Machen on Vocation

[Clark-Tillian]

For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God's Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God's service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople.

 

[Pergamum]

I misread the OP title as "Machen on Vacation" and came here to wonder where his best travel spots were....

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I misread the OP title as "Machen on Vacation" and came here to wonder where his best travel spots were....

Too, funny. Actually, I think he did at least one European tour.

 

[Wayne]

Machen would have recommended the Alps. He went there at least four, maybe five times.

Now back to the matter of vocation.

 

[ZackF]

For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God's Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God's service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople.

I wasn't aware the doctrine of vocation was lost. It's came up from the pulpit and SS classes at my Church. In the world on the other hand, the numbers game isn't pretty. To my knowledge in my workplace of hundreds I'm the only Reformed Christian.

 

[earl40]

For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God's Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God's service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople.

Not knowing much about Machen would he be speaking of common grace or saving grace? I know in my vocation I know that the task of "restoring the truth" starts with the proclamation of The Gospel which is not my vocation. Now if you have a heart attack give me a call.

 

[timfost]

For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God's Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God's service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople.

A good reminder this morning after being awake with the little ones for half the night that I have a vocation as a father and am called to serve my family. Does that mean I'm not allowed to be grumpy this morning?

 

[Peairtach]

For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God's Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God's service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople.

Not knowing much about Machen would he be speaking of common grace or saving grace? I know in my vocation I know that the task of "restoring the truth" starts with the proclamation of The Gospel which is not my vocation. Now if you have a heart attack give me a call.

We have to adorn the doctrine of Christ by our lives in fulfilling the Creation Mandate and in fulfilling the Great Commission; in fact there is an interaction between the two that pushes history forward.

This is a good book on our vocation(s) : https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Callings.html?id=yWUT95z47U4C&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y

 

[earl40]

For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God's Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God's service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople.

Not knowing much about Machen would he be speaking of common grace or saving grace? I know in my vocation I know that the task of "restoring the truth" starts with the proclamation of The Gospel which is not my vocation. Now if you have a heart attack give me a call.

We have adorn the doctrine of Christ by our lives in fulfilling the Creation Mandate and in fulfilling the Great Commission; in fact there is an interaction between the two that pushes history forward.

This is a good book on our vocation(s) : https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Callings.html?id=yWUT95z47U4C&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y

Would this book clearly define the difference in my vocation and my pastors?

 

[Peairtach]

Yes, but it would remind you that both are ordained by God.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[earl40]

Yes, but it would remind you that both are ordained by God.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

No doubt about that. This is why I hope he makes the distinction between The Creation Mandate (common grace) and The Great Commission (saving grace). Knowing when Machen lived I feel fairly confident he did indeed do such.

 

[timfost]

Yes, but it would remind you that both are ordained by God.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

No doubt about that. This is why I hope he makes the distinction between The Creation Mandate (common grace) and The Great Commission (saving grace). Knowing when Machen lived I feel fairly confident he did indeed do such.

Not sure what kind of distinction you're making. Could you point me to some reading that makes this distinction?

Thanks!

 

[earl40]

Yes, but it would remind you that both are ordained by God.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

No doubt about that. This is why I hope he makes the distinction between The Creation Mandate (common grace) and The Great Commission (saving grace). Knowing when Machen lived I feel fairly confident he did indeed do such.

Not sure what kind of distinction you're making. Could you point me to some reading that makes this distinction?

Thanks!

Nothing in particular comes to mind other than what I have learned. The distinction between common grace and saving grace in my thinking is the difference between temporal blessings and eternal blessings and how each grace serves the end purpose of our Lord. Take for instance a baker who makes bread for his fellow man. He sells, or gives, this bread to a person to eat and that would be the common grace of God benefiting that person in the temporal sense. Now take that same piece of bread and serve it this Sunday at church. That would be a saving grace that the pastor serves to the congregation for the salvation of their souls, which is eternal. Now of course it must be taken in faith to be effectual but the person who is unelect also eats the bread, and that bread they partake in would simply be common grace that only serves as a temporal benefit to him or her. The bread that the baker sells in the market is within the creation mandate to be fruitful which is common to all men. The bread the pastor serves is a saving grace to the elect which was procured by Jesus by His life, death, and resurrection. In other words, the type of grace God gives (saving or common) is based on His type of love. One type of love is based on who that creature is (a person created in His image which would be also a common love) the other type of grace would be a special love for his children which is based on Jesus and His work.

 

[timfost]

I’m not sure if we can draw as clear-cut lines between “common” and “saving” grace in the way you’ve suggested. Please let me know know if I’ve misunderstood you in any way. Here are my thoughts:

The distinction between common grace and saving grace in my thinking is the difference between temporal blessings and eternal blessings and how each grace serves the end purpose of our Lord.

Although I agree with the general thrust of what you said above, I think we also need to see the relationship between common grace and saving grace. For example, we are justified by the means of faith in God. This trust is demonstrated by believers not only in depending on Christ for salvation, but depending on God for everything, even the temporal (think fourth petition “give us this day our daily bread”). Therefore what we may characterize as a “common grace” is very related to the demonstration of our faith in Christ unto salvation (“saving grace”).

Take for instance a baker who makes bread for his fellow man. He sells, or gives, this bread to a person to eat and that would be the common grace of God benefiting that person in the temporal sense. Now take that same piece of bread and serve it this Sunday at church. That would be a saving grace that the pastor serves to the congregation for the salvation of their souls, which is eternal. Now of course it must be taken in faith to be effectual but the person who is unelect also eats the bread, and that bread they partake in would simply be common grace that only serves as a temporal benefit to him or her.

Honestly, the above makes me feel a little uneasy, at least in the wording you used. The elements in communion, as I understand them, are not “saving graces” but “means of grace” (WLC 161). The bread, for example, is the sign of the grace, not the grace itself. The Spirit uses that bread to seal/assure the elect that the reality of the grace signified in the bread is indeed real and applied. But in no way is the bread itself a saving grace. I think you would agree with this.

Is the bread a common grace to the unregenerate or reprobate? “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:29). I’m not sure if I’d want to classify this as a common grace even though the ungodly receive common grace from God for sure.

The bread that the baker sells in the market is within the creation mandate to be fruitful which is common to all men. The bread the pastor serves is a saving grace to the elect which was procured by Jesus by His life, death, and resurrection.

I’m not sure that we call the creation mandates themselves (1. marriage/procreation, 2. Sabbath rest and 3. work) graces. Strictly speaking, a mandate itself is not a grace.

In other words, the type of grace God gives (saving or common) is based on His type of love. One type of love is based on who that creature is (a person created in His image which would be also a common love) the other type of grace would be a special love for his children which is based on Jesus and His work.

Although I would agree with you that God has both a common love for all of mankind and a special electing love for His people, I think we should be careful not to reduce common grace as only belonging to the reprobate as I have explained above. Also, Calvin beautifully speaks about Christ offering Himself to all, which could very well be understood as an offer of saving grace (though admittedly He does not permit the Spirit to work faith and apply that grace in all). From Calvin’s commentary on John 12:47:

After having spoken concerning his grace, and exhorted his disciples to steady faith, he now begins to strike the rebellious, though even here he mitigates the severity due to the wickedness of those who deliberately -- as it were -- reject God; for he delays to pronounce judgment on them, because, on the contrary, he has come for the salvation of all. In the first place, we ought to understand that he does not speak here of all unbelievers without distinction, but of those who, knowingly and willingly, reject the doctrine of the Gospel which has been exhibited to them. Why then does Christ not choose to condemn them? It is because he lays aside for a time the office of a judge, and offers salvation to all without reserve, and stretches out his arms to embrace all, that all may be the more encouraged to repent. And yet there is a circumstance of no small moment, by which he points out the aggravation of the crime, if they reject an invitation so kind and gracious, for it is as if he had said, "Lo, I am here to invite all, and, forgetting the character of a judge, I have this as my single object, to persuade all, and to rescue from destruction those who are already twice ruined." No man, therefore, is condemned on account of having despised the Gospel, except he who, disdaining the lovely message of salvation, has chosen of his own accord to draw down destruction on himself.

I know that the sincere offer is hotly debated here on PB, but I wanted to do my best to speak about the overlap of common and saving grace as I understand it. Even if you would disagree with my last point as it relates to the sincere offer, I think the rest of it should be agreeable even if we disagree on the sincerity of Christ’s offer of salvation.

Hope that helps...

 

[earl40]

I’m not sure if we can draw as clear-cut lines between “common” and “saving” grace in the way you’ve suggested. Please let me know know if I’ve misunderstood you in any way. Here are my thoughts:

The distinction between common grace and saving grace in my thinking is the difference between temporal blessings and eternal blessings and how each grace serves the end purpose of our Lord.

Although I agree with the general thrust of what you said above, I think we also need to see the relationship between common grace and saving grace. For example, we are justified by the means of faith in God. This trust is demonstrated by believers not only in depending on Christ for salvation, but depending on God for everything, even the temporal (think fourth petition “give us this day our daily bread”). Therefore what we may characterize as a “common grace” is very related to the demonstration of our faith in Christ unto salvation (“saving grace”).

The eating of bread (to eat for dinner) is indeed a blessing to all. It is a common thing all receive (elect or nonelect). For the elect it is used to sustain the body for a spiritual work that will not burned up on the last day when rewards are bestowed by The Lord. This is why we shall lay those rewards, or crowns, at His feet because we know it was by a saving grace we received these reward which is eternal. The unelect gets that bread to sustain his body for a work that shall only be rewarded with punishment because they did not recognize or were thankful for the grace they received. So in essence we agree the grace one receives is either common and temporal or eternal and salvific. Though I would like to think about this for a moment in that I believe that the usual understanding is that pastors alone serve up the saving grace of God. I think we may have a good topic for another thread though I believe it has been addressed before here in another thread. I will look into this. Of course I wish not to mingle justification with sanctification though the gift of faith is the means of both.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let's not muddy the water too much here with the sincere free offer and the like. The point of the quote is the issue of vocation and a Christian having a proper understanding of what he/see is called to in terms of the command to labor for 6 days and, on the 7th, rest. It's the former that one has in mind as to what vocation one is called to labor toward.

I think this quote is particularly apt:

“How did the absence of justification lead to dysfunction in medieval spirituality? Catholics believed that they were justified in the process of being sanctified. Since sanctification is never perfect and always in peril during our lifetime, they were imperfectly assured of their salvation. Serious believers could cure this uneasiness by martyrdom, or by the bloodless martyrdom of ascetic spirituality.

Sanctification, bearing an unnatural weight because it was expected to pacify the believer's conscience, was a subject of extraordinary concern. But the ascetic method of sanctification was by amputation, not by healing. If the believer is having trouble with sex, give up sexual relations. If he or she is having difficulty with covetousness, give up private property. If he or she is tempted by power, give up independence. The monastery and the nunnery are sanctification machines that guarantee the surest victory over the sinful use of money, sex and power."

- Richard F. Lovelace, EVANGELICAL SPIRITUALITY: A CHURCH HISTORIAN'S PERSPECTIVE, JETS 31/1 (March 1998)

One of the things the Reformation recovered was a proper understanding of justification as well as the notion that work itself was not something un-spiritual and a necessary evil but good. Roman Catholic theology still sees monastic life and "amputation" of the world as the means to spiritual growth. Is it any wonder that every country that has been largely influenced by Roman Catholic theology has the reputation for laziness and a generally unproductive economy?

Luther would rail against monkery and the inherent selfishness of the monastic life and saw the cobbler who made a decent shoe at a decent price as more glorifying to God than the monk involved in seperating himself from the world so he could by holy. The reason why Switzerland became known for quality was the conviction that a watchmaker would have to answer to God for his shoddy workmanship when he might have otherwise put his God-given capacities to the best possible use.

In many Evangelical circles there is a sort of medieval spirituality at play that sees missionary work or evangelism as every Christian's primary vocation. What do I mean by this? I mean that I heard one preacher in an SBC Church state that our primary job was not being a Service member (this is why I was in the military) but was to evangelize people and tell them about the Gospel. While it is true that there is nothing in the Kingdom of this Age that is more important than the Kingdom of the Age to Come, the reality is that the work I do is under the auspices of my ultimate citizenship and so my labor here is done to God's glory so that the work I do is supped to be in faith and to God's glory. It is not the devil's world but God's world and the world is still under a Curse so that thorns and thistles still choke out some of my labors but labor itself is still good (just harder). It is through my labor that God provides for me by the gifts He supplies so that when I give to the Kingdom of God in thanksgiving it is through the blessings He has provided through my labor that is, in turn, used to His glory for the Kingdom.

 

[Peairtach]

It's quite complicated in that e.g. saving grace is not a substance but God's demerited loving purposes to the elect, but we tend to reserve the term saving grace to the powerful work of God's demerited favour in their lives at regeneration and beyond, but not before, but His mysterious saving purposes were working in their lives before regeneration.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[earl40]

Let's not muddy the water too much here with the sincere free offer and the like. The point of the quote is the issue of vocation and a Christian having a proper understanding of what he/see is called to in terms of the command to labor for 6 days and, on the 7th, rest. It's the former that one has in mind as to what vocation one is called to labor toward.

Thank you Rich, that is why I asked if he was speaking of saving grace or common grace in "restoring truth to the culture". My labor M-F is a blessing to many which does not save but a blessing or grace of God none the less.

 

[reaganmarsh]

I misread the OP title as "Machen on Vacation" and came here to wonder where his best travel spots were....

I'm glad it wasn't just me who did that...