Search

Search this blog


You’ve probably seen it already, but some sermons never get old. Goose bumps were made for this.


View Comments

Comments:


32 thoughts on “That’s My King!”

  1. abf says:

    So powerful and yet humbling.

  2. Wow, first time I’ve seen this – thanks for posting. Hallelujah, that’s my King!

  3. Tim says:

    Your King is James Caviezel? I thought you were referring to Jesus Christ. For real, what’s the deal with promoting the use of false images of Christ? To be sure the words of truth contained in this video is powerful and very moving but the false representations of Christ were distracting and, dare I say it, sinful.

  4. Simon says:

    Tim I’m sorry you found offense. I take your point, it could be distracting. Personally I was happy to listen to the video without watching and was deeply touched.

    That sermon is what you call unction in action. Thanks for sharing KdY.

    And yes….that’s my King!

  5. I don’t care what he’s saying, it’s just so moving to hear him speak that way!

  6. Josh says:

    Tim: I think the images are only symbolic of the Person about whom Lockridge is preaching. Would you have a problem with the video if only Renaissance paintings were used instead? Those are still, if you want to be very technical, “false images.” The movie clips or the paintings are all just aids for our imagination; I doubt anyone is worshipping the actor that played Jesus in the “Passion of the Christ” as a result of this video.

  7. Greg says:

    Hallelujah! Thanks for posting, goosebumps were in a plenty. Praise Jesus!

  8. That’s the first time I’ve ever seen it. And goodness. You were right about the goosebumps.

  9. Wow, daunting thing for a preacher to hear before he preaches his Easter sermon!

    Makes me wonder if I’ve ever truly preached.

  10. J. Dean says:

    I like the content, but the emotionalism of the preacher got in the way of it.

  11. Brad says:

    A reminder to GCers who consider themselves “Reformed” – the Larger Catechism says this type of imaging is plain wrong:

    Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
    A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

  12. Paul Sanders says:

    And my question is for Brad – for those of us who would hold to many aspects and tenets of reformed theology, but don’t believe that the Larger Catechism, or in fact, any Catechism, is infalliable, inerrant or binding? Could it be we interpret the second commandment differently? I mean, seriously?

  13. Brad says:

    Paul, quite obviously you can and do interpret the 2nd differently. My reminder is to the many officers in various denoms who have taken vows of subscription to the Westminster standards. They often forget these things as they mix with broad evangelicalism.

  14. Paul, did you flick your hair when you said “I mean, seriously?”

  15. Nate says:

    How to tell if you’re being manipulated:

    http://www.tabletalkradio.org/documents/youthspeaker.pdf

  16. Paul Sanders says:

    Brad – I apologize if that came off as unduly harsh. My frustration was not with the specific application of the Catechism, but how I interpreted the quotation marks around “Reformed”. I encounter many of those “Truly Reformed” or “SuperCalvinists” who gatekeep reformed identity and thought enough that I find myself nauseous at their lack of grace. I thought the subtext of your statement was “If you are truly reformed, than you should know better, this is blatant sin.” I appreciate your clarification and agree that any person sworn to uphold a voluntary oath (such as the Catechism) would have to respond to that criticism. That being said, please forgive me for assuming your motives and reading in meaning that wasn’t present.

    I theologically have a big lutheran streak in me (and 50 people now reading this have decided to ignore me), so I disagree on that interpretation of the 2nd commandment. Call me crazy…and german.

    Joseph – Funny comment. Stings a little, as I do put in product to keep my unwieldly thick hair from getting too wild. (Yes kids, Dapper Dan-type pomade is technically hair product). But yea, I’m a wise-acre, so thanks for keeping me humble.

    So what does Kevin think of the images thing? I’d love to know.

  17. Brad says:

    Paul, I’m probably a good candidate for a “TR” badge. I went from Baptist to Calvinistic Baptist, then because of what I perceived as the the unsustainability of the “Reformed” position in Baptist life and because of the tendencies in worship and youth ministry there, I joined an Old School PCA church. I now understand (my opinion of course) that there’s an inescapable dissonance between independency/congregationalism and Reformed theology. It’s much more than soteriology after all.

  18. Tim says:

    Thanks for your posts Brad. Josh, I’m not trying to judge anyone’s motives for creating, using, or promoting false images of Christ. I’m just a little confused why Kevin DeYoung would have these images on his blog. He subscribes to the Heidelberg Catechism which says:

    96 Q. What does God require in the second commandment?
    A. That we in no wise make any image of God, nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded in His Word.

    98 Q. May we, then, not make any image at all?
    A. God neither can nor may be visibly represented in any way. As for creatures, though they may be visibly represented, yet God forbids us to make or have any likeness of them in order to worship them or serve God by them.

    99 Q. But may not images be tolerated in the churches as books for the laity?
    A. No; for we must not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by dumb images, but by the living preaching of His Word.

    Josh, the Reformed churches have condemned these images not because of personal preferences, but because they rightly interpret God’s Word as forbidding them. And yes that includes Renaissance paintings.

    Paul, this catechism is German.

  19. Tim says:

    Josh said, “The movie clips or the paintings are all just aids for our imagination; I doubt anyone is worshipping the actor that played Jesus in the “Passion of the Christ” as a result of this video.”

    I have seen people pray to crucifixes and statues and pictures of “Jesus” and saints. The medieval church was infected with this kind of behavior and the Reformation sought to correct it. Our hearts are idol factories.

    Paul S. said, “for those of us who would hold to many aspects and tenets of reformed theology, but don’t believe that the Larger Catechism, or in fact, any Catechism, is infalliable, inerrant or binding?”

    Who said anything about the Catechism being “infallible” or “inerrant”? These standards are open to correction by God’s Word if it can be proved they have interpreted the Scriptures inaccurately. Binding? Absolutely if you have taken vows to uphold their teaching or are member of a church that faithfully subscribes to them. In the OPC we submit to our Elders who have taken vows to uphold the Westminster Standards. As a member of an OPC congregation I am held accountable in doctrine and life to these men.

  20. Tim says:

    Correction – I should have numbered the above post Q/A 96, 97, and 98 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

  21. I can acknowledge and respect the ‘no-images of Jesus’ guys even as I don’t agree with that position.

    I have nothing to add except to wonder if Ray Ortlund’s blog ever gets this kind of discussion.

    He’s got pictures of Jesus almost every day.

  22. Paul Sanders says:

    Steve – Ray isn’t a Michigander. Only when you suffer through cold Detroit winters do the prospect of praying before candles and icons warm your heart….then again, you’re from Canada, so you totally understand how cold it can get.

    Tim – Heh, Didn’t know that catechism was German. I usually associate really tightly held confessions as inherently French because of Calvin. Natch, wrong again.

    I guess my question is not of the specific wording of the catechisms, but how closely they are held. After all, do you have to subscribe to every word? In my church, we have to agree with every word of the statement of faith / membership covenant, but it doesn’t even TOUCH on these issues/interpretations. Is this how OPC and RCA rolls?

    Brad – Its okay if you are TR, I won’t hold that against you. Hah! If I meet you in person, I’ll buy you a beer or steak, wear my skinny jeans, flip my hair, and my “john piper reference” Acts29 t-shirt. Seriously though, thanks for caring about these things. I personally haven’t taken a stance on these, but I’m thankful for passion about these doctrines.

    Kevin – How do you interpret those sections of the Catechism with the visual representations of Jesus in a blog? I’m really interested.

  23. Paul,

    I’m not just from Canada…I’m from Manitoba, man! Low winter temperatures are a point of pride here.

    Seriously, I would like to hear Rev Deyoung’s input on this issue. I’d be interested in what he would have to say.

  24. KB says:

    Hey, instead of expressing concern on a blog over DeYoung’s failure to uphold the 3FUs to which, I assume, he’s taken an ordination vow, why don’t you contact one of his elders?

  25. Brad says:

    Re: images – think about why we paint or otherwise render something visually. This is generally done to glorify or to provide information. The first of these we are forbidden to do in the case of the Godhead. God is not to be worshiped via images. The second we are unable to do because we have no accurate information – other than the fact that God the Father is a spirit and that there was nothing notable or attractive about the Son’s earthly appearance.

  26. Tim says:

    KB, Aren’t blogs places we can respectfully discuss issues such as these? First of all when we think a brother in Christ is in error we should go to him first and discuss the area of concern. That is why I wrote a response to his (Kevin D.) post on his blog. And I’m not a member of Kevin’s church, I’m not in his Classis, in fact I’m not even in his denomination (RCA) anymore. So it would be out of place for me to contact one of his fellow Elders with this concern. I’m simply reaching across denominational lines to discuss an important issue with a brother in Christ whom I have respect for. Although Kevin has not responded in this comments discussion, I know what his position is because I’ve read his book, The Good News We Almost Forgot, which is an excellent introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. A catechism which Kevin and I agree is a faithful (biblical) summary and tool to teach the Christian Faith. On page 168 of Kevin’s book he gives a word of caution in using pictures of Jesus but then writes, “I don’t think it is forbidden to draw a picture of Jesus.” He attaches a note 40 which is given on page 251 which explains his understanding and position on this subject more. He says it is unclear whether the HC is meant to forbid “every” artistic rendering of Jesus. Then he seems to be saying that Z. Ursinus is not very clear in his commentary on the HC concerning these matters. If you don’t know, Zacharias Ursinus was one of the primary authors of the Heidelberg catechism. Well I’ve read through Ursinus’ commentary and it seems very clear to me that the HC is teaching us that the Scriptures forbid ALL renderings of the Godhead, including the incarnate Son.

    The Heidelberg Catechism and a host of other Reformed confessions, creeds , and catechisms forbid making and/or worshiping images of any of the three members of the Godhead. So it seems to me that there was and is a Reformed consensus that the Scriptures forbid this practice.

    Brad, good points. J.I. Packer makes a similar argument in his book Knowing God.

  27. Tim says:

    Paul S., In the OPC those wanting to join the church go through an inquires class, meet with the Elders, and then affirm and confess their faith before the congregation by assenting to five questions:

    (1) Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation tobe the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?

    (2) Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally
    there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son,
    and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal
    in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come
    in the flesh?

    (3) Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and
    humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and
    that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ
    alone?

    (4) Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and
    do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will
    serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?

    (5) Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church’s worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?

    So we don’t take vows to uphold the Westminster Standards as lay members. But our Elders (Ruling and Teaching) do take vows to uphold the doctrine contained in them. And as question 5 says we submit in the Lord to the government and discipline of the church being held accountable in doctrine and life.

    Well what does it mean to uphold or subscribe to the creeds, confessions, and catechisms of your particular church or denomination? There are differing views on this issue and different “levels” of subscription. That is a whole other discussion.

    My personal view is churches and individuals either believe the creed, confession, or catechism is a faithful articulation of the doctrines contained in Holy Scripture or not.Don’t pretend to. If there is an error contained in the document then it needs to be corrected by the ecclesiastical body that subscribes to it. Because these documents are believed to be accurate summaries of Biblical doctrine the case for a correction needs to be made from Scripture. If someone can’t in good conscience hold to every part of the document then don’t claim to hold to them by taking a vow. That makes you a liar. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

    So in answer to your question Paul, that’s how we roll in the OPC. This isn’t just lip service in the OPC. We believe the Westminster Standards are faithful to the teaching of Scripture.

    The RCA, which I was a member for about 8 years is a whole different concussion, I mean discussion. It was 5 or 6 years before I even knew we supposedly held to the Three Forms of Unity. I spent 5 or 6 years trying to figure out what we believed and the whole time we had these great summaries of the faith right under my nose. That would have saved a lot of confusion for me. It is probably different depending on the church a person belonged to but that was my experience in the RCA. By the way they just accepted a new confession a year ago, The Belhar Confession, which probably already has more influence than the other three. It’s more of a social agenda than an expression and articulation of the christian faith. Sad, very sad.

  28. Brad says:

    I, too, would love to hear Mr. DeYoung’s thoughts on this. I suspect this is the king of issue that TGC types like to avoid though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


About


Kevin DeYoung photo

Kevin DeYoung


Kevin DeYoung is senior pastor of University Reformed Church (PCA) in East Lansing, Michigan, near Michigan State University. He and his wife Trisha have six young children. You can follow him on Twitter.

Kevin DeYoung's Books