefore, whenever the name of God is mentioned without particularization, there are designated no less the Son and the Spirit than the Father; but where the Son is joined to the Father, then the relation of the two enters in; and so we distinguish among the Persons." (Book 1, page 144) 

Lastly, one of the trickiest aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity is the unity of the Trinity while also maintaining the distinctness of the Persons.  Three in One, without confusion or contradiction.

                           -The Relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit-
"...this distinction is so far from contravening (conflict with) the utterly simple unity of God as to permit us to prove from it that the Son is one God with the Father because He shares with the Father one and the same Spirit; and that the Spirit us not something other than the Father and different from the Son, because He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son.  For in each hypostasis (any of the persons of the Trinity) the whole divine nature is understood, with this qualification - that to each [Person of the Trinity] belongs His own peculiar quality.  The Father is wholly in the Son, the Son wholly in the Father, even as He Himself declares, 'I am in the Father, and the Father in Me' (John 14:10)....

Augustine well and clearly expresses the cause of this diversity in another place, when he speaks as follows:

'Christ with respect to Himself is called God; with respect to the Father, Son.  Again, the Father with respect to Himself is called God; with respect to the Son, Father.  In so far as he is called Father with respect to the Son, He is not the Son; in so far as He is called the Son with respect to the Father, He is not the Father; in so far as He is called both Father with respect to Himself and Son with respect to Himself, and Son with respect to Himself, He is the same God.'

Therefore, when we speak simply of the Son without regard to the Father, we well and properly declare Him to be of Himself; and for this reason we call him the sole beginning.  But when we mark the relationship that He has with the Father, we rightly make the Father the beginning of the Son." (Book 1, pages 143-144)

I hope that these passages have increased our understanding and reverence for the awesome and mighty God whom we serve.  The hidden things (and aspects) of God and His character belong to Him.  But the revealed truths, found in Scripture alone, are for us and for our children (see Deut. 29:29) 

If you would like to find a short and condensed, but highly informative and refreshing study of the Trinity, check out Bruce Ware's book, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

 

Dr. R.C. Sproul & Reformed Theology!

As the month of January draws to a close, I wanted to update all of our blog followers on how things are fairing for the Stanton out in Missouri.  I'm pleased to report that the pastoral internship is going very well and that we have successfully completed our second book; "The Christian Ministry" by Charles Bridges.  It was by far the most comprehensive and practical book of pastoral theology I have ever read and I'm looking forward to reading it again in the years ahead.

That said, I am also very excited about the new book the intern class is beginning.  Transitioning from pastoral theology to distinctly Reformed theology, we will be working our way through R.C. Sproul's book, "What is Reformed Theology?"

So far, we have read up to chapter 4.  I would highly recommend this book to all of you!  For one thing, Dr. Sproul has such a talent for explaining very hard and complex doctrines so very simply.  It really feels as if the whole doctrine is unfolding before your mind's eye as Sproul writes.  God has definitely given him an incredible gift of teaching ability and communication skills!

Dr. Sproul begins the book with an important distinction: what is theology? Is theology different from religion? Dr. Sproul very convincingly argues that there is a night and day difference between the study of religion and the study of theology.

"There is a profound difference between the study of theology and the study of religion.  Historically the study of religion has been subsumed under the headings of anthropology, sociology, or even psychology.  The academic investigation of religion has sought to be grounded in a scientific-empirical method.  The reason for this is quite simple.  Human activity is part of the phenomenal world.  It is activity that is visible, subject to empirical analysis...To state it more simply, the study of religion is chiefly the study of a certain kind of human behavior...The study of theology, on the other hand, is the study of God.  Religion is anthropocentric; theology is theocentric.  The difference between religion and theology is ultimately the difference between God and man." - Dr. R.C. Sproul, "What Is Reformed Theology?", pages 10-11

As Christians, we can and should study the other world religions.  One main reason why is so that we can be equipped to speak accurately when we portray the false ideas and systems of the other beliefs in this world.  But we should never equate this examination of other religions with the study of our God, who alone is the one and only true God, most blessed forever! 

After restoring that important distinction, Dr. Sproul reminds his readers that Reformed theology is unique in that it "applies the doctrine of God relentlessly to all other doctrines, making it the chief control factor in all theology."  Every doctrine that has been marked as being part of the systematic Reformed doctrine is formed in light of the doctrine of who God is and how He has revealed Himself to us.  Predestination, sovereignty, perseverance of the saints, total depravity, limited atonement (or as Sproul likes to call it, Christ's Purposeful Atonement), and the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture all stem from and are built off of the doctrine of God.

One final lesson that I learned from Dr. Sproul which I wanted to share with you all, was the ways in which we make statements about God.  Dr. Sproul taught that there are three ways in which the Church makes declarative statements about God:

1) Way of Negation (via negationis) - Defining something by saying what it is not.  An example of this is the declarative statement that God is infinite.  By this statement, because we are finite, we declare what God is not (God has no end and no beginning) since we cannot express what infinity is positively.  Therefore we make negative assertions (infinite is not....).
2) Way of Affirmation (via affirmatas) - Defining something by making positive assertions.  An example of this is the declaration that God is holy, sovereign, and just.  These are all positive assertions of God's character.
3) Way of Eminence (via eminentia) - Defining or describing God by elevating His communicable attributes (the attributes which He created us to be able to imitate, i.e. justice, mercy, truthfulness) to the ultimate degree.  As an example, we say that God is the perfect expression of truth, love, holiness, and righteousness.

I hope these excerpts from Dr. Sproul's book have been helpful and instructive!  As I mentioned before, I would highly recommend this book both to the new student of Reformed theology, but also to the person who has been in the Reformed camp for many years.  This book will provide a refreshing review and explanation of the doctrines which makes us distinct and biblically sound.  Since we know that the human heart is a factory of idols, pumping out vain imaginations as fast as the day is long, we need to be constantly studying who God is because, as John Calvin said,

"So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods.  But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being He is, and how absolite the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness, will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom, will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy, will be condemned as the most miserable impotence."

"The people who know their God will display strength and take action." - Daniel 11:32

Respectable Sins

Yes, you read the title of this post correctly :)  Last Lord's Day, I was loaned this book

 by one of the men at Covenant Family Church.  He wanted me to give him my thoughts about it.  So, I went ahead and wrote up a review of this little book by Dr. Jerry Bridges called, "Respectable Sins; Confronting the Sins We Tolerate".

Joel's Review - January 14th, 2013

The title of this book first caught my attention.  “Respectable sins?” I thought, “I have to read this book!”  This was the first book by the author Dr. Jerry Bridges that has come across my desk, so I wasn’t really sure what to expect.  However, I can now confidently assert that this book is a fantastic read for any Christian man or woman!  First off, this book passed with flying colors my two basic litmus tests for any Christian book that I read:

1) Does the author possess and write from a worldview that is shaped by the belief of the sovereignty of God?

2) Does the author rely upon Scripture first and foremost as the chief authority, and does the author quote the Scriptures often? 

I am pleased to announce that Dr. Jerry Bridges met and exceeded those two basic tests in his thought-provoking book.  In “Respectable Sins; Confronting the Sins We Tolerate”, Dr. Jerry Bridges asks the probing question, “Are there sins in our life that are not only allowed to remain in our lives unhindered, but have we even ceased to be consider them as being really sinful?”  Dr. Bridges continues by laying out his case that the world always tries to remove the idea of sin from its vocabulary and society.  This shouldn’t surprise us as we know that unsaved men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”.  But when Christians, men and women who have been given new natures in Christ Jesus our Lord, stop calling sin in our own lives as sin, we have massive problems.  But before Dr. Bridges begins gently applying the surgeon’s knife to our consciences, he lays out the solution; the Gospel.  This is one of the reasons I enjoyed this book so much!  Dr. Bridges makes the point that the Gospel is for sinners, not just for unbelievers.  So rather than berating ourselves over the sins that we discover have become “respectable” in our eyes, Dr. Bridges instructs us to run to the cross and cast ourselves upon the inexhaustible mercies of God, trusting that “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus”.  

After laying out the problem and the solution, Dr. Bridges takes a deep breath and then plunges unreservedly into the sins which are increasingly viewed as more acceptable in the modern evangelical church.  And keep in mind, my Reformed friends, that we are just as susceptible and guilty as our evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ.  Dr. Bridges confronts the sins of anxiety, discontentment, anger, bitterness, resentment, envy, a critical spirit, and selfishness, just to name a few.  In each chapter, he carefully inspects the smaller, more subtle expressions of these sins which often lurk in the lives of Christians.  At the end of the day, Dr. Bridges explains, all of these “respectable sins” come from one root sin: ungodliness.  I really liked how Dr. Bridges developed the idea of ungodliness being a source of all the varied ways in which we still express our sin natures.  He defined ungodliness as “living one’s everyday life with little or no thought of God, or of God’s will, or of God’s glory, or of one’s dependence on God.”  Having laid that definition out, Dr. Bridges goes on to make one of the best arguments for the Reformation principle of “Soli Deo Gloria” that I have ever read.  At the end of the day, whether our “respectable sin” happens to be an occasional outburst of anger, selfish behavior, lack of self-control, anxiety, discontentedness, etc., our practicing of that sin demonstrates that we are not concerned first and foremost with bringing God glory and living our life to please Him.

Now, at this point, you might be wondering, “Dr. Bridges sure is making a big deal about small stuff.  Is he advocating perfectionism or something?”  The answer is emphatically no!  Dr. Bridges is first to recognize that perfection is not possible or achievable even as a Christian.  Instead, Dr. Bridges maintains that we are to strive to be more Christ-like and to “make no provision for the flesh”.  This means that we are to confront ALL areas of sin in our life, including the areas that might seem small or acceptable.  Dr. Bridges summed it up best by writing,

  

“When we sin, when we violate the Law of God in any way, be it ever so small in our eyes, we rebel against the sovereign authority and transcendent majesty of God.  To put it bluntly, our sin is an assault on the majesty and sovereign rule of God.  It is indeed cosmic treason…The damage to God’s glory by our sin is determined not by the severity of our sin but by the value of God’s glory.”   

But thanks be to God that He has sent His Holy Spirit to not only convict us of these “respectable” sins, but also to produce in us the peaceable fruits of righteousness and the blessings of freedom from those sins! 

So, in closing, I would highly recommend this book to Christians of all ages.  I would especially recommend this book to second and third generation Christians (I myself being a second generation believer) as we can often times become complacent in our very moral and law-abiding upbringing.  This book will cause you to recognize just how sinful we still are and, hopefully, motivate you (as it did me) to confess and repent of these “respectable sins”.  As Dr. Bridges said,

“Remember that our progressive sanctification – that is, our putting off sin and putting on Christlikeness – rests on two foundation stones: the righteousness of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit…Remember, if you are united to Christ, God sees you clothed in His perfect righteousness.  And always look to the Holy Spirit to enable you to deal with the sin in your life and to produce in you the fruit of the Spirit.”

Soli Deo Gloria!