Category Archives: Thinking About Church History

Sean Michael Lucas’ Reformation Sunday Sermon Posted!

Go to the “Sermons” page at the website for  New St. Peter’s Presbyterian Church to listen to Dr. Sean Michael Lucas, professor of Church History at Covenant Theological Seminary, preach on “The Heart of the Reformation: The Glory of God,” from the text Isaiah 6: 1-7.

Is Reformed Important? Saturday Night Outline

At long last, now that the Sean Michael Lucas conference is a week’s worth of history, here’s the outline he allowed me to publish from his presentation.

Why bother being Reformed as a way of being Christian?

  • It is not possible to live a “generic” Christian life
    • Historically not possible
    • Logically not possible
  • The Christian life must be embodied through a particular identity
    • Even “Bible churches” communicate a particular identity (beliefs, practices, stories)
  • Genuine conversations with others must be rooted in a real sense of knowing who we are. 

During this portion of the outline, Dr. Lucas gave the example of the Cane Ridge Revival, explaining how Barton Stone desired to reduce his denominational identity to “Christian.” Out of this revival emerged the Christian denomination (Disciples of Christ), Cumberland Presbyterianism, and others I forgot before I could jot them down. Now back to the outline . . .

  • The question becomes, then,
    • Which beliefs and practices are most biblical?
    • And which communion most closely holds to those beliefs and engages in those practices?
  • In the end, the reason it is important to be Reformed (and specifically, Presbyterian) is
    • Because Presbyterian beliefs and practices are the closest to the biblical material, and,
    • Because they provide the most workable identity for engaging life in this postmodern world.

 Presbyterian beliefs

Presbyterian practices

  • Piety
    • Centering on worship [corporate, family, and private], stewardship, and service
  • Worship
    • Centering on its biblical, covenantal, and gospel-driven nature
  • Polity
    • Centering on a proper balance of church authority and liberty of conscience

 Presbyterian stories

  • These beliefs and practices make sense to us, in part, because of the stories (positive and negative) that we tell:
    • Calvin, Knox and the Westminster divines
    • Scots and Scots-Irish Presbyterianism
    • Early American Presbyterianism
    • 19th Century Presbyterianism
    • 20th Century Presbyterianism
      • North (PCUSA, OPC, BP, EP, RPCES)
      • South (PCUS, PCA)

Evangelically catholic

  • Identity
    • It is out of this particularly Presbyterian way of speaking the Gospel that we must speak.
  • Catholicity
    • In order to confess “one holy catholic church,” we must desire relationship and even partnership with other Christians.
    • Our relationships with other Christians must be guided by the Gospel and must serve the Gospel.
  • Humility
    • The most productive partnerships come from recognizing the importance of others in imaging forth the Kingdom of God (Romans 1:11-12).

Check back periodically . . . I’ll post Dr. Lucas’ Reformation Sunday Sermon link when the church posts it.

Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King?

martin_luther_nailing_theses_1.jpgMartin Luther KingEvery October when I start warming up for the coming of Reformation Day, I start telling friends around me about Martin Luther. I am becoming troubled, however, that the more I talk about him with more and more people, more and more people are not thinking of the German monk who posted his 95 Theses on the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, but when I say the name “Martin Luther,” they hear, “Martin Luther King”! This ought not to be so!

In the interest of raising awareness about the difference between Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, I have written the following quiz. Each question will describe something about one or the other figure, and it is your job to pick the right answer, either A) Martin Luther, B) Martin Luther King, or C) Both. Post your answers, and any comments you may have, in the comments section.

Have fun, and Happy Reformation Day!

1.   Which is African-American?

2.   Which is German?

3.   Which belonged to a religious order that was named after an African theologian?

4.   Which delivered his “I have a dream” speech?

5.   Which delivered his “Here I stand” speech?

6.   Which was born in the 20th Century?

7.   Which was born in the 16th Century?

8.   Which advocated religious reform?

9.   Which advocated civil rights for African-Americans?

10. Which was assassinated?

11.  Which was kidnapped?

12.  Which authored “Bondage of the Will”?

13.  Which likely had ancestors who were literally in bondage?

14.  Which translated the New Testament into German?

15.  Which was a Baptist?

16.  Which founded the Lutheran denomination?

17.  The birthday of which can get you a day off work?

18.  Which advocated non-violent resistance?

Is Reformed Important? Friday Night Outline

Dr. Sean Michael Lucas

New St. Peters PC, Dallas, TX

October 26-27, 2007

Who Are You?: Understanding Identity

When you think about who you are, what comes to mind?

  • Son, upper middle class, suburbs, two parents married 38 years, one sister
  • Moved many times, mainly up an ddown the I-95 corridor between Washingong DC, and NYC.
  • Husband, married nearly 14 years, four children
  • Became a believer when a teenager–unusual religious journey
  • Pastor with scholarly bent; historian with a pastor heart
  • Writer and reader–love Mark Twain and Wendell Barry
  • Gardner
  • Avid sports fan–Indiana sports teams
  • Springsteen, U2, country music
  • Trucks, Fords, but when I follow NAsCAR, I am a Gordon fan.

Three Key Aspects to identify.

Belierfs

  • the core understandings that form and motivate what and how I practice; they are also reinforced by these practices and by my stories.

Practice

  • The regular activities that I engage in shape my understanding of myself and the world.

Stories

  • narratives that help to make sense of what I believe and what I do.

“Identity Crisis”

  • When someone is having an “identity crisis,” he/she has become disillusioned or is experiencing dissonance within her core.
    • Perhaps produced through a lengthy questionaing of previously held beliefs.
    • Perhaps caused through an interruption of key practices that reinforced identity.
    • Perhaps result of a disillusionment with the master story
  • A version of this identity crisis would be the “mid-life crisis.”

Identity Formation in “Modernity” and “Post-Modernity”

Pre- and Early Modernity

  • Social relations and family connections
  • Trade generally passed on through generatons.
  • Church connections more by birth than over belief.
  • Identity fairly stric==pre-determined by others and before birth.

Late and Post-Modernity

  • Social mobility, loss of extended and nuclear family.
  • Trades determined through interest,
  • Church connections determined by belief less than birt; challenge to lay on any type of denominationalism
  • Identity radically dynamic-self-created through choices

Forging Christian identity

The transition from “non-religious” [non-Christian] to “religious” (Christian] identity.

  • New Beliefs–from Idolatry to faith in Father, Sond, Spirit (1 Thessalonians 1:9)
  • New Practices–from non-observent to observant (Ephesians 4:17-24)
  • New Stories—from “self-determined” to divinely determined within the story of Israel and the Church as found in the Bible.
  • The forging of Christian Identity is varied and common
    • Varied:
      • No two transitions are exactly the same
      • No two experiences of sin, grace, faith, repentance are exactly the same
    •  Common:
      • The need experience by all human beings is the same
      • The Gospel embraced by all believers is the same
      • The grace granted to believers is the same
  •  The means for forging Christian identity (Acts 2:42-47)
    • Word
    • Sacraments
    • Prayer
    • Fellowship

Tomorrow, I’ll post Saturday night’s outline.

Is Reformed Important?

A friend of mine (actually, my old boss), is a member of New St. Peter’s (NsP) Presbyterian Church in Dallas, Texas. Over this past “Reformation Weekend,” as I call it, NsP hosted a conference by Dr. Sean Michael Lucas of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri.  The topic of the conference, “Is Reformed Important?” was a Power Point presentation summarizing the material from Dr. Lucas’ book, On Being Presbyterian, which I have not read. I found the conference very interesting, for his approach does not start with a defense of all of the Reformed and Presbyterian controversial, distinctive doctrines. The approach Dr. Lucas took was to deal with what it means to be Presbyterian as a facet of one’s personal identity. In this I think he’s attempting to appeal to, or at least converse with a postmodern worldview, which seems, by and large, skeptical of evangelical theologizing. 

The sum of the conference was that a person’s identity is the result of one’s beliefs, practices and stories (bps), which colors his perspective on life, the universe and everything (to borrow from the British theologian, Douglas Adams). Therefore, the basic outline of “Is Reformed Important?” is a look at the beliefs, practices and stories of confessional, Reformed Presbyterianism in particular, rather than merely Reformed in general.One benefit of the format of the two day conference, followed by a Reformation Sunday sermon at NsP (which I did not attend, but the link to which I’ll post if and when it becomes available) lies in the fact that the first night really helps a non-Reformed, non-Presbyterian (like my beloved wife) not have to immediately endure all the stuff he disagrees with, but gently points out that one’s beliefs andpractices are worth taking a critical look at. Dr. Lucas did this by sharing much of his own bps in a rather disarming manner. This is definitely user-friendly material, not fodder for theology geeks, but down-to-earth and practical stuff.

At one point during the second lecture, Dr. Lucas brought up the prospect of what he’d do were he to notice that someone had published a book with the same title as his, On Being Presbyterian,  yet noticed that the table of contents seems an awful lot like the one in his own work, and not only that, but that the other author happens to mention that he comes from the same hometown as Dr. Lucas. He said the first thing he’d probably do is punch the guy in the nose. This compelled me to approach him after the lecture to request permission to post his outline on my blog, which permission, Christian man that he is, he graciously granted. Thus, in my next post, I’ll give you Lecture Number One of “Is Reformed Important?”

Hope you all had a pleasant Reformation Sunday!

Reformata Semper Reformanda (”Reformed, Always Reforming”)

update

I just took a look at http://www.newstpeters.org/ and noticed that they give their members something called “Rooster Tracks” which provides short, weekday theological and devotional items to think through and/or study. The one for this week, naturally, introduces us to the Reformers and asks its readers to think through a topic related to the contribution of each individual Reformer which is treated, namely, Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox.

The Delusion of Extreme KJV Onlyism

A Lesson For The KJVOx From Early American History

In this simple paragraph from the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647, aka “The Old Deluder Satan Law”

Yt being one cheife piect of ye ould deluder, Satan, to keepe men from the knowledge of ye Scriptures, as in formr times by keeping ym in an unknowne tongue, so in these lattr times by pswading from ye use of tongues, yt so at least ye true sense & meaning of ye originall might be clouded by false glosses of saint seeming deceivers, yt learning may not be buried in ye grave of or fathrs in ye church & comonwealth, the Lord assisting or endeavors,—

lt is therefore ordred yt evry towneship in this jurisdiction, aftr ye Lord hath increased ym to ye number of 50 householdrs, shall then forthwth appoint one wthin their towne to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write & reade, whose wages whall be paid eithr by ye parents or mastrs of such children, or by ye inhabitants in genrall, by way of supply, as ye maior pt of those yt ordr ye prudentials of ye towne shall appoint; pvided, those yt send their children be not oppressed by paying much more ytn they can have tm taught for in othr townes; & it is furthr ordered, yt where any towne shall increase to ye numbr of 100 families or househouldrs, they shall set up a gramer schoole, ye mr thereof being able to instruct youth so farr as they may be fited for ye university, pvided, yt if any towne neglect ye pformance hereof above one yeare, yt every such towne shall pay 5 Ito ye next schoole till they shall pforme this order.

Now, let me revise the above highlighted clause in order to make it easier to read.

“. . . so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so at least the true sense and meaning of the original [Old Testament Hebrew & New Testament Greek, that is] might be clouded by false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers . . . ”

What is the moral of this story? If you simply prefer the use of the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures for your own personal study and devotional reading, or even if you believe after a considerate examination of the issues of textual criticism, that it is best to retain the Byzantine readings of the New Testament, and therefore ought to not revise the King James Version with a modern, eclectic, critical Greek text, this post does not criticize your view (even though I certainly disagree with your view). But if you believe that the King James Version of the Bible was given by the special inspiration of God, and that it’s English text is superior to the lost original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for the simple reason that we can hold the KJV in our hands, while we cannot hold the original manuscripts in our hands, and that therefore, we need not bother burdening our congregations with recourse to the original languages to properly interpret the words of the KJV, the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647 identifies those who would undermine the need to understand the Word of God in the original languages as “saint-seeming deceivers” whose efforts would in effect, bury learning in the graves of our fathers in the church. If only you would see the error of your ways, and stop deceiving unlearned believers under your care that it’s dangerous to “correct the King James” with anything, even the sense of the original Hebrew and Greek languages.

Captain Headknowledge Goes On a Pilgrimage?

I just typed the question, “What is a pilgrimage?” into my search engine and the first thing that came up on the list of suggested sites was the American Heritage Dictionary definition of the word. That sounds like a good place to start. It has two definitions:

  1. A journey to a sacred place or shrine.
  2. A long journey or search, especially one of exalted purpose or moral significance.

The first definition seems a little more simple and straightforward, while the second seems a little more lofty. I’m going on the first kind of pilgrimage. Or, rather, the wife and I are.

 Where are we going?

It’s only the ultimate vacation for a believer in Jesus Christ.

Next month, my wife and I are accompanying a few other families from our church, including our pastor and his wife, a professor from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (whose name escapes me) and a few dozen other couples and individuals from other churches for an eleven day, whirlwind tour of Athens and Corinth, Greece, several locations in Israel, to be elaborated on below, culminating in a few sights seen in Cairo, Egypt, including pyramids, camels, the Nile River and a laser light show.

A friend of mine showed me pictures of his trip with his church to Israel, and I was finally tired of not being sure exactly what I had in store for us on our trip, so I decided to transcribe the itinerary brochure provided by the travel agency. Following is what we will be taking in:

Athens/Corinth Visit November 12-14

We arrive in Athens to change planes for our continuing flight to Tel Aviv. This stop permits us to enjoy a tour of Corinth and Athens.

 Tel Aviv/Caesarea, Megiddo/Haifa November 14

We begin our day visiting Caesarea on the Mediterranean Coast. This ancient port was used by Herod the Great. It was here that the first Gentile, Cornelius the Centurion, and his household were baptized. Continue to Megiddo and the Valley of Armageddon. Visit this historical military fortress that controlled the highway between Egypt and Mesopotamia. See the excavations and museum showing how this famous hill served an important function in the wars of antiquity.

 Tiberias/Capernaum/Sea of Galilee Boat Ride November 15

Today we visit the region where Jesus spent most of his ministry. We visit Nazareth, and the Church of the Annunciation. Visit Tiberias, Capernaum and the Mount of Beatutudes, and enjoy a boat ride on the Sea of Galilee.

 Jerusalem/Bethlehem November 16-17

This morning we drive to the Kneset, Israel’s Parliament, visit the Hebrew University campus and its Shrine of the Book Museum, where the Dead Sea Scroll collection is exhibited. From there we drive across the Valley of Kidron to visit Gethsemane and the Mt. of Olives. Continuing our drive to Mt. Zion we visit Cenacle, the site of the Last Supper and King David’s Tomb. We drive to Bethlehem where we will visit the ancient Basilica of the Nativity. In addition we will see Shepherd’s Field of Boaz, the nearby Milk Grotto and manger Square.

Jerusalem November 17-19

This is our day to visit the Old City. We will take a walking tour visiting Mt. Moriah, the Dome of the Rock, where tradition holds that Abraham took Isaac to sacrifice him. We will see Al Aksa Mosque and the Western Wall, the only remaining portion of Herod’s Temple. We will pass through picturesque native bazaars and the Via Dolorosa, the Way of the Cross from the Fortress Antonio to Calvary. We visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, one of the famous shrines of Christendom, and conclude by visiting the Garden Tomb.

 Masada November 18

Today we see the Dead Sea, Qumran and the optional tour of Masada where the Jews committed suicide rather than surrender to the Roman Army.

Eilat/Sinai/Cairo November 19-20

today we see the Biblical promise come alive. The desert is blossoming like a rose. Cross the Suez Canal and through the Delta region as we approach Cairo. See what has happened to this region since the peace treaty.

 Cairo Sightseeing November 20-21

Today we begin an unforgettable experience and visit to one of the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World. You’ll get to admire the treasures of ancient Egypt at the Egyptian Museum; see the Mohammed Ali Mosque and the beautiful panorama of the city; see the Tomb of Sadat, the martyred President of Egypt who built a bridge for peace with Israel; Sail the Nile River aboard an authentic Egyptian Felucca; ride a camel to the Pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx, colossal monuments to the former power of Egypt. Climax your stay in Cairo by attending one of the world’s greatest Sound and Light presentations at the Pyramids on the Sahara Desert.

 

I keep warning our children that they’re in for nothing but Middle Eastern souvenirs for Christmas. They’re pretty bitter that they don’t get to go. But my wife keeps reminding them that a trip like this is for grownups who’ve worked for years and earned the money to make the trip. This gives them something to look forward to. I just keep reminding them that envy is a four-letter word.

 

I’ll be sure to post a few pictures and comments after Thanksgiving. By the way, it costs four hundred fewer dollars to fly home on Thanksgiving day than it does to fly home the day before. My wife gets the year off from Turkey prep. That’s something she’s probably thankful for.   

Thinking About Church History

The title I have selected for today’s post happens to be the title of one of my categories of posts which deals with topics related to church history. I am a big believer in the study of church history. I have often repeated, if not nearly often enough on this blog, that we need to know where we came from so we can see where we are now and so we can see where we are headed in the future. I was excited last night to hear master documentarian, Ken Burns, say this very thing in relation to the importance of history. Burns, who has produced some legendary documentaries for PBS, like The Civil War, and Baseball, was interviewed yesterday on FOX News Sunday about his newest documentary on World War II called, The War. One of Chris Wallace’s final questions for Ken Burns, and Burns’ memorable answer, were as follows:

 

Wallace: You say you’re in the memory business. Why so much focus on history? Why so much focus on reawakening the past?

 

Burns:  I think we think that history is sort of like castor oil:  a set of dry dates and events that aren’t good for us, you know. We need to know where we’ve been, in order to know where we’re going. The current moment is so fraught with different perspectives, that we have to allow you, the journalist, to sort it out. When we get some perspective, then history gives us access to things, and it is paradoxically about our future. When you know where you’ve been, you are armed, it seems to me, with some of the best ammunition Americans could have. It equips us with the mistakes we’ve made, with the strengths that we have, and the ability, I think, to make very complicated decisions–particularly in times like this–and to go forward into a future that, I think, armed with a usable, serviceable past, that is less uncertain, and less dangerous.

 

I have a strong opinion about the relevance and value of church history for one’s personal and denominational interpretation of Scripture. One should not trust his own, or his denomination’s pet interpretations of Scripture uncritically. He should expose these interpretations to the light of day in the form of the corresponding interpretations of the great teachers of his own, as well as past, times. If the truth of God’s Word is a deposit handed down to us from generations past which extend back to the age of the apostles, then we have an obligation to make sure that doctrinal and practical transmission arrives to us in as undamaged of a state as possible. Sometimes, when we examine this divine cargo, we find that some reconstruction and repair is in order. I believe we are accountable to God for the state in which the following generations find our doctrine and practice.

 

Two quotes from great Christians of the past stand out in my mind which I’d like to share with you on this topic. The first is from Charles Spurgeon, and the second is from C. S. Lewis. These quotes well encapsulate my convictions regarding the value of church history for faithfulness to God’s Word. Iain Murry writes in a footnote of The Forgotten Spurgeon (page 34, note 14, 1994 edition, Banner of Truth Trust),

“Spurgeon had no patience with those who said, ‘We will not read anything except the book itself, neither will we accept any light, except that which comes in through a crack in our own roof. We will not see by another man’s candle, we would sooner remain in the dark.’ Brethren, do not let us fall into such folly.”

It is true that Scripture alone is our final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice, and that all human writings are subordinate to it, but Scripture was not written, nor is it well interpreted, in the vacuum of our own minds and experiences. We as members of the body of Christ are dependent on those gifted to teach us the truth of God’s Word, not only in our own congregation, but also from the universal church of all ages. Only in this way will we be able to truly “devote ourselves” (Acts 2:42) to the apostles’ doctrine. Writing in the current issue of Modern Reformation Magazine, Carl Trueman reviewed Ancient Christian Devotional: A Year of Weekly Readings, edited by Thomas C. Oden. He makes an interesting observation about the possible side effects of modern Evangelicalism‘s staunch position on the sufficiency of Scripture. He writes,

“Sadly, more recent Evangelicalism has, by accident or design, frequently isolated itself from such historic sources through a sincerely intended but naively executed commitment to the notion of scriptural sufficiency. This has borne unfortunate fruit. Over recent decades, the movement of many evangelicals to Rome or to Eastern Orthodoxy has been, in part at least, a reaction to such impoverishment of the Christian tradition within evangelical ranks. As people look for historical roots, Evangelicalism seems inadequate to meet the challenge, and such moves, though misguided, are at least understandable.”

 

Trueman’s words segue nicely to my second quote, by C. S. Lewis, which was given to us in his introduction to a translation of Athanasius’ On The Incarnation. Lewis writes,

“Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.”

How easy it is to assume that our age is the most advanced, the best informed. This goes for theology as well as for science and other academic and intellectual disciplines. But we mess things up just as easily as other ages have–we still have our own biases and pre-conceived notions. Lewis’ words remind us that some of these pre-conceived notions may be mis-conceived, and therefore our recourse must be to the checks and balances of old books. If we fail to do so, we are destined to get off track, lower our interpretive standards, and lose our way on the road to a theologically sound future. Please always remember and never forget: we Christians must learn where we’ve come from, so we can see where we are now, in terms of faithfulness to the apostles’ doctrine and practice, and be able to see clearly where we are headed with our doctrine and practice in the future.

 

 

 

 

P.R.O.P.I.T.I.A.T.I.O.N.

The Great Invalidator of Old NotionsYou’d be amazed at the kinds of useless stuff that passes through my mind. Today I’m going to punish you with it. It’s just one of my little tests of friendship. Today, I wondered if I could come up with an acronym for the word “Propitiation.” You know, this year in AWANA, I’m teaching through Romans 3:21-26, which includes the gospel-rich terms “redemption,” “justification,” and “propitiation.” No, I haven’t come up with any for the other two terms, but here’s what I got for “propitiation.” I’m afraid it doesn’t help with the meaning of the term or anything, but it made me chuckle. 

Presbyterians

Rarely

Ordain

People

IntoThe Great

The

Institution

After

They

Invalidate

Old

Notions . . .

. . . Charles Finney excepted.

Yes, Charles Finney was ordained by the Presbyterian church, and yes, he did “invalidate old notions.” What old notions, you ask? Only biblical things like . . .

Original Sin . . . “The doctrine of original sin, or of a sinful constitution, and of necessary sinful actions, represents the whole moral government of God, the plan of salvation by Christ, and indeed every doctrine of the gospel, as a mere farce. Upon this supposition the law is tyranny, and the gospel an insult to the unfortunate.” (Systematic Theology, Lecture 24 on “Moral Depravity”)

Penal-Substitutionary Atonement of Christ . . . Finney’s invalidation of the old notion: the Moral Government theory–“Consequently, we find that, in this atonement, God has expressed His high regard for His law and for obedience to it. The design of executing the penalty of the law was to make a strong impression of the majesty, excellence, and utility of the law. Anything may answer as a substitute, which will as thoroughly demonstrate the mischief and odiousness of sin, God’s hatred to it, and His determination to carry out His law in all its demands. Especially may the proposed substitute avail if it shall also make a signal manifestation of God’s love to sinners.” (Charles Finney on the Atonement see also, Theopedia: Governmental Theory of the Atonement)

Imputation . . . “The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption.” (Horton, Michael: “The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney,” the quote may be found under the heading, “Distorting the Cardinal Doctrine of Justification.”)

Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone . . .That gospel justification is not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding. Dr. Chalmers and those of his school hold that it is. But this is certainly a great mistake, as we shall see.” (Systematic Theology, Lecture 36, “Justification” )

The Miraculous Nature of Revival . . .  “It is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means—as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means. There may be a miracle among 13its antecedent causes, or there may not. The apostles employed miracles, simply as a means by which they arrested attention to their message, and established its divine authority. But the miracle was not the revival. The miracle was one thing; the revival that followed it was quite another thing. The revivals in the apostles’ days were connected with miracles, but they were not miracles.” (Lectures on Revivals of Religion, Lecture 1, “What a Revival of Religion Is“)

But, after all this, if what you really want is some good reading on “propitiation,” then check out the Wikipedia article.

Augustine on the Decrees of God: Roman or Reformed?

St. Augustine in Stained GlassI had to look up what the Roman Catholics claim about Augustine’s views on the sovereign grace of God, and I was surprised by what I found. But not entirely. One, “Albert,” posted the first comment to Bob Hayton’s Fundamentally Reformed post, “Legacy of Sovereign Joy: Augustine,” reviewing John Piper’s book, Legacy of Sovereign Joy, focusing on Piper’s reflections of Augustine, and Albert asked Bob if he was aware of what Augustine believed about grace and free will, and asserted that what he did believe was consistent with present, official Roman Catholic teaching. That’s why I wanted to see what the online Roman Catholic encyclopedia, New Advent, had to say about the matter. The entry entitled, “Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo,” section II on “His System of Grace,” got into some interesting reading about some details regarding free will which differs from the traditional Reformed view, but what really astounded me was what the online encyclopedia reports was Augustine’s view of how God determined his decrees regarding election and reprobation:

Here is how the theory of St. Augustine, already explained, forces us to conceive of the Divine decree: Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circumstance, and that in millions and millions of possible combinations. Thus He sees that if Peter had received such another grace, he would not have been converted; and if on the contrary such another Divine appeal had been heard in the heart of Judas, he would have done penance and been saved. Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when, among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, He decides to realize the actual world with all the circumstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it.

If Augustine taught this imaginitive concept of God’s determinate counsel, then he would have gone beyond what is written in order to come up with it. This reminds me of an anecdote of Augustine which is intended to warn of the danger of attempting to explain that which is not revealed in Scripture about spiritual realities, in which someone asks Augustine, “What was God doing before he created the world?” to which Augustine replied, “Creating Hell for the curious.” I think, if Augustine taught what is contained in the paragraph cited above, then he failed to heed his own anecdotal warning. Another thing I found interesting about the presence of this concept in Augustine’s thought is the fact that the first time I’d ever heard of such a concept, it came from someone near and dear to me, who was taking exception to the Reformed view of God’s decrees of election and reprobation, claiming that this divine consideration of all possible realities and settling on the ones that come to pass, leaving folks free (in the sense Adam was) to choose between good and evil as effectually influenced by the particular circumstances and graces God places in the individual’s path, was the more biblical view.

In my opinion, this extra-biblical view is just a more elaborate form of the prescient view of foreknowledge, about which, long before I’d become a Calvinist, when thinking it through, I concluded that in this semi-pelagian system, God was leaving man free to determine his own election, but having looked forward from before the creation in order to ordain it before man made his free choice, thereby cutting man off at the pass for the glory. You could probably say I persuaded myself in favor of Calvinism when I came to that conclusion, but it would be a couple of more years before God would force me to deal with the issues once and for all.

But the final observation I want to make about Augustine’s view of grace and free will, election and reprobation, is that I don’t think the Reformers needed to adopt exactly what Augustine speculated about the doctrine, because, after all, the Reformers were in the business of double checking writers like Augustine with the Scriptures, practicing that more noble virtue of searching the Scriptures to see whether what he taught was so. The Reformation may not have been a pure Augustinian revival, but the Reformers certianly did stand on the shoulders of this theological giant from Africa, Augustine of Hippo.

Roman Truths

Before I elaborate on my “Roman Truths,” please allow me to defend myselfEternal Truths Addressed to the Eternal City with the following quote of Martin Luther on the Book of Romans cited by Dr. Tom Browning on page 3 in the introduction to his series of lessons on “The Pinnacle of Christian Doctrine.”

Browning writes that Luther writes:

 

This epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament, and is truly the purest gospel. It is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but also that he should occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. We can never read it or ponder over it too much; for the more we deal with it, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes (Martin Luther, Lutherʹs works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I edited by J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann (Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1960; reprinted 1999), 365).

So, in my own defense, last night I was pondering the precious and delicious letter of Paul to the Romans. In my much pondering of this book, I often attempt to come up with an original outline of the book which will the reader or Bible student remember the broad themes of this revolutionary, reforming and reviving book of Romans. I can’t help it if it came out like this!

Roman Truths

1. The Bad News (Romans 1:1–3:20)

2. The Good News (Romans 3:21-8)

3. Good News and the Jews (Romans 9-11)

4. The Good News Wearing Shoes (Romans 12-16)

Somebody help me! I’m losing control of my homiletics!!!

Kingdom Coffers: Rabbit Trail on Government and Reformation

Yesterday, I concluded my post by promising to give you “more on the government’s ability to inhibit Reformation later . . . ” Well, it’s later. The following passage from the following book, coupled with the interesting historical summary on tithing in the Wikipedia entry I recommended yesterday, is the source of my thinking in yesterday’s post. Tell me what you think. For until someone gives me better info to correct my thinking, that’s what I’m going to think. Happy reading!

By Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., LL. D. Principal, The United Free Church College, Glasgow, Scotland.

Introduction

4. The Reformed Ideal of Ecclesiastical Government.

This similarity of published creed was the one positive bond which united all those Churches; but it may also be said that all of them, with the doubtful exception of the Church of England, would have nothing to do with the consistorial system of the Lutheran Churches, and that most of them accepted in theory at least Calvin’s conception of ecclesiastical government. They strove to get away from the medieval ideas of ecclesiastical rule, and to return to the principles which they believed to be laid down from them in the New Testament, illustrated by the conduct of the Church of the early centuries. The Church, according to Calvin, was a theocratic democracy, and the ultimate source of authority lay in the membership of the Christian community, inspired by the Presence of Christ promised to all His people.

But in the sixteenth century this conception was confronted and largely qualified in practice, by the dread that it might lead to a return to the clerical tutelage of the medieval Church from which they had just escaped. Presbyter might become priest writ large; and the leaders of the Reformation in many lands could see, as Zwingli did in Zurich and Cranmer in England, that the civil authorities might well represent the Christian democracy. Even Calvin in Geneva had to content himself with ecclesiastical ordinances which left the Church completely under the control of les tres honnores seigneurs syndicques et conseil de Geneve; and the Scottish “Supreme Governor of this realm as well in things temporal as in the conservation and purgation of religion.” The nations and principalities in Western Europe which had adopted and supported the Reformation believed that manifold abuses had arisen in the past, directly and indirectly, through the exemption of the Church and its possessions from secular control, and they were determined not to permit the possibility of a return to such a state of things.

The scholarship of the Renaissance had discovered the true text of the old Roman Civil Code, and one of the features of that time of transition–perhaps its most important and far-reaching feature, for law enters into every relation of human life–was the substitution of civil law based on the Codes of Justinian and Theodosius, for canon law based on the Decretum of Gratian. These old Roman codes taught the lawyers and statesmen of the sixteenth century to look upon the Church as a department of the State; and the thought that the Christian community had an independent life of its own, and that its guidance and discipline ought to be in the hands of office-bearers chosen by its membership, was everywhere confronted, modified, largely overthrown by the imperious claim of the civilian lawyers.

Ecclesiastical leaders within the Reformed Churches might strive as they liked to draw the line between the possessions of the church, which they willingly placed under the control of civil law, and its discipline in matters of faith and morals, which they declared to be the inalienable possession of the Church; but, as a rule, the State refused to perceive the distinction, and insisted in maintaining full control over the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it came about that in every land where the secular authorities were favourable to the Reformation, the Church became more or less subject to the State; and this resulted in a large variety of ecclesiastical organisations in communities all belonging to the Reformed Church. While it may be said with perfect truth that the churchly ideal in the minds of the leaders in most of the Reformed Churches was to restore the theocratic democracy of the early centuries, and that this was a strong point of contrast between them and Luther, who insisted that the jus episcopale belonged to the civil magistrate, in practice the secular authorities in Switzerland, the Netherlands, the Palatinate, etc., kept almost as tight a hold on the Reformed national Churches as did the Lutheran princes and municipalities. In one land only, France, the ecclesiastical ideal of Calvin had full liberty to embody itself in a constitution, and that only because the French Reformed Church struggled into existence under the civil rule of a Romanist State, and, like the Christian Church of the early centuries, maintained itself in spite of the opposition of the secular authorities which persecuted it (pages 7-9).

Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 3

The History of the Relationship Between Church, State and Tithing

I highly recommend that everyone read the Wikipedia entry on the Tithe. It gave me some very interesting insight into the way in which the historically blurred line between church and state has helped to seal in our minds the assumption that giving ten percent of one’s income (at least) is a New Covenant principle.

It seems that the Roman Catholic Church adopted tithing from the Old Testament as a workable, pragmatic model to ensure a regular income for their growing heirarchy. As you know, Rome during the middle ages exerted enormous influence over the nations of Europe, during which millennium, the concept of tithing became well ingrained. Thus, when the Reformation began, the governments of Europe seized the opportunity to protect themselves from similar influence from the diverse Protestant churches, by themselves exerting influence over the church, rather than allowing the status quo to continue at the hands of these upstart Protestants.

Part of this influence was in the various ways the governments of Europe extracted “tithes” from the people and supported their various state churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, etc.), which trend has just in the past couple of hundred years begun to diminish. Here’s an example of how America “dun good!” (for once, if you consider Americanism’s various other less than fortunate influences on American Christianity–no nation is exempt from syncretism) in refusing to take money from the church and give money to the church (the current President excepted–I wonder what other Presidents have likewise contradicted this national emphasis in other ways? That would be an interesting history lesson . . . ). Another way the government prevented complete Reformation was on the issue of the Lord’s Supper (at least in “Calvin’s Geneva”). But I’m done with that topic for now, but the comments apparently keep rolling in, much to my glee!

More on the government’s ability to inhibit Reformation later . . .

Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 1

I think the controversy between Paul and the Judaizers in Galatia and the subsequent church council may be relevant to the question of how biblical the concept and practice of tithing is. As we all know, the apostles who actually walked and talked with Jesus during his earthly ministry stuck around Jerusalem and did little in the way of what Jesus said they’d do in Acts 1:8 as far as being his witness not only in Jerusalem and Judea, but then to move over to preach to the Samaritans and then extend the preaching of Christ to the “uttermost parts of the earth.” It took the providence of God through the unpleasant means of persecution at the hands of, among other Jewish leaders, one Saul of Tarsus. This persecution chased the First Church of Jerusalem to begin “planting” churches in Gentile lands for the sake of their very skins (after all, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”). Then, as he was on his way to Damascus to continue persecuting Christians, Saul is confronted by, and converted to, the very one he was ultimately persecuting, the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 9:1-6). In this event, the Lord informs Paul of his plan to send him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 26:16-17). Among the churches born out of this foundational missionary work came the churches of Galatia.
These Galatian churches are the ones which were plagued by the Judaizing heresy, in which Gentile Christians were taught by their elder Jewish Christian brethren, that now that they were following the Jewish Messiah, they needed to take things a step further and begin receiving the sign of the Mosaic covenant (circumcision). The Judaizers became so influential that even the apostle Peter was motivated to endorse their dangerous emphasis (Galatians 2:11-14). This is what sparked the controversy. Paul confronted Peter about how they shouldn’t be teaching Gentiles to incorporate the types and shadows of the Mosaic Law into their faith and practice, because this tendency is compromising the gospel, and endangering the eternal souls of Gentile professing believers. The controversy became so significant that the apostles decided to deliberate about this issue in what we now know as the Jerusalem church council. This apostolic council’s conclusions are recorded in Acts 15. Considering just what, if any, practices based on the civil, ceremonial and dietary laws of Israel ought to, or can profitably, be imposed on Gentile Christian converts, they resolved to reduce the burden to four things, three dealt with food (Acts 15:29), its preparation and its relevance to unbelieving religious customs, and one issue relevant to the purity of the New Testament temple of the Holy Spririt (sexual immorality, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:12-20). Notice, here, what Mosaic Covenant practices are not included. The one that applies to this writing is the laws regarding the tithe (Numbers 18:24-28). The apostles thought about it, and decided (in so many words) that, among other things, they didn’t need to teach Gentile Christians to give specifically (or even at least) ten percent of their produce or income in whatever form it may exist.
But the question may be raised: did the tithe not predate the Law, since Abram tithed to Melchizedek? We’ll examine this issue next time.

Why Weekly Communion?

A few years ago, the church Dr. Tom Browning used to serve as Associate Pastor, lead their congregation to adopt the practice of weekly communion. Following is the text of a brochure that was printed to make the case for weekly communion in a series of concise statements, referring to the relevant Scriptures and historical sources. I find it a very helpful resource, so I wanted to share it with you.

WHY WEEKLY COMMUNION?
While the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not common in Protestant churches, we at Arlington Presbyterian believe it to be the biblical and preferred practice for the following reasons:

THE PRACTICE OF THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH
Although we do not have any clear-cut command, the New Testament evidence does seem to point in the direction of weekly communion, especially if one understands “the breaking of bread” to be a reference to the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-20; cf. 14:26).

EVIDENCE FROM CHURCH HISTORY
There are very clear and early (second century) allusions to the practice in the Didache and Justin Martyr’s The First Apology. While the history of the Church does not have the authority of God’s Word, it at least ought to interest us that the Christian community observed this practice, apparently without much discussion, so shortly after the time of the Apostles.

CONSISTENCY WITH OUR USE OF OTHER ELEMENTS OF WORSHIP
Why should the Lord’s Supper be the only regular element of worship which does not find a place in each Lord’s Day worship service? To be consistent, any argument against weekly communion would be an equally valid argument against weekly hymn-singing, weekly praying, weekly preaching, and so on.

BRINGING US BACK TO BASICS
Regardless of the sermon text or topic, the congregation is always brought back to the fundamentals—the death and resurrection of Christ (Matthew 26:26-28).

APPEAL TO THE WHOLE MAN
Since the Lord’s Supper is the only element of worship that appeals to all five senses, its weekly observance helps to prevent an “intellectualizing” of the worship service. If we do not celebrate the Sacrament frequently, we should not be surprised when our members leave Reformed worship for something more “stimulating.”

OPPORTUNITY FOR COVENANT RENEWAL
The Lord’s Supper is the ideal means of meditating on God’s Word and renewing our faith and repentance so that we may serve the Lord in the upcoming week (Acts 20:7).

PROVIDING ASSURANCE, PERSONALIZING THE GOSPEL
Every week the believer receives tangible and visible assurance that Christ died for him (Matthew 26:28).

IDENTIFICATION WITH THE PEOPLE OF GOD
This Sacrament stresses the corporate dimension of the Church, thereby promoting unity and the restoration of broken relationships. Don’t we need this every week (1 Cor. 10:16-17)?

CHURCH DISCIPLINE
One of the stages of discipline in many Reformed churches is suspension from the Lord’s Table. One of the purposes of this is to make the unrepentant sinner aware of his sin that he might be restored. But how effective can this be if the Lord’s Supper is not celebrated frequently? Even once a month would not seem to constitute effective suspension (1 Cor. 5:11-13).

VISIBLE MARK OF A DISCIPLE OF CHRIST
There is always the need to distinguish believer from unbeliever (Eph. 5:6-8). Since one of the purposes of the Sacraments is to make this difference visible, we should produce this visible difference often.

NATURAL PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL TO UNBELIEVERS
By setting forth so plainly the work of Christ on the cross, and especially by fencing the table, any unbelievers present are called to faith and repentance. Weekly communion thus provides a natural and regular opportunity to present the claims of Christ to visitors.

SPIRITUAL NOURISHMENT
Since the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace, through faith it provides us with what we need to grow in grace. Thus, the frequent partaking of the bread and the wine for our spiritual nourishment is as necessary as the frequent partaking of food for our physical nourishment (1 Cor. 10:16).

CALL TO SELF-EXAMINATION AND REPENTANCE
Such should be our daily practice. Weekly communion reminds us of this and gives us opportunity to actually do so on a regular basis (1 Cor. 11:27-32).

REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
One of the problems with an infrequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper is that it tends to produce unrealistically high expectations as to what should “happen.” People expect something magical and exciting to happen at quarterly communion, but are often disappointed; they go away wondering what they missed and why they missed it. By celebrating the Lord’s Supper each week our expectations become realistically high; we look forward to and enjoy it much as we do prayer, preaching, singing, and the other elements of Christian worship.

TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD!

Prepared by the Staff and Session of Arlington Presbyterian Church
1320 West Pioneer Parkway, Arlington, Texas 76103
Phone 817-261-8938; Fax 817-459-1136; Email mailto:info@apcweb.org