He is called by many Vicar of Jesus Christ, Pontiff, Servant of the Servants of God, Patriarch of the West, His Holiness, and Apostolic Lord. At his “coronation” it is declared, “thou art the Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, the Vicar of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” And he’s just resigned!

Most people in the Western world woke up this morning to find out that Joseph Ratzinger or, Pope Benedict XVI, renounced the ministry of Bishop of Rome–the most coveted position in the history of the church. It’s a particularly historic move because no Pope since Gregory XII has stepped down, and he did so in order to bring an end to the Great Schism (a Pope in France and a Pope in Rome!). It will be interesting in coming weeks and months to see what ramifications this may or may not have on the credibility of Rome’s seat of power. After all, the Pope isn’t a CEO of a company, but is believed by Roman Catholics to be the defender of the faith. How one “resigns” from that raises questions.

Joseph Ratzinger cited his reasons for resignation because his advanced age is no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the “Petrine ministry.” Of course, this shouldn’t shock us. There is no mortal man alive who can be expected to meet the lofty expectations of the Papacy. Who is worthy to be the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all? Well, any Bible believing person can answer that question–Jesus Christ alone.

In Numbers 20:22-29 Moses has recorded for us the death of Aaron the High Priest. In this text, God commands Moses to go with Aaron and Aaron’s son, Eleazar, to Mount Hor. Aaron was to be stripped of his priestly garments which were then to be placed on Eleazar signifying a transfer of the priesthood. Aaron then died upon the mountain and with him his priestly office. And so it continued generation to generation, the priesthood was passed from father to son down through the years. The author of Hebrews, reflecting on this, wrote, “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever” (Hebrews 7:23-24). His point is, the priesthood of Aaron’s line was imperfect and insufficient because death ended the continuation of their office, but Christ’s Priesthood far exceeds the old one, because being resurrected to life eternal he holds his priesthood forever. In Christ’s Priesthood there is no line of succession, there is no transfer of the garments, there is no handing off the office to another, there is no resignation–he remains a priest forever.

As Protestants we should pray to the end that the Pope of Rome would repent of usurping the rights of Jesus Christ, that Roman Catholics everywhere would be convinced by the Word that they don’t need a mortal mediator–a vicar of Jesus Christ–to order and govern their affairs when we have been given a Heavenly High Priest, and that this “church” would renounce its false and damnable teachings and submit to the one God–Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And if they fail to do this, Protestants should pray to the end that God would rise in his anger and see to it that Roman Catholicism would fade into the eternal night.

In his helpful book, The Day of Worship: Reassessing the Christian Life in Light of the Sabbath, Ryan McGraw has a chapter dedicated to legalism. Legalism is a word that’s often thrown around for all sorts of various reasons. By it some people mean justification by works, others intend the enforcement of the teachings and commandments of men, while some will label those “legalists” who make mention of the law at all, or even quote from the Old Testament. Legalism, broadly defined, is simply the improper use of the law.

McGraw helpfully identifies three errors of legalism, “justification by the works of the law, adding to or taking away from the law of God, and sanctification by the works of the law” (p 127). The first of these is by and large the most serious of the errors because it is nothing short of a false gospel. I know it’s no longer popular to think in theological terms (where has a proper study of theology gone?!?), but justification has to do with our legal standing before God. Protestantism broke from Roman Catholicism partly over this issue, for the Catholic cannot, in integrity abide in, “Faith alone.” The legalist thinks that his “good” works can earn merit before God, even good works that are “aided” by Jesus. This is the error which Paul was dealing within his letter to the Galatians, and is worthy of the strongest condemnation.

But this isn’t the only legalistic error. There is, also, a legalism which “is not relegated to those who are excluded from the kingdom of God, but it may be common among those who are within the kingdom of God” (p 131). Yet, they abuse the law by setting up a standard which “is not identical to the law of God in every respect” (p 131). This is done both by adding to the law of God (Deuteronomy 4:2) and taking away from the law of God (Matthew 15:8-9).

The third legalistic error, which is particular to God’s people is the idea of sanctification by works. This “is the subtlest of all, and it is perhaps one of the greatest causes of spiritual trouble and difficulty for God’s people” (p 133). While the law is the only possible standard for sanctification, it doesn’t mean that we’re sanctified by doing. “Christians may conduct themselves in their relationship with God as though this relationship depends entirely upon their obedience to the law, rather than the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ” (p 133). Though we are not passive in the work of sanctification as we are in the act of justification, we are sanctified by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ and by his Word and Spirit so that sin is continually killed and there is a practice of true holiness (WCF 13.1).

If you happen to be one of those people who keeps up on debates throughout the blogosphere (if you don’t, please don’t take this as advice to do so), you’ll know that the Puritans have recently received some negative press. This isn’t uncommon. I remember when I was going to start school at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, a man warned me about the “unhealthy introspection” of the Puritans. Now I’m not against offering critiques even of those who are our cherished heroes. But said critiques should strive for integrity and honesty, not a display of ignorance. Personally, I can be somewhat sympathetic with those who think the Puritans were too introspective. After all, in our culture of easy-believism where sin is reduced to a mere trifle and holiness is measured by daily “quiet times,” reading John Owen’s Mortification of Sin can seem like drinking out of a fire hose. I get it. The Puritans make us uncomfortable…and they probably should! But my discomfort shouldn’t lead me to make generalizations, most of which come from those who have read a couple of Puritan Paperbacks. Well, I’m not going to offer much of a voice to the whole debate. Competent and able men have given thoughtful, honest, and helpful responses to the malarkey going around. One especially helpful comment came from Carl Trueman whose whit and brilliance make him one of the best living authors/cultural commentators in my opinion. He says (read the whole thing here):

“Finally, on a personal note (and this is not a shot at Trevin Wax but rather at an apparent current trend): perhaps I live in a very different church world to the rest of American Calvinistic evangelicalism — that would not surprise me at all — but in the last few months we have had the Puritans whacked for slavery (and I still cannot name a single Westminster Divine who owned a slave – though I can name a few who, in 1662, lost everything through their stand for the truth) and now for introspection. Yet is it really the case that uncritical appropriation of the Puritans is the, or even a, pressing problem for the church today? Is legalistic introspection really crippling the church? Are there no other, more threatening problems? Not weakness on Trinitarianism? Not books advocating sodomy in marriage? Not the new antinomianism? Not even new Calvinists who are happy to wear sneakers and buy computers made by slave labour in the Majority World? The last twelve months seem to have thrown up a few more likely candidates for pressing ecclesiastical problems than John Owen, John Bunyan, and Uncle Tom Goodwin and all.”

With the Republican and Democratic National Conventions gearing up, a group of atheists from American Atheists Incorporated (AAI) have launched a billboard campaign attacking both Obama and Romney on their religious beliefs. These billboards have garnered some media attention, especially for the overly negative content. Of Christianity they say, “Sadistic God; Useless Savior, 30,000+ Versions of ‘Truth,’ Promotes Hate, Calls it ‘Love.’” And this, of course, is contrasted with their own belief that atheism is “simply reasonable.” Simply reasonable? I admit Christianity contains “difficult” teachings–the Triune God, the death, resurrection, and return of Jesus Christ, an infallible and inspired Bible, creation out of nothing, etc, etc. But is the alternative to this really “simply reasonable”? I think not, and this much is true to any honest inquirer. Herman Bavinck once wrote:

There are objections and conundrums in every science. Those who do not want to start in faith will never arrive at knowledge. Epistemology, the theory of knowledge, is the first principle of philosophy, but it is riddled with mystery from start to finish…’By comprehension we won’t make it; therefore lay hold of it uncomprehended.’ Nature, history, and every science present as many ‘cruxes’ as Holy Scripture. Nature contains so many enigmas that it can often make us doubt that there exists a wise and just God. There are any number of apparent contradictions on every page of the book of nature. There is an ‘inexplicable remnant’ that defies all explanation…Of course, here and so also in the case of Scripture, we can throw ourselves into the arms of agnosticism and pessimism. But despair is a death leap also in the area of science. The mysteries of existence do not decrease but instead increase with the adoption of unbelief. And the unease of the heart grows larger (Reformed Dogmatics, 1:442).

Atheism does very little to answer the big questions; questions of existence and being, questions of teleology, questions of universal phenomena, questions of morality, questions of logic, and on and on. At the end of the day, atheism is extremely unreasonable, while a consistent Christian worldview is profoundly reasonable. C.S. Lewis was quite right to say, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

The gospels are filled with amazing accounts of the interaction between sinful people and the Savior. We read of one such encounter in John 4, between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Here we read of our Lord sitting by Jacob’s well when a woman came to draw water. But it wasn’t any woman, it was a Samaritan. Verse 9 tells us that Jews and Samaritans had no interactions.

To better understand this, it’s necessary to know a bit of the history about Samaritans. Samaria was once the capital of the northern kingdom, that is, until it was surrounded and taken by a long siege. Most of the citizens were driven away and carried into Assyria, only the very poor being allowed to stay. After that people from the surrounding nations came into the wasted region and intermarried with the Israelites. It was to this mixed population that the name “Samaritan” was given. This intermarriage was soon followed by an adulterated Judaism. Though they recognized the Five Books of Moses, they didn’t worship God in Jerusalem. As a result a deep-seated hostility formed between the Jews and Samaritans (see e.g. Ezra 3 and 4; 2 Kings 17:33ff; Luke 9:53).

It’s with this history that our Lord not only speaks to a Samaritan woman, but asks to drink from her vessel (see Leviticus 15). But this isn’t the most remarkable thing about this account. More than this, he tells her that if she had asked he would have given her “living waters.” Living waters to a Samaritan! Living waters to a woman who had five husbands, and the man she was currently with wasn’t her husband (John 4:18)! Her condemnation is felt. But Christ meets her in her sin, as a good soul Physician would, and offers her the waters of grace, mercy, and peace. Waters which alone come from the redemptive work of the Messiah (see Isaiah 12:3). J.C. Ryle once said,

The infinite willingness of Christ to receive sinners is a golden truth, which ought to be treasured up in our hearts, and diligently impressed on others.

This blog, we hope, will serve this end. To give readers, cup by cup, water from the well which is Jesus Christ.