Category Archives: Church History

Chez Kneel: Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Chez Kneel: Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ

While I’m sending you to other blogs, check out this review of my favorite novel about the Lord Jesus Christ! You can read a few other comments of mine about it in the comment thread responding to this post over at Chez Kneel.

Posted in: Captain Headknowledge: The Early Years, Thinking About Church History

Riplinger’s Mythology Regarding Wycliffe and the Latin Vulgate

By John D. Chitty on | 2 Comments

Today, I was able to copy down the passage I was writing about yesterday in such a piecemeal fashion.
Again, the following is from page 788 of Gail Riplinger’s In Awe of Thy Word . . .
Myth 3
Wycliffe Used a Corrupt Latin Vulgate
The verse comparison charts in this book dispel the myth that Wycliffe and his followers used a corrupt Bible translated from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.

The myth that Wycliffe had no access to the original languages is discounted by Wycliffe himself who said that he had access to Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts which were in “complete agreement” with the Old Latin text he followed. He adds, “[T]he Jews were dispersed among the nations, taking with them their Hebrew manuscripts. Now this happened . . . that we (Christians, not Wycliffe and his fellow editors, specifically–CHK) might have recourse to their manuscripts as witnesses to the fact that there is no difference in the sense found in our Latin books and those Hebrew ones” (Truth, p. 157). He also makes reference to manuscripts being “corrected according to the Greek exemplar.” Once Jerome’s text was corrected, there was “complete agreement of his translation [Wycliffe’s] with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts” (Truth, pp. 143,157 et al.).
Now, I ask you, do not Wycliffe’s words, as quoted in this paragraph, sound like generic statements stretched illogically by Riplinger to provide pseudo-proof of the point she’s attempting to make?
Can’t wait until I get my hands on Wycliffe’s On the Truth of Holy Scripture! Notice the excerpt from the introduction and table of contents provided by Medieval Institute Publications on their website:
“Wyclif sought the restoration of an idealized past even if that meant taking revolutionary steps in the present to recover what had been lost. His 1377-78 On the Truth of Holy Scripture represents such an effort in reform: the recognition of the inherent perfection and veracity of the Sacred Page which serves as the model for daily conduct, discourse, and worship, thereby forming the foundation upon which Christendom itself is to be ordered.”-from the Introduction
Contents
Part One: The Veracity of Scripture
Part Two: The Authority of Scripture
Part Three: The Divine Origin of Scripture
Part Four: Scripture as the Law of Christendom
In other words, the scope of Wycliffe’s book as outlined by MIP lends no credence to the idea that Wycliffe was commenting about the materials he had at hand in his own personal effort to translate the Word of God into English. Yet this is exactly how Riplinger uses Wycliffe’s words. Radical King James Onlyists like Riplinger, don’t want their readers to think critically, but they are compelled by true scholarship to look like they do by providing footnotes that, when examined, only serve to demonstrate how weak their case is.
Posted in: Baptist, King James Version, Thinking About Church History

Riplinger Fails Pop Quiz

By John D. Chitty on | 4 Comments

An Independent Baptist ministry student who is also a dear friend of mine showed me a new book he’s begun reading. It’s new to him, although I’ve known about it for quite some time. The book is Gail Riplinger’s massive In Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible, It’s Mystery and History Letter by Letter. No, I haven’t read the book yet, but knowing the track record of inaccurate documentation Gail and most KJV-onlyists like her have, I decided to give her a pop quiz of sorts.
Ever heard of lucky-dipping? That’s what R. C. Sproul calls the practice of opening the Bible and picking a verse at random, expecting God to have a message for you. Well, I decided that in order to conduct this quiz on Mrs. Riplinger, I’d pick the first piece of documentation that I saw that was used in an attempt to legitimize any of the fallacious Ruckmanite, extreme KJV-only claims that she may have catalogued in her book.
The “lucky” footnote happened to be found on page 788 of her book. Now, I had neither the time nor the opportunity to transcribe the passage in question, but I took a few notes on a few sentences and will attempt to reconstruct the gist of what I saw on the page in relation to Riplinger’s attempt to disprove the supposed “myth” that John Wycliffe translated St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate in his effort to make the Word of God accessible to the common people, as he knew it was for the first century recipients of the New Testament.
First, Riplinger attempts to document that “Wycliffe had access to Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts which were in ‘complete agreement’ with the Old Latin [purportedly followed by] Wycliffe” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 788).
Then Riplinger claims that Wycliffe refers to manuscripts being “corrected according to the Greek exemplar.” “Once Jerome’s text was corrected,” writes Riplinger, “there was ‘complete agreement’ of his translation [Wycliffe’s] with Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.” (ibid)
Riplinger’s citations offered to “document” the claim that Wycliffe “corrected” the Latin Vulgate in order to bring it into “complete agreement” with the Hebrew and Greek manuscript evidence before translating it come from pages 143 and 157 of whichever edition Riplinger owns of Wycliffe’s 1378 work entitled, On the Truth of Holy Scripture. Unfortunately, I have yet to locate the text of Wycliffe’s book online, and have not yet gone to the library to request a copy of it through the interlibrary loan process, which is about as speedy as applying for a job with the federal government. Well, perhaps a little more expeditious than that. If any of my readers are able to locate the online text yourself, I’d appreciate the link.
Undeterred, I thought today to look at less radical KJV-Onlyist, Dr. David Cloud’s Way of Life Literature website and see if he ever reviewed the book. His review of New Age Bible Versions was excellent, and is part of the reason I had the audacity to assume that her bad scholarship is so pervasive that it would be statistically likely that I find a sample of documented misinformation on the first try. Although Dr. Cloud hadn’t bothered to do as extensive of a review of this book as he did for NAVB, he did write a page length treatment of the very question I’m attempting to examine!
In Dr. Cloud’s “Friday Church News Notes” dated August 12, 2005 (vol. 6, issue 32), under the title, “WHAT ABOUT GAIL RIPLINGER’S NEW BOOK?” he writes, “Her newest book again contains many good things in defense of the KJV but it is interspersed with serious mistakes so that it is impossible to have confidence in her research or conclusions at any point. For example, in chapter 22 she claims that John Wycliffe did not use the Latin Vulgate as the basis for his translation but that he used Hebrew, Greek and Old Latin sources. She says it is a “myth” to say that Wycliffe used the Latin Vulgate. As a matter of fact, a careful comparison of the Wycliffe Bible with the Latin Vulgate and the Old Latin demonstrates that Wycliffe consistently used the Vulgate, with only a very few exceptions. I have done extensive research into the textual basis of the Wycliffe New Testament and it contains most of the textual corruptions found in the Vulgate. For example, the Wycliffe Bible omits “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever” in Mat. 6:13, “to repentance” in Mat. 9:13 and Mk. 2:17, “spoken by Daniel the prophet” in Mk. 13:14, “get thee behind me Satan” in Lk. 4:8, “the Lord” from 1 Cor. 15:47, “in Christ” in Gal. 3:17, and “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, to mention only a few of its textual errors. In most of these instances, these things are omitted in the Wycliffe and the Latin Vulgate but are NOT omitted in the Old Latin, so that it is obvious that Wycliffe was indeed following the Vulgate rather than the Traditional Greek Text or the Old Latin. Mrs. Riplinger gives so much seeming documentation that the average reader is convinced that her scholarship is sound, not being in a position to see that she frequently misuses her quotes and reaches conclusions not supported by the facts given in the documents that she cites as her authority.”
Boy, can I call ’em, or what? Thanks to the Lord for sending me to the right note, and thanks to Dr. Cloud for doing more homework than the average IFBx KJV-Onlyist!
Posted in: Baptist, King James Version, Thinking About Church History

Theological and Doxological Meditation #33

By John D. Chitty on | 1 Comment

Justification
Q. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace,
wherein he pardoneth all our sins (Ephesians 1:7),
and accepteth us as righteous in his sight (2 Corinthians 5:21),
only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us (Romans 5:19),
and received by faith alone (Galatians 2:16).

Jesus, thy blood and righteousness
my beauty are, my glorious dress;
‘midst flaming worlds, in these arrayed,
with joy shall I lift up my head.

Bold shall I stand in thy great day;
for who aught to my charge shall lay?
Fully absolved through these I am
from sin and fear, from guilt and shame.

When from the dust of death I rise
to claim my mansion in thge skies,
ev’n then this shall be all my plea,
Jesus hath lived, hath died, for me.

Jesus, be endless praise to thee,
whose boundless mercy hath for me
for me a full atonement made,
an everlasting ransom paid.

O let the dead now hear thy voice;
now bid thy banished ones rejoice;
their beauty this, their glorious dress,
Jesus, thy blood and righteousness.
Posted in: Music for Mind and Heart, Theological and Doxological Meditations, Thinking About Church History

Theological and Doxological Meditation #32

By John D. Chitty on | 15 Comments

Benefits of Redemption
Q. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?
A. They that are effectually called do in this life
partake of justification (Romans 8:30),
adoption (Ephesians 1:5),
and sanctification,
and the several benefits which in this life
do either accompany or flow from them.

Joseph Humphreys, 1743; alt.

Blessed are the sons of God,
they are bought with Christ’s own blood;
they are ransomed from the grave,
life eternal they shall have:

With them numbered may we be,
here and in eternity.

They are justified by grace,
they enjoy the Savior’s peace;
all their sins are washed away,
they shall stand in God’s great day:

With them numbered may we be,
here and in eternity.

They are lights upon the earth,
children of a heav’nly birth;
one with God, with Jesus one,
glory is in them begun:

With them numbered may we be,
here and in eternity.
Posted in: Music for Mind and Heart, Theological and Doxological Meditations, Thinking About Church History

"And God saw that the light was good."

By John D. Chitty on | 6 Comments

 

Post Tenebras Lux Logo
Perhaps you’ve noticed over the past several weeks on my sidebar a link to a website that was in the works. This morning I checked the link and noticed they’re getting a lot closer. We’re not yet able to download anything, but we are given a glimpse of the good things to come. Just like the image at left, the light is slowly beginning to trickle in. We need a restrained, incremental approach of so much great material, because we may just be blinded by the light, otherwise.
Okay, enough of the imagery. I’ve been eagerly awaiting my opportunity to introduce you to the teaching ministry of my friend, Dr. Thomas Rufus Browning (I hope he doesn’t mind his middle name getting publicity). Dr. Browning is the father of my other friend, Gage Browning, who had heretofore been operating the blog, “Experimental Calvinism.”
Now what I’m about to say is not my merely borrowing some Madison Avenue marketing slogan, it was not focus-group tested, it’s the unvarnished truth . . .
The ministry of
Dr. Tom Browning changed my life!
But it was more indirect than it was direct. A few years ago, I had lots of contact with several members of his old church, who had the distinct privilege of being used by God to perform brain surgery on my four-point Arminian, dispensational-premillennial, King James Only, Independent Fundamental Baptist convictions.
I had looked into Calvinism on my own off and on for years before running into these guys. Michael Horton of Modern Reformation Magazine and The White Horse Inn Radio Show, was the first actual Calvinist I’d ever heard explain in detail what the Bible teaches about the doctrines of grace and their positive effect on the believer’s evangelism, but that was before MR or WHI, Horton was running his old group called CURE (Christians United for Reformation). I ordered CURE’s newsletter, and read it as much as I could, but, being a teenager at the time, the material was a little over my head. I knew this was really cool stuff, but my attention was eventually diverted back to other things. But the seeds were planted.
Years after that, I had a Presbyterian friend in the army with whom I formed quite a bond, and he worked on me non-stop, like a good Calvinist should. I gained a lot of respect for Calvinists at that time, though I was at that time resisting what I was learning. But I knew Calvinist lay people knew their Bibles and they knew theology, which was more than I’d ever seen in my IFB environment, except among the preachers to a greater or lesser degree. But the seeds were watered.
Then a few years after that, God opened the door to work with a print shop full of Calvinist bull dogs who went to Tom Browning’s church! I would walk in at 7:30 (okay, more like 8:00 or 8:30 on most days) and those bulldogs would latch onto my ankle and mercilessly not let go until the end of the work day. It was okay, because they already knew arguing theology was my favorite sport. But of course, being good bosses, they didn’t latch onto my ankle until I walked up to them and stuck it out to them, pulled up my pant leg and whistled, if you will! One of my bosses had a veritable library of White Horse Inn tapes and he generously loaned them to me all the while prophesying, “Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated!” Late in the process, Gage joined the staff and entered the group brain surgery being performed on me. After a few years of employment at what I call “The Reformation Station,” I was at long last assimilated! God gave the increase. To him alone be the glory!
My life has not been the same, since the light of the Reformation began to pierce my darkness. God is at work in my family and church, God’s truth is marching on!
Dear readers, my advice to you is to get yourself over to “Post Tenebras Lux,” partake of the teaching ministry of Dr. Tom Browning and you’ll see what adventures (not Mis-adventures) a real Captain Headknowledge can take you on!
is about to take the blogosphere by storm!
(this was an unsolicited, shameless plug for Post Tenebras Lux. Absolutely no money changed hands–however, greater faith in the sovereignty of God did change hands, and this is my way of passing it on to you!)
Posted in: Captain Headknowledge: The Early Years, Christocentricity, Current Evangelical Trends, Martin Luther, Thinking About Church History

Jerry & Jimmy: History Repeats Itself

By John D. Chitty on | 4 Comments

Jerome’s fourth century Latin Vulgate was enforced by the medieval Roman Catholic Church as the only acceptable version to be studied to the exclusion of original language sources. Roman Catholic clergy studied Latin and gained some knowledge of Scripture, but were chiefly schooled in theology with little critique of it in light of Scripture. They accepted tradition and papal decrees as equally legitimate sources of divine revelation intended by God to inform the faith and practice of the Church.
The Renaissance emphasis of “ad fontes” brought original language scholarship into vogue among some Roman Catholic scholars. Comparison of the Latin Vulgate with original language sources led many to criticize the Latin translation, and comparison of medieval church tradition with Scripture and patristic writings also led them to criticize Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. Numerous calls for Reformation were diligently suppressed for centuries until the civil government began to side with the views of the Reformers in the sixteenth century, with an eye on the economic and nationalistic advantages that they saw could result as well.
Generally speaking, the modern fundamentalist proponents of the exclusive use of the King James Version of Holy Scripture repeat this history. Like medieval Roman Catholicism, many modern fundamentalist King James Onlyists similarly discourage or exclude all critical comparison of their favored translation with original language sources. This is inconsistent with the work of the Protestant Reformers who risked and sacrificed so much for years for the right and privilege to translate the original language sources of Scripture into the language of the common man. This rejection of modern translation of even the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the King James Version leaves the English Bible less readable to the common man, ministers and laity alike, who are not well-versed in reading the often archaic English of a version translated almost four centuries ago.

Modern extreme fundamentalists seem to refuse to learn the lessons of even their own Protestant heritage, and in this way, among others, repeat the mistakes of history. Fundamentalist discouragement of critical thinking and study is a tyranny comparable to that of medieval Roman Catholicism, while exposure to the views of the broader evangelical community in regard to textual critical and translational issues will inevitably prove both enlightening and liberating to the truth-seeking fundamentalist. Words Martin Luther directed toward the tyranny of the medieval Roman Catholic Church apply well to modern Protestant fundamentalist King James Onlyists: ” 90. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy. ” Although King James Onlyists don’t have the civil authority to literally force their followers to abstain from modern biblical scholarship and modern Bible translations, and do, in fact, offer reasons for this expectation, the social pressure exerted in their preaching and personal relationships, likewise “makes Christian people unhappy” who seek to honestly examine for themselves the competing claims of both sides of the English Bible Version debate.
Consider the following passage from William Tyndale: A Biography by David Daniell (copyright 1994 by Yale University). On page 287, Dr. Daniell writes, under the heading of Scripture as a Whole Book:
” . . . that there was a language called Hebrew at all, or that it had any connection whatsoever with the Bible, would have been news to most of the ordinary population. Religion was in Latin: the Mass was in Latin; all the other services, like baptism, were in Latin; everything the priest did was in Latin; the Psalms in the Mass were in Latin; the Bible-readings in the services, such as they were, were in Latin; the Bible, when visible, was a big Latin volume; some priests, and most laymen, had only a few words of Latin, if that.”
This was the passage that opened my eyes to the way the extreme King James Only movement repeats the history of the medieval Roman Catholic Church in placing obstacles between the laity and the Word of God. Indeed, considering the common discouragement of critical thinking and research among modern fundamentalist King James Onlyists, it is almost as if the fact that there is a language called Hebrew at all (or Greek, for that matter), or that it had any connection whatsoever with the Bible, would have been news to most of the followers of King James Onlyists.
Funny how history repeats itself. From St. Jerome (Jerry) to King James (Jimmy), there is nothing new under the sun.
Illustration of Tyndale by www.reformationart.com
Posted in: Baptist, Captain Headknowledge: The Early Years, King James Version, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

Unity at the Expense of the Truth

By John D. Chitty on | 9 Comments

I infrequently read some of the more prominent Reformed blogs out there. This morning I decided to read the Calvinist Gadfly and while I was at work I wrote up this response to a question he raised in his post and emailed it home to myself to post it later. When I went to do so, I discovered that he just recently stopped taking comments due to his busier schedule this year. So, to get the whole story, read his post “The Trinity is the Gospel.” And then come back here and read my comment below. . .

In answer to your question, “why [do] some, who should know better, want to participate in ministry with T. D. Jakes?” My answer is the general fact that the American Evangelical concept of Christian unity has devolved from the orthodox concept of interdenominational Christian unity: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” To quote my first year Bible Doctrine teacher at Baptist Bible College, who without documentation quoted Harold John Ockenga as representative of all Neo-Evangelicals, “The Bible is the Word of God, but love is more important.”

Whether or not that quote is out of context is another whole discussion. But it is what the fundamentalists feared (probably both with and without just cause, depending on individual cases) about the “emerging” Neo-Evangelicalism of the ’40’s and ’50’s, and seems to be more true now than ever before, especially in the case of the aligning of Oneness Pentecostalism with post-modern, contemporary American Evangelicalism. It’s nothing a little Reformation couldn’t help. Thanks for your contribution.
It’s reasons like this that I’m currently promoting the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals in my sidebar and in a previous post.
Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

What A Relief!

By John D. Chitty on | 7 Comments

Having read a biography of John Calvin last year, I learned that the French spelling of his name is Jean Chauvin. Come to think of it, I don’t believe I ever finished that book. Well, I’m sure I’ll get around to it someday. Anyway, as that last name bounced around in my head for a few months, at some point, the word, “chauvinist” came up, up there, too.

RED FLAG!

Knowing that Calvinism isn’t all that popular in the world, I began to wonder if the epithet, “chauvinist,” was some sort of derogatory association between Calvinists and some alleged disrespect for women. The world loves to impugn general Christianity with such a fault, even though those of us in the know are aware that Christianity is the source of liberation for women in the home, the church and society.

Is to be a Calvinist to also be a chauvinist?

I finally just got around to checking the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary to see what I could see in regard to the etymology of the word “chauvinism.” Here’s what I learned:

Etymology: French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Théodore and Hippolyte Cogniard’s play La Cocarde tricolore (1831).

Boy, was I relieved! It’s not referring to John, but Nicolas!

Whew! As if there weren’t enough bad associations with my theological persuasion! God is gracious!!!

illustration by www.ReformationArt.com.

UPDATE:

In case any of you missed it, go back up and click on the link that reads, “the source of liberation for women.” It’s incredibly awesome! I just have to point it out because it’s even more awesome than this silly post in which the link was included!

Posted in: Thinking About Church History

Amazing Grace on the Silver Screen

By John D. Chitty on | 5 Comments

I’m a movie buff. It may not be a mark of quality to some of you. One side of my brain is all theology, but the other side is all pop culture. I’m an armchair theologian, but before I moved to the armchair, I was a couch potato. I didn’t even have to leave the room! That’s why I’m looking forward to the February 23rd release of the new movie about William Wilberforce, called Amazing Grace! I think I’ll have to see it twice, once as the couch potato, once as the armchair theologian . . .

Make sure you go by the movie website and take in all that it has to offer. I had to write you because one of their offerings was a free, downloadable pdf of John Newton’s Olney Hymns! In the film, Wilberforce will have some interaction with John Newton (played by Albert Finney–he’s the only one I’ve heard of in the film), hence the title, and hence their thinking to post a copy of his hymns for us to enjoy. Save your copy today, and enrich your theology and your doxology!

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

Theological and Doxological Meditation #29

By John D. Chitty on | 3 Comments


Redemption Applied

Q. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ,
by the effectual application of it to us (John 1:12)
by his Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).
Not what my hands have done
can save my guilty soul;
not what my toiling flesh has born
can make my spirit whole.
Not what I feel or do
can give me peace with God;
not all my prayers and sighs and tears
can bear my awful load.
Thy work alone, O Christ,
can ease this weight of sin;
thy blood alone, O Lamb of God,
can give me peace within.
Thy love to me, O God,
not mine, O Lord, to thee,
can rid me of this dark unrest,
and set my spirit free.
Thy grace alone, O God,
to me can pardon speak;
thy pow’r alone, O Son of God,
can this sor bondage break.
No other work, save thine,
no other blood will do;
no strength, save that which is divine,
can bear me safely through.
I bless the Christ of God;
I rest on love divine;
and with unfalt’ring lip and heart,
I call this Savior mine.
His cross dispels each doubt;
I bury in his tomb
each thought of unbelief and fear,
each ling’ring shade of gloom.
I praise the God of grace;
I trust his truth and might;
he calls me his, I call him mine,
my God, my joy, my light.
‘Tis he who saveth me,
and freely pardon gives;
I love because he loveth me,
I live because he lives.
Posted in: Music for Mind and Heart, Theological and Doxological Meditations, Thinking About Church History

The Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

By John D. Chitty on | 14 Comments

Speaking of the Solas, there are a few bloggers out there wondering, “Who devised the ‘Five Solas of the Reformation’ in the first place?” I’ll direct you to one post, and you can follow the trail of links if you are so inclined.

Furthermore, since I’ve finally put in writing how the historic evangelical distinctive of Sola Scriptura has devolved in the life of many evangelicals, I would now like to not merely “curse the darkness” (if you will–Baptist readers, try not to take this reference too personally or literally) but “light a light.” I affirm the following declaration and believe the essence of its theses is vital to a genuine reformation of contemporary evangelical traditions of every variety.

John D. Chitty



April 20, 1996

Evangelical churches today are increasingly dominated by the spirit of this age rather than by the Spirit of Christ. As evangelicals, we call ourselves to repent of this sin and to recover the historic Christian faith.


In the course of history words change. In our day this has happened to the word “evangelical.” In the past it served as a bond of unity between Christians from a wide diversity of church traditions. Historic evangelicalism was confessional. It embraced the essential truths of Christianity as those were defined by the great ecumenical councils of the church. In addition, evangelicals also shared a common heritage in the “solas” of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation.

Today the light of the Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that the word “evangelical” has become so inclusive as to have lost its meaning. We face the peril of losing the unity it has taken centuries to achieve. Because of this crisis and because of our love of Christ, his gospel and his church, we endeavor to assert anew our commitment to the central truths of the Reformation and of historic evangelicalism. These truths we affirm not because of their role in our traditions, but because we believe that they are central to the Bible.

Sola Scriptura: The Erosion of Authority
Scripture alone is the inerrant rule of the church’s life, but the evangelical church today has separated Scripture from its authoritative function. In practice, the church is guided, far too often, by the culture. Therapeutic technique, marketing strategies, and the beat of the entertainment world often have far more to say about what the church wants, how it functions and what it offers, than does the Word of God. Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of the music. As biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness, and as its doctrines have lost their saliency, the church has been increasingly emptied of its integrity, moral authority and direction.

Rather than adapting Christian faith to satisfy the felt needs of consumers, we must proclaim the law as the only measure of true righteousness and the gospel as the only announcement of saving truth. Biblical truth is indispensable to the church’s understanding, nurture and discipline.

Scripture must take us beyond our perceived needs to our real needs and liberate us from seeing ourselves through the seductive images, cliches, promises and priorities of mass culture. It is only in the light of God’s truth that we understand ourselves aright and see God’s provision for our need. The Bible, therefore, must be taught and preached in the church. Sermons must be expositions of the Bible and its teachings, not expressions of the preacher’s opinions or the ideas of the age. We must settle for nothing less than what God has given.

The work of the Holy Spirit in personal experience cannot be disengaged from Scripture. The Spirit does not speak in ways that are independent of Scripture. Apart from Scripture we would never have known of God’s grace in Christ. The biblical Word, rather than spiritual experience, is the test of truth.

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura

We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

Solus Christus: The Erosion of Christ-Centered Faith
As evangelical faith becomes secularized, its interests have been blurred with those of the culture. The result is a loss of absolute values, permissive individualism, and a substitution of wholeness for holiness, recovery for repentance, intuition for truth, feeling for belief, chance for providence, and immediate gratification for enduring hope. Christ and his cross have moved from the center of our vision.

Thesis Two: Solus Christus

We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ’s substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.

Sola Gratia: The Erosion of The Gospel
Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature. This false confidence now fills the evangelical world; from the self-esteem gospel, to the health and wealth gospel, from those who have transformed the gospel into a product to be sold and sinners into consumers who want to buy, to others who treat Christian faith as being true simply because it works. This silences the doctrine of justification regardless of the official commitments of our churches.

God’s grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace.

Thesis Three: Sola Gratia
We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God’s wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.

Sola Fide: The Erosion of The Chief Article
Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. This is the article by which the church stands or falls. Today this article is often ignored, distorted or sometimes even denied by leaders, scholars and pastors who claim to be evangelical. Although fallen human nature has always recoiled from recognizing its need for Christ’s imputed righteousness, modernity greatly fuels the fires of this discontent with the biblical Gospel. We have allowed this discontent to dictate the nature of our ministry and what it is we are preaching.

Many in the church growth movement believe that sociological understanding of those in the pew is as important to the success of the gospel as is the biblical truth which is proclaimed. As a result, theological convictions are frequently divorced from the work of the ministry. The marketing orientation in many churches takes this even further, erasing the distinction between the biblical Word and the world, robbing Christ’s cross of its offense, and reducing Christian faith to the principles and methods which bring success to secular corporations.

While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning. There is no gospel except that of Christ’s substitution in our place whereby God imputed to him our sin and imputed to us his righteousness. Because he bore our judgment, we now walk in his grace as those who are forever pardoned, accepted and adopted as God’s children. There is no basis for our acceptance before God except in Christ’s saving work, not in our patriotism, churchly devotion or moral decency. The gospel declares what God has done for us in Christ. It is not about what we can do to reach him.

Thesis Four: Sola Fide
We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God’s perfect justice.

We deny that justification rests on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ’s righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.

Soli Deo Gloria: The Erosion of God-Centered Worship
Wherever in the church biblical authority has been lost, Christ has been displaced, the gospel has been distorted, or faith has been perverted, it has always been for one reason: our interests have displaced God’s and we are doing his work in our way. The loss of God’s centrality in the life of today’s church is common and lamentable. It is this loss that allows us to transform worship into entertainment, gospel preaching into marketing, believing into technique, being good into feeling good about ourselves, and faithfulness into being successful. As a result, God, Christ and the Bible have come to mean too little to us and rest too inconsequentially upon us.

God does not exist to satisfy human ambitions, cravings, the appetite for consumption, or our own private spiritual interests. We must focus on God in our worship, rather than the satisfaction of our personal needs. God is sovereign in worship; we are not. Our concern must be for God’s kingdom, not our own empires, popularity or success.

Thesis Five: Soli Deo Gloria
We reaffirm that because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God’s glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone.

We deny that we can properly glorify God if our worship is confused with entertainment, if we neglect either Law or Gospel in our preaching, or if self-improvement, self-esteem or self-fulfillment are allowed to become alternatives to the gospel.

A Call To Repentance & Reformation
The faithfulness of the evangelical church in the past contrasts sharply with its unfaithfulness in the present. Earlier in this century, evangelical churches sustained a remarkable missionary endeavor, and built many religious institutions to serve the cause of biblical truth and Christ’s kingdom. That was a time when Christian behavior and expectations were markedly different from those in the culture. Today they often are not. The evangelical world today is losing its biblical fidelity, moral compass and missionary zeal.

We repent of our worldliness. We have been influenced by the “gospels” of our secular culture, which are no gospels. We have weakened the church by our own lack of serious repentance, our blindness to the sins in ourselves which we see so clearly in others, and our inexcusable failure to adequately tell others about God’s saving work in Jesus Christ.

We also earnestly call back erring professing evangelicals who have deviated from God’s Word in the matters discussed in this Declaration. This includes those who declare that there is hope of eternal life apart from explicit faith in Jesus Christ, who claim that those who reject Christ in this life will be annihilated rather than endure the just judgment of God through eternal suffering, or who claim that evangelicals and Roman Catholics are one in Jesus Christ even where the biblical doctrine of justification is not believed.

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals asks all Christians to give consideration to implementing this Declaration in the church’s worship, ministry, policies, life and evangelism.
For Christ’s sake.
Amen.

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Executive Council (1996)
Dr. John Armstrong
The Rev. Alistair Begg
Dr. James M. Boice
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
Dr. John D. Hannah
Dr. Michael S. Horton
Mrs. Rosemary Jensen
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Dr. Robert M. Norris
Dr. R.C. Sproul
Dr. Gene Edward Veith
Dr. David Wells
Dr. Luder Whitlock
Dr. J.A.O. Preus, III

FOR FURTHER READING, SEE ALSO:
Highlights From The Cambridge Summit Meeting
An Introduction to The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, by James M. Boice
This declaration may be reproduced without permission. Please credit the source by citing the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

Posted in: Baptist, Christocentricity, Church History, Evangelicalism, Theological Issues

The Baptist Version of “Sola Scriptura”

By John D. Chitty on | 8 Comments

Under the heading of “Legacy” in the Wikipedia entry on Sola Scriptura, I found this interesting paragraph:
“The conception of sola scriptura has changed over time. In addition to being a method of reforming church authority and tradition, sola scriptura now often implies an additional antithesis between the authority of the individual and authority of the Church. In addition to contesting and reforming traditions negatively attested to in scripture, many Protestants also remove traditions that the Bible doesn’t positively and clearly support. Certainly sola scriptura is applied more liberally today than the original reformers intended.”
This reflects a personal opinion of mine which has developed in my journey from Baptist fundamentalism (for example, see my previous church’s website) to Reformed confessionalism (although I am providentially a member of a fairly traditional, and somewhat Reformed-sympathetic Southern Baptist Church). This opinion of mine goes under the heading of “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura.” Like in the Wikipedia article, as I learned Reformed theology from very non-Baptistic sources, I noticed that what Reformed folks called Sola Scriptura, and how Baptists generally tended to use the phrase Sola Scriptura (or the concept, if not the phrase itself) were two different things. Reformed theology emphasizes that Scripture alone is the only source of divine revelation, correcting the Roman Catholic belief that Scripture and church tradition are equal sources of divine revelation, — and the final authority of all faith and practice, whereas Baptist practice and preaching, while including sentiments parallel to Reformed theology’s emphasis, allowed it to logically dovetail with the Baptist distinctive of Priesthood of All Believers and the distinctive sometimes called “Soul Competency“, “Soul Liberty” or “Liberty of Conscience.”
I basically believe that, whatever is right about the Baptist tradition, it learned from the Reformed tradition; and conversely, that whatever is wrong about the Baptist tradition, it learned from the Anabaptist tradition.
The Anabaptist tradition, if I may speak generally (and I may, because this is my blog!!!), is equated in my mind with the tendency toward individualism, whereas the Reformed tradition is equated in my mind with a sober balance of individualism checked by church authority regulated (ideally) by Sola Scriptura.
The Baptist tradition’s sympathy for some Anabaptistic emphases accounts, for example, for their emphasis on “credo-baptism,” more commonly known as “Believer’s Baptism,” or as I call it “Baptism Of Believers Only By Immersion Only.” While some Baptists believe their historic origins follow a path which emerges out of the Reformation era Anabaptist movement, yet predates it in the form of many of the persecuted heretical groups of the medieval period (Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars/Albigenses and other similarly scary groups), a Baptist-history theory called Baptist Successionism, the more historically competent recognize that the Baptist tradition finds its historic origin squarely in the seventeenth century English Separatist movement, which happens to be a Reformed tradition! First objecting to the baptism of the infant children of believers on account of “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura” they began sprinkling, or pouring water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on professing believers only. This practice is based on their inability to recognize the association between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament water baptism because there is no explicit command to baptize the children of believers (and they either skip over, or misinterpret Colossians 2:11-12, which is a New Testament verse associating circumcision with water baptism).
In short, to abruptly conclude, I believe that as the Baptist tradition followed the example of the Anabaptist tradition toward a more individualistic emphasis, they took a step away from the solid foundation of the Reformed tradition. This is how I account for what I call “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura” and I believe in this area and others, Baptists are in need of returning to their Reformed roots. For assistance in this endeavor, consult the following websites:
Reformata, Semper Reformanda (“Reformed, Always Reforming”)
Posted in: Baptist, Church History

Theological and Doxological Meditation #28

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Christ’s Exaltation
Q. Wherein consisteth Christ’s exaltation?
A. Christ’s exaltation consisteth in his rising again from the dead on the third day (1 Cor 15:4),
in ascending up into heaven,
in sitting at the right hand of God the Father (Mark 16:19),
and in coming to judge the world at the last day (Acts 17:31).
Blessing and honor and glory and power,
wisdom and riches and strength evermore
give ye to him who our battle hath won,
whose are the kingdom, the crown and the throne.
Soundeth the heav’n of the heav’ns with his name;
ringeth the earth with his glory and fame;
ocean and mountain, stream, forest, and flower
echo his praises and tell of his power.
Ever ascendeth the song and the joy;
ever descendeth the love from on high;
blessing and honor and glory and praise–
this is the theme of the hymns that we raise.
Give we the glory and praise to the Lamb;
take we the robe and the harp and the palm;
sing we the song of the Lamb that was slain,
dying in weakness, but rising to reign.
Posted in: Christocentricity, Music for Mind and Heart, Theological and Doxological Meditations, Thinking About Church History

Christmas Countdown

By John D. Chitty on | 1 Comment

I just received in my inbox an enewsletter from Christian History & Biography Magazine, one of the many magazines under the umbrella of the Christianity Today Magazine empire. This week’s message provided links to several articles on the history of our Christmas traditions.

This is a topic that always interests me. Having learned over the years how many conservative Christians, especially those of my new-found and beloved Reformed heritage, have objected, and continue to object to the celebration of Christ’s birth due to perceived pagan influences, it’s now possible in this age of the internet that the truth behind these traditions become even more widespread than before! (Expose yourself to some excellent insight into the Reformed debate over Christmas at Covenant Corner–The Regulative Principle and Christmas, parts 1, 2, and 3)

For those of you who do not know, these magazines are among the staple sources of information from an evangelical perspective which favors no evangelical tradition over the other. They do what they humanly can to remain objective within that broad spectrum of viewpoints. Christianity Today does a very good job of providing an informative introduction to whatever is going on in today’s evangelical community, and her daughter title, Christian History & Biography, does equally well introducing its readers to the history of the church, and the lives of some of its most notable figures throughout its history. I highly recommend both magazines to those who desire to be informed on things related to their own evangelical tradition as well as well as those of others. It’s one way we can prevent the uninformed, prejudiced tendency to rely on overstatement and reductionism in reference to other evangelicals who don’t share our perspectives on our various distinctive beliefs and practices; a tendency about which my friend, Bob Hayton, at Fundamentally Reformed, recently blogged. Check out his posts and be sure to enrich your knowledge of the traditions of the Christmas season at the Christian History and Biography Special Section on Christmas Origins.
Posted in: Christocentricity, Thinking About Church History