Is Reformed Important?
A friend of mine (actually, my old boss), is a member of New St. Peter’s (NsP) 
Presbyterian Church in Dallas, Texas. Over this past “Reformation Weekend,” as I call it, NsP hosted a conference by Dr. Sean Michael Lucas of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. The topic of the conference, “Is Reformed Important?” was a Power Point presentation summarizing the material from Dr. Lucas’ book, On Being Presbyterian, which I have not read. I found the conference very interesting, for his approach does not start with a defense of all of the Reformed and Presbyterian controversial, distinctive doctrines. The approach Dr. Lucas took was to deal with what it means to be Presbyterian as a facet of one’s personal identity. In this I think he’s attempting to appeal to, or at least converse with a postmodern worldview, which seems, by and large, skeptical of evangelical theologizing.
The sum of the conference was that a person’s identity is the result of one’s beliefs, practices and stories (bps), which colors his perspective on life, the universe and everything (to borrow from the British theologian, Douglas Adams). Therefore, the basic outline of “Is Reformed Important?” is a look at the beliefs, practices and stories of confessional, Reformed Presbyterianism in particular, rather than merely Reformed in general.One benefit of the format of the two day conference, followed by a Reformation Sunday sermon at NsP (which I did not attend, but the link to which I’ll post if and when it becomes available) lies in the fact that the first night really helps a non-Reformed, non-Presbyterian (like my beloved wife) not have to immediately endure all the stuff he disagrees with, but gently points out that one’s beliefs andpractices are worth taking a critical look at. Dr. Lucas did this by sharing much of his own bps in a rather disarming manner. This is definitely user-friendly material, not fodder for theology geeks, but down-to-earth and practical stuff.
At one point during the second lecture, Dr. Lucas brought up the prospect of what he’d do were he to notice that someone had published a book with the same title as his, On Being Presbyterian, yet noticed that the table of contents seems an awful lot like the one in his own work, and not only that, but that the other author happens to mention that he comes from the same hometown as Dr. Lucas. He said the first thing he’d probably do is punch the guy in the nose. This compelled me to approach him after the lecture to request permission to post his outline on my blog, which permission, Christian man that he is, he graciously granted. Thus, in my next post, I’ll give you Lecture Number One of “Is Reformed Important?”
Hope you all had a pleasant Reformation Sunday!
Reformata Semper Reformanda (”Reformed, Always Reforming”)
update
I just took a look at http://www.newstpeters.org/ and noticed that they give their members something called “Rooster Tracks” which provides short, weekday theological and devotional items to think through and/or study. The one for this week, naturally, introduces us to the Reformers and asks its readers to think through a topic related to the contribution of each individual Reformer which is treated, namely, Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox.
The Delusion of Extreme KJV Onlyism
In this simple paragraph from the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647, aka “The Old Deluder Satan Law”
Yt being one cheife piect of ye ould deluder, Satan, to keepe men from the knowledge of ye Scriptures, as in formr times by keeping ym in an unknowne tongue, so in these lattr times by pswading from ye use of tongues, yt so at least ye true sense & meaning of ye originall might be clouded by false glosses of saint seeming deceivers, yt learning may not be buried in ye grave of or fathrs in ye church & comonwealth, the Lord assisting or endeavors,—
lt is therefore ordred yt evry towneship in this jurisdiction, aftr ye Lord hath increased ym to ye number of 50 householdrs, shall then forthwth appoint one wthin their towne to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write & reade, whose wages whall be paid eithr by ye parents or mastrs of such children, or by ye inhabitants in genrall, by way of supply, as ye maior pt of those yt ordr ye prudentials of ye towne shall appoint; pvided, those yt send their children be not oppressed by paying much more ytn they can have tm taught for in othr townes; & it is furthr ordered, yt where any towne shall increase to ye numbr of 100 families or househouldrs, they shall set up a gramer schoole, ye mr thereof being able to instruct youth so farr as they may be fited for ye university, pvided, yt if any towne neglect ye pformance hereof above one yeare, yt every such towne shall pay 5 Ito ye next schoole till they shall pforme this order.
Now, let me revise the above highlighted clause in order to make it easier to read.
“. . . so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so at least the true sense and meaning of the original [Old Testament Hebrew & New Testament Greek, that is] might be clouded by false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers . . . ”
What is the moral of this story? If you simply prefer the use of the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures for your own personal study and devotional reading, or even if you believe after a considerate examination of the issues of textual criticism, that it is best to retain the Byzantine readings of the New Testament, and therefore ought to not revise the King James Version with a modern, eclectic, critical Greek text, this post does not criticize your view (even though I certainly disagree with your view). But if you believe that the King James Version of the Bible was given by the special inspiration of God, and that it’s English text is superior to the lost original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for the simple reason that we can hold the KJV in our hands, while we cannot hold the original manuscripts in our hands, and that therefore, we need not bother burdening our congregations with recourse to the original languages to properly interpret the words of the KJV, the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647 identifies those who would undermine the need to understand the Word of God in the original languages as “saint-seeming deceivers” whose efforts would in effect, bury learning in the graves of our fathers in the church. If only you would see the error of your ways, and stop deceiving unlearned believers under your care that it’s dangerous to “correct the King James” with anything, even the sense of the original Hebrew and Greek languages.
Captain Headknowledge Goes On a Pilgrimage?
I just typed the question, “What is a pilgrimage?” into my search engine and the first thing that came up on the list of suggested sites was the American Heritage Dictionary definition of the word. That sounds like a good place to start. It has two definitions:
- A journey to a sacred place or shrine.
- A long journey or search, especially one of exalted purpose or moral significance.
The first definition seems a little more simple and straightforward, while the second seems a little more lofty. I’m going on the first kind of pilgrimage. Or, rather, the wife and I are.
Where are we going?
It’s only the ultimate vacation for a believer in Jesus Christ.
Next month, my wife and I are accompanying a few other families from our church, including our pastor and his wife, a professor from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (whose name escapes me) and a few dozen other couples and individuals from other churches for an eleven day, whirlwind tour of Athens and Corinth, Greece, several locations in Israel, to be elaborated on below, culminating in a few sights seen in Cairo, Egypt, including pyramids, camels, the Nile River and a laser light show.
A friend of mine showed me pictures of his trip with his church to Israel, and I was finally tired of not being sure exactly what I had in store for us on our trip, so I decided to transcribe the itinerary brochure provided by the travel agency. Following is what we will be taking in:
Athens/Corinth Visit November 12-14
We arrive in Athens to change planes for our continuing flight to Tel Aviv. This stop permits us to enjoy a tour of Corinth and Athens.
Tel Aviv/Caesarea, Megiddo/Haifa November 14
We begin our day visiting Caesarea on the Mediterranean Coast. This ancient port was used by Herod the Great. It was here that the first Gentile, Cornelius the Centurion, and his household were baptized. Continue to Megiddo and the Valley of Armageddon. Visit this historical military fortress that controlled the highway between Egypt and Mesopotamia. See the excavations and museum showing how this famous hill served an important function in the wars of antiquity.
Tiberias/Capernaum/Sea of Galilee Boat Ride November 15
Today we visit the region where Jesus spent most of his ministry. We visit Nazareth, and the Church of the Annunciation. Visit Tiberias, Capernaum and the Mount of Beatutudes, and enjoy a boat ride on the Sea of Galilee.
Jerusalem/Bethlehem November 16-17
This morning we drive to the Kneset, Israel’s Parliament, visit the Hebrew University campus and its Shrine of the Book Museum, where the Dead Sea Scroll collection is exhibited. From there we drive across the Valley of Kidron to visit Gethsemane and the Mt. of Olives. Continuing our drive to Mt. Zion we visit Cenacle, the site of the Last Supper and King David’s Tomb. We drive to Bethlehem where we will visit the ancient Basilica of the Nativity. In addition we will see Shepherd’s Field of Boaz, the nearby Milk Grotto and manger Square.
Jerusalem November 17-19
This is our day to visit the Old City. We will take a walking tour visiting Mt. Moriah, the Dome of the Rock, where tradition holds that Abraham took Isaac to sacrifice him. We will see Al Aksa Mosque and the Western Wall, the only remaining portion of Herod’s Temple. We will pass through picturesque native bazaars and the Via Dolorosa, the Way of the Cross from the Fortress Antonio to Calvary. We visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, one of the famous shrines of Christendom, and conclude by visiting the Garden Tomb.
Masada November 18
Today we see the Dead Sea, Qumran and the optional tour of Masada where the Jews committed suicide rather than surrender to the Roman Army.
Eilat/Sinai/Cairo November 19-20
today we see the Biblical promise come alive. The desert is blossoming like a rose. Cross the Suez Canal and through the Delta region as we approach Cairo. See what has happened to this region since the peace treaty.
Cairo Sightseeing November 20-21
Today we begin an unforgettable experience and visit to one of the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World. You’ll get to admire the treasures of ancient Egypt at the Egyptian Museum; see the Mohammed Ali Mosque and the beautiful panorama of the city; see the Tomb of Sadat, the martyred President of Egypt who built a bridge for peace with Israel; Sail the Nile River aboard an authentic Egyptian Felucca; ride a camel to the Pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx, colossal monuments to the former power of Egypt. Climax your stay in Cairo by attending one of the world’s greatest Sound and Light presentations at the Pyramids on the Sahara Desert.
I keep warning our children that they’re in for nothing but Middle Eastern souvenirs for Christmas. They’re pretty bitter that they don’t get to go. But my wife keeps reminding them that a trip like this is for grownups who’ve worked for years and earned the money to make the trip. This gives them something to look forward to. I just keep reminding them that envy is a four-letter word.
I’ll be sure to post a few pictures and comments after Thanksgiving. By the way, it costs four hundred fewer dollars to fly home on Thanksgiving day than it does to fly home the day before. My wife gets the year off from Turkey prep. That’s something she’s probably thankful for.
Thinking About Church History
Wallace: You say you’re in the memory business. Why so much focus on history? Why so much focus on reawakening the past?
Burns: I think we think that history is sort of like castor oil: a set of dry dates and events that aren’t good for us, you know. We need to know where we’ve been, in order to know where we’re going. The current moment is so fraught with different perspectives, that we have to allow you, the journalist, to sort it out. When we get some perspective, then history gives us access to things, and it is paradoxically about our future. When you know where you’ve been, you are armed, it seems to me, with some of the best ammunition Americans could have. It equips us with the mistakes we’ve made, with the strengths that we have, and the ability, I think, to make very complicated decisions–particularly in times like this–and to go forward into a future that, I think, armed with a usable, serviceable past, that is less uncertain, and less dangerous.
I have a strong opinion about the relevance and value of church history for one’s personal and denominational interpretation of Scripture. One should not trust his own, or his denomination’s pet interpretations of Scripture uncritically. He should expose these interpretations to the light of day in the form of the corresponding interpretations of the great teachers of his own, as well as past, times. If the truth of God’s Word is a deposit handed down to us from generations past which extend back to the age of the apostles, then we have an obligation to make sure that doctrinal and practical transmission arrives to us in as undamaged of a state as possible. Sometimes, when we examine this divine cargo, we find that some reconstruction and repair is in order. I believe we are accountable to God for the state in which the following generations find our doctrine and practice.
Two quotes from great Christians of the past stand out in my mind which I’d like to share with you on this topic. The first is from Charles Spurgeon, and the second is from C. S. Lewis. These quotes well encapsulate my convictions regarding the value of church history for faithfulness to God’s Word. Iain Murry writes in a footnote of The Forgotten Spurgeon (page 34, note 14, 1994 edition, Banner of Truth Trust),
“Spurgeon had no patience with those who said, ‘We will not read anything except the book itself, neither will we accept any light, except that which comes in through a crack in our own roof. We will not see by another man’s candle, we would sooner remain in the dark.’ Brethren, do not let us fall into such folly.”
It is true that Scripture alone is our final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice, and that all human writings are subordinate to it, but Scripture was not written, nor is it well interpreted, in the vacuum of our own minds and experiences. We as members of the body of Christ are dependent on those gifted to teach us the truth of God’s Word, not only in our own congregation, but also from the universal church of all ages. Only in this way will we be able to truly “devote ourselves” (Acts 2:42) to the apostles’ doctrine. Writing in the current issue of Modern Reformation Magazine, Carl Trueman reviewed Ancient Christian Devotional: A Year of Weekly Readings, edited by Thomas C. Oden. He makes an interesting observation about the possible side effects of modern Evangelicalism‘s staunch position on the sufficiency of Scripture. He writes,
“Sadly, more recent Evangelicalism has, by accident or design, frequently isolated itself from such historic sources through a sincerely intended but naively executed commitment to the notion of scriptural sufficiency. This has borne unfortunate fruit. Over recent decades, the movement of many evangelicals to Rome or to Eastern Orthodoxy has been, in part at least, a reaction to such impoverishment of the Christian tradition within evangelical ranks. As people look for historical roots, Evangelicalism seems inadequate to meet the challenge, and such moves, though misguided, are at least understandable.”
Trueman’s words segue nicely to my second quote, by C. S. Lewis, which was given to us in his introduction to a translation of Athanasius’ On The Incarnation. Lewis writes,
“Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.”
How easy it is to assume that our age is the most advanced, the best informed. This goes for theology as well as for science and other academic and intellectual disciplines. But we mess things up just as easily as other ages have–we still have our own biases and pre-conceived notions. Lewis’ words remind us that some of these pre-conceived notions may be mis-conceived, and therefore our recourse must be to the checks and balances of old books. If we fail to do so, we are destined to get off track, lower our interpretive standards, and lose our way on the road to a theologically sound future. Please always remember and never forget: we Christians must learn where we’ve come from, so we can see where we are now, in terms of faithfulness to the apostles’ doctrine and practice, and be able to see clearly where we are headed with our doctrine and practice in the future.
P.R.O.P.I.T.I.A.T.I.O.N.
You’d be amazed at the kinds of useless stuff that passes through my mind. Today I’m going to punish you with it. It’s just one of my little tests of friendship. Today, I wondered if I could come up with an acronym for the word “Propitiation.” You know, this year in AWANA, I’m teaching through Romans 3:21-26, which includes the gospel-rich terms “redemption,” “justification,” and “propitiation.” No, I haven’t come up with any for the other two terms, but here’s what I got for “propitiation.” I’m afraid it doesn’t help with the meaning of the term or anything, but it made me chuckle.
Presbyterians
Rarely
Ordain
People
Into
The
Institution
After
They
Invalidate
Old
Notions . . .
. . . Charles Finney excepted.
Yes, Charles Finney was ordained by the Presbyterian church, and yes, he did “invalidate old notions.” What old notions, you ask? Only biblical things like . . .
Original Sin . . . “The doctrine of original sin, or of a sinful constitution, and of necessary sinful actions, represents the whole moral government of God, the plan of salvation by Christ, and indeed every doctrine of the gospel, as a mere farce. Upon this supposition the law is tyranny, and the gospel an insult to the unfortunate.” (Systematic Theology, Lecture 24 on “Moral Depravity”)
Penal-Substitutionary Atonement of Christ . . . Finney’s invalidation of the old notion: the Moral Government theory–“Consequently, we find that, in this atonement, God has expressed His high regard for His law and for obedience to it. The design of executing the penalty of the law was to make a strong impression of the majesty, excellence, and utility of the law. Anything may answer as a substitute, which will as thoroughly demonstrate the mischief and odiousness of sin, God’s hatred to it, and His determination to carry out His law in all its demands. Especially may the proposed substitute avail if it shall also make a signal manifestation of God’s love to sinners.” (Charles Finney on the Atonement see also, Theopedia: Governmental Theory of the Atonement)
Imputation . . . “The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption.” (Horton, Michael: “The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney,” the quote may be found under the heading, “Distorting the Cardinal Doctrine of Justification.”)
Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone . . . “That gospel justification is not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding. Dr. Chalmers and those of his school hold that it is. But this is certainly a great mistake, as we shall see.” (Systematic Theology, Lecture 36, “Justification” )
The Miraculous Nature of Revival . . . “It is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means—as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means. There may be a miracle among 13its antecedent causes, or there may not. The apostles employed miracles, simply as a means by which they arrested attention to their message, and established its divine authority. But the miracle was not the revival. The miracle was one thing; the revival that followed it was quite another thing. The revivals in the apostles’ days were connected with miracles, but they were not miracles.” (Lectures on Revivals of Religion, Lecture 1, “What a Revival of Religion Is“)
But, after all this, if what you really want is some good reading on “propitiation,” then check out the Wikipedia article.
Augustine on the Decrees of God: Roman or Reformed?
I had to look up what the Roman Catholics claim about Augustine’s views on the sovereign grace of God, and I was surprised by what I found. But not entirely. One, “Albert,” posted the first comment to Bob Hayton’s Fundamentally Reformed post, “Legacy of Sovereign Joy: Augustine,” reviewing John Piper’s book, Legacy of Sovereign Joy, focusing on Piper’s reflections of Augustine, and Albert asked Bob if he was aware of what Augustine believed about grace and free will, and asserted that what he did believe was consistent with present, official Roman Catholic teaching. That’s why I wanted to see what the online Roman Catholic encyclopedia, New Advent, had to say about the matter. The entry entitled, “Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo,” section II on “His System of Grace,” got into some interesting reading about some details regarding free will which differs from the traditional Reformed view, but what really astounded me was what the online encyclopedia reports was Augustine’s view of how God determined his decrees regarding election and reprobation:
Here is how the theory of St. Augustine, already explained, forces us to conceive of the Divine decree: Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circumstance, and that in millions and millions of possible combinations. Thus He sees that if Peter had received such another grace, he would not have been converted; and if on the contrary such another Divine appeal had been heard in the heart of Judas, he would have done penance and been saved. Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when, among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, He decides to realize the actual world with all the circumstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it.
If Augustine taught this imaginitive concept of God’s determinate counsel, then he would have gone beyond what is written in order to come up with it. This reminds me of an anecdote of Augustine which is intended to warn of the danger of attempting to explain that which is not revealed in Scripture about spiritual realities, in which someone asks Augustine, “What was God doing before he created the world?” to which Augustine replied, “Creating Hell for the curious.” I think, if Augustine taught what is contained in the paragraph cited above, then he failed to heed his own anecdotal warning. Another thing I found interesting about the presence of this concept in Augustine’s thought is the fact that the first time I’d ever heard of such a concept, it came from someone near and dear to me, who was taking exception to the Reformed view of God’s decrees of election and reprobation, claiming that this divine consideration of all possible realities and settling on the ones that come to pass, leaving folks free (in the sense Adam was) to choose between good and evil as effectually influenced by the particular circumstances and graces God places in the individual’s path, was the more biblical view.
In my opinion, this extra-biblical view is just a more elaborate form of the prescient view of foreknowledge, about which, long before I’d become a Calvinist, when thinking it through, I concluded that in this semi-pelagian system, God was leaving man free to determine his own election, but having looked forward from before the creation in order to ordain it before man made his free choice, thereby cutting man off at the pass for the glory. You could probably say I persuaded myself in favor of Calvinism when I came to that conclusion, but it would be a couple of more years before God would force me to deal with the issues once and for all.
But the final observation I want to make about Augustine’s view of grace and free will, election and reprobation, is that I don’t think the Reformers needed to adopt exactly what Augustine speculated about the doctrine, because, after all, the Reformers were in the business of double checking writers like Augustine with the Scriptures, practicing that more noble virtue of searching the Scriptures to see whether what he taught was so. The Reformation may not have been a pure Augustinian revival, but the Reformers certianly did stand on the shoulders of this theological giant from Africa, Augustine of Hippo.
Roman Truths
Before I elaborate on my “Roman Truths,” please allow me to defend myself
with the following quote of Martin Luther on the Book of Romans cited by Dr. Tom Browning on page 3 in the introduction to his series of lessons on “The Pinnacle of Christian Doctrine.”
Browning writes that Luther writes:
This epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament, and is truly the purest gospel. It is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but also that he should occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. We can never read it or ponder over it too much; for the more we deal with it, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes (Martin Luther, Lutherʹs works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I edited by J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann (Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1960; reprinted 1999), 365).
So, in my own defense, last night I was pondering the precious and delicious letter of Paul to the Romans. In my much pondering of this book, I often attempt to come up with an original outline of the book which will the reader or Bible student remember the broad themes of this revolutionary, reforming and reviving book of Romans. I can’t help it if it came out like this!
Roman Truths
1. The Bad News (Romans 1:1–3:20)
2. The Good News (Romans 3:21-8)
3. Good News and the Jews (Romans 9-11)
4. The Good News Wearing Shoes (Romans 12-16)
Somebody help me! I’m losing control of my homiletics!!!
The Pelagian Drinking Song
Several years ago, back when I worked at “The Reformation Station,” Dr. Tom Browning taught a series on “The History of the Doctrine of Justification” (which I hear will be available in the future from his website!) at Arlington Presbyterian Church, Arlington, Texas. One of the lessons was on the debate between Augustine and Pelagius over the necessity of God’s grace in overcoming original sin. Dr. Browning had requested that my then boss, Randy Buster (founder of “The Reformation Station”), arrange a tune to a song he’d dug up in his studies about Pelagianism. It’s a hilarious song called “The Pelagian Drinking Song.”
I recently thought to email these dear brothers of mine to request the recording of Randy Buster’s arrangement of Hillaire Belloc’s “The Pelagian Drinking Song” and permission to blog about it. You can listen to this recording in the black Box.net widget toward the bottom of my sidebar.
And now, without further ado, I give you, “The Pelagian Drinking Song,” by Hilaire Belloc, through the teaching ministry of Dr. Tom Browning and the musical arrangement and perfomance of Randy Buster:
The Pelagian Drinking Song, by Hillaire Belloc (1870 – 1953)
Pelagius lived at Kardanoel
And taught a doctrine there
How, whether you went to heaven or to hell
It was your own affair.
It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy,
But was your own affair.
No, he didn’t believe
In Adam and Eve
He put no faith therein!
His doubts began
With the Fall of Man
And he laughed at Original Sin.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
He laughed at original sin.
Then came the bishop of old Auxerre
Germanus was his name
He tore great handfuls out of his hair
And he called Pelagius shame.
And with his stout Episcopal staff
So thoroughly whacked and banged
The heretics all, both short and tall –
They rather had been hanged.
Oh he whacked them hard, and he banged them long
Upon each and all occasions
Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong
Their orthodox persuasions.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Their orthodox persuasions.
Now the faith is old and the Devil bold
Exceedingly bold indeed.
And the masses of doubt that are floating about
Would smother a mortal creed.
But we that sit in a sturdy youth
And still can drink strong ale
Let us put it away to infallible truth
That always shall prevail.
And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword
And howling heretics too.
And all good things
Our Christendom brings
But especially barley brew!
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Especially barley brew!
Kingdom Coffers: Rabbit Trail on Government and Reformation
Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 3
The History of the Relationship Between Church, State and Tithing
I highly recommend that everyone read the Wikipedia entry on the Tithe. It gave me some very interesting insight into the way in which the historically blurred line between church and state has helped to seal in our minds the assumption that giving ten percent of one’s income (at least) is a New Covenant principle.
It seems that the Roman Catholic Church adopted tithing from the Old Testament as a workable, pragmatic model to ensure a regular income for their growing heirarchy. As you know, Rome during the middle ages exerted enormous influence over the nations of Europe, during which millennium, the concept of tithing became well ingrained. Thus, when the Reformation began, the governments of Europe seized the opportunity to protect themselves from similar influence from the diverse Protestant churches, by themselves exerting influence over the church, rather than allowing the status quo to continue at the hands of these upstart Protestants.
Part of this influence was in the various ways the governments of Europe extracted “tithes” from the people and supported their various state churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, etc.), which trend has just in the past couple of hundred years begun to diminish. Here’s an example of how America “dun good!” (for once, if you consider Americanism’s various other less than fortunate influences on American Christianity–no nation is exempt from syncretism) in refusing to take money from the church and give money to the church (the current President excepted–I wonder what other Presidents have likewise contradicted this national emphasis in other ways? That would be an interesting history lesson . . . ). Another way the government prevented complete Reformation was on the issue of the Lord’s Supper (at least in “Calvin’s Geneva”). But I’m done with that topic for now, but the comments apparently keep rolling in, much to my glee!
More on the government’s ability to inhibit Reformation later . . .
Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 1
Why Weekly Communion?
While the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not common in Protestant churches, we at Arlington Presbyterian believe it to be the biblical and preferred practice for the following reasons:
THE PRACTICE OF THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH
Although we do not have any clear-cut command, the New Testament evidence does seem to point in the direction of weekly communion, especially if one understands “the breaking of bread” to be a reference to the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-20; cf. 14:26).
EVIDENCE FROM CHURCH HISTORY
There are very clear and early (second century) allusions to the practice in the Didache and Justin Martyr’s The First Apology. While the history of the Church does not have the authority of God’s Word, it at least ought to interest us that the Christian community observed this practice, apparently without much discussion, so shortly after the time of the Apostles.
CONSISTENCY WITH OUR USE OF OTHER ELEMENTS OF WORSHIP
Why should the Lord’s Supper be the only regular element of worship which does not find a place in each Lord’s Day worship service? To be consistent, any argument against weekly communion would be an equally valid argument against weekly hymn-singing, weekly praying, weekly preaching, and so on.
BRINGING US BACK TO BASICS
Regardless of the sermon text or topic, the congregation is always brought back to the fundamentals—the death and resurrection of Christ (Matthew 26:26-28).
APPEAL TO THE WHOLE MAN
Since the Lord’s Supper is the only element of worship that appeals to all five senses, its weekly observance helps to prevent an “intellectualizing” of the worship service. If we do not celebrate the Sacrament frequently, we should not be surprised when our members leave Reformed worship for something more “stimulating.”
OPPORTUNITY FOR COVENANT RENEWAL
The Lord’s Supper is the ideal means of meditating on God’s Word and renewing our faith and repentance so that we may serve the Lord in the upcoming week (Acts 20:7).
PROVIDING ASSURANCE, PERSONALIZING THE GOSPEL
Every week the believer receives tangible and visible assurance that Christ died for him (Matthew 26:28).
IDENTIFICATION WITH THE PEOPLE OF GOD
This Sacrament stresses the corporate dimension of the Church, thereby promoting unity and the restoration of broken relationships. Don’t we need this every week (1 Cor. 10:16-17)?
One of the stages of discipline in many Reformed churches is suspension from the Lord’s Table. One of the purposes of this is to make the unrepentant sinner aware of his sin that he might be restored. But how effective can this be if the Lord’s Supper is not celebrated frequently? Even once a month would not seem to constitute effective suspension (1 Cor. 5:11-13).
VISIBLE MARK OF A DISCIPLE OF CHRIST
There is always the need to distinguish believer from unbeliever (Eph. 5:6-8). Since one of the purposes of the Sacraments is to make this difference visible, we should produce this visible difference often.
NATURAL PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL TO UNBELIEVERS
By setting forth so plainly the work of Christ on the cross, and especially by fencing the table, any unbelievers present are called to faith and repentance. Weekly communion thus provides a natural and regular opportunity to present the claims of Christ to visitors.
SPIRITUAL NOURISHMENT
Since the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace, through faith it provides us with what we need to grow in grace. Thus, the frequent partaking of the bread and the wine for our spiritual nourishment is as necessary as the frequent partaking of food for our physical nourishment (1 Cor. 10:16).
CALL TO SELF-EXAMINATION AND REPENTANCE
Such should be our daily practice. Weekly communion reminds us of this and gives us opportunity to actually do so on a regular basis (1 Cor. 11:27-32).
REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
One of the problems with an infrequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper is that it tends to produce unrealistically high expectations as to what should “happen.” People expect something magical and exciting to happen at quarterly communion, but are often disappointed; they go away wondering what they missed and why they missed it. By celebrating the Lord’s Supper each week our expectations become realistically high; we look forward to and enjoy it much as we do prayer, preaching, singing, and the other elements of Christian worship.
TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD!
Prepared by the Staff and Session of Arlington Presbyterian Church
1320 West Pioneer Parkway, Arlington, Texas 76103
Phone 817-261-8938; Fax 817-459-1136; Email mailto:info@apcweb.org
Let Us Break Bread Together
For the past several days, I’ve been engaged in a discussion about the frequency of the Lord’s Supper over at Post Tenebras Lux (Why Weekly Communion Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). If you’d like to interact with our conversation, you are cordially invited. The homework I’ve been doing in preparation for my comments over there has been very enlightening. I’ve learned that the “proof texts” which I continually use to support the notion that Christian churches should always celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Sunday following the sermon do not miss the mark when considered in the light of postapostolic practice and the Reformation’s purification of the corruptions which crept in during the medieval era of the church.
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42).
“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread . . . ” (Acts 20:7).
It seems to be difficult for many to see that the church is to engage each time they gather in all of the items listed in the first verses cited above, and have a hard time accepting that one statement like the one in the second verse above actually reflects the weekly practice, rather than merely recording a one-time event with little to no prescriptive significance for the life of the church today. But the more I read from Calvin and others about how the church has historically interpreted verses like these and a few others from 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, the more convinced I am that we do an injustice to our worship of the Lord by our setting the Supper aside so often to focus on other things, fearing some Roman Catholic spirit of ritualism to overcome us, dared we to partake too frequently.
Consider the following passages from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (Battles translation, pages 1422, 1424):
44. The Lord’s Supper should be celebrated frequently
What we have so far said of the Sacrament abundantly shows that it was not ordained to be received only once a year –and that, too, perfunctorily, as now is the usual custom. Rather, it was ordained to be frequently used among all Christians in order that they might frequently return in memory to Christ’s Passion, by such remembrance to sustain and strengthen their faith, and urge themselves to sing thanksgiving to God and to proclaim his goodness; finally, by it to nourish mutual love, and among themselves give witness to this love, and discern its bond in the unity of Christ’s body. For as often as we partake of the symbol of the Lord’s body, as a token given and received, we reciprocally bind ourselves to all the duties of love in order that none of us may permit anything that can harm our brother, or overlook anything that can help him, where necessity demands and ability suffices.
Luke relates in The Acts that this was the practice of the apostolic church, when he says that believers ” . . . continued in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Thus it became the unvarying rule that no meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper, and almsgiving. That this was the established order among the Corinthians also, we can safely infer from Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 11:20). And it remained in use for many centuries after.
46. Communicating only once a year condemned
Plainly this custom which enjoins us to take communion once a year is a veritable invention of the devil, whoever was instrumental in introducing it. They say that Zephyrinus was the author of this decree, although it is not believable that it was in the form in which we now have it. For perhaps by his ordinance he did not provide too badly for the church, as times were then. For there is not the least doubt that the Sacred Supper was in that era set before the believers every time they met together; and there is no doubt that a majority of them took communion; but since all scarcely ever happened to take communion at once, and since it was necessary for those who were mingled with profane and idolatrous men to attest their faith by some outward sign–the holy man, for the sake of order and polity, appointed that day on which all Christian people should, by partaking of the Lord’s Supper, make a confession of faith. Posterity wickedly distorted Zephyrinus’ otherwise good ordinance, when a definite law was made to have communion once a year. (Fourth Lateran Council, canon 21). By this it has come about that almost all, when they have taken communion once, as though they have beautifully done their duty for the rest of the year, go about unconcerned. It should have been done far differently: the Lord’s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually. None is indeed to be forcibly compelled, but all are to be urged and aroused; also the inertia of indolent people is to be rebuked. All, like hungry men, should flock to such a bounteous repast. Not unjustly, then, did I complain at the outset that this custom was thrust in by the devil’s artifice, which, in prescribing one day a year, renders men slothful all the rest of the year. Indeed, we see that already in Chrysostom’s day this degrading abuse had crept in; but we can see at the same time how much it displeased him. For in the passage which I just quoted he sadly complains of great inequality in this matter; at some times of the year they often did not come even when they were clean, but came at Easter, even when they were unclean. Then he exclaims: “O custom, O presumption! In vain, therefore, is a daily offering made; in vain we stand before the altar; there is no one who will partake along with us.” So far is Chrysostom from having approved this by lending it his authority!
It appears to me that the work of Reformation is not done. Begin a conversation with your pastor about this topic, and encourage him to examine the Scriptures in the light of the history of the issue of the frequency of the Supper and see what the Lord may work in the life of your church!
The Next Study Bible To Join My Collection
Case in point, Leland Ryken. Dr. Ryken is the father of Dr. Phillip Ryken, the successor to James Montgomery Boice at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who is the late successor to the even more late Donald Gray Barnhouse. Read about Tenth’s august roll of influential pastors since its early years. Dr. Leland Ryken’s credentials include a Ph.D. from the University of Oregon and he is professor of English at Wheaton College in Illinois, where he has twice received the “teacher of the year” award. He served as Literary 
Chairman on the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible, and authored a wonderful book entitled, The Word of God in English, in which he explains the thinking behind what the ESV crowd has begun calling “essentially literal” translation, as opposed to “literal” (formal equivalence) and “thought-for-thought” (dynamic equivalence). As you may perceive, it sounds like a happy medium, and I think it is definitely a worthwhile achievement.
Leland Ryken also contributed to a good book by a group of evangelical scholars on the Origin of the Bible. But there are yet many others of his books around to which I’ve yet to get. But coming this September, his study Bible will be released. The Literary Study Bible!
from the ESV Blog’s post on the Literary Study Bible:
About The Literary Study Bible
A literary study Bible—what a great idea! Who better to conceive of such a Bible and to provide the notes than Dr. Leland Ryken, author and editor of numerous books explaining the literary forms manifest in the Bible and encouraging us to pay special attention to these forms. The Literary Study Bible represents the culmination of his efforts to aid all who read, study, preach, and teach the Bible. Find your understanding of Scripture improved and your appreciation for its literary beauty heightened.
“Any piece of writing needs to be assimilated and interpreted in terms of the kind of writing that it is,” write the coeditors. “The Bible is a literary book in which theology and history are usually embodied in literary forms. Those forms include genres, the expression of human experience in concrete form, stylistic and rhetorical techniques, and artistry. . . . [The use of these forms] has been inspired by God and [they] need to be granted an importance in keeping with that inspiration.”
I believe a resource such as this will help the evangelical church regain much ground lost since the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, when Dispensational hermeneutics misinformed the last several generations of evangelicals that “literal” interpretation should mean something more akin to “anti-figurative interpretation.” J. Ligon Duncan writes, “Secondly, Dispensationalists speak in terms of a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is a major rhetorical thing that you hear in discussion with Dispensationalist friends. ‘We interpret the Bible literally.’ Of course, the implication being that you don’t. We interpret the Bible literally, you don’t. You do something else to it. Whereas Covenant Theologians would argue, ‘We interpret the Bible literally, but, we believe that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament.’ We believe that the New Testament is the hermeneutical manual for the Old Testament. And Dispensationalists are suspicious of that. When you say that the New Testament must interpret the Old Testament, Dispensationalists get a little bit edgy, because they feel you are about to spiritualize something that the Old Testament has said for them very clearly. So that is a fundamental difference. The Covenant Theologian believes the New Testament has the final word as the meaning of that passage, whereas the Dispensationalist tends to want to interpret the Old Testament and then go to the New Testament and attempt to harmonize the particular teaching of the New Testament with their previous interpretation of that Old Testament passage, rather than allowing the New Testament fundamental hermaneutical control.”
Historically, literal interpretation meant “literary.” In other words, interpret the Bible according to the common rules which apply to whichever kind of literature you are reading. If we can get this understanding corrected on a grassroots level, the Light of the Gospel would shine all the brighter.
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 
Righteousness Apart From Law
The Righteousness From God Apart From Law
John Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 3:21-22
21. But now without the law, etc. It is not certain for what distinct reason he calls that the righteousness of God, which we obtain by faith; whether it be, because it can alone stand before God, or because the Lord in his mercy confers it on us. As both interpretations are suitable, we contend for neither. This righteousness then, which God communicates to man, and accepts alone, and owns as righteousness, has been revealed, he says, without the law, that is without the aid of the law; and the law is to be understood as meaning works; for it is not proper to refer this to its teaching, which he immediately adduces as bearing witness to the gratuitous righteousness of faith. Some confine it to ceremonies; but this view I shall presently show to be unsound and frigid. We ought then to know, that the merits of works are excluded. We also see that he blends not works with the mercy of God; but having taken away and wholly removed all confidence in works, he sets up mercy alone.
It is not unknown to me, that Augustine gives a different explanation; for he thinks that the righteousness of God is the grace of regeneration; and this grace he allows to be free, because God renews us, when unworthy, by his Spirit; and from this he excludes the works of the law, that is, those works, by which men of themselves endeavor, without renovation, to render God indebted to them. (Deum promereri — to oblige God.) I also well know, that some new speculators proudly adduce this sentiment, as though it were at this day revealed to them. But that the Apostle includes all works without exception, even those which the Lord produces in his own people, is evident from the context.
For no doubt Abraham was regenerated and led by the Spirit of God at the time when he denied that he was justified by works. Hence he excluded from man’s justification not only works morally good, as they commonly call them, and such as are done by the impulse of nature, but also all those which even the faithful can perform. Professor Hodge very justly observes, “It never was the doctrine of the Reformation, or of the Lutheran and Calvinistic divines, that the imputation of righteousness affected the moral character of those concerned. It is true,” he adds, “whom God justifies he also sanctifies; but justification is not sanctification, and the imputation of righteousness is not the infusion of righteousness.” — Ed. Again, since this is a definition of the righteousness of faith, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,” there is no question to be made about this or that kind of work; but the merit of works being abolished, the remission of sins alone is set down as the cause of righteousness.
They think that these two things well agree, — that man is justified by faith through the grace of Christ, — and that he is yet justified by the works, which proceed from spiritual regeneration; for God gratuitously renews us, and we also receive his gift by faith. But Paul takes up a very different principle, — that the consciences of men will never be tranquillized until they recumb on the mercy of God alone. “The foundation of your trust before God, must be either your own righteousness out and out, or the righteousness of Christ out and out. … If you are to lean upon your own merit, lean upon it wholly — if you are to lean upon Christ, lean upon him wholly. The two will not amalgamate together, and it is the attempt to do so, which keeps many a weary and heavy-laden inquirer at a distance from rest, and at a distance from the truth of the gospel. Maintain a clear and consistent posture. Stand not before God with one foot upon a rock and the other upon a treacherous quicksand…We call upon you not to lean so much as the weight of one grain or scruple of your confidence upon your own doings — to leave this ground entirely, and to come over entirely to the ground of a Redeemer’s blood and a Redeemer’s righteousness.” — Dr. Chalmers Hence, in another place, after having taught us that God is in Christ justifying men, he expresses the manner, — “by not imputing to them their sins.” In like manner, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he puts the law in opposition to faith with regard to justification; for the law promises life to those who do what it commands, (Galatians 3:12) and it requires not only the outward performance of works, but also sincere love to God. It hence follows, that in the righteousness of faith, no merit of works is allowed. It then appears evident, that it is but a frivolous sophistry to say, that we are justified in Christ, because we are renewed by the Spirit, inasmuch as we are the members of Christ, — that we are justified by faith, because we are united by faith to the body of Christ, — that we are justified freely, because God finds nothing in us but sin.
But we are in Christ because we are out of ourselves; and justified by faith, because we must recumb on the mercy of God alone, and on his gratuitous promises; and freely, because God reconciles us to himself by burying our sins. Nor can this indeed be confined to the commencement of justification, as they dream; for this definition — “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven” — was applicable to David, after he had long exercised himself in the service of God; and Abraham, thirty years after his call, though a remarkable example of holiness, had yet no works for which he could glory before God, and hence his faith in the promise was imputed to him for righteousness; and when Paul teaches us that God justifies men by not imputing their sins, he quotes a passage, which is daily repeated in the Church. Still more, the conscience, by which we are disturbed on the score of works, performs its office, not for one day only, but continues to do so through life. It hence follows that we cannot remain, even to death, in a justified state, except we look to Christ only, in whom God has adopted us, and regards us now as accepted. Hence also is their sophistry confuted, who falsely accuse us of asserting, that according to Scripture we are justified by faith only, while the exclusive word only, is nowhere to be found in Scripture. But if justification depends not either on the law, or on ourselves, why should it not be ascribed to mercy alone? and if it be from mercy only, it is then by faith only.
The particle now may be taken adversatively, and not with reference to time; as we often use now for but. “The words but now may be regarded merely as marking the transition from one paragraph to another, or as a designation of tense; now, i.e., under the gospel dispensation. In favor of this view is the phrase, “to declare at this time his righteousness (Romans 3:26) .” — Hodge But if you prefer to regard it as an adverb of time, I willingly admit it, so that there may be no room to suspect an evasion; yet the abrogation of ceremonies alone is not to be understood; for it was only the design of the Apostle to illustrate by a comparison the grace by which we excel the fathers. Then the meaning is, that by the preaching of the gospel, after the appearance of Christ in the flesh, the righteousness of faith was revealed. It does not, however, hence follow, that it was hid before the coming of Christ; for a twofold manifestation is to be here noticed: the first in the Old Testament, which was by the word and sacraments; the other in the New, which contains the completion of ceremonies and promises, as exhibited in Christ himself: and we may add, that by the gospel it has received a fuller brightness.
Being proved [or approved] by the testimony, “Testimonio comprobata,” etc., so Beza and Pareus render μαρτυρουμένη; “Being attested,” Doddridge; “Being testified,” Macknight Schleusner gives a paraphrase, “Being predicted and promised;” and this no doubt is the full meaning. — Ed. etc. He adds this, lest in the conferring of free righteousness the gospel should seem to militate against the law. As then he has denied that the righteousness of faith needs the aid of the law, so now he asserts that it is confirmed by its testimony. If then the law affords its testimony to gratuitous righteousness, it is evident that the law was not given for this end, to teach men how to obtain righteousness by works. Hence they pervert it, who turn it to answer any purpose of this kind. And further, if you desire a proof of this truth, examine in order the chief things taught by Moses, and you will find that man, being cast from the kingdom of God, had no other restoration from the beginning than that contained in the evangelical promises through the blessed seed, by whom, as it had been foretold, the serpent’s head was to be bruised, and through whom a blessing to the nations had been promised: you will find in the commandments a demonstration of your iniquity, and from the sacrifices and oblations you may learn that satisfaction and cleansing are to be obtained in Christ alone. Concurrent with what is said here is this striking and condensed passage from Scott, — “It has been witnessed by the law and the Prophets; the ceremonies typified it; the very strictness of the moral law and its awful curses, being compared with the promises of mercy to sinners, implied it; the promises and predictions of the Messiah bore witness to it; the faith and hope of ancient believers recognized it; and the whole Old Testament, rightly understood, taught men to expect and depend on it.” — Ed. When you come to the Prophets you will find the clearest promises of gratuitous mercy. On this subject see my Institutes.
22. Even the righteousness of God, etc. The words which follow, “by or through the faith of Jesus Christ,” mean not the faith which is his, but the faith of which he is the object. They ought to be rendered “through faith in Jesus Christ.” The genitive case has often this meaning: “Εχετε πίστιν Θεοῦ — Have faith in (of) God,” (Mark 11:22); “Εν πίστει ζῶ τὟ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ — I live by the faith of the Son of God;” [Galatians 2:20;] it should be in our language, “I live by faith in the Son of God.” This genitive case of the object is an Hebraism, and is of frequent occurrence. — Ed. He shows in few words what this justification is, even that which is found in Christ and is apprehended by faith. At the same time, by introducing again the name of God, he seems to make God the founder, (autorem, the author,) and not only the approver of the righteousness of which he speaks; as though he had said, that it flows from him alone, or that its origin is from heaven, but that it is made manifest to us in Christ.
When therefore we discuss this subject, we ought to proceed in this way: First, the question respecting our justification is to be referred, not to the judgment of men, but to the judgment of God, before whom nothing is counted righteousness, but perfect and absolute obedience to the law; which appears clear from its promises and threatenings: if no one is found who has attained to such a perfect measure of holiness, it follows that all are in themselves destitute of righteousness. Secondly, it is necessary that Christ should come to our aid; who, being alone just, can render us just by transferring to us his own righteousness. You now see how the righteousness of faith is the righteousness of Christ. When therefore we are justified, the efficient cause is the mercy of God, the meritorious is Christ, the instrumental is the word in connection with faith. The original is this, “Ut ergo justificemur, causa efficiens est misericordia Dei, Christus materia, verbum cum fide instrumentum — When therefore we are justified, the efficient cause is God’s mercy, Christ is the material, the word with faith is the instrument.” — Ed. Hence faith is said to justify, because it is the instrument by which we receive Christ, in whom righteousness is conveyed to us. Having been made partakers of Christ, we ourselves are not only just, but our works also are counted just before God, and for this reason, because whatever imperfections there may be in them, are obliterated by the blood of Christ; the promises, which are conditional, are also by the same grace fulfilled to us; for God rewards our works as perfect, inasmuch as their defects are covered by free pardon.
Unto all and upon all, Εἰς πάντας και ἐπι πάντας. He makes a similar difference in his expressions in verse 30. This righteousness, as some say, came to the Jews, as it had been promised to them, and upon the Gentiles, as a gift with which they were not acquainted, and it was conferred on them. But the possession was equal and belonged to all who believed, and to none else, whether Jews or Gentiles.
Stuart connects these words with “manifested,” or revealed, in verse 21. It is manifested to all, and manifested for all; that is, for the real benefit of all who believe; in other words, it is offered to all, but becomes of real advantage only to those who believe. But the simpler mode is to consider the words, which is, as in our version, to be understood. ‘Ερχομένη is the word which Luther adopts. — Ed. etc. For the sake of amplifying, he repeats the same thing in different forms; it was, that he might more fully express what we have already heard, that faith alone is required, that the faithful are not distinguished by external marks, and that hence it matters not whether they be Gentiles or Jews.
Share this: