f The Wittenberg Door: July 2011

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

About Me

My Photo
Name:

Commenting on Christendom, culture, history, and other oddities of life from an historic Protestant perspective.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Notable Quote: R.C. Sproul

From Essential Truths of the Christian Faith . . .

The new covenant, the covenant of grace, was ratified by the shed blood of Christ upon the cross. At the heart of this covenant is God’s promise of redemption. God has not only promised to redeem all who put their trust in Christ, but has sealed and confirmed that promise with a most holy vow. We serve and worship a God who has pledged Himself to our full redemption.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:40 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Today in Church History: Edmund P. Clowney

On July 30, 1917, Edmund Clowney was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

After studies at Wheaton College and Westminster Seminary, Clowney was ordained by the Presbytery of New York and New England in 1942. He pastored Orthodox Presbyterian churches in Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey before joining the practical theology faculty at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. There he also served as the school's first President, from 1966 to 1982. During his 42-year tenure in the OPC, Clowney also served as an editor for the Committee on Christian Education (1948-1958), and he moderated the 25th General Assembly in 1958. In 1984 Clowney accepted a call as associate pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Charlottesville, Virginia, and transferred his ministerial credentials into the PCA.

Clowney was a towering figure among the ministers of the OPC's second generation. Under his leadership, Westminster Seminary underwent ambitious plans for expansion, including significantly higher student enrollments, multiple campuses, and a constituency that grew far beyond the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

- John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:13 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, July 29, 2011

Pelosi Announces Faith-Based Immigration Policy

From The Wittenberg Door archives . . .

WASINGTON—Former Speaker of the House and supplemental Holy See Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced her new immigration policy this week. Although vowing that her deeply-held religious convictions would not color her political decisions, Congresswoman Pelosi shocked constituents with her new Bible-based policy.

Using verses found in the book of Second Illusions, the Holy Mother dictated that clerics must preach what the government tells them to, including the new gospel of illegal immigration.

The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' and I said, 'I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your' -- whatever the communication is . . . The people, some (who) oppose immigration reform, are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels.

The new policy and redefined-gospel have caused reactions in both the sacred and the secular world. Noted armchair theologian and all-around-good-egg, The Catechizer, had this to say,

We Protestants define the gospel as imputation—Christ’s righteousness being imputed (transferred) to his people, and their sin being imputed to him, which he bore on the cross. For Rome, though, it’s always been based on works. This new gospel is no different; except now to earn my salvation I apparently must either break into someone else’s country and steal their resources, or I must help someone violate the sovereignty of my own country and break our laws. Either way, lying, cheating, and stealing are now Christian virtues.

In a legal brief filed today, Winfred La Pooh, vice president of Atheists United to Keep Religious Wackos Out of Politics (AUKRWOP), stated, “This is America. Land of the free. This means that we should be free from having to listen to these religious zealots. Hasn’t Congresswoman Pelosi read the part of the constitution about separation of church and state?”

After learning that there is no “separation of church and state” in the constitution, Ms. La Pooh responded, “We at AUKRWOP are sure that the judges will be able to find it in there somewhere.” A lawsuit is pending in federal court.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:07 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Today in Church History: J. Gresham Machen

On July 28, 1881, J. Gresham Machen was born in Baltimore, Maryland.

The second of three sons born to Arthur Webster Machen and Mary Gresham Machen, Gresham was raised in an affluent Southern Presbyterian home, and his family attended Franklin Street Presbyterian Church, an influential Old School congregation. His upbringing nurtured him less in the “sentimental variety associated with Victorian Protestantism” than in “older forms of Protestant piety " the Bible, the Westminster Catechism, and Pilgrim's Progress,” according to biographer D.G. Hart. Machen's resistance to moralism would prompt his initial reluctance to enter the ministry after his education at Johns Hopkins University and Princeton Seminary. Eventually, his theological and cultural viewpoints would lead him to reject both theological modernism that he would condemn in Christianity and Liberalism and the “sickly interdenominationalism” of Protestant fundamentalism.

- John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:07 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

A.I., Data, and the Soul

We define the soul as born from the breath of God, immortal, corporeal, having shape, simple in substance, intelligent in itself, working in various ways, having free will, subject to contingent circumstances, in its moods changeable, rational, exercising control, possessing intuition, overflowing out of one source.

Tertullian (155–230)

I recently watched the movie A.I. Not a bad flick, but it won’t be replacing The Big Sleep as my favorite movie. The movie did, however, leave me thinking about artificial intelligence and the nature of the soul.

Desire and the Will

In the movie, David, the little machine boy, has the Pinocchian desire of becoming a real boy. This desire sets David on a trek to find the Blue Ferry, who supposedly can bring his desire to realization. Cute story.

Here’s the problem: desires are not physical and thus not produced by matter. They are products of the will. Therefore, a purely physical object like David cannot engage in such soulish activities as desiring. So the pain the audience feels because of David’s unfulfilled desire is completely misplaced—David cannot desire, so it cannot experience the emotional pain of unfulfilled desires (another activity of the soul).

Being

My dear-old grand pappy always told me to “never switch androids in midstream,” but I’m going to anyways (I’m a rebel). Star Trek: Next Generation’s Commander Data had a pet cat named Spot. Data could tell you everything about that cat—from its molecular structure on up. But Data could never tell you what it’s like to BE a cat. That’s beyond a machine’s capability, and couldn’t be otherwise.

Even with Data's emotions chip, all it could do is mimic humanity. Unlike Data, I’m a human being (despite what my wife says); that’s concrete (physical). My “being” a human being entails my “humanity” which is abstract (not physical).

With a machine, what you see is what you get. But like the “redness” (abstract) of Rudolf’s red nose (concrete), human beings are more than the sum of their parts. We are “beings”; machines aren’t. Sorry, Data.

Memories

Back to A.I. Warning: If you haven’t seen the movie, what follows is a “spoiler.”

The aliens that find David are able to grant the wish—sort of. Although they cannot make it a real boy, they can bring back its human “mother” for one day. All they need is a strand of her DNA. Thankfully, the forward-thinking Teddy Bear has a strand of her hair.

In a nutshell, the aliens bring her back with most of her memories in place (odd though; she remembers the robot boy but seems to have forgotten her real family); they have a fun day together (another activity of the soul); then she goes bye-bye, and we all feel sad.

Once again, here’s the problem: Memories are not physical (not extended into space). Therefore, even if the aliens can produce her body from the DNA, they could not produce “her.” Her “identity,” which would include her memories, would not be present, for they are a product of the mind. More realistically, it would be like she had just died—you would have a body, but nobody would be home.

Conclusion

Despite the imaginations of TV and movie writers, even the most sophisticated machine will never be able to engage in actual soulish activities. These activities, being non-physical, will always be out of reach for even the most sophisticated thingamabob—but it does make for good fiction.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:23 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Where is God in Evil and Suffering?

There was a little girl of five who was hated by her mother and father. . . . This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty—shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy [outhouse], and because she didn’t ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child’s groans!

Can you understand why a little creature, who can’t even understand what’s done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark in the cold and weep her meek, unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted?

Dostoevsky’s horrifying tale makes the question of evil and God’s sovereignty very personal, very human. Before I was Reformed I would have simply said that it’s man’s fault, not God’s. The retort was always the same, “Couldn’t God have stopped it?” My answer that God doesn’t interfere with the free-will decisions of men seemed trite and ad-hoc even to me—and I wasn’t able to escape the conclusion that all such suffering was ultimately purposeless.

After becoming Reformed my answer changed. I understood that God was sovereign and decrees all things that come to pass. That there is a purpose in such suffering, although we might not understand what it is. In other words, God has a morally sufficient reason for the suffering that occurs in this life.

In an interview with Justin Taylor, John Piper provides a more artful and in-depth explanation to this troubling issue. After referencing the above passages from The Brothers Karamazov, Justin Taylor asks, “Where was God?”

The question where is metaphorical and hardly has an answer. “On the throne of the universe preparing a place for the little girl in heaven that will recompense her ten-thousand-fold for everything she is experiencing.” “Preparing hell for her parents so that justice will be done perfectly.” And those who look upon both the heaven recompense and the hell recompense will bow in sovereign wonder at the justice of God. Those are possible answers to where he is.

You can read more here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:41 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, July 25, 2011

The Nazi at The Door – Considering Moral Dilemmas

We, as God’s people, are required to think His thoughts after Him. This is no small task. This means that we have to face tough moral and theological questions carefully and thoughtfully, all the while not surrendering the sure foundation of God’s Word. It's against this backdrop that I broach the topic of today’s post: moral dilemmas.

A note of warning: this topic carries with it a certain amount of controversy. For that reason I remind you to "Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Moral Dilemmas

You are on the horns of a moral dilemma if you are caught between competing moral requirements. Here is the most common modern example:

It is wartime Germany and you are hiding Jews in your basement. There’s a knock at the door—Gestapo performing a house-by-house search! They ask if you are hiding Jews in your basement. You pause as you consider your answer.

  • “If I say ‘yes,’ they will kill them"

  • “If I say ‘no,’ then I’m lying"

Dilemma: The only way to protect the innocent is to lie.

No Win Situation?

Some characterize this as “choosing between two evils.” But this characterization is false. God will never put us in a situation where we can’t please Him, where we must sin.

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

1 Corinthians 10:13

15) For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

16) Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need

Hebrews 4:15-16

Although Christ was not specifically tempted with Nazis at the door, He did face every kind of temptation. Each temptation met its defeat. Based on Christ’s triumph, and the Corinthian passage, we can conclude that any particular instants of sin can be overcome by the believer. Since sin can always be resisted, we’ll never face a “no win situation” morally.

This is true, but this savors of a carnal heart to think that you must choose one sin rather than another. You must not choose any of them! Both of them are evil, though one may be less evil than another.

Jeremiah Burroughs (1599–1646)

Scriptural Considerations

The Ninth Commandment forbids lying (Ex. 20:16). But are we to take from this passage that all lying is forbidden? To answer that question we must first remember that the Ten Commandments are but a summary of God’s Law. To be faithful, we must take into account all of what God's Word says.

1) Now the LORD said to Samuel, "How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have selected a king for Myself among his sons."

2) But Samuel said, "How can I go? When Saul hears of it, he will kill me." And the LORD said, "Take a heifer with you and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.'

1 Samual 16:1–2

Here we see the Lord instructing Samuel to deceive Saul. If Samuel would have told Saul the truth, Saul would have killed both him and David. Through the lie, both men where spared and God’s plan of redemption continued.

Also consider 1 Kings 22. Prior to going to war against Syria, king Ahab consults his 400 brown-nosing prophets who basically say “you da’ man, boss!” (that’s my own translation). Unsatisfied, the king summons Micaiah. Micaiah (eventually) tells the king of his pending doom, and a bit more:

19) Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.

20) "The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that.

21) "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'

22) "The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'

1 Kings 22:19–22

Thus God mislead Ahab into battle.

And how about Rahab? We read in Joshua 2 that she lied to protect the spies. Do the Scriptures condemn her? No. Actually, because of her deception, she was included in the “Faith Hall of Fame” (Hebrews 11:31).

Conclusion: “There are No Jews Here”

The “Nazi at the door” is not a true moral dilemma—we are not actually caught between competing moral choices. As a matter of fact, God will never put us in a situation where we truly have to choose between two of His commands.

God does expect us, however, to make moral choices that are consistent with His revealed will. This means that we cannot simply stop at the summary of God’s law, but, instead, we must press on to consider the totality of what God has to say.

In our short study, we found that truth-telling is the general rule. But in certain situations (such as when protecting innocent people, or during a time of war) God allows for deception. That being said, there is something very important we must remember: Because God’s character is the standard of morality, He is the only One able to determine when deception is allowed—not us. Therefore, study the Scriptures carefully, for God takes His commands seriously.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:13 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Why Lust?

Clay Jones, D.Min. Associate Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, makes a great point about lust at his blog. Here’s how it starts:

The trouble with lust isn’t that we lust. As I’ve said before, we were born to lust. You see, God created humans as beings with strong desires. God could have created humans with weak desires but then we wouldn’t care much for even honorable things like friendship, or sex (it’s not wrong to desire sex, after all), or marriage, or children, or God. But since God gave us strong desires, the key is to focus our desires after what is right: God and His Kingdom.

You are either going to lust after God and His Kingdom or you are going to lust after people, possessions, positions, and pleasures. But, no matter what, you are going to lust.

Many people giving advice on controlling lust miss this point and without it, you will never have victory. The last thing a Christian should do is spend much of his or her life focusing on not lusting. After all, everyone knows that the way to stop thinking about pink elephants is to start thinking about purple ones, and the way to stop thinking about worldly lusts is to start thinking about heavenly ones. We must learn to long for God! Learn to enjoy what He’s giving us for eternity.

You can read the entire post here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:00 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Notable Quote: Martin Luther

Martin Luther on professing Christ when it matters . . .

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I am professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved . . .

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:48 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, July 22, 2011

What is Saving Grace?

Before considering the nature of saving grace it’s appropriate to recall why saving grace is necessary:

Our first parents, through the instigation of the Devil (Rev. 12:9), chose to rebel against our most holy God (Gen. 3:1-6). The result of this rebellion was the entrance of sin into the world (Rom. 5:12-14). The nakedness for which Adam and Eve were ashamed extended far beyond mere clothing—they and their progeny were now separated from God and in need of reconciliation (Rom. 5:12-21).

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
Genesis 2:16-17

As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.”
Romans 3:10-12

Saving Grace

Grace (Latin: Gratia; Greek: Charis; Hebrew: Chen) refers to the undeserved favor shown from one to another, particularly from a greater to a lesser.

“. . .grace is an attribute of God, one of the divine perfections. It is God’s free, sovereign, undeserved favor or love to man, in his state of sin and guilt, which manifests itself in the forgiveness of sin and deliverance from its penalty. It is connected with the mercy of God as distinguished from His justice. This is redemptive grace in the most fundamental sense of the word. It is the ultimate cause of God’s elective purpose, of the sinner’s justification, and of his spiritual renewal; and the prolific source of all spiritual and eternal blessings.”

Louis Berkhof (1873-1957)

Man can do nothing to earn (merit) God’s grace. If he could then it would be a wage, not a gift, and thus would be grounds for boasting before God.

8) For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9) not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9

Mankind has rebelled against God, and, as a result, stands condemned. But God, for His own good pleasure, chooses to spare some—to show mercy. By its very nature grace does not come about by anything man does—we don’t pray our way into it, chose our way into it, or anything else. It is completely, from first to last, an underserved gift from God. Thus the appropriate response is to fall down before a gracious God who does not give us what we deserve.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness
Romans 1:18

When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
Acts 11:18

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Acts 13:48

This message of grace, therefore, is essential to the gospel message, as Puritan John Owen explains:

Gospel promises then are: (1) The free and gracious dispensations; and, (2) discoveries of God’s good-will and love: to, (3) sinners; (4) through Christ; (5) in a covenant of grace: (6) wherein, upon his truth and faithfulness, he engageth himself to be their God, to give his Son unto them, and for them, and his Holy Spirit to abide with them, with all things that are either required in them, or are necessary for them, to make them accepted before him, and to bring them to an enjoyment of him.

John Owen (1616-1683)

Conclusion

Because of the fall man is separated from God. And left to his devices he’ll continue in his sin and rebellion. But God, in His great mercy, chooses to grant a stay of execution to some—not only that, He chooses to adopt the condemned! This message of God not giving us what we deserve should make us fall to our knees and sing along with John Newton . . .

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:37 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Reforming Church Architecture


Call me old fashioned, but I think churches should look like churches. Not like shopping malls, coffee houses, or amusement parks. I recall when I moved to San Antonio, TX, (before I moved to the Texas hill country), coming over the hill on the 10 freeway, I saw a brick building with a high roof and a jutting steeple; a true architectural antithesis when compared to the large retail stores and auto dealers around it. I told my family, “I bet that’s our new church”; and sure enough I was right. Easily recognizable, it was set apart, distinct, a true statement of contrast. It looked like a house of worship, not a house of commerce—it looked like a place where God met His people.

David Gobel weighs in by contributing to a series at the The Gospel Coalition Web site on church architecture. Here’s an excerpt:

I suggest that we approach church architecture in terms of worship and witness. Worship is the purpose of the church. Worship, as we understand it from the teaching of Scripture, consists of the reading and preaching of the Word, public prayer, congregational singing, and the celebration of the sacraments. The building in which we worship is the physical setting for this supremely important activity, but it is not to be worshiped itself, nor should it distract us or lead us to worship any created thing. A Reformed church architecture should be, at the outset, supportive of and subordinate to Christian worship. But this does not mean that it must be unattractive or drearily utilitarian.

According to John Calvin, the chief principle governing public worship is decorum, a concept that describes how we are to behave, dress, and, I would add, build. Decorum is a general principle that encompasses propriety, gracefulness, dignity and, yes, beauty. Indeed, these are the qualities that should be sought in church architecture. The dignity, decorum, and beauty that we seek in designing places for public worship should extend also to the external witness of the church. We must not forget that, besides being a gathered body of believers, the local church is also an earthly institution. Like all civic and commercial institutions, when churches construct buildings, they are building public statements about their identity. All buildings—whether art museums, gas stations, big-box retailers, or churches—bear witness to the institutions they serve.

Churches cannot ignore their civic role. The location, site planning, quality of materials, craftsmanship, and design of a church building either contribute to or detract from the overall quality of the built environment of a community. Churches must consider, not only the architectural design of their buildings, but also their relationship to the streets, blocks, and neighboring buildings of the surrounding community. Like all of society, our culture’s built environment is in dire need of reformation. Sprawling landscapes of multilane highways, disconnected developments, and warehouse-style buildings are indicative of a self-absorbed society that is far from pursuing the true chief end of man. The automobile-oriented, big-box, entertainment-style worship centers built by many churches today seem only to perpetuate such culture. How we build our churches is a matter too long ignored. Reformed churches should build buildings fit for the supreme task of corporate worship while contributing to the beauty and welfare of the city of man.

You can read the rest here.

PS. The church pictured above is the one of which I am a member, Christ Presbyterian Church of New Braunfels, Texas (PCA). I believe it examples David Gobel’s insights: In contrast to the medical and retirement facilities around it, it’s clearly discernable as a church. Moreover, it exemplifies dignity, decorum, and beauty, all the while remaining consistent with the Alamoesque architecture popular in South Texas.

Click here to see some amazing—and sometimes strange—examples of church architecture.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:33 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Washington: A President, Not a King

Here’s my list of the three greatest American presidents:

  • Washington—for not becoming a king

  • Lincoln—for holding this country together during its greatest crises

  • Reagan—for restoring America back to her better self and for defeating the Soviet Union

“The Greatest Mischiefs”

Although our founding fathers had just cast-off the bonds of a king, there was a movement, especially among the military, to make Washington a king. This is exampled in a letter Washington received from Fort Mifflin’s former commander, Colonel Lewis Nicola.

Citing the unrest among the ranks due to Congress' inability to pay them, Nicola suggested to Washington that he use the military to make him, Washington, king.

To a lesser man, the temptation would be overwhelming. But Washington was no ordinary man. Washington responded with a brief and sharply worded letter:

No occurrence in the course of the war has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the army . . . I must view with abhorrence and reprehend with severity [an idea that was] big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my country.

Thanks Be to God for Washington, Scottish Presbyterians, and John Calvin

Praise be to God for His bringing forth and preserving our great nation, and for the stoutness of Washington’s character. We should also praise Him for the means He used to plant the seeds that grew into our form of government: John Calvin (particularly book four of the Institutes), Scottish Presbyterians, and, ultimately, the Scriptures. To God be the glory.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:31 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Notable Quote: J.C. Ryle

J.C. Ryle (1816 – 1900) on preparing for your funeral . . .

When we have carried you to your narrow bed, let us not have to hunt up stray words, and scraps of religion, in order to make out that you were a true believer. Let us not have to say in a hesitating way one to another, “I trust he is happy; he talked so nicely one day; and he seemed so please with a chapter in the Bible on another occasion; and he liked such a person, who is a good man.” Let us be able to speak decidedly as to your condition. Let us have some solid proof of your repentance, your faith, and your holiness, so that none shall be able for a moment to question your state.

Depend on it, without this, those you leave behind can feel no solid comfort about your soul. We may use the form of religion at your burial, and express charitable hopes. We may meet you at the churchyard gate, and say, “Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord.” But this will not alter your condition! If you die without conversion to God, without repentance, and without faith–your funeral will only be the funeral of a lost soul; you had better never have been born.

Holiness, 228-229

HT: Kevin DeYoung

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:20 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, July 18, 2011

The Priesthood of All Believers

At the time of the Reformation, a two-tier hierarchy of believers was in place. In the upper class were the spiritual elites, such as priests, monks, and nuns. It was believed that they were able to attain perfection, mostly by completing spiritual rituals and ceremonies. In the lower class were the laymen. These were thought of as being spiritually inferior, only being able to perform natural works. Thus “sacred” work, done by the religious professionals, was pleasing to God, while “secular” work, done by those in the pews, was not.

The Origin of the Sacred/Secular Split

This dichotomy was primarily due to Thomas Aquinas’ view of God’s grace and of the nature of man. Aquinas taught that human nature was not fit for a relationship with God. It needed something more—a donum superadditum—a gift that was added on.

In the state of pure nature man needs a power added to his natural power by grace . . . in order to do and to will supernatural good.

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)

Thus, according to Aquinas, man needed this “add on”—this infusion of power—to have fellowship with God. Reason being, man’s nature was inherently defective and incapable of having such fellowship.

But how was man to get this supernatural power? Rome’s answer: Monasticism—a life of self-denial, poverty, pilgrimages, doing penance, obeying Rome, etc—in other words, sacred work.

Donum Superadditum Rejected

The Reformers rightly rejected the doctrine of donum superadditum, as well as the claim that man’s nature is inherently defective. Instead they believed that “. . . God created man good, and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness; that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him.” (Heidelberg Catechism)

The true problem is that man has fallen from his first state, becoming corrupt and alienated from God. Man, therefore, does not need an additive—he needs restoration. This restoration comes not by any work of man, but is a free gift of God (grace), through the work of Christ.

The Sacred/Secular Split Rejected

Along with the rejection of donum superadditum came the rejection of its offspring: the sacred/secular split. In its place the Reformers taught the Biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light

1 Peter 2:9

Far from Monasticism, which required the rejection of secular work, the Reformers taught that all legitimate work done in faith pleases God. Furthermore, when we are performing that work, we are rendering worship unto the Lord—we are acting in our capacity as priests unto the Most High God. There is, therefore, no spiritual elite, and there certainly is no divide between sacred and secular work.

This is a wonderful thing, that the Savior of the world, and the King above all kings, was not ashamed to labor; yea, and to use no simple an occupation. Here he did sanctify all manner of occupations.

Hugh Latimer, English Puritan and Martyr
(1470–1555)

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:41 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Today in Church History: Isaac Watts

Isaac Watts was born on July 17, 1674, in Southampton, Hampshire, England.

The English nonconformist pastor of Mark Lane Chapel in London has been called the “Father of English Hymnody.” The publication of his Hymns and Spiritual Songs was influential in establishing the use of non-inspired song in Protestant worship. His many works include “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” and “There is a Land of Pure Delight.” He is best known for his Psalm paraphrases, which include “Our God, Our Help in Ages Past” (based on Psalm 90) and “Jesus Shall Reign” (based on Psalm 2).

During Watts' lifetime, nonconformity would drift toward Unitarianism, and Watts himself displayed anti-trinitarian tendencies, though generally not in the hymns he wrote. Altogether, 41 of his hymns found their way in the first edition of the Trinity Hymnal and 36 in the second edition.

- John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:03 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Forced Love? – Part 2 (Conclusion)

"i'll never force you for i love you so,
i give you freedom. is it yes or no?"

god, according to the riches of his wonderful grace, doesn't force anyone into heaven. but he does force us to make a decision. i think sproul should write a book called "does god believe in apatheists?" and in it he should discuss the fate (predestination is an obvious falsehood) of all those souls who choose to not choose.

In Part 1 we answered the common Arminian objections to the doctrines of Irresistible Grace and Unconditional Election: “So you’re saying that God drags people into heaven against their will, while those sincerely desiring to get in can’t because they’re not the elect?”

Now we’ll turn our attention to the next issue . . .

Is it true that “predestination is an obvious falsehood”? Is it true that God leaves the choice up to us in the hopes that we’ll take up His offer? Or did God choose us in Him before the foundation of the world? Let’s see what Scripture has to say . . .

28) And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

29) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

30) and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

(Romans 8:28-30)

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love.

(Ephesians 1:4)

13) But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

14) It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)

Also consider: Due. 10:14-15; Psm. 33:12, 65:4, 106:5; Mat. 11:27, 22:14; Mark 13:20; Rom. 11:28; Col. 3:12; 1 Thes. 5:9; 1 Pet. 2:8-9; Rev. 17:14.

Is the Choice Based Upon Foreseen Faith or Acts?

The next question we must consider is whether or not God's choice is based upon foreseen faith or upon foreseen works. Consider the following passages:

11) for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

12) it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

13) Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

(Romans 9:11-13)

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

(Romans 9:16)

who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity

(2 Timothy 1:9)

Also consider: Ex. 33:19; Acts 13:48, 18:27; Rom. 11:7; Phil. 1:29, 2:12-13; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; James 2:5

Conclusion

The Arminian objections above fall flat, for they do not truly represent the state of man, nor do they truly represent the gracious work of God in salvation.

In his fallen state man is an enemy of God. He not only doesn’t seek reconciliation and entrance into God’s kingdom, but he is daily seeking to further himself from His holy Creator. The sinner’s only hope is a rescue operation—a sovereign work of God upon his heart. And this rescue operation does not depend upon the drowning man seeking out the lifeguard. Instead, our rescuer chose to save us, and to preserve us, before we ever entered the water. May His name be praised forever more.

Postscript

The “poetry” provided above is from a song called I Give You Freedom (The Whippoorwill Song). Here’s a portion:


I own the cattle on a thousand hills,
I write the music for the whippoorwills,
Control the planets with their rocks and rills,
But give you freedom to use your own will.

And if you want Me to, I’ll make you whole,
I’ll only do it tho’ if you say so.
I’ll never force you, for I love you so,
I give you freedom – Is it “yes” or “no”?”

I’d like to preface my comments with a note to my Arminian brothers and sisters: I am sympathetic to your view. I once heard someone remark that we are born Arminian. I think that’s true: it is our natural, fallen inclination to want to exalt ourselves. Autonomy is something that tempts us all. Indeed, that’s what the serpent successfully tempted our first parents with.

That being said, I am deeply troubled by this song. In my reading of it the rolls are reversed: instead of man worshiping His sovereign creator, this song seems to proclaim that God has subjected Himself to the will of His creation (i.e., man). Not only that, but it seems to me that God (Who is the one “speaking” in the song) is worshiping the will of man. Frankly, this is blasphemous—but this is the natural outcome of Arminianism.

As I wrote the conclusion to this post, I was overcome with gratitude for our Lord because He rescued a wretch like me. That’s why I ended it in praise—I couldn’t help myself. But if I were to use this song, would my praise be to God? No.

Even though, in the Arminian view, God made salvation possible, it’s up to me as to whether I want to accept the gift, or if I’d rather slap His hand away—I get to say “yes” or “no.” So the praise at the end would be for me, and my will, for that is the grounds of my salvation being actualized and, ultimately, realized. This brings the contrast between Calvinism and Arminianism into clear focus: the former places God and His sovereignty at center, while the later exalts man and his autonomy. Here’s how Dr. James White put it recently at his blog . . .

I believe TULIP [five points of Calvinism] represents the spectrum of the gospel truth most reprehensible to the natural man. I believe TULIP rips the lips off of man’s self-righteousness. It casts man fully upon the mercy of God and leaves no ground for boasting. I believe TULIP then is vital to maintaining gospel balance against the ever-present drag of remaining sin that leads us to constantly find ways of robbing God his glory and putting ourselves back in some semblance of control.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:35 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, July 15, 2011

Forced Love? – Part 1

"i'll never force you for i love you so,
i give you freedom. is it yes or no?"

god, according to the riches of his wonderful grace, doesn't force anyone into heaven. but he does force us to make a decision. i think sproul should write a book called "does god believe in apatheists?" and in it he should discuss the fate (predestination is an obvious falsehood) of all those souls who choose to not choose.

A friend of mine forwarded me the above quote and asked for my comment. It originated from a Christian with whom my friend was conversing at a message board.

The first issue mentioned above (just after the bad poetry) is the common Arminian response to the doctrines of Irresistible Grace and Unconditional Election. It usually takes the following form:

“So you’re saying that God drags people into heaven against their will, while those sincerely desiring to get in can’t because they’re not the elect?”

Banging on Heaven’s Door?

We’ll start with the second objection: Is it the case that there are sinners who want to reconcile with God but God won’t let them because they're not of the elect?

Here’s the problem with this objection: it doesn’t take into consideration the state of man. Scripture teaches that Adam’s sin brought spiritual death to us all (Gen. 2:16–17, 3:1–7; John 11:24-26; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1–3; Col. 2:13).

As a result, men are spiritually deaf, blind, and completely corrupted (Ecc. 9:3; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14); also, men are slaves of sin (John. 8:34; Rom. 6:20; Tit. 3:3) and children of the devil (Eph. 2:1–2; 2 Tim. 2:25–26; 1 John 3:10).

So how does natural man respond to the revelations God has given him? He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). Consequently, man in his unregenerate state hates God and is therefore not seeking Him.

10) as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

11) THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

12) ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

Romans 3:10-12

Kicking and Screaming?

Now to the former part of the objection: Is God forcing people into heaven against their will?

As we’ve just seen, man is dead in his sins and in complete and utter rebellion against God. Man’s plight is not simply that he needs to add a few doctrines to his belief system—no, he needs to be made a new creation (Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 5:17–18), to have his nature renewed (Due. 30:6; Ezk. 36:26–2; 1 Pet. 1:3).

Being made alive by the Spirit (John 5:21; Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13), the sinner is granted repentance. (Acts. 11:18, 16:14; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:25–26). Now with a new disposition towards God, he lives a life characterized by thankfulness and service unto the Lord (Rom. 6:1-14; Eph. 2:10; Phil. 2:13). So, contrary to kicking and screaming, God’s people are made alive, turned, and eternally brought into the embrace of their loving father.

Stay tuned for Part 2 where we’ll find out if “predestination is an obvious falsehood.”

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:32 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Notable Quote: John Webster


John Webster, professor of Systematic Theology at University of Aberdeen, on the indicative and imperative nature of holiness:

Evangelical sanctification is not only the holiness the gospel declares but also the holiness that the gospel commands, to which the creaturely counterpart is action. Holiness is indicative; but it is also imperative; indeed, it is imperative because it is the indicative holiness of the triune God whose work of sanctification is directed towards the renewal of the creature’s active life of fellowship with him.

Indicative holiness is no mere inert state in which we find ourselves placed and which requires nothing of us beyond passive acquiescence. Indicative holiness is the revelation of the inescapable conclusion under which our lives have been set—namely, that as those elected, justified, and sanctified by the mercy of God, we are equally those who are determined for the active life of holiness. Because grace is ‘double grace’, it is election to activity.

Double grace is always, of course, wholly grace; the active life of holiness is never apart from faith’s assent to God’s sheer creativity. But in a Christian theology of the holy life, grace is duplex, extending into the generation, evocation and preservation of action. ‘Grace’—which is, of course, nothing other than a shorthand term for the great history of God’s mercy, at whose centre is the passion and resurrection of Christ and his sending of the Spirit—is the gift of life, and life is active holiness in company with the holy God.

Holiness, 87

HT: Kevin DeYoung

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:23 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Docetism and 1 John

For many years as a young Christian, the first few versus of 1 John 4 confused me. I thought, “What’s this business about denying Christ came in the flesh?” I knew that there were plenty out there who denied His diety, but I was unaware of any who denied His humanity. I was reminded of this the other evening during our family devotional when I had to explain these passages to my children.

1) Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because any false prophets have gone out into the world.

2) By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

3) and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

4) You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.

5) They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.

6) We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

(1 John 4:1–6)

Docetism

A precursor to Gnosticism, Docetism taught that matter was evil. Consequently, those embracing this teaching could not accept that God could take on human flesh. Thus they rejected the doctrine of the Incarnation, and, in its place, taught that Christ’s body and his crucifixion were both illusory. It’s this teaching that John is warning us about in verse 3.

Text Considered

The concern here, though, is much broader than just the teachings of Docetism. Indeed, John's concern extends to all false teachers—for they are all of the spirit of antichrist. Because of these false teachers we are told to “test the spirits,” meaning that we are to test the teachings of men.

But like a father revealing a happy ending to a frightening tale, John does not leave us in fear. In verse 4 he tells us that we have already overcome them (the false teachers) because of the indwelling Spirit—God will not allow His little children to be ravished by wolves. In verse 6 we discover the means of this protection: His Word.

John tells us that “he who knows God listens to us.” “Us” here refers to John and the other men used by God to bring forth the Bible. Those of the spirit of antichrist will not heed the Scriptures—but God’s little children will. “By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”

Conclusion

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

(Acts 17:11)

Those in Berea were daily in God’s Word studying to see if what Paul and Silas were telling them was true. Likewise, the only way we can recognize false teachers is to be grounded in God’s Word—to know the truth. It is there in the Scriptures that, by faith, we’ll meet with the Living God, hear His voice, and learn the truth.

The Bible is something more than a body of revealed truths, a collection of books verbally inspired of God. It is also the living voice of God. The living God speaks through its pages. Therefore, it is not to be valued as a sacred object to be placed on a shelf and neglected, but as holy ground, where people’s hearts and minds may come into vital contact with the living, gracious and disturbing God.

James Montgomery Boice

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 5:51 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Disappointed by Jesus?

Using a fictional conversation between Joseph Barsabbas (lost the coin toss to Matthias, Acts 1:26) and a disappointed young man, the Desiring God blog offers some insightful comments about disappointment. Here’s how it begins:

How does God want us to deal with the emotion we call disappointment?

Joseph Barsabbas was disappointed by Jesus. Joseph was a candidate to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the Twelve, but when the lot was cast it “fell on Matthias” (Acts 1:26). I’ll bet that was a blow.

The Bible never mentions Joseph again. But tradition says he later became the Bishop of Eleutheropolis (32 miles southwest of Jerusalem) and died a martyr. Assuming that’s accurate, imagine what Joseph may have learned about disappointment and how he might have counseled a disappointed young disciple twenty years later.

________

Bishop Joseph looked at his sullen disciple. “You’re disappointed.”

“Yes,” replied Primus.

“Why?”

The answer seemed obvious. Primus suspected a teaching moment. “I was just hoping for the appointment to the Antioch church that Asher received.”

“Well, that’s the occasion of your disappointment. My question is why are you disappointed?”

You can read the rest of the conversation here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:44 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, July 11, 2011

Freedom is the Problem

In salvation, freedom is the problem, not the solution.

Could I choose never to eat Brussels sprouts? Yes. Could I choose never to sin? No

In the first, I can choose to eat that foul vegetable or I could choose not to. In the second, I can choose to sin, but I can't chose not to sin (although I can choose not to commit certain sins).

What Does This Tell Us About Our Freedom?

As fallen creatures, we are in rebellion against God. Our will is set against His. So it's nothing outside of us that is keeping us from choosing Christ (or causing us to sin), but something with in us—our will. It's not that we are kept from choosing Christ, it's that we won't. (Gen. 2:16–17, 3:1–7; Ecc. 9:3; Jer. 17:9; John. 8:34; Rom. 3:10–12, 5:12, 6:20, 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1–3; Col. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25–26; Tit. 3:3; 1 John 3:10)

When we exercise our freedom, we choose what we want. I choose not to eat Brussels sprouts; however, this is a matter of taste, which can change. But when it comes to choosing Christ, I will not chose Him because it's against my nature as a rebel. My freedom is the problem.

What's the Answer?

God, by His great mercy, changes the direction of my heart from that of a rebel to that of a son. Acting consistently with my nature, I rebelled; now, acting consistently with my nature, I obey, albeit imperfectly. (Due. 30:6; Ezk. 36:26–2; John 5:21; Acts. 11:18, 16:14; Rom. 6:1-14, 21–22; Cor. 5:17–18; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:1, 5, 10; Col. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25–26; Phil. 1:29, 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:3)

Therefore, if God doesn't intervene, we will continue to make our free choice: rebellion.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:25 AM | 2 comments links to this post

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Today in Church History: John Calvin

John Calvin was born on July 10, 1509, in Noyon, Picardy, France.

Born the second of five sons to Girard and Jeanne Cauvin, the young Calvin received a humanistic education through the influence of which he converted to Protestantism, despite what he would later describe as the “obdurate attachment to papistical superstitions” of his youth. Recognized as the “Father of Reformed Theology,” Calvin's most famous work, his Institutes of the Christian Religion, was among the first comprehensive statements of Protestant theology, growing from six chapters in the first edition (1536) to 79 chapters in four books in the final edition (1559). Calvin's teaching on the sovereignty of God, the doctrines of grace, and covenant theology found development and expansion in the Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries.

When he visited Geneva in 1536, Calvin was persuaded to help the struggling church there. Under his leadership, Geneva became a center of Reformed Protestantism, developing Presbyterian forms of government, worship, and discipline that would spread throughout Europe, the British Isles, and eventually in North America.

- John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:59 AM | 2 comments links to this post

Saturday, July 09, 2011

The Terrors of Conscience


The Reformed Traveler has an excellent post explaining the difference between the “terrors of conscience,” which is brought about by the Law, and true sorrow over sin, which comes through the gospel. Here’s how it begins:

Those who read up on the history of revivals often get fascinated by the subject of the terrors of conscience. Some folks have gone so far as to say that we need this sort of thing today. It is true that terror of the conscience may sometimes go before faith, but this kind of terror is not to be confused with repentance. Indeed, the truth is this, terrors of conscience and the Law have the tendency to draw men away from the cross and not to it.

Let me illustrate. Several hundred years ago, in Northern Ireland, a Presbyterian minister by the name of Glendinning began to preach in a place called Sixmile Water in County Antrim. In accounts I’ve read, Glendinning arrived and, “Seeing the lewdness and ungodly sinfulness of the people, he preached to them nothing but law, wrath, and the terrors of God for sin.” Multitudes were brought to cry out in terror and swoon under the Word. People were carried out of doors as if dead. But no one got saved. Why? The reason is that the poor minister knew only Law and not gospel! Eventually, the neighbouring ministers came to Mr. Glendinning’s aid and brought the “stricken people” to an understanding of grace and salvation. . . .

You can read the entire post here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:05 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, July 08, 2011

Today in History: Liberty Bell


Tradition says that on July 8, 1776, the Liberty Bell rang from the tower of the Pennsylvania State House (now known as Independence Hall) as it summoned Philadelphians to hear Col. John Nixon give the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence.

The Pennsylvania Assembly ordered the 2,000-pound bell from London in 1751, specifying that it bear an inscription from the Bible: “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof” (Lev. 25:10 KJV). It arrived in Philadelphia the next year but cracked on the very first test, probably due to a flaw in its casting, so it was melted down and recast twice to make a new bell

Over the years the bell rang often to call people for announcements and special events. It pealed in 1765 for Philadelphians to discuss the Stamp Act, in 1774 for the First Continental Congress, and in 1775 after the battles of Lexington and Concord.

At some point—no one is certain when—the bell cracked again. On February 22, 1846, during a ringing for Washington’s birthday, the crack grew so much that the bell became unusable. It no longer rings, though on special occasions, such as the Fourth of July, it is gently tapped On June 6, 1944, when Allies landed on the beaches of Normandy, officials struck the bell and broadcast its tone across the nation.

Today the Liberty Bell sits near Independence Hall in a pavilion known as the Liberty Bell Center. Lines from the old poem capture Americans’ attachment to the venerable icon:

The old bell now is silent,
And hushed its iron tongue,
But the spirit it awakened
Still lives—forever young.

American History Parade

1776 - The Liberty Bell rings for the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence.

1853 - Commodore Matthew Perry sails into Tokyo Bay seeking diplomatic and trade relations between the United States and Japan.

1889 - The first issue of the Wall Street Journal is published.

1932 - The Dow Jones Industrial Average falls to 41.22, its lowest closing of the Great Depression.

1950 - General Douglas MacArthur is named commander of United Nations forces fighting in Korea.

The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America

posted by The Catechizer | 2:06 PM | 0 comments links to this post

Today in Church History: Jonathan Edwards

On July 8, 1741, Jonathan Edwards preached the sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” in Enfield, Connecticut.

Seeking to stir the hearts of a congregation that had yet to experience the Great Awakening, Edwards' series of images of the wrath of God prompted cries from his listeners so loud that it prevented him from finishing the sermon. The most memorable part of this famous sermon was Edward's analogy of the spider:

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you were suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

- John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:52 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Thursday, July 07, 2011

John Huss - Part 2 (Conclusion)

Continued from Part 1:

The Roman Catholic Church Responds

The Archbishop of Prague became angry because he considered Huss to be spreading Wycliffe’s doctrines; he was also angry because of a more personal matter: Huss supported a different papal claimant than the archbishop.

The Archbishop took his complaint to the pope who ordered him to root-out the heresy. Thus, in 1410, the Archbishop excommunicated Huss for insubordination and ordered his books burned.

Papal Indulgences

Huss was very popular among the people; therefore, when news of his excommunication hit the streets, a great tumult started. Huss added fuel to the fire by striking out against the pope’s sale of indulgences.

Pope Gregory XII was under the king of Naples' protection. This made the fight against Pope Gregory a costly one. Therefore, to raise the needed money, Pope John XXIII began selling indulgences (a way to take time off of one’s sentence in purgatory). Huss, who formerly believed in indulgences, began preaching against the practice.

Severe consequences followed: The pope immediately excommunicated him; he lost the support of his king; and Prague fell under a papal edict. Huss’ only recourse was to flee the city to a castle in southern Bohemia near Tabor—and there he stayed for two years producing his major works.

The Council of Constance

In 1414, Huss was ordered to appear before the Council of Constance (Switzerland) to justify his views. Although guaranteed safe-conduct by the Holy Roman Emperor, the council ordered him imprisoned and put on trial. After suffering a sever illness and being nearly starved to death, he was tried and found guilty of not holding that the papacy was a Divinely ordained office. On July 6, 1415, Huss was burned at the stake.

Huss’ Legacy

The followers of Huss, known as the Czech Brethren and later as the Moravians, continued his work. The Moravian Church survives to this day.

Because of his teachings and his courage in the face of a horrible death, Huss is considered a forerunner to the Protestant Reformation. As a matter of fact, Martin Luther was charged by the Roman Catholic Church of reviving the errors of Huss. What an honor.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:15 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

John Huss - Part 1

John Huss was born circa 1371 in a small Bohemian town called Husinetz (now part of the Czech Republic). Although born a peasant, he received an excellent education at the University in Prague where he earned a reputation as a gifted scholar.

It was during his student years that he was introduced to the philosophical writings of Wycliffe. At the age of 32, Huss was ordained to the priesthood, and, two years later, he became rector of the university. The year was 1402.

Huss began preaching at Bethlehem Chapel in Prague. This unique chapel was a place where common folk could hear preaching in their own language. At the time, most people, including clergy, spoke little Latin, the only Language in which the Roman Catholic Church would allow the Scriptures to be heard. It was during this time that Huss discovered the religious writings of Wycliffe—he immediately adopted them with zeal.

With the backdrop of the Great Schism, Huss began, in his sermons, to denounce various church abuses—matters of discipline and practice. Through these fiery sermons in the Bohemian language, Huss developed a widespread following.

The Teachings of Huss

Huss is credited with bringing the teachings of Wycliffe to Bohemia. Wycliffe’s influence can be seen in many of the doctrinal positions for which Huss is most known:

  • He objected to church officials expanding their powers beyond the church to include earthly government
  • He called for the church to return to the poverty and simplicity of Apostolic times
  • He denied the infallibility of an immoral pope
  • He advocated the giving of both the bread and the wine of the Lord’s Supper to all Christians in good standing (this was in response to a practice that had developed where only the bread was being administered to the laypeople)
  • He stressed the doctrine of predestination
  • He asserted that Scripture, not the church, held ultimate authority
  • He accorded the state the right to supervise the church
  • He wrote that Christ, not Peter, was the foundation of the church

Stay tuned for part 2!

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:08 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Ignatius of Antioch: Earliest Post-New Testament Martyr

Over at Christianity Today's Christian History Web site there is a fine article about Ignatius of Antioch. Here's an excerpt . . .

"Now I begin to be a disciple. … Let fire and cross, flocks of beasts, broken bones, dismemberment … come upon me, so long as I attain to Jesus Christ."

Ignatius was going to die. He knew it. He wanted it. The only possible problem, as he saw it, was meddling Christians.

"I fear your kindness, which may harm me," he wrote to Roman Christians hoping to free him. "You may be able to achieve what you plan. But if you pay no heed to my request, it will be very difficult for me to attain unto God." And that was truly Ignatius's goal: to imitate "our God Jesus Christ" in death. If Christians really wanted to do something, they should pray that he would remain faithful. "If you remain silent about me, I shall become a word of God. But if you allow yourselves to be swayed by the love in which you hold my flesh, I shall again be no more than a human voice."

You can read the entire article here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:01 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, July 04, 2011

The Fog of Providence

On August 20, 1776, British General William Howe moved his troops, approximately 20,000 strong, into Long Island. Although already under intense fire, Washington’s troops, about 23,000 (mostly militia), were caught off guard by the move. Washington’s men were trapped and being brutalized by the Hessians who took no prisoners, preferring instead to stab the surrendering Americans with their seven-inch bayonets.

Washington’s only hope was to evacuate the American army to Manhattan. The British, however, had already anticipated this move and were prepared to send five warships up the East River to block the retreat. Knowing full well that the American‘s push for independence lay in the balance, Howe ordered an attack on August 23. It looked as if the American cause would be ended here, only a month after independence had been declared.

The Night of August 29

Washington knew that his situation was untenable—it was only a matter of time before Howe would have his victory, and the cause of independence would be lost. That’s when the miraculous happened: the wind shifted. The contrary wind meant that the British ships would not be able to come up river and cut off his retreat. Also, a thick fog rolled-in providing the cover necessary for keeping the retreat from the British high command.

Coolly and decisively, Washington ordered the seafaring Marbleheads of Massachusetts to ferry his troops from Brooklyn. The American army would live to fight another day—and the cause of independence was saved—thanks to a providential change of weather.

Of Nations and Men

On this day, the day that we celebrate the cause of freedom that resulted in the founding of this nation, let us not forget that it is God, and not we ourselves, Who controls the destinies of nations and men.

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings

Acts 17:26

And let us give Him thanks for the freedoms we enjoy, and for the brave men and women who have fought—and are fighting—to protect us and our freedoms. May God preserve and protect this great Union. Amen.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:47 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Sunday, July 03, 2011

Calvinists Who Love Wesley

Fred Sanders cautions Calvinists against throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to John Wesley, co-founder of the Methodists movement. Here’s how he begins his worthy admonishment at The Scriptorium Daily:

Calvinists sometimes behave as if their Reformed credentials give them a free pass to forget there ever was a John Wesley, or that he is to be reckoned one of the good guys, or that he, being dead, yet speaks. They keep their distance as if Wesley were the carrier of a theological disease, to be given a wide berth. It’s one thing to say (as any good Calvinist must) that Wesley was wrong about a few important doctrines. But it’s another thing, a little tragic, to consign him to oblivion and imagine there is nothing to learn from him. Here are some Calvinists who know better. Their essentially pro-Wesley tone is striking, possibly because it’s becoming rarer than it once was.

John Newton (1725-1807) was as young, restless, and Reformed as anybody, but he could testify of John Wesley, “I know of no one to whom I owe more as an instrument of divine grace.” This line is quoted in Iain H. Murray’s book, Wesley and Men Who Followed (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2003), p. 71. Murray himself (b. 1931) is a great example of a Calvinist who unflinchingly opposes Arminianism, but is fully aware of how much spiritual blessing he has received through Wesley and the Methodists. Murray knows what the main things are, and knows that Wesley was sound on them, even though he was off the ranch on the beloved “doctrines of grace” as the Reformed see them: “the foundation of Wesley’s theology was sound. On the objective facts of the salvation revealed in Scripture –Paul’s ‘first of all’ of 1 Corinthians 15:3—Wesley was clear.”

You can read the rest of the article here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:01 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, July 02, 2011

The Presbyterian Totally Reformed Covenantal Westminsterian Sabbatarian Regulative Credo-Communionist A Millennial Presuppositional Church of . . .

A little levity . . .

Since 1975 several more splits have happened with the most recent occurring this past weekend, when a dispute arose amongst the members of Second Street First Ninth Westminster Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church over the issue of the observance of the Lord's Day. The issue in question was whether or not it was acceptable for someone to check their email on the Sabbath. Those who objected have now split off and have formed "The Presbyterian Totally Reformed Covenantal Westminsterian Sabbatarian Regulative Credo-Communionist A Millennial Presuppositional Church of Centerville . . .

Read the the whole post here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:33 AM | 2 comments links to this post

Friday, July 01, 2011

He Descended Into Hell ...

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

The Apostles’ Creed is one of the earliest statements of Christian orthodoxy, believed to be written sometime in the second century. Later, sometime before 700 AD, the words “descended into Hell” were added. Although it is not known who made the addition or why, there are a few theories as to the meaning.

Against Gnosticism

“He descended into Hell” is preceded by “was crucified, dead, and buried.” The addition could be to further the distinction between Gnosticism and orthodoxy: Christ was a physical being Who actually died in the manner of men. He did not swoon, evaporate, or lie in a coma, but physically ceased living with His spirit returning to the Father.

The Reformers

The Reformers believed that this statement refers to Christ suffering the pains of Hell upon the cross. Here’s how John Calvin put it in the Institutes. . .

The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ’s body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.

(You can read Calvin’s entire comments on this portion of the creed here.)

Although I believe that the Reformers are correct (and when I confess this creed, this is what I have in mind), Christ certainly did suffer the pains of Hell on the cross, I’m still troubled by the use of the term “descended.” If that’s what the author of the text had in mind, why use that term? It doesn’t seem to fit.

Prison Break

Some have tied “He descended into Hell” to I Pet. 3:19:

in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison

I’ve heard two interpretations of this:

  • Christ went not to Hell, but to Abraham’s Bosom, which was supposedly a temporary holding place.

  • Christ went to Hell and offered salvation to those there.

I think there are many problems with both interpretations (especially the second), but I’m going to pass on that in this post. Instead, I just want to focus on the passage at hand: Does it teach that he actually “descended” somewhere? I don’t think so.

In the versus leading up to this passage (particularly 18-20), Peter is encouraging us to stand strong in faith while enduring persecution for righteousness sake. Noah is an example of such courage under fire. Christ, via Noah’s preaching, is proclaiming the gospel to those living in Noah’s time—those who are now in Hell (i.e., “prison”). This is why Peter says “ . . . He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison”; the sequence is 1) Christ preached (they didn’t listen) 2) now they’re in prison.

It seems to me, therefore, that the context disallows the other two interpretations.

Conclusion

Whatever the reason “He descended into Hell” was added, what I have in mind when confessing The Creed is that Christ suffered the pains of Hell for me. Not only is this theologically supported, it also reminds me that my salvation came at a great price. May our dear savior’s name be praised forever. Amen.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:26 AM | 1 comments links to this post