Category Archives: Church History

Misadventures in Anti-Catholicism

By John D. Chitty on | 7 Comments

Yesterday I got around to looking up an old book on the internet. Who remembers The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop? I read that years ago when I was at Baptist Bible College in the early nineties. That was also the time I read Jack Chick’s comics about Alberto, the pretended Jesuit infiltrator of Protestant churches who got a chance to study the secret Vatican archives to learn that the Roman Catholic Church was the focus of all evil in the entire history of the world, after it took the baton from the religions of ancient Egypt, Babylon and the ambitious folks at the Tower of Babel. All of the above is good reading for those who like looking for a demon behind every rock, because if you do read that stuff and believe it, that is what it will do to your brain. (The material at the links above will serve you better.) I even refused to have my son born in the local Roman Catholic hospital in Springfield, Missouri, even though I was told it was a superior hospital to the one in which my son was born, for the specific reason that there must be crucifixes hanging on the walls in that God-forsaken place.
But I digress.
One of the other books I read after this superstitious foundation was laid is called, Babylon Mystery Religion, by evangelist Ralph Woodrow. Woodrow did his best to document what he learned from the likes of Hislop and other biggote anti-Catholic fundamentalists. But what I learned yesterday while browsing the internet about this topic was that Woodrow was challenged on this issue, re-examined the documentation at the original source level, retracted his views, took his book out of print and wrote a new one which corrects the errors of this misadventure in anti-catholicism. It’s called The Babylon Connection? How refreshing it is to find someone who doesn’t stick to his guns no matter how wrong he is just because he’s got something in print from which he’s profiting.
It is right to differ with Roman Catholicism on many important theological, practical and ecclesiological grounds, but that doesn’t mean they deserve to be slandered. Last I checked, I heard there was a law against it.
Posted in: Baptist, Captain Headknowledge: The Early Years, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

Tolle Lege! Sign Up and Read! (or something like that)

By John D. Chitty on | 2 Comments

With apologies to St. Augustine . . .
I got a letter in the mail today informing me of Modern Reformation’s new and improved website. There is a member side of the website for which you may register and enjoy more than you can as a nonmember. One of those perks is the entirety of every article in every issue of Modern Reformation magazine for the past several years.
A few weeks ago I blogged on the issue of Solo Scriptura. In that post, I included some excerpts of an article from the March/April 2007 issue, entitled, “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” Back when I posted, I really wished that I could share with you the entire article without violating any copyright laws, and now I can! If you are interested in learning more about the historical devolution of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, then do yourself a favor and sign up for free and read, read, read!
Posted in: Current Evangelical Trends, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

Tombstoned Misadventures

By John D. Chitty on | 4 Comments

Here’s a brilliant piece of artwork by talented, believing caricaturist, Angel Contreras, whose website is Art4Clowns and his on-again, off-again blog (as mine has been lately), Torched By An Angel. Angel’s art frequently encapsulates the exploits of Reformed Baptist apologist extraordinaire, James R. White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. I recommend you scroll through White’s pages for more of Angel’s art and, of course, White’s apologetics. James White took a mere seventeen days to write and refute the recent “Misadventure of Jim & Sim.”
Another of White’s recent publications is his debate with Dave Hunt, Debating Calvinism.

Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

C. H. Dodd Turns 123!

By John D. Chitty on | 4 Comments

Birth of C. H. Dodd, English clergyman and Bible scholar. Dodd became the most influential British New Testament scholar of the mid-20th century, and penned over a dozen books, including “The Parables of the Kingdom” (1934).

I have a copy of a lecture given by D. A. Carson on (I think) Justification by Faith in Luther’s Verse, Romans 1:17. It was very educational and even entertaining. Dr. Carson has that kind of intimidating edge when he lectures that makes you fear ever having to debate him, but sometimes that kind of edge is also a great source of humor. One of my favorite humorous asides Carson shared in this lecture was a limerick someone wrote to poke fun of our subject, Dr. C. H. Dodd:

There was a professor called Dodd,

Whose name was exceedingly odd;

He spelled, if you please,

His name with three “D’s,”

When one was sufficient for God.

Carson’s commentary on this limerick was that it wasn’t any sort of theological critique, but it did a great deal of good at the time. Examine this Wikipedia article on C. H. Dodd to learn for what issues he may have deserved such treatment.
Posted in: Saluting Real Captains Headknowledge, Thinking About Church History

“The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura” Revisited

By John D. Chitty on | 8 Comments

A few months ago, I blogged on “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura,” in which I tried to show that the Baptist tradition in general seems to embrace an anti-tradition, individualistic version of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I called it “The Baptist Version,” back then, because at that time I had forgotten that there was already an established nickname for the tendency, of which Baptists are among the more more moderate practitioners. To call it “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura” definitely overstates the matter, for those who truly embrace the full-fledged doctrine of “Solo Scriptura,” I believe, had a subtle, yet very identifiable influence on the development of the Baptist tradition. The Anabaptists were the home of full-fledged “Solo Scriptura,” in my view, and I think Mathison demonstrates this well in his article, “Sola Scriptura/Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes”, in the March/April 2007 issue of Modern Reformation Magazine.

Following are a few excerpts which will give you an idea of Mathison’s treatment of the subject of Solo Scriptura:

“The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of theological anarchy. Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright many of the fundmanetal tenets of Christian orthodoxy. But more recently professing evangelical scholars have advocated revisionary versions of numerous doctrines. A revisionary doctrine of God has been advocated by proponents of “openness theology.” A revisionary doctrine of eschatology has been advocated by proponents of full-preterism. Revisionary doctrines of justification sola fide have been advocated by proponents of various “new perspectives” on Paul. Often the revisionists will claim to be restating a more classical view. Critics, however, have usually been quick to point out that the revisions are actually distortions.

Ironically, a similarly revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has arisen within Protestantism, but unlike the revisionist doctrine of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has caused very little controversy among the heirs of the Reformation. One of the reasons there has been much less controversy over the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is that this doctrine has been gradually supplanting the Reformation doctrine for centuries. In fact, in many segments of the evangelical world, the revisionist doctrine is by far the predominant view now. Many claim that this revisionist doctrine is the Reformation doctrine. However, like the revisionist doctrines of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is actually a distortion of the Reformation doctrine.”

“Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of “Scripture versus tradition.” Protestants are said to teach “Scripture alone,” while Roman Catholics are said to teach “Scripture plus tradition.” This, however, is not an accurate picture of the historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order to understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura we must understand the historical context more accurately.”

Here Mathison begins to summarize three views on the relationship between Scripture and tradition, borrowing clever labels from Heiko Oberman:

Tradition 1: “In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testmanet together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neighter the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God.”

Tradition 2: “The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine. . . It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century.” Willaim of Ockham was one of the first medieval theologians to officially adopt this two-source view of revelation in the fourteenth century.

Mathison shows how the Reformation, in part, was a move back to “Tradition 1,” the view that Scripture was the sole source of divine revelation, to be interpreted by the church within the context of the regula fidei, the hermeneutical tradition, if you will.

“To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.”

I, myself, wrote on the Reformation of Tradition 2 once.

Now here’s where the trouble starts in relation to misunderstanding the idea of Sola Scriptura:

Tradition 0?: “At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to Tradition 1 (sola Scriptura), several radical reformers were calling for the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition. They argued that Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the only authority altogether. The true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei were rejected altogether. According to this view, there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority. Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit and the Bible.”

Is this beginning to sound familiar? I thought so.

Now, back to my own opinion, and application of these historical matters. It was the 1644 edition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith that complains that their movement is “commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists.” Having adopted fully Reformed theology, including the doctrine of paedobaptism, when I compare how the Baptist tradition from its very inception, so completely embraced Reformed theology with the full scope of understanding of these doctrines in accord with “Tradition 1,” the ancient view that Scripture alone is divine revelation, to be interpreted within the traditional hermeneutic of the regula fidei. But then, when one examines the teaching of these otherwise Reformed Christians on baptism, hints of tendency toward “Tradition 0,” the Anabaptist view of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, begin to emerge.

This is what I meant by “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura.” I don’t “falsely” claim that Baptists are Anabaptists, I just think they took baby steps away from Reformation and toward Anabaptism on baptism (and maybe congregationalism?). That’s all. But rank and file Baptists, like many otherwise evangelical paedobaptists, have moved with the spirit of the age to embrace the modern revisionist tendency toward “Solo Scriptura.” And I think that’s a problem. Work must be, and is being, done to correct this problem here and there. That’s why I like to publicize the Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

Posted in: Baptist, Current Evangelical Trends, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History, Toward a Modern Reformation

Ordinary Means of Illumination

By John D. Chitty on | 3 Comments

March 29, 1523—German reformer Martin Luther wrote in a letter: ‘There has never been a great revelation of God’s Word unless God has first prepared the way by the rise and the flourishing of languages and learning, as though these were forerunners, a sort of John the Baptist.’

Advocates of Solo Scriptura (if only we could link to the article on Solo Scriptura, you’d see what I’m talking about!), when referring to the Holy Spirit’s work of illuminating the Word of God to the believer, seem to assume that his work is primarily supernatural. However, Luther’s comments fly in the face of this assumption. God uses means. Granted, he does at his appointed times and for his own reasons, can and does work supernaturally, but as it has played out providentially in the world, his supernatural work is the exception, rather than the rule. The rule is that God works by his providence through ordinary means. Academics like “languages and learning,” are among those ordinary means the Holy Spirit utilizes to illuminate the truth of God’s Word, centered in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, to the heart/mind of the believer.
Posted in: Martin Luther, Saluting Real Captains Headknowledge, Thinking About Church History

No Retreat

By John D. Chitty on | 10 Comments

I’m attempting to tackle John Owen’s masterpiece of writing on sanctification, Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers. This volume is not light reading. It’s a chore. It’s one of those elephants you have to eat one little bite at a time. As I chew on Owen’s words, part of my aid to digestion will entail jotting down a summary of his words in my own, as I consider the Scriptures he expounds and the instruction he gives. In chapter two, Owen transitions from a point teaching how “Indwelling sin always abides whilst we are in this world,” to his next point which adds the further truth that “Sin doth not only still abide in us, but is still acting, still laboring to bring forth the deeds of the flesh.”

In this passage, Owen writes, “Now, it being our duty to mortify, to be killing of sin whilst it is in us, we must be at work. He that is appointed to kill an enemy, if he leave striking before the other ceases living, doth but half his work. These are words that “struck” me.

Galatians. 6:9 “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”

Hebrews 12:1 “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . . “

2 Corinthians 7:1 “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”

This text from 2 Corinthians is especially helpful when considered in its context. Paul here encourages the Corinthians to purify themselves and perfect holiness out of reverence for God. But what indicatives form the basis for these imperatives? To what gospel promises does Paul appeal in order to motivate such a response? At the end of chapter six, Paul stated several of God’s promises from the Old Testament which speak of his gospel intention to enjoy the company of his Redeemed.”What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ (cf. Leviticus 26:11-12; Jeremiah 32:38; Ezekiel 37:27). Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you” (Isaiah 52:11; Ezekiel 20:34, 41).

What are God’s gospel intentions which call us to remain separate from, leave untouched, and, indeed, kill, sin? By the gracious redemption purchased by Christ in his victorious life of active obedience to God and utter defeat of sin in his death and resurrection for sinners, God’s intention is to “make (his) dwelling with them.” Think about that: if you are redeemed, it is because God is pleased to live with you! “. . . And walk among them . . . ” As the company of the redeemed, we ought not gather to have a good time with each other, or to impress each other with our outward displays of godliness, but we are called to gather and walk together because God is pleased to walk among the company of those redeemed by Christ from their bondage to sin! How easily we forget this as we walk ever so thoughtlessly in our sinful, defiling lusts. “I will be their God.” Our God? He redeemed us, so he could be our God? Who are we that he is mindful of us? We are nobodies in and of ourselves! But God was graciously pleased to place sinners such as us into his beloved Son in whom he is well pleased (Matthew 17:5). ” . . . ‘And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me,’ says the Lord Almighty” (v. 18).

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, with Grandma and the Indians . . .

Owen continues:
“2. Sin doth not only still abide in us, but is still acting, still laboring to bring forth the deeds of the flesh. When sin lets us alone we may let sin alone; but as sin is never less quiet than when it seems to be most quiet, and its waters are for the most part deep when they are still, so ought our contrivances against it to be vigorous at all times and in all conditions, even where there is least suspicion.” This resembles those scenes in the old war movies where the general is unnerved by the enemy’s silence: “It’s quiet–too quiet!” Believers must remain on guard even when they aren’t conscious of temptation–your inner enemy, sin, is merely reloading and plotting your downfall.

Here are some of the Scriptures Owen cites in support of the above statements:

Sin doth not only abide in us, but “the law of the members is still rebelling against the law of the mind,” (Romans 7:23);

and “the spirit that dwells in us lusteth to envy” (James 4:5)

It is always in continual work; “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17)

Lust is still tempting and conceiving sin (James 1:14)

The Holy Spirit who indwells the believer has desires for his behavior which contradict the desires that his indwelling sin nature has for him. The flesh (sinful desire) seeks on an ongoing basis to entice the believer to sin and the Holy Spirit is calling him to rely on him out of love for the Son of God to do what he desires him to do. Believer, hear the Spirit’s call and heed it, while, like Russel Crowe’s character in the movie, A Beautiful Mind, resisting, ignoring, neglecting and marginalizing the flesh’s regular attempts to lure you into sin.

Here are my concluding thoughts which were spurred by Owen’s words:

Since sin will dwell in the justified believer for his entire life, and is constantly engaged with him in a fight to the death, the justified believer must likewise engage in an offensive to the death against sin, relying not on his own moral strength, but on the power of the sanctifying Holy Spirit in the Word of God (the Law and the Gospel–1 Peter 1:25) as it is carefully heard, prudently applied and diligently obeyed (James 1:19-25). How a professing believer responds to the onslaughts of his own indwelling sin has eternal consequences (1 Timothy 4:7-8).

If the believer refuses up front, or surrenders to a life of unrepentant sin before his own death (Matthew 21:28-32), he stands liable to the judgment of God as a false believer who allowed sin to kill him, finding that he was never a justified believer to begin with (Matthew 7:23). But if the believer perseveres in the fight to the death with sin, then, when he dies, he will be found finally as a justified believer who has spent his life being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and now stands to be glorified (1 Corinthians 15:50-58) to live forever in his flesh, finally victorious over sin in Christ, who himself defeated sin for us (Matthew 4:1-11) in order to defeat sin in us as we gratefully return our love to him by our obedient resistance to temptation, and disciplined pursuit of godliness and righteousness (Matthew 5:6; 6:33).

“Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Matthew 26:41).

Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
going on before.

Christ, the royal Master,
leads against the foe;
Forward into battle
see His banners go!

Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
going on before.

At the sign of triumph
Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers,
on to victory!

Hell’s foundations quiver
at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices,
loud your anthems raise.

Onward, Christian soldiers
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.

Like a mighty army
moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
where the saints have trod.

We are not divided,
all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine,
one in charity.

Onward, Christian soldiers
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.

What the saints established
that I hold for true.
What the saints believèd,
that I believe too.

Long as earth endureth,
men the faith will hold,
Kingdoms, nations, empires,
in destruction rolled.

Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.

Crowns and thrones may perish,
kingdoms rise and wane,
But the church of Jesus
constant will remain.

Gates of hell can never
‘gainst that church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise,
and that cannot fail.

Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.

Onward then, ye people,
join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices
in the triumph song.

Glory, laud and honor
unto Christ the King,
This through countless ages
men and angels sing.

Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.

Posted in: Music for Mind and Heart, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

Christian Headknowledge and Historical Claims

By John D. Chitty on | 3 Comments

This prediction can be made on the basis of recent history alone. The upcoming documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus (Sunday, March 4, Discovery Channel), and book, The Jesus Family Tomb (HarperCollins Publishers), will be another case of sensational claims based on highly debatable evidence, at the expense of the traditional view of Jesus of Nazareth. In the name of getting at the “historical Jesus,” we’ve had over the past decade plus, the Jesus Seminar claiming to determine that Jesus only said about 18% of what the New Testament attributes to him, the James Ossuary, the owner of which who is now on trial for fraud, the “Gospel” of Judas which we’d known about since AD180 anyway, we just didn’t know what it said, The Da Vinci Code, the novelization of theories about second and third century gnostics and the Knights Templar combined with some bad history about Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Now, they are trying to make us think they’ve found some of Jesus’ bones (if only fragments), and confirmatory evidence of the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
One friend of mine was puzzled about why people want to do this? My answer was “Money.” To the book, TV and movie industry, it doesn’t really matter if the claims are true. It matters how much money you can make off of the hype when the claims are made in these various media before the claims are disproven.
I always say if you don’t know where you came from, you don’t know where you are, and you can’t see where you’re going. I know that most of my readers already believe the Word of God. Bolster that faith with supplementary evidence.
Both Anselm and Augustine are attributed affirming, “Believe in order to understand.” You already believe the Word of God. Add to your faith in the Word the confirmation of that inerrant Word with facts drawn from the world around you. Learn church history. Learn basic apologetics. Gain a working knowledge of the physical sciences, etc. Isaac Watts wrote in his book, Logic, (not an exact quote), “Learn everything you can learn. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.” The more you learn the facts available from natural revelation, the broader and deeper your understanding will be of the things you have already learned from the special revelation in Scripture. Skeptics insist on understanding before they are willing to believe. This is not what Christian “head knowledge” is about. It’s about believing in order to understand. Once you receive his revelation by faith, God will confirm it to you by what you see and learn around you.
“For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins”( 2 Peter 1:5-9).
Everyone readily affirms that we need to add to our faith virtue, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection and love. It’s a no-brainer that to have these in abundance makes us effective and fruitful. How easily we forget that these are not all that make believers effective and fruitful, helping you live in the light of your cleansing from sin in the Lord Jesus Christ. Abundant knowledge is also a key ingredient, according to the apostle Peter. When many believers hear the claims of skeptics about the “historical Jesus,” they already know not to believe the false claims. But they may not already know why. Knowing why is just as important as knowing what side to take. You will be more effective in helping others around you to know what side to take if you know why it’s the right side and can communicate it to them. It will not only undergird yours and your brothers’ faith, it may help current unbelievers begin thinking in the right direction–and, with prayer, time, and evangelism, may, can and will extend the Kingdom of God through the clensing of sins in Christ, one person at a time through you.
Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

Another Easter Season, Another Skeptical Claim

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Pulpit Magazine has a good list of links which respond to the most recent in the modern annual tradition of casting doubt on the historicity of traditional Christianity in the middle of one of its most holy seasons.
Time Magazine ran a piece describing James Cameron’s and Simchi Jacobovici’s press conference during which they announced their upcoming documentary and book, The Jesus Family Tomb.

for your edification, from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible . . .

1 Corinthians 15:1-28
The Resurrection of Christ
15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that

Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time,
most of whom are still alive,
though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

The Resurrection of the Dead
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead,

the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For as by a man came death,
by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die,
so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But each in his own order:
Christ the firstfruits,
then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
24 Then comes the end,
when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father
after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
25 For he must reign
until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
Christ is risen–He is risen indeed!
Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

Premature Reports of The Planned Catholic-Anglican Reunion

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Here is an excerpt from the official response to a Times of London report (to which I linked you yesterday) about the effort to which those engaged in the effort object.

“Growing Together in Unity and Mission has not yet been officially published. It is unfortunate that its contents have been prematurely reported in a way which misrepresents its intentions and sensationalises its conclusions.”

“Both the heading of the article (‘Churches back plan to unite under Pope’) and its opening sentence, which speaks of ‘radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope’ need to be put into proper perspective. For 35 years this dialogue has addressed questions of authority, including the papacy. The so-called ‘radical proposals’ found in Growing Together in Unity and Mission are the same proposals which ARCIC has been putting forward over the past 35 years. What this document says about the Petrine Ministry is not new, but a synthesis of what is said in ARCIC’s documents on authority (Authority in the Church I, 1976; Authority in the Church II, 1981; The Gift of Authority, 1999). While it is encouraging that a document of this kind can be produced and that practical day to day cooperation between Catholics and Anglicans can be strengthened, talk of plans to reunite the two communions is, sadly, much exaggerated.”

“The Times article speculates about the Catholic Church’s response to a possible schism within the Anglican Communion. It should be pointed out that the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has consistently spoken of the value of the Anglican Communion remaining a communion, rooted in the Apostolic faith, as indicated in this statement from 2004: “It is our overwhelming desire that the Anglican Communion stays together, rooted in the historic faith which our dialogue and relations over four decades have led us to believe that we share to a large degree.” During the visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Pope Benedict in November, 2006, the Holy Father noted: ‘It is our fervent hope that the Anglican Communion will remain grounded in the Gospels and the Apostolic Tradition which form our common patrimony and are the basis of our common aspiration to work for full visible unity.'”
So it’s not like it’s going to happen next week, but they’ve been working on it since about 1966, are currently working on it, and intend to accomplish it one day. In other words, “Rome’s leaving the porch light on for the Anglican Communion.” That being the case, my previous “sensationalised” comments stand.
Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

The Romans Road — Anglican Edition

By John D. Chitty on | 7 Comments

After 35 years of dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church of England, the groundwork is being laid for re-uniting both religious bodies under the pope. Yes, you read that correctly. The original and largest expression of the historic Reformation in England is undoing the work that had been done. Since the theology of the Reformation was largely abandoned by the Anglican Church up to at least a hundred years ago, it only makes sense that Romanism would rush back in to fill the void. After all, what’s the point of remaining separate from the apostate Roman Catholic Church if you’ve already apostatized from the biblical “Apostolic Succession” which is maintained by “continuing stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42)?

Read, “Anglicans, Catholics Discuss Unity,” from CNN.com.

And then read “Update on Relations with the Anglican Communion” for more information from the Roman Catholic side.

And here is what the Anglicans have to say for themselves . . . “Statement from the Co-chairs of the International Anglican – Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, on Anglican – Roman Catholic relations”

Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

From Rasict Ruckmanism to Reformed Theology

By John D. Chitty on | 9 Comments

 

I just saw a great Day of Discovery program on television. The month of February is Black History Month. This month was selected because it contains the birthdays of both Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. I’ve been noticing that Day of Discovery has been observing this by airing several of their programs which feature the contributions of great Christian African-Americans in American history, many of which I’ve seen in the past. This weekend, however, they kicked off a three-part series called Africa & the Bible. I got really excited about the first one, The Myth of a Cursed Race (at this link, you can watch the video online!). Part of the introduction of this video on the Radio Bible Class website reads, “Are all races created equal in God’s eyes? Down through the ages, some people have viewed those with darker skin as somehow less human—using skin color as an excuse to enslave and marginalize people.”
The reason I found this program so exciting was the fact that, in the past, during my sojourn in the worldview of “Ruckmanism,” I was taught this view that is among the historic blemishes that tarnishes the reputation of Christianity, along with such low points as the Crusades, Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. The view espoused by Europeans and Americans to justify the forced slavery of generations of Africans did not originate in the turmoil which led to the American Civil War, but is centuries old, and is ingrained in the thinking of many in some form or other, to this day.
There are three books by Peter Ruckman in which he perpetuates this harmful interpretation of Genesis 9:20-28, which has been used to subjugate and generally look down on the African race. Their titles are, Segregation or Integration, Discrimination: The Key to Sanity, and Genesis: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Not that I recommend your buying these books, but for your information, these titles may be found at Peter Ruckman’s PDF bookstore catalog.
Segregation or Integration is found on page 15 of the 16 page PDF file; Discrimination: The Key to Sanity is listed on page 9; and Genesis: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series is on page 1. These writings by Peter Ruckman persuade many of his readers to adopt a racist worldview in relation to the African race. I was persuaded to believe it for a while. I was persuaded to believe it, not because I have any animosity toward black people from my own experience, I was persuaded to believe it because I wanted to believe that Peter Ruckman was a great Bible teacher. Many of his readers adopt this racist view out of a similar motivation. They’re not bad people. They are misled people.
I am thankful that before I adopted the extreme views of Ruckman, I had had enough exposure to the greater evangelical world and its way of thinking that as I forced myself to subscribe to Ruckman’s bankrupt views, I was always aware of the evangelical views, or at least attitudes, which highlighted to various degrees, the holes in his teachings. Luther once wrote that “reason is a whore,” being able to serve whatever purpose you want. For a period of a few long years, I prostituted my mind to this tragic worldview called “Ruckmanism.”
But my mind had a prior commitment to learning the truth. In my late teen years, back when I was considering the claims of charismatic theology, I determined that before I run off willy-nilly from the Independent, Fundamental Baptist tradition in which I was raised, I would first learn exactly what it is that the IFB tradition teaches, and only if they are in error, will I ever leave the tradition in which God had me raised. As I read and thought, I came to the conclusion that the strain of teaching I need to follow is whatever is the most conservative Baptist teaching that I can find. So as I began my journey toward the “right,” eventually I found myself dangling by my fingernails from the lunatic fringe clutching the writings of Peter Ruckman under my other arm. Because I considered Ruckman one of the most “conservative” writers I’d ever read, I figured his were the views I needed to adopt. So, I began the process of assimilation.
I sincerely thought I was learning the truth. I sincerely wanted to believe that I was learning the truth. But even though I wanted to believe the views of this “most conservative” of Baptist teachers, the much more reasonable views of the greater evangelical world always haunted me–the kind that respected the King James Version, but had more confidence in the modern, critical, eclectic text of Scripture; the kind who confessed (whether in a creedal, or non-creedal way) “one holy catholic (universal) church,” as opposed to my “local church only” theology; the kind who thought Martin Luther King, Jr., was a genuine American hero, rather than merely an adulterous, communist-sympathizer who wanted to unleash a dangerous “jungle culture” on this Christian nation.
By God’s grace, as time progressed, and I continued to search for the truth, the holes in Ruckman’s teachings grew and grew, until one day I had to admit to myself, “You know, if I were honest, I’d half to admit that I simply don’t believe this stuff anymore.” In fact, I can tell you the exact spot where I stood when I was finally willing to have this thought. I was mixing ink at the Reformation Station (my nickname for the print shop at which I used to work with my friend, Gage Browning, but this was before he was hired), listening to R. C. Sproul on my Walkman teaching about the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. This was the moment when enough light had pierced the dark views of Ruckmanism that I began the process of genuine Reformation.
This is the reason I found Day of Discovery’s program, Africa & the Bible, part one: The Myth of A Cursed Race such an exciting and enlightening program. I highly recommend it. In fact, I’m about to go back to RBC’s website and offer my “gift of any amount” to their ministry, so that they can thank me for my support of their ministry with the gift of this three part series. I’m sure someday in the future I will be able to share it with others in my future teaching ministry at church. And then at or around February 23, I’m going to the theater to view Amazing Grace, the film about William Wilberforce’s successful efforts to abolish slavery in England two hundred years ago.
Posted in: Captain Headknowledge: The Early Years, Church History, Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, King James Version, Peter Ruckman, Reformed Theology, Theological Issues

Are Calvinists Treating Arminians Fairly? You Be The Judge!

By John D. Chitty on | 3 Comments

“I have never studied Arminian[-ism], but I sense that he [Jacob Hermann, aka, Jacobus Arminius] has been much maligned by Reform[-ed] theologians because of their intractable insistence on all things Calvinistic. Shame on them.”

–Al Dager
Media Spotlight

These words of Al’s made me think to see what I could find in the words of those who admit they are Arminians, so we can see whether we Calvinists unfairly malign them. A good place to start, I guess, would be the Five Articles of Remonstrance, since this is what the Synod of Dort responded to, framing for all time the original form of the whole ongoing Calvinist/Arminian debate.

Article I – That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.
Article II – That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only. but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: “Without me ye can do nothing.”
Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict. and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds.

And here’s a link to Wikipedia’s general entry on Arminianism.

Hope this helps Al Dager, and all of you other professed not-Calvinist-but-not-Arminian-either believers!
Posted in: Doctrines of Grace, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

The KJV Code Revisited

By John D. Chitty on | 3 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged on the way that KJV onlyists seek to bind their followers to exclusive trust and use of the King James Version of the Bible, just as the Roman Catholic Church for centuries enforced exclusive use of the Latin Vulgate.
In this effort, one of the goals of KJV onlyism has always been to bind everyone’s conscience to a static KJV text, making any revision unnecessary at best and wrong at worst. In Gail Riplinger’s recent attempt to do so, In Awe of Thy Word, she resorts to the use of computers, namely, the modern discipline of computational linguistics, in order to convince us that the KJV text must remain static on the basis of the results of computer analysis. This is why I associate it with fads like the Bible Code.
The modus operandi of both efforts is to put computers to work on Scripture on a sort of “microscopic” or mathematical/linguistic level in order to persuade the contemporay, technologically sophisticated generation of the validity of their respective points of view. In the case of the Bible Code, there are better ways to explain the inspiration of the Bible, so this fad is only embarrasing and counterproductive; in the case of the “KJV Code,” it’s an attempt to sow seeds of doubt in conventional textual criticism and translation practice in order to motivate contentment with the KJV status quo, and counteract any desire or demand for revision.
What precedent is there in Scripture, history or the disciplines of textual criticism or translation theory/practice for demanding a static translated text? There is none. There are anecdotal cases to which KJV onlyists could appeal, like the superstitious exaltation of the Septuagint, but these are erroneous and would prove utterly ineffective to persuade the bulk of orthodox scholarship to adapt everything to this invalid line of reasoning. Besides, radical KJV onlyists deny the validity of the Septuagint, and wouldn’t want to go there. This leaves them all alone with their novel theory.
The fact is, there is no basis in textual criticism or translation for arguing for the absolute authority of particular textual readings on the basis of the findings of computational linguistics, which examines the connotations of the sum total of the individual translation choices of the KJV committee. This point is irrelevant to the accuracy of the translation. It is nothing more than an invalid argument rushing into an academic void.
The end game of radical KJV onlyism remains the same: bind the conscience to the current text of the KJV for the mere sake of maintaining needless tradition.This is where fundamentalism fails to learn the lesson of history and repeats the mistake of medieval Roman Catholicism in adding unwarranted tradition into church practic and creates a communcation gap between the Word of God and the people of God.
Posted in: Baptist, Church History, Evangelicalism, King James Version, Theological Issues

Fundamentalists Contra Mundum!

By John D. Chitty on | 8 Comments

I returned In Awe of Thy Word to my friend this morning. We discussed some of our personal observations about Riplinger’s writing in general and some things related to this book in particular. I brought up David Cloud’s one page treatment of Riplinger’s book. I pointed out how it did a good job of showing how several of the readings in Wycliffe’s New Testament matched the Latin Vulgate, contrary to Riplinger’s claims. I explained how this discredits her attempt to document her claim that Wycliffe corrected the Vulgate with Old Latin and even Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in order to bring the text into “complete agreement” with the Traditional Text.
Then we moved on to a couple of things about David Cloud’s positions on other things, which raised an interesting question with my friend. Realizing that Cloud writes exposes on almost any prominent Christian leader you can imagine, including fellow fundamental Baptists, like Peter Ruckman and Jack Hyles, for instance, my friend furrowed his brow and asked, “So, who is David Cloud not against?”
I ventured with my tongue squarely in my cheek (but don’t worry, my pronunciation was not affected–you have to point that out for hyper-literalists, you know), “Probably only churches that pay him to come speak!” Then, on a more serious and respectful note, I continued, “You know, that’s what you get when you’re an independent Independent Baptist–not even ‘dependent’ on your own fellowship.” Guys like Dr. Cloud sometimes seem to be able to find an enemy under every rock.
That’s when it hit me! Fundamentalists contra mundum! Fundamentalists who seem to be against everything that’s going on in the broader Christian world except what’s going on within the four walls of their own churches, and the small group of churches with whom they are willing to extend genuine fellowship are like a photographic negative of the man for whom this Latin nickname was coined. There for a minute I considered telling my friend the story of Athanasius, who famously stood “against the world” (contra mundum) to defend the orthodox view of the Trinity and the deity of Christ during the Council of Nicea, but he had plenty of other things on his mind so before I had another chance to speak, the thought had escaped me. But now it’s back, and I thought it was a cute enough little association that serves to underscore the hyper-separatism of fundamentalism, that I just had to share it with you.
But let this be a lesson for us all: if we must criticize almost everyone who comes down the pike, let us take the advice my friend’s pastor and father-in-law once told me, “Don’t start nuthin’ unless you know you can finish it!”
They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love
We are one in the Spirit,
we are one in the Lord
We are one in the Spirit,
we are one in the Lord
And we pray that all unity
may one day be restored
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love
We will work with each other,
we will work side by side
We will work with each other,
we will work side by side
And we’ll guard each one’s dignity
and save each one’s pride
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love
We will walk with each other,
we will walk hand in hand
We will walk with each other,
we will walk hand in hand
And together we’ll spread the news
that God is in our land
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love
Posted in: Baptist, Church History, King James Version, Theological Issues