I was a recent guest on the Renewalcast. Here’s the link: Renewalcast -- “Eschatology and the Reformers"
Read More
Background
One of the best-known Psalms among our contemporaries is Psalm 40. No doubt, this is because for many years the Irish rock band U2 closed out their concerts with a very moving rendition of it, in which huge audiences sang along with the band. As written, Psalm 40 reflects the author’s (David) thanksgiving for deliverance from urgent danger. In light of this sense of immediate need for deliverance of which David is speaking, John Calvin–who was very reticent to speak about himself–describes his conversion as being pulled from the mire of his addiction to the papacy, a direct reference to verse 2 of this particular Psalm. Calvin goes on to say, “God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life.”[1] In light of this Psalm’s historic importance, and current familiarity, an exposition of Psalm 40 would be beneficial.
The Book of Psalms was the hymnal of ancient Israel. The Psalter is also one of the most beloved portions of God’s word, provides Christ’s church with much of its song, and also serves as the foundation for the devotional life of God’s people. The more we know about the Book of Psalms, the greater our desire to read, reflect upon, and sing them as God’s people have done throughout the ages.
The Five Books of the Psalter
The Psalter is composed of 150 songs which reflect the entire range of human emotion, from despair to jubilation. Although the Psalter was written by different authors over the course of much of Israel’s history, most Psalms are closely tied to the life and times of David (Israel’s most prominent king). Many of the Psalms reflect Israel’s worship of YHWH during this turbulent period in the nation’s history. There are a number of different types and genres of Psalms. There are Psalms of praise, Psalms of lament (67 of them), there are imprecatory Psalms (which invoke God’s judgment on his enemies), there are messianic Psalms (which prefigure the coming of Jesus Christ), there are “enthronement” Psalms (which speak of God as king and ruler of all), there are wisdom Psalms (which reveal to us wisdom from God), and there are Psalms of trust, (which express confidence in God’s power, and in God’s faithfulness in keeping his covenant promises).[2] And then, there is the famous “shepherd Psalm,” the twenty-third Psalm.
There are also a number of names attached to the 150 Psalms (i.e., David, Solomon, Moses, Asaph, the Sons of Korah). 73 of the Psalms are ascribed to David (king of Israel). 12 Psalms are ascribed to Asaph (who was one of David’s three temple musicians, along with Heman and Jeduthun). 11 Psalms are ascribed to the Sons of Korah (who were a guild of temple singers), 3 are ascribed to Jeduthun (a Levite), 2 are connected to Solomon, as well as one each to Moses, Heman (a grandson of Samuel), and Ethan (a symbol player in David’s court and thought by some to be another name for Jeduthun). The remainder of the Psalms are unattributed. With the exception Moses, the others to whom various Psalms are ascribed are mentioned throughout the two books of Chronicles, so we know certain details about them and their service of YHWH. Even though not all of the Psalms were written by David, it is reasonable to speak, as many do, of the “Psalms of David” since the vast majority of them are ascribed to David or his known associates.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
In his essay “The Biblical Idea of Revelation” (1915), Warfield addresses the terminology associated with the divine production of Scripture. His comments here are widely known and have been very influential upon recent Bible translations and discussions of inerrancy.
Warfield addresses the common use of “inspired “and “inspiration.” He writes . . .
The Biblical books are called inspired as the Divinely determined products of inspired men; the Biblical writers are called inspired as breathed into by the Holy Spirit, so that the product of their activities transcends human powers and becomes Divinely authoritative. Inspiration is, therefore, usually defined as a supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 131; new edition 71)
The term has changed meaning over time:
Meanwhile, for English-speaking men, these terms have virtually ceased to be Biblical terms. They naturally passed from the Latin Vulgate into the English versions made from it (most fully into the Rheims-Douay: Job 32:8; Wisd. 15:11; Ecclus. 4:12; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). But in the development of the English Bible they have found ever-decreasing place. In the English versions of the Apocrypha (both Authorized Version and Revised Version) “inspired” is retained in Wisd. 15:11; but in the canonical books the nominal form alone occurs in the Authorized Version [i.e., the KJV] and that only twice: Job 32:8, “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding”; and 2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." The Revised Version removes the former of these instances, substituting “breath” for “inspiration”; and alters the latter so as to read: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness,” with a marginal alternative in the form of, “Every scripture is inspired of God and profitable,” etc. The word “inspiration” thus disappears from the English Bible, and the word “inspired” is left in it only once, and then, let it be added, by a distinct and even misleading mistranslation. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 132; new edition 71)
But “inspiration” is not the proper translation . . .
For the Greek word in this passage—θεόπνευστος, theópneustos—very distinctly does not mean “inspired of God” . . . . The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a “spiring” or “spiration.” What it says of Scripture is, not that it is “breathed into by God” or is the product of the Divine “inbreathing” into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, “God-breathed,” the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing them. No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 132-133; new edition 71-72)
You can find this and other essays here: B. B. Warfield" The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (new edition)
Read More
There are two common extremes regarding the relationship between faith and reason. The first is rationalism, which attempts to base theological claims on universal principles of reason and absolute knowledge, The second is fideism, which makes theological claims with no attempt at arguing their basis, usually in opposition to reason and knowledge.
However, “faith seeking understanding” is the proper relationship between belief and knowledge. This is consistent across the arts and sciences: in every pursuit of truth a basic interpretation of reality is presupposed.
The Christian faith is not opposed to reason, but to its suppression and perversion in unrighteousness against the truth of God. Therefore, faith must not be opposed to knowledge. Every Christian doctrine transcends reason’s comprehension, but does not contradict reasonable apprehension. A “ministerial” or “instrumental” use of reason in which God’s revelation is apprehended and interpreted is necessary to understand the basic teaching of the Bible. But a “magisterial” use of reason (in which human reason seeks to discover truth apart from divine revelation) is to be rejected. It is this magisterial use of reason against which Martin Luther railed,
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
You can order these from The Westminster Theological Seminary bookstore for 50% off. But hurry, the sale ends soon (May 5)!
The First Two Volumes of the Classic B. B. Warfield Collection
Here’s my endorsement:
“Many of us first encountered B. B. Warfield through the five Warfield volumes published by P&R from 1948 to 1958. My own Warfield volumes are thoroughly highlighted and well worn. I have purchased duplicate volumes over the years to mark up all over again. All but one of the Warfield volumes had fallen out of print, so I was thrilled to learn of the republication of this new and entirely updated version of the five-volume set. I cannot recommend these volumes highly enough or sufficiently thank the folks at P&R for bringing the ‘Warfield set’ back into print. May a new generation of readers discover America’s greatest theologian as I once did.”
Kim Riddlebarger
Visiting Professor of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California; author, The Lion of Princeton: B. B. Warfield as Apologist and Theologian
Read More
To listen to the recent interviews on Renewalcast and Pilgrim Radio, follow the link below
Read More
Arguments in Favor of a Post-A.D. 70 Dating
1). The most important reason for dating The Book of Revelation after A.D. 70 is evidence of the presence of emperor worship and the imperial cult underlying much of what takes place throughout John’s vision.
A number of texts such as Revelation 13:4-8, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4, all indicate that Christians were being forced to participate in the emperor cult in ways which violated their consciences. As Moffat once put it, whether persecution of Christians had already become widespread or not, “the few cases of repressive interference and of martyrdom in Asia Minor (and elsewhere) were enough to warn [John] of the storm rolling up on the horizon, though as yet only one or two drops had actually fallen.”[1] While the persecution of Christians in Rome was already beginning during the reign of Nero, it was not widespread until the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) or even later. As several recent studies of Nero have demonstrated, the evidence shows that persecution of Christians in Rome (and not in Asia Minor, where John was) began under Nero because he used them as scapegoats for the great fire which destroyed much of Rome, not because they refused to worship him.[2]
Important studies of the historical background of Asia Minor during this time, such as those by Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (1984), and Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, (1990), indicate that by the time of Domitian’s reign the imperial cult and emperor worship was in full-flower.[3] Although Thompson admits that Roman sources depict Domitian as an evil tyrant without exception,[4] nevertheless he proceeds to argue that persecution of Christians under Domitian’s reign was actually quite isolated and Domitian may not be the monster Roman historians made him out to be. Yet, as Thompson goes on to state, if the imperial cult preceded Domitian by “many reigns” it also continued long after Domitian was gone.[5]
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
Arguments for a Pre-A.D. 70 Date of Authorship and Responses
(1). In Revelation 11:1-12, John, supposedly, mentions the Jerusalem temple as though it were currently standing when he was given his vision.[1]
If the temple was still standing when John recorded his vision, then the Book of Revelation must have been written before the temple’s destruction at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70. The passage (Revelation 11:1-2), reads as follows; “I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, `Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.” If John is speaking of the temple in Jerusalem, and it was still standing when John was given this vision, this demands a date of composition before the temple was destroyed.[2]
Response:
The post-A.D. 70 response to the prior interpretation is to notice the highly symbolic language throughout the passage which points the reader in a direction away from that of the physical temple in Jerusalem. As G. B. Caird points out, “in a book in which all things are expressed in symbols, the very last things the temple and the holy city could mean would be the physical temple and earthly Jerusalem.”[3]
Caird goes on to note that if John is referring to the Jerusalem temple, then a rather remarkable thing is said to occur. The Gentiles, which according to the pre-A.D. 70 dating, would mean the armies of Titus (cf. Luke 21:24) occupy the outer court for three and a half years, but leave the inner court (the altar) undefiled. This, of course, did not happen when the temple was destroyed. If true, it would make much of the passage unintelligible because it lacks any historical connection to the actual events of A.D. 70. This also ignores John’s use of the symbolism of the outer court and the inner sanctuary as a reference to the church.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
Introduction
Preterism — Pre-A.D. 70 Dating:
A theological position is only as strong as its weakest point. The preterist interpretation of John’s figures of antichrist and the beast (i.e., Revelation 13) is based upon the assumption that John (the presumed author of Revelation) was given his apocalyptic vision before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A pre-A.D. 70 date allows preterists to identify the beast of the Book of Revelation with Nero, thereby limiting antichrist to the series of heretics mentioned in John’s epistles who will plague Christ’s church until the Lord’s return (1 John 2:18-22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). According to preterists, the visions given to John recorded in Revelation 13-18 lay in the past and were fulfilled before A.D. 70. There will be no future manifestation of a Nero-like beast or a personal Antichrist who will persecute the church immediately before our Lord’s return at the end of the age.
If it can be shown that the Book of Revelation was written after A.D. 70, the preterist interpretation of the beast as entirely a figure of the past becomes untenable. While the case for a future antichrist and manifestation of the beast is surely strengthened by a post-A.D. 70 dating of Revelation (through the elimination of a competing view), the case for non-preterist varieties of amillennialism (such as my own) are not dependent upon the date when the Book of Revelation was written.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
In the last year or so, there have been several significant volumes published dealing with various elements of Paul’s theology. Here’s a list of those volumes I think readers of the Riddleblog and listeners to the Blessed Hope Podcast might find useful. All of them recognize Paul as an eschatological thinker, challenge the New Perspective reading of Paul’s letters, and are rich in background and theological content.
To see the recommendations, follow the link below
Read More
Promised under the Old Testament as the Messiah who is to come as a descendant of a woman of Abraham, Judah, and David, [Jesus] is conceived in the fullness of time by the Holy Spirit in Mary (Matt. 1:20) and born of her, of a woman (Gal. 4:4). He is her son (Luke 2:7), the fruit of her womb (Luke 1:42), a descendant of David and Israel according to the flesh (Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3; 9:5), sharing in our flesh and blood, like us in all things, sin excepted (Heb. 2:14, 17–18; 4:15; 5:1); a true human, the Son of Man (Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5), growing up as an infant (Luke 2:40, 52), experiencing hunger (Matt. 4:2), thirst (John 19:28), weeping (Luke 19:41; John 11:35), being moved (John 12:27), feeling grief (Matt. 26:38), being furious (John 2:17), suffering, dying. For Scripture it is so much an established fact that Christ came in the flesh that it calls the denial of it anti-Christian (1 John 2:22). And it teaches that Christ assumed not only a true but also a complete human nature.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
The situation would surely have been hopeless had the very majesty of God not descended to us, since it was not in our power to ascend to him. Hence, it was necessary for the Son of God to become for us “Immanuel, that is, God with us” [Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23], and in such a way that his divinity and our human nature might by mutual connection grow together. Otherwise the nearness would not have been near enough, nor the affinity sufficiently firm, for us to hope that God might dwell with us. So great was the disagreement between our uncleanness and God’s perfect purity! Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator. What, then, of man: plunged by his mortal ruin into death and hell, defiled with so many spots, befouled with his own corruption, and overwhelmed with every curse? In undertaking to describe the Mediator, Paul then, with good reason, distinctly reminds us that He is man: “One mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ” [1 Tim. 2:5].
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
Why the Birth of the Savior?
All of God’s covenantal purposes converge in Jesus Christ. The Son is the eternal Mediator of the covenant of redemption which already in eternity rendered him, by anticipation, the one who would become incarnate and give his life for his people (1 Pe 1:20–21; Eph 1:4–5, 11). He is also the Last Adam, who undoes the curse of the first Adam and fulfills the covenant of creation for his elect, thereby winning the right to be not only the risen head but the resurrection-life-giving Lord. Therefore, the covenant of grace of which Christ is the mediatorial head is secured eternally in the covenant of redemption. “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him” (2 Co 1:20).
Although Israel, like Adam, failed to drive the serpent out of God’s holy garden and instead succumbed to the seduction of God’s archenemy, God pledges that he will not utterly destroy Israel but will preserve a remnant from which will emerge the Messiah who will bring an ultimate salvation and an everlasting kingdom of righteousness not only to Jews but to the nations. If the works principle inherent in the Sinai covenant stood alone, neither Israel nor the world would have any hope.
Yet even in its exile, Israel too is given the promise that its coming Shepherd will gather his scattered sheep and bring redemption to the ends of the earth. The enlargement of Jerusalem promised with the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 and 32 is anticipated elsewhere, sometimes in passages that even recast the traditional roles of the oppressor (Egypt and Assyria) as the oppressed who are delivered from bondage and taken as God’s own people (Isa 19:18–23). Isaiah 60 sets before us the vision of ships from all over the world entering Israel’s harbor, laden this time not with implements of war but with rich treasures. “Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising” (v. 3). A royal procession of the nations and their kings, into gates that never close (v. 11), echoes the Sabbath enthronement of God in the beginning, with the parade of the creature-kings before the Lord in the day-frames of Genesis 1 and 2. Psalm 2 evokes the courtroom scene, with the creature-kings arrayed before the Sabbath splendor of the Great King and his anointed one (Messiah), but in war rather than tribute, with the Great King laughing at the self-confident posturing of the earth’s rulers who reject the Messiah, yet promising salvation from this coming judgment for “all who take refuge in him.”
Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 446-447.
Read More
In an age of economic difficulties, sweeping cultural change, political upheaval and tribalism, along with with the fear generated by nuclear threats coming from Vlad the Invader, people have questions about the end times. Understandably so.
Although we find general signs of the end (i.e., wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, pestilence and famine—cf. Matthew 24:3 ff), the Bible does not give us the kind of specifics people often want. One of biggest sources of speculation surrounds a future Antichrist—Who? When?
Here we find helpful words of wisdom from Geerhardus Vos, the father of Reformed amillennialism. As Vos puts it in regard to Antichrist speculation, “2 Thessalonians belongs among the many prophecies, whose final and best exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (Pauline Eschatology, 133)
My Vos to English translation goes like this. “Many of the things we speculate about won’t become clear to us until they happen. We’ll know it when we see it. Until then, we must wait patiently!”
Yes, Jesus Christ will return to bring about the final consummation on the day appointed by God, but not on the day we might wish or expect. In the meantime, we wait and go about our mission of preaching Christ to all the nations (Matthew 24:14; 28:19-20) all the while praying with Paul (1 Corinthians 16:22), “Maranatha, Lord come!”
Read More
The Bible opens with a remarkable statement in Genesis 1:1– “In the Beginning, God . . .”
This simple assertion is packed with meaning. Some of the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith are found in this short declaration, and it is important to give them due consideration.
The first thing this passage tells us is that before anything was created, God was (Psalm 90:2). In fact, God always was, without beginning or end. Since God alone is uncreated, we speak of him as eternal. God exists before time, and is not bound by the succession of moments (time) as are we.
As the creation account unfolds in the subsequent verses of Genesis 1, we learn that the eternal God creates all things. Whatever now exists, exists only because God created it. There is no such thing as eternal matter. There is no eternal realm of mental forms (or ideas) as Plato led us to believe. There is no primordial world with an eternal convulsing of matter–ever expanding, ever contracting–as taught in much of contemporary science. There is only the eternal God who created all things, and who already was in the beginning. This indicates that nothing exists apart from the will of God, and all created things (the heavens and earth, humans as well as angels) are necessarily contingent, and depend upon God for their existence (Amos 5:8, Nehemiah 9:6).
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
Shane Rosenthal, the long-time producer of the White Horse Inn and dear friend, has developed a new podcast, The Humble Skeptic. The Humble Skeptic is highly recommended and is devoted to sane and thoughtful dialogue about religious truth claims. Be sure to check it out!
Lydia McGrew says,
Shane Rosenthal’s fascinating new podcast, The Humble Skeptic, aims to show that a Christianity founded solidly on evidence can boldly answer the “outsider test” for truth in religious matters. With an emphasis on eyewitness testimony, careful thinking, and common sense, it promises to be an excellent addition to the apologetics podcast menu.
Mike Horton says,
Shane Rosenthal’s Humble Skeptic podcast is superb! I was drawn in by the subject matter and narration of the first episode and am looking forward to hearing what’s next. Humble Skepticism — what a concept!
You can listen to the pilot episode here.
Read More
I’ve always found this definition from Charles Hodge to be succinct and helpful.
“The Father says I; the Son says I; and Spirit says I. The Father says Thou to the Son, and the Son says Thou to the Father; and in like manner the Father and the Son use the pronouns He and Him in reference to the Spirit. The Father loves the Son; the Son loves the Father; the Spirit testifies of the Son. The Father, Son and Spirit are severally subject and object. They act and are acted upon, or are objects of action. Nothing is added to these facts when it is said that the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct persons; for a person is an intelligent subject who can say I, who can be addressed as Thou, and who can act and be the object of action. The summation of the above facts is expressed in the proposition, The one divine Being subsists in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This proposition adds nothing to the facts themselves; for the facts are (1.) That there is one divine Being. (2) The Father, the Son and Spirit are divine. (3.) The Father, Son and Spirit are in the sense just stated, distinct persons. (4.) Attributes being inseparable from substance, the Scriptures, in saying that the Father, Son and Spirit possess the same attributes, say they are one in substance; and, if the same in substance, they are equal in power and glory”
From Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, I.444
Read More
From Warfield’s essay, “Christian Baptism” (Presbyterian Board of Publication 1920), reprinted in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. 1, (325-331)
Naturally, therefore, this sign and seal belongs only to those who are the Lord's. Or, to put it rather in the positive form, this sign and seal belongs to all those who are the Lord's. There are no distinctions of race or station, sex or age; there is but one prerequisite -- that we are the Lord's. What it means is just this and nothing else: that we are the Lord's. What it pledges is just this and nothing else: that the Lord will keep us as his own. We need not raise the question, then, whether infants are to be baptized. Of course they are, if infants, too, may be the Lord's. Naturally, as with adults, it is only the infants who are the Lord's who are to be baptized; but equally naturally as with adults, all infants that are the Lord's are to be baptized. Being the Lord's they have a right to the sign that they are the Lord's and to the pledge of the Lord's holy keeping. Circumcision, which held the place in the old covenant that baptism holds in the new, was to be given to all infants born within the covenant. Baptism must follow the same rule. This and this only can determine its conference: Is the recipient a child of the covenant, with a right therefore to the sign and seal of the covenant? We cannot withhold the sign and seal of the covenant from those who are of the covenant.
To read this excerpt in its entirety, follow the link below
Read More
The good folks at Tabletalk have been keeping me busy. Here’s my essay from the September 2022 issue.
Tabletalk -- "Man as a Body-Soul Composite"
Read More
Charles Hodge’s reply to Pius IX’s invitation to attend Vatican I (which convened in 1870) remains a theological gem—a classic and succinct Reformed response to Romanism. I doubt Pius IX ever actually saw it, much less read it. I can just imagine a papal secretary informing Pius in a meeting when the agenda came to correspondence received. “Your holiness, we have received a negative reply to attend the assembly from the sect of Presbyterians in America.” Who knows, it may have ended up the Vatican trash. In any case, thanks to Banner of Truth for maintaining this remarkable letter on on their website.
I simply post the first two paragraphs to whet your appetite to read Hodge’s entire reply, which he signed on behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the USA.
_______________________________________
Believing as we do, that it is the will of Christ that his Church on earth should be united, and recognizing the duty of doing all we consistently can to promote Christian charity and fellowship, we deem it right briefly to present the reasons which forbid our participation in the deliberations of the approaching Council.
It is not because we have renounced any article of the catholic faith. We are not heretics. We cordially receive all the doctrines contained in that Symbol which is known as the Apostles’ Creed. We regard all doctrinal decisions of the first six ecumenical councils to be consistent with the Word of God, and because of that consistency, we receive them as expressing our faith. We therefore believe the doctrine of the Trinity and of the person of Christ as those doctrines are expressed in the symbols adopted by the Council of Nicea AD321, that of the Council of Constantinople AD381 and more fully that of the Council of Chalcedon AD451. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are the same in substance and equal in power and glory. We believe that the Eternal Son of God became man by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, and so was, and continues to be, both God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. We believe that our adorable Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the prophet who should come into the world, whose teachings we are bound to believe and on whose promises we rely. He is the High Priest whose infinitely meritorious satisfaction to divine justice, and whose ever prevalent intercession, is the sole ground of the sinner’s justification and acceptance before God. We acknowledge him to be our Lord not only because we are his creatures but also because we are the purchase of his blood. To his authority we are bound to submit, in his care we confide, and to his service all creatures in heaven and earth should be devoted.
_______________________________________
You can read the rest here, at the Banner of Truth’s website: Charles Hodge's letter to Pius IX
Read More