Exclusive psalmody,Impulse buying and the cradle of college basketball.

Color me an impulse buyer if you must, but I simply couldn't help myself. I was web surfing for some executive pens and I ran across a set that had the Geneva College logo on them. I'd been meaning to get down to the campus for a while as it is. So I jumped in the car and drove the forty plus minutes and there I was. It was here that the first college basketball game took place- Geneva defeated New Brighton YMCA by a score of 3-0, on Saturday April 8, 1893.

 At any rate, it was a warm sunny day and I made my way across campus to the bookstore. It was there in the bookstore that I had an awesome encounter with the manager(who was RP) and two other patrons who were ARP.

Now I distinctly remember the Rev Billy Graham making reference to the ARP as the "real Presbyterians". That statement alone, particularly from a Baptist, could threaten to open the proverbial floodgates of tumultuous conjecture in the doctrinal circle I run in. Yet my point is that I learned at that chance encounter not only that the ARP is unilaterally not exclusive psalmist, but it's been that way since the mid 1940's. The couple proceeded to tell me of an ARP church in nearby Grove City, Pa. During the school year (as it  is college town) the worship services draw in upwards of 200 people. As exciting as that sounds, I left the bookstore less than 100 % sure if some of the liturgical architecture of their services wasn't intentionally designed to "attract" young people. Such tactics lead to the enshrinement of a "feel good" liturgy, after all.

Now to its credit, the ARP has done much in the way of "checking and balancing" its ecumenical relations and there have been some positive results. Yet much needs to be done. My purpose here is neither to exalt nor diminish the Seceder tradition. The conversation I had in the bookstore, on the other hand, dealt with the issue of exclusive psalmody and certain misnomers triggered by it that I find irksome:

• The idea that exclusive psalmody is some sort of "thumb in the dyke" which protects a church or Reformed denomination from the ravages of modernism.
• The Regulative Principle, devoid of exclusive psalmody, is the Normative.
• That exclusive psalmody was expressly by Calvin, Knox and the early reformers.
• And that the Psalms of David is the only book that contains that which we are required by God to sing in church.

Case in point:

Colossians 3:16

Let the word of Christ dwell in you plenteously in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing your own selves, in Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with a grace in your hearts to the Lord,

Now, look at the footnotes the Geneva Bible has for this verse:

 "By Psalms he meaneth all godly songs, which were written upon divers occasions, and by hymns, all such as contain the praise of God, and by spiritual songs, other more peculiar and artificious songs which were also in praise of God, but they were made fuller of music."

This does not sound like exclusive at all. Proponents of exclusive psalmody often cite this quote from Calvin to bolster their argument.

“What is there now to do? It is to have songs not only honest, but also holy, which will be like spurs to incite us to pray to and praise God, and to meditate upon his works in order to love, fear, honor and glorify him. Moreover, that which St. Augustine has said is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God except that which he has received from him. Therefore, when we have looked thoroughly, and searched here and there, we shall not find better songs nor more fitting for the purpose, than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit spoke and made through him. And moreover, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts in our mouths these, as if he himself were singing in us to exalt his glory. Wherefore Chrysostom exhorts, as well as the men, the women and the little children to accustom themselves to singing them, in order that this may be a sort of meditation to associate themselves with the company of the angels.”

Are we to infer there to be positively no other inspired songs at all? Certainly not. John Calvin was saying the Psalms of David enjoy first priority during the worship. Otherwise, his footnotes on Colossians 3:16 in the Geneva Bible would imply indecision on his part on the subject, now wouldn't it? Clearly, this "lapse" is a better testament to the overall maladroitness of the EP position. Try explaining the hymns and canticles in the Genevan Psalter, otherwise!

*There are those that would not directly attribute the notes to Calvin. Bear in mind that had they not enjoyed his imprimatur, they never would have made it in. Nor would those extra-psalmodic songs have ever been included in the Genevan Psalter.

 

Were the English Puritans and Westminster Divines opposed to hymnody in worship??

 Look at Rev Thomas Manton's commentary on James 5:13 and you tell me...

“Others question whether we may sing scripture psalms, the psalms of David, which to me seemeth to look like the cavil of a profane spirit. But to clear this also. I confess we do not forbid other songs; if grave and pious, after good advice they may be received into the church. Tertullian, in his Apology, showth that in the primitive times they used this liberty, either to sing scripture psalms or such as were of a private composure.” 

 

I refer the elect to the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 Chapter 21, Section 5

V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear;  the sound preaching,  and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:  beside religious oaths  and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions,^a which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner.     

Notice the "p" in psalms is in lower case. Clearly they meant psalms-not "The Psalms". If the Westminster Divines in England held to exclusive psalmody, what are the odds such a glaring typographical error would have been missed? Highly unlikely, indeed.



Dr John Kennedy of Dingwall, in his address to the Free Church of Scotland in 1872 said the following.

 “Some desire them (that is, hymns) because of an experience of enjoy- ment in using them, in private or in social Christian conference, to express their feeling of sorrow, hope, or gladness. Let these continue so to use them; I will yield to none in my desire to have them as a vehicle of any strong spiritual feeling that stirs my heart; but to use them in the worship of God in the sanctuary is quite another thing.”

Now, this assertion hits on another problem I have with exclusive psalmists arguments. The latently vaticanist idea that, while it may be alright to employ hymns in private worship, their use is a no-no during public worship. Shall we eat fish only on Friday with scapulars around our necks, while we're at it?

 This, admittedly, is an issue that even John Calvin wrestled with at one point. I couldn't have responded to this flagrant soteriological breach any better than The Rev Ivan Foster, a retired senior minister in the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster

It is popish to suggest that there is one level of worship for the home and a higher level for the church building. Just what level of worship would a Covenanting Conventicle be ex- pected to engage in, when meeting in a glen or on a mountainside during those years of trial? In truth there is only one level of worship acceptable to God and it is that which the Saviour indicated to the woman of Samaria. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth,” John 4:24. If hymns and paraphrases are accept- able when worshipping the Lord in the home then they are acceptable when offered in praise within the assembly of the saints. 



 

To this end, let the elect be reminded in the WCF 21:6 

Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the Gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed: but God is to be worshipped everywhere in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily,and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or wilfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by His Word or providence, calls thereunto.

Norma Normans Non Normata

Richard Albert Mohler, the great Calvinist theologian who presides over the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, used this Latin Phrase not long ago. It means "the norm of norms which cannot be normed". What Mohler was referencing was the reformers' conviction that it is the Word of God which dictates the proper course and cadence for the elect, not vice- versa.

To this end

Ephesians 5:19

 

Speaking unto yourselves in Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts,

 

Look at the footnotes for this verse in the Geneva Bible

 

With an earnest affection of the heart, and not with the tongue only

 

Earnest affection is doubtlessly the fruit of God's effectual calling/ regeneration. Clearly the reformers saw regeneration as no less Divinely ordained than the Psalms of David. It's a no-brainer; as the imputation of righteousness into the heart of King David quite necessarily preceded the Psalms of David.

 

Paul says in his letter to the church at Corinth: 1Corinthians 14:26

 

What is to be done then, brethren? when ye come together, according as every one of you hath a Psalm, or hath doctrine, or hath a tongue, or hath revelation, or hath interpretation, let all things be done unto edifying.

 

The footnotes of that verse in the Geneva Bible

 

The conclusion: The edifying of the Congregation is a rule and square of the right use of all spiritual gifts.

 

Spiritual gifts. Notice in that verse the "P" in Psalms is upper case; clearly revealing that there is much in the way of song that is not only warranted-but commanded- outside the Psalms of David! Every one of us has a Psalm...Hence, the 'priesthood of all believers'. How would one go about arguing this wasn't what the reformers contended?

 

What about the Song of Solomon?

Oft interpreted it has been as a parable for the bond of love between Christ and the Kirk. Is this improper to expound on in song during the worship service?

 

 

The great Scottish Seceder and theologian Ralph Erskine viewed  Ephesians 5:19 as a directive  to sing the Song of Solomon. Indeed, he saw it as a 'Divine precept'.

What of the inspired songs outside the Psalms of David?

If we hold the Bible to be inerrant, we egregiously err by flatly ignoring other inspired songs of holy writ, such as those found in Deuteronomy 32; Habakkuk 3; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; Revelation 4:8,11; 5:9-10, 12-13....the list goes on and I intentionally put this in bold!!

The Scriptural command for the elect to sing hymns is no less binding than that to sing the Psalms of David. Secondly, what's decadently inconsistent is that the majority of exclusive psalmists I've encountered would be lost golf tees in thick shrubbery without the accompaniment of a piano. Secondly, many have proven quick to dismiss parts of the Psalms of David; as they tell of customs, rituals and so forth that were part of the "Old Covenant". Mind you, the idea of one eternal decree of election being the harbinger of a covenantal duality is, on its face, anathema to my eschatological sensibilities as a Calvinist, as it is. Yet many of my exclusive psalmist brethren, in an attempt to galvanize their position, come across as latently dispensational; which is just as patently repulsive. Amidst the spoliation of argument, they seem to obfuscate (albeit-not deliberately) the vital distinctions between sacrament, rite, ritual; as though the terms are interchangeable. Even if they were, the WCF is clear in its 27th Chapter, Sec 5:

The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new

I then look at the glaring inconsistencies of some of the great "champions" of exclusive psalmody.

             

• James Henley Thornwell- Who was so preoccupied with distancing himself from Solomon Stoddard's latitudinarianism, he ran aground of WCF 3:3 and the Canons of Dordrecht 1 Head, Article 6. 
• RL Dabney- Who in 1849,during an interview for the Watchman and Observer in Virginia, made an analogy regarding our worship using the poetry of Robert Burns as an example. 
• John Girardeau- Who held that the murder of Abel by Cain was the harbinger of sin's entry into the world. As opposed to the fall of the race from its free will and seamless rectitude via the temptations of the serpent.

A rather bizarre 'compromise'.

Endeavoring to partition the hymns to prior to the worship service fails the proverbial smell test, as well. First of all, it tacitly promotes the idea of "differing levels of worship". Secondly, it's still the utterances of hymns in the public forum within the confines of God's House! Thirdly, it serves as a fundamental insult to the godly bequests by example of those Puritans, Westminster Divines, Covenanters and Seceders who diligently labored, with God's help and grace, to ensure the vitality and continuity of the rich, vibrant and abiding faith tradition we enjoy today. Finally, it's a slap in the face to the godly men who prayed and were led to exactitude and purpose; in the creation of the Trinity Hymnal in 1961. And...(drum roll, please)..... here's the main reason.

We are commanded to sing to the Lord a new song, as per the 96th Psalm, see also Isaiah 42:10.

It's uncanny how the exclusive psalmists conveniently neglect the 96th and 150th chapters of the Psalms of David. Again, they doubtlessly believe (at least subconsciously-many of them) the practice serves as some sort of a prophylactic against theological modernism and the cancer of moral relativism that invariably works in tandem. Now, having been in the mainline for over a fifth of a century, I more than applaud that resolve. Yet, the belief in exclusive psalmody and all the maladroitness it engenders in its defense threatens certain polarizations, itself. More importantly, it misrepresents our history and casts aside a very potent milieu through which Christ alone is praised!

PSALMS HYMNS AND SCRIPTURAL SONGS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees

“My religious beliefs teach me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time of my death. I do not concern myself with that, but to be always ready whenever it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and all men would be equally brave.”

 On May 10, 1863 at 3:15 pm, the Confederate cause sustained its most demoralizing and crippling blow. I reject the consensus of military historians who tout the Battle of Gettysburg as the turning point in the War of  Northern Aggression. I submit the real turning point was the passing from militant to triumphant of the gallant General Thomas Stonewall Jackson; who did so 150 years ago today.

Born in Clarksburg, Virginia (now WV) on Wednesday Jan 21, 1824 to the promising young Attorney Jonathan Jackson and his beautiful wife, Julia Beckwith Neale. His early years would be replete with sadness. His father and older sister Elizabeth died of typhoid fever when young Jackson was just three. His mother would wed  Blake Baker Woodson in 1830. His financial problems and disdain for his stepchildren led to Thomas and his sister Laura Ann being sent to live with maternal relations. Sadder yet, on Sunday, December 4 of the following year, Julia died of childbirth complications. She was just 33 years old.

His youth was spent tending sheep and oxen and working at the grist mill of his uncle, Cummins Jackson. It was during this portion of his young life that he began to display the unwavering resolve which punctuated his military career and especially his Presbyterian faith! He would spend countless hours reading at night by the light of burning pine knots he obtained from one of his uncle's slaves. In exchange, he taught the slave to read and write; whereupon the latter would eventually join the Underground Railroad.

This was the first in what would prove many endeavors of  genuine, heartfelt outreach to Black people..........But don't count on reading about it in any "modern" textbooks!!!

Despite being inadequately schooled, he went to West Point in 1842. Initially, academics proved a challenge, to say the minimum. He buckled down and ended up ranking 17th out of 59 cadets in 1846.
                                                             

It was during the Mexican War that he began to more acutely ponder his religious convictions. At one point, he is said to have conferred with a Roman Catholic priest. The intercessory role of priests-as opposed to the priesthood of all believers-and the hierarchical governance of the Romish church would repulse him. A few years later in Lexington, the epiphany promised to the elect would take place which led him to be a bulwark of our faith. Yet, in proper Christian humility, he never presumed to be a gauge; for that distinction belongs but to Christ!

While in Lexington he taught at the distinguished VMI. Disciplined and no nonsense, much of his curriculum remains taught to this very day. Admittedly, there was a slight flaw. He would commit various texts and material to memory and recite in class ver batim. At times, there were instances of cadets asking him to merely elucidate, which he took as insubordination. It got to a point that in 1856 a group of alumni spearheaded an effort to have him removed from the faculty. Little became of their efforts, as Jackson's supporters greatly outnumbered his detractors. He was lauded by many parents of cadets for his implacable devotions to country and plenary morality!

His esteem was loftier yet among the Virginians of African descent; having taught regular Sunday school classes for the young of that community, who referred to him lovingly as "Marse Major". The classes would run so well that the pastor, the Rev. Dr. William Spotswood White would say:

"In their religious instruction he succeeded wonderfully. His discipline was systematic and firm, but very kind. ... His servants reverenced and loved him, as they would have done a brother or father. ... He was emphatically the black man's friend."

During the War of Northern Aggression, he would become known as a disciplined cavalry commander who drilled his soldiers almost relentlessly. In battle, he was known to lift his hand; which was interpreted by many to be an entreaties to God for victory! He was never so enmeshed in duty that he couldn't witness for Christ!!................. Yet, his survival of the war was not deigned.

Gen Smith of the Virginia Military Institute communicated the sorrowful intelligence of his death in this manner:



Adjutant General's Office Va.
May 11th 1863

Major Gen. F.H. Smith
Supt., Virginia Military Institute
Sir:

By Command of the Governor I have this day to perform the most painful duty of my official life in announcing to you and through you to the Faculty & Cadets of the Virginia Mil. Institute the death of the great and good--the heroic and illustrious Lieut. General T.J. Jackson at 15 minutes past 3 oclock yesterday afternoon.
This heavy bereavement over which every true heart within the bounds of the Confederacy mourns with inexpressible sorrow--must fall if possible with heavier force upon that Noble State Institution to which he came from the battle-fields of Mexico, and where he gave to his native state the first years service of his modest and unobtrusive but public spirited and useful life.
It would be a senseless waste of words to attempt a eulogy upon this great among the greatest of sons who have immortalized Virginia. To the Corps of Cadets of the Virginia Military Institute, what a legacy he has left you, what an example of all that is good and great and true in the character of a Christian Soldier.
The Governor directs that the highest funeral honors be paid to his memory, that the customary outward badges of mourning be worn by all the officers and cadets of the Institution.

By command, W.H. Richardson, A.G.
By Command of Major Genl. Smith. A.G. Hill, Actg. Adjt., V.M.I

                                        His clay rests in Virginia in the joyful hope of the rapture.

Now that a century and a half has passed since his departure for the Kirk Triumphant, we need to more closely guard the legacies of mortal vessels like Jackson as never before. As the revisionists exhaustively endeavor to destroy any vestige of moral absolutism, it follows in thought they in tandem work to besmirch the promulgators of these truths. This is magnified in Jackson's case; as he raised his sword for a cause blatantly falsely portrayed by revisionist historians with Guevaristly sinister agendas. Consequently, it is abysmally misunderstood by the majority today! To put it another way with no pun intended, the causes for the bloodiest war in America's history were not all black and white.

What would General Jackson think of the modern state of Presbyterianism?

That's an open and shut one, now isn't it? He doubtlessly would praise God for how marvelously the faith has been established in Latin America, Africa and Asia. In point of fact, had God allowed him to see the war's end, his plan was to travel to Africa to do mission work there. The state of Protestantism in the mainstream on the other hand would have caused his blood to boil. As prohibitively difficult as it may have been for him to envisage the heterogeneity of post-modern America, he would not have accepted it as an excuse for the enshrinement of Scriptural declension and feel good liturgy designed to pacify-if not entertain the occupants of the pews on Sunday morning; effectively reducing liturgy in the virtual whole of the mainstream to an Arminian freak show!

A Most Vital Exegesis From the Stated Clerk of the Ohio Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

                                 

This is a man whose friendship I regard as no less than a fruit of election. At Nashua Presbyterian Church, he serves our congregation as teacher and is the Stated Clerk of the Ohio Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. His father before him numbered among J Gresham Machen and those that were mindlessly castigated and defrocked by the mainline denomination for their refusal to contribute to the poisoning of our faith with baseless, un-catechised modernism. During my examination for membership at Rev Miller's house, Rev DeVelde posed an elemental question to me that nearly threw me off. He asked me "Eric, Who is Jesus?" Such is the level of implacable commitment to proper Christology in the heart of this powerful warrior! It became reassuringly clear to me that the OPC is a lot more concerned with the Lordship of Christ and the transforming power of the Gospel than scholasticism!....Indeed, I was led to a genuine hearth............


This is one of his classic messages to the end and aim of making Christ the sole focus of worship....and...yes, I was in attendance.

                                                      The Preeminence of Christ
                                                SERMON By Everett C. DeVelde 


August 20, 2012
                                            TEXT: Colossians 1:15-23 PROP:

 Christ alone is the Mediator and Reconciler of mankind. Because He is absolutely pre-eminent we cannot be casual, flippant or careless about our relationship to Christ nor can anyone but Christ be the head of His church. Colossians 1:15–23 (ESV) — 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. 
I.  
Christ is preeminent because He is the Creator. II.  Christ is preeminent because He is the Head of the Church. III. Christ is preeminent because He is the Reconciler of all things. 
The person and work of Christ is very seriously misunderstood and misrepresented in the world today. Islam which is so frequently mentioned in the media represents Christ as a human prophet inferior to Muhammad. But so was Jesus misrepresented in the days of the Reformers, Calvin, Luther and Zwingli. Going back farther in time we will recall that the person and work of Christ was the central issue in the Nicene Council, which council published the Nicene Creed in 325 AD. Going back to the time of Christ, we will recall that Jewish leaders often tried to kill Him. Was He not crucified because He came to His own and His own received Him Not? His own people did not believe that He was the Messiah. They did not believe that the Carpenter of Nazareth was Very God of Very God.
- 2 -  
The Scriptures teach us, using the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.” But the humanity of Jesus is greatly distorted in today's world. Sinful human beings prefer to believe that Jesus is just a man. Mary Magdalene, in the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar doesn't know how to love Him. Do I take Him down, she sings? Or is the reason I don't know how to love Him that He is homosexual? Perhaps you are thinking that Jesus Christ Superstar is not all that bad with its compelling music. Perhaps you even find yourself siding with poor Judas as he sings, "My god I am sick, I've been used and you knew all the time. I'll never ever know why you chose me, Christ. You're so bloody, Christ. You have murdered me. Poor old Judas. So long Judas."
This modern music distorts and misrepresents Christ as a mere man, effeminate and powerless. So do the so called pictures of Christ contribute to the His misrepresentation. He is thus represented as only a human being, a kindly teacher perhaps, but only a man. How could it be otherwise? How can you represent the Very God of Very God with an artist's brush or camera? Paul writes, Acts 17:29 (ESV) — 29 “Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.” In the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism, we are not to make, "any representation of God, of all or any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever." (Question 109) 
This precept is no different today than it was in the days of the Reformers. Thus Calvin would have no musical instruments in his churches nor could there be any art or images in the church. The Roman Catholic church, the foil against which the Reformers reacted, was replete with images, art, musical instruments, bells, holy water, conjuring of spirits, crossing, signing, anointing, litany, relics, altars, days, vows, purgatory, masses for the dead, prayers to the dead, etc., using the words of the National Covenant of Scotland. And these things continue today.
Christ indeed was a true man, but having said that, we must hasten to add that He was a sinless man, and that's quite a difference from the popular concept of Jesus. It is a comfort to know that Christ subjected Himself to our sorrows that He might be a sympathetic High Priest, yet without sin! He, to put it bluntly, became a man in order to die, to shed His blood for the sins of His people. So when we think of Christ as a man, we must always think of him in that context. It is not that Jesus was just a good Joe, a good friend, a nice guy, all of which He
- 3 -  
was, but He became man for the primary purpose of saving His people from their sins. The blood that was shed for the remission of sins was real human blood but it was also the blood of God. Paul speaks of the blood of God in Acts 20:28 where he said to the Ephesian elders, Acts 20:28 (ESV) — 28 “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” 
We need to be cautioned concerning the misrepresentation of Christ through distortions of His humanity. Indeed, Jesus is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. He is the glorified Son of God. He is the Prince and Savior that God exalted to His right hand, to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. He is preeminent.
I. Christ is preeminent because He is the Creator.
When we put together from scripture what we know of Christ, it is His deity, His radiance of the glory of God, His exact representation of God's nature that confronts us. His awesome majesty and preeminence fills the pages of holy writ. We see Jesus, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. The preeminence of Christ is certainly in the forefront of Paul's thinking as he pens his epistle to the Colossians. Speaking of Jesus he writes, Colossians 1:15 (ESV) — 15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” 
He is the prototokos (πρωτότοκος) of all creation. Not that He had a beginning or that He was born before anyone else but that Jesus is the best example, the preeminent one of all creation. He is preeminent. The word prototokos throughout the Bible and other Greek literature almost always refers to supremacy rather than the time frame for physical birth. And here in Colossians 1:15 it refers to "Christ who is the Mediator at creation to whom all creatures without exception owe their creation." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol VI, p 878). In verse 18 prototokos refers to Christ as the best example of those that have been raised from the dead. He is prototokos or "first-born" meaning that He has first place in everything.
Concerning Jesus, Paul writes, Colossians 1:16–17 (ESV) — 16 “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” 
In the clearest language possible to mankind, Paul speaks of the power and preeminence of the Lord Jesus Christ. He also writes of Jesus in Hebrews,
- 4 -  
Hebrews 1:2 (ESV) — 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. And John writes of Jesus, John 1:3 (ESV) — 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 
So Jesus clearly is the creator. He is the heir of all things because He is God, not because He was Mary's first child. He is the heir of all things in the sense that He is great David's greater Son, at once David's root and David's offspring, David's creator and David's Son. Revelation 22:16 (ESV) — 16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” 
No mere human superstar is this Jesus but the bright morning star of the churches and of all creation. Here is the one from whom all who are thirsty can drink the water of life without cost. The Jesus of Superstar is confused and homosexual and the Jesus of Godspell is crucified on a chain link fence dressed in a Superman costume. How many of us like to roll the juicy morsels of that sort of music around on our tongues? How many tend to think of Jesus in those terms, even a little bit? I tell you that the Reformation must continue in us today. We must continually bring our thoughts and actions back into conformity to the Bible, to God's Law.  Jesus must be to us as He is presented in Scripture or we cannot be saved.
While we are here in our text, what do you think of the statements made by Paul of Christ that He is the creator of all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible and that it is through the continuous providential activity of Christ that all things hold together? When you favor the prevailing theories of science such as the big bang or evolution or even theistic evolution you are buying into a Christ that is less than the creator and provider of all things. Most of what passes for education in our world today presents an earth and universe that Christ did not create from nothing by the word of His power. The Christ of secular education is certainly not the Creator God. He is just a man. He is a superstar, a superman. If Paul’s statement of the preeminence of Christ means anything to us we should be moved to re-examine our personal view of the person and work of Christ. It should move us to repent from sin and drink from the water of life freely such that Christ is our bright morning star, our life and our salvation.
II. Christ is preeminent because He is the Head of the Church.
So then Jesus is preeminent because He is the creator, but now let us see that He is preeminent because He is the head of all things. Paul continues
- 5 -  
Colossians 1:18 (ESV) — 18 “And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.” 
Jesus is head of what He created. That is to say He is the head of all earthly dominions and all spiritual dominions. He told His disciples Matthew 28:18–20 (ESV) — 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” 
Given that the name of the triune God is YAHWEH we infer from this text in Matthew 28 that Jesus has the covenant name YAHWEH which is above all names everywhere. We are to teach all that Jesus commands because to teach what Jesus commands is to teach what God commands. We are to teach the church to observe all that Christ commanded us to do because He alone is the head of the church, her Husband and Redeemer.
Paul writes to the Ephesian church regarding Jesus that He is, Ephesians 1:21–23 (ESV) — 21 “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” 
So clear is this doctrine in Scripture that Christ alone is head of the Church that no one has any reason whatever to usurp the authority of Christ by claiming to be His vicar. The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church claims to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ. As such he is said to be the head of the Church. Christ did delegate certain authority to the elders of a particular church but never did He designate a personal representative to rule His church in place of Himself. The Bible teaches much to the contrary, 1 Timothy 2:5 (ESV) — 5 “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” And in view of the scriptures in Colossians and Ephesians, that the Pope is Christ's vicar, has no basis whatever.
This issue was a major consideration of the Reformation. Martin Luther, for example, attacked papal abuse and usurpation in 31 of his 95 theses. He attacked the claim of the Pope to the authority to forgive sins, or remit guilt. And of course there was the blasphemous usurpation of Christ's authority seen in the Pope's indulgences. The Pope claimed that he could guarantee the forgiveness
- 6 -  
of certain sins even before they were committed. This is no trivial matter because it strikes at the very heart of the doctrine of salvation. The scriptures teach clearly, Ephesians 2:8–9 (ESV) — 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” The Pope has no contribution whatever to make to our salvation nor any power to affect it one way or the other. Luther goes on to say that no pope possesses greater graces or powers than those declared in places such as I Corinthians 12, which is to say that the Pope has no more power or authority than anyone else in the church. Much less is he the Vicar of Christ.
The Ten Conclusions of Berne published in 1528 say much the same thing as Luther's Theses. The first conclusion states for example, "The holy Christian Church, whose only Head is Christ, is born of the word of God, and abides in the same, and listens not to the voice of a stranger." The pope of Rome is such a stranger. It goes on to affirm that Christ is the only wisdom, righteousness, redemption, and satisfaction for sin. Furthermore, that as Christ alone died for us, so He is also to be adored as the only Mediator and Advocate between God the Father and us. The Roman Catholic Church has long affirmed the doctrine that Mary the mother of Jesus is "co-redemptrix" with him. In fact a cross has been observed in Rome with Christ on one side and Mary on the other.
The original form of our own Westminster Confession of Faith, in the chapter on the Church (XXV), contains what is perhaps the strongest statement of its kind regarding the Pope of Rome. It states, "There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God." The present OPC version omits the reference to the antichrist. I hasten to take note of the fact that this issue has by no means diminished in its importance to the modern church of Christ. Some of our own young men would have us return to the authority of Rome and bow the knee to the present so called Vicar of Christ. (Scott Hahn, who once attended Covenant OPC Grove City) 
Nothing has changed, however, with regard to the papacy therefore we must conclude with the reformers that the present Pope is very much an antichrist and man of sin because he continues to deny the authority of scripture and lays claim to be the head of the church. So you see that the authority of Christ was a central issue in the Reformation and continues to be a central issue in our modern world. This too is not a trivial matter because our very salvation depends on a right relationship to Christ. Paul wrote, Romans 10:9–10 (ESV) —
- 7 -  
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” 
Without confessing that Jesus is Lord (YAHWEH) we cannot be saved. We must continually be reforming our relationship to God and to His Christ. When we sin, when we give what belongs to Christ the Creator to one of His creatures, we need to repent anew and turn to Christ again for forgiveness.
III. Christ is preeminent because He is the Reconciler of all things.
We have seen the preeminence of Christ in that He is the Creator and Head of His church now Paul's final point in this portion of Colossians is that Jesus is preeminent because He is the Reconciler of all things. Paul writes, Colossians 1:19–20 (ESV) — 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” 
Now Paul cannot be referring here to universal salvation. He is not saying that it is the Father's good pleasure to save all things, and why is that? For “all things” to mean universal salvation it would include the devil and his kingdom and we know that one day the sea and death and Hades will give up their dead to be judged according to their deeds. These will be thrown into the lake of fire along with anyone whose name is not found written in the book of life (Revelation 20 13-14). Surely the enemies of Christ will not be saved because according to I Corinthians 15:24 he will put His enemies under His feet. In John 8, Jesus tells the Pharisees that they are of their father the devil. Then there is Judas who, Jesus Christ Superstar notwithstanding, is in hell today because he sinned against the Thrice Holy God and would not repent, certainly not because he only did what Jesus wanted him to do and that Jesus was unfair and confused. To believe in universal salvation is to throw justice out the window, to say nothing of the Day of Judgment spoken of in Matthew 25.
What then is the meaning of the reconciliation of all things? Christ, the Reconciler of all things, is unifying a people for God. In order to unify a people for God Christ must powerfully bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer regenerating, sanctifying, washing them and preparing them for glory as a bride for her wedding day. The reconciliation of all things consists in the church of Christ. It consists of a system of justice and righteousness that is pleasing to God. His people have been bought and the devil has been defeated all because
- 8 -  
Christ who is very God of Very God has brought it to pass. Jesus is preeminent as the creator, head of His church and the reconciler of all things.
We are often careless with our view of Christ and we by nature do not bow the knee to Jesus as God of Gods and Lord of Lords. But we are also careless with our relationship to the church of Christ which he has reconciled to God with his own blood. We tend to draw away from a strong and vital relationship with the body of Christ which he has established on earth and through which he provides and maintains the means of grace. God raises up pastors and teachers in his church to maintain and preach his word. They administer the sacraments and urge us and teach us to pray. 
We must not be flippant, casual or careless with our relationship to Jesus because He is preeminent beyond our ability to conceive of it. Let us continue in our faith, firmly established and steadfast, and not be moved away from the hope of the gospel that we have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven.