f The Wittenberg Door: October 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.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Today in Church History: Martin Luther, Protestant Reformation


On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther launched the Protestant Reformation when he nailed his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg church door.

Contrary to modern impressions, the Augustinian monk's action was not a defiant and revolutionary gesture, but rather a dispassionate invitation for his fellow academics to debate the power of indulgences, and especially their abuse under the salesmanship of John Tetzel. The theses begin and end in this way:

  • 1) When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said, "Repent," He called for the entire life of believers to be one of penitence.

  • 2) The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

  • 94) Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells;

  • 95) And let them thus be more confident in entering heaven through many tribulations than through a false assurance of peace.

In the years that followed, Luther's struggles to reform the church prompted him eventually to strike at the heart of the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation, as he embraced the doctrines of sola Scriptura (the Word of God cannot be subordinated to human tradition), sola fide (justification is by faith alone and not dependent on works-righteousness), and sola gratia (salvation is a gift of God's grace and not earned by human merit). Though his rediscovery of the gospel took shape over the course of years, it was foreshadowed in the posting of his 95 Theses. Thus it is fitting for all Protestants, including Orthodox Presbyterians, to commemorate October 31 as "Reformation Day."

John Muether

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 8:56 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Sunday, October 30, 2011

The Reformation

If you ask most kids what they celebrate on the last day of October, they would say Halloween. Would the response be different from a Sunday school calls? As the poet said, “The world is too much with us!” This is the season for thinking about the Protestant Reformation. With Halloween so spiritually questionable today, shouldn’t we be more concerned about our spiritual heritage?

When Martin Luther nailed his 95 these to the door of Wittenberg church on October 31, 1517, that was the beginning of the greatest spiritual awakening since the days of the apostles. Not only Luther, but Hus of Bohemia, Wyclif of England, Calvin of Geneva, and Knox of Scotland were used of God to kindle the fires of reform.

The basic doctrine of the Reformers was that the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith and practice. Not the pope, not human tradition, not church councils, but the Word of God must be our final court of appeal in matters of belief and conduct. This soul-liberating truth needs fresh emphasis in every generation.

Another doctrine rediscovered in the Reformation was justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Our salvation can depend on nothing except the perfect righteousness of Christ. The means of laying hold of the perfect righteousness is faith. “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith,” Paul says, “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). Without this truth there is no gospel, no good news for sinners.

Another truth stemming from the Protestant Reformation is the universal priesthood of believers. We depend on no priest or minister for our access to Almighty God. Jesus is the “high priest whom we confess.” Only through him do we have the right of direct access into the presence of a holy God.

We who are heirs of the Reformation have so much to thank God for. And yet we dare not think the battle fought by the Reformers has been won. In every generation, even the Protestant churches, that battle needs to be joined and, by the grace of God, won again. For the sake of the faith once delivered to the saints, we must be willing today to say with Luther, “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me!”

—Great Commission Publications

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:02 AM | 2 comments links to this post

Saturday, October 29, 2011

John Calvin the Theologian

Reformation Ink posted an excelent address by B. B. Warfield called John Calvin the Theologian. Here’s how it begins . . .

The subject of this address is "John Calvin the Theologian," and I take it that what will be expected of me is to convey some idea of what manner of theologian John Calvin was, and of his quality as a theological thinker.

I am afraid I shall have to ask you at the outset to disabuse your minds of a very common impression, namely, that Calvin's chief characteristics as a theologian were on the one hand, audacity--perhaps I might even say effrontery--of speculation; and on the other hand, pitilessness of logical development, cold and heartless scholasticism. We have been told, for example, that he reasons on the attributes of God precisely as he would reason on the properties of a triangle. No misconception could be more gross. The speculative theologian of the Reformation was Zwingli, not Calvin. The scholastic theologian among the early Reformers was Peter Martyr, not Calvin. This was thoroughly understood by their contemporaries. "The two most excellent theologians of our times." remarks Joseph Scaliger, "are John Calvin and Peter Martyr, the former of whom has dealt with the Holy Scriptures as they ought to be dealt with--with sincerity, I mean, and purity and simplicity, without any scholastic subtleties....Peter Martyr, because it seemed to fall to him to engage the Sophists, has overcome them sophistically, and struck them down with their own weapons."

You can read the entire address here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 2:38 PM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, October 28, 2011

New Roman Catholic Bible—Same Old Problem

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have been hard at work on a new translation of the Bible. From what I’ve read much of the changes are innocuous, like changing the word “booty” to “spoils of war” and “cereal” to “grain.” One alteration, however, is quite consequential:

One change may set off alarms with traditionalists, in a passage many Christians believe foreshadows the coming of Christ and his birth to a virgin. The 1970 version of Isaiah 7:14 says "the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

The 2011 text refers to "the young woman" instead. It elaborates that the original Hebrew word, almah, may, or may not, signify a virgin.

Here are the verses impacted by the change as translated in the NASB:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14

21) "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

22) Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

23) "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

Matt 1:21 – 23

According to Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, almah can refer to “damsel, maid, virgin.” The Greek word is partheos, which Strong’s Greek Lexicon renders, “a maiden; by implication, an unmarried daughter:--virgin.” As you can see, the Greek word used by Matthew clearly means virgin.

Of course, common sense also dictates that that the prophecy is about a virgin. If you’re a prophet in search of a job and the star accomplishment on your resume is that you predicted a young women would have a child, then you had better get used to food stamps. And can you imagine Matthew arguing for Jesus’ messiahship down at the local pub, “Guys, I’m tell’n ya, it’s really him! His mother was a young women. A YOUNG WOMEN! What else could it mean?”

Not only is Rome pulling the Scriptural rug out from beneath the doctrine of the virgin conception, they’re also challenging the Bible’s authority.

God doesn’t err
The Bible is God’s book
Therefore, the Bible doesn’t err

For Rome to be right, then Matthew must be wrong, for clearly the book of Matthew affirms that the prophecy is about a virgin. But of course, this is just a new chapter in an old story—Rome versus the Bible. And as always, God’s Word is subordinated to her councils, magisterium, traditions, and pontiffs.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:48 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Was John Calvin a Monster?

The nineteenth-century German Reformed church historian Philip Schaff asserted that Calvin "must be reckoned as one of the greatest and best men whom God raised up in the history of Christianity." Most moderns would hardly concur. But why? There are at least two reasons of which I am aware. The first is that Calvin's image has been purposely distorted by his opponents, and this distortion is simply parroted by their students who have never read Calvin for themselves. The second is that Calvin's Master warned his disciples: "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours" (John 15:18-20). John Calvin merited reproach like his Master.

One would hope that even those who staunchly disagree with Calvin's theology would treat Calvin with the historical fairness accorded Calvin by his nineteenth-century French opponent Ernest Renan who called him "the most Christian man of his age." Such, however, has not been the case. The first notable detractor was Jérôme-Hermès Bolsec, a Roman Catholic, who in 1577 accused Calvin of being an ambitious, presumptuous, arrogant, cruel, evil, vindictive, and above all, ignorant man. In 1688 Bosset launched a more subtle attack asserting that Calvin was an ambitious, quick tempered autocrat, with a morose and bitter spirit, displaying a "serious sickness" in the way he pursued his adversaries. In 1841 J. M. Audin wrote a biography of Calvin, authorized by the French Roman Catholic Church up until World War I. In it Calvin is portrayed as an egocentric coward, who "never loved." "He has the nature of a snake." Most recently, in 1951, Father André Favre-Dorsaz wrote what Calvin scholar Richard Stauffer describes as "the most destructive book about Calvin with which I am acquainted." According to Favre-Dorsaz, Calvin was a cruel, sadistic dictator, a superficial theologian, and a believer whose religious feeling was of a doubtful character. Finally in 1955 Daniel-Rops summed up modern opinion by identifying Calvin as "the perfect type of fanatic."

Was Calvin a monster? Was he a cold-hearted theolog? Gregory E. Reynolds sets the record straight in the article The Humanity of John Calvin from the Ordained Servant.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 5:36 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Today in History: God Created the World, at 9 a.m.


John Lightfoot (1601 – 1675), vice-chancellor of England’s Cambridge University, was one of the original members of the Westminster Assembly. His scholarship and lucidity translated into him being one of the key-figures in the formation of the Westminster Standards. A committed preterist, he wrote persuasively on end-time issues, such as Daniel’s “weeks prophecies” (Dan. 9:24-27). His studies led him to believe that God did His creative handywork on today’s date . . .

Heaven and earth, center and circumference, were made in the same instant of time, and clouds full of water; and man was created by the Trinity on October 26, 4004 B.C., at nine o’clock in the morning.

Now we know.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:50 AM | 2 comments links to this post

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

John Calvin: Father of the Reformed faith

"I labored at the task [writing The Institutes] especially for our Frenchmen, for I saw that many were hungering and thirsting after Christ and yet that only a few had any real knowledge of him."

With his brother and sister and two friends, John Calvin fled Catholic France and headed to the free city of Strasbourg. It was the summer of 1536; Calvin had recently converted to the "evangelical" faith and had just published The Institutes of the Christian Religion, which articulated his Protestant views. He was a wanted man.

Click here to read this interesting sketch of John Calvin’s life.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 5:54 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, October 24, 2011

Love vs. Justice

For he chose the way of the cross, where mercy triumphs over justice because of love.

(God the “Father” speaking of Jesus in The Shack, pg. 164)

In our modern, feminized version of Christianity, many find the thought of God exercising judgment upon men distasteful (even immoral). Or some, like best-selling author William Young, pit God’s love against His justice. But is it true that a good god would never punish people, or that God would forgo justice in the name of love?

The Back-story

When God created man, he created him “good, and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness”; however, after succumbing to the temptation of the devil, our first parents rebelled against our creator. Because of this disobedience, “our nature became so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin.” Furthermore, because of our corrupt nature, “we are wholly unapt to any good and prone to all evil.” This means that we are not only born with Adam’s guilt (because he represented us all before God), but we also “daily increase our guilt” through our own sins.

Although God is merciful He is also just, and will not allow our sins (i.e., not conforming to, or acting against, His law) to go unpunished. How can mortal man escape this just judgment? How can we sinful mortals repay a debt owed stemming from crimes committed against an infinitely holy God? How can we “escape this punishment and be again received into favor?” Answer: Satisfaction must be made “either by ourselves or by another.”

But, because we “daily increase our guilt,” we ourselves cannot make such satisfaction. Furthermore, no “mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin.” It seems hopeless. The only way to bridge the chasm separating us and God is to have a mediator and redeemer “who is a true and sinless man, and yet more powerful than all creatures, that is, one who is at the same time true God.” But who is such a mediator and redeemer? “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is freely given us for complete redemption and righteousness.”

(All quotes taken from the Heidelberg Catechism, Q and A 6 – 18.)

God as Judge

As seen above, mankind has rebelled, and continues to rebel, against his God and has earned the Creator’s wrath. God, however, has made a way of escape—faith in Jesus Christ. By rejecting that way of escape, men will stand before the Just Judge of the Universe and give an account. Their punishment will fit their crimes; since these men can never repay the dept owed, they will bare God’s wrath for eternity. This is just. It also matches their desire—they wanted nothing to do with God, and they’ll get their wish, forever.

It would be unjust for God to simply say, “Hey, no problem. I’m a loving God. Here’s your Get Out of Jail Free card.” For example, if Mr. Young was robbed and assaulted, and went to the police to swear out a complaint, would he be satisfied if they said, “We caught the guy, but let him go because we’re a loving police station”? Do you think Mr. Young would respond, “Great! I’m so glad that mercy triumphed over justice because of love.” On the contrary, I bet he would rail against such an injustice.

The truth is, if you sacrifice justice for love, you have likewise sacrificed love—for love demands justice. Thankfully, this is a false dilemma—one does not have to be sacrificed for the other. God is both loving and just—and we see both God’s love and His justice in the doing and dying of Christ.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:16 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Sunday, October 23, 2011

John Calvin: Theologian and Pastor

John Calvin was such an extraordinary theologian, we often overlook—or are simply unaware—that he was also a dedicated pastor. New Horizons offers a fine article, penned by James Edward McGoldrick, showing the various sides of Calvin. Here’s an excerpt related to his pastoral work . . .

The major theme of Calvin's theology was always the glory of God. In his zeal to promote the divine glory, he demonstrated deep concern for human beings, God's image-bearers, whom he longed to enlist in the cause of reformation. The eternal and temporal well-being of people occupied his attention, for he understood he could do nothing for God directly, but could honor God by assisting others to know their Creator and to realize their obligations to love and obey him. As a scholar, he lectured to candidates for the ministry in Latin; but as a pastor, he preached in French to communicate with common people. To learned and unlearned parishioners alike, he proclaimed, "The whole life of Christians ought to be a sort of practice of godliness." He defined godliness as a "pure zeal which loves God as a real Father and looks up to him as a real Lord; it embraces his righteousness and detests offending him more than it does dying."

To encourage the piety of God's people, their pastor taught them from Scripture, for he knew spirituality requires the truth of divine revelation as the basis for personal life and its healthful development. As the Holy Spirit leads Christians to accept sound teaching, that knowledge must regulate all of life. Even in his Institutes, Calvin sought to promote sincere piety as well as sound theology, and to demonstrate the connection between them.

With sympathy and compassion, Calvin sought to help believers as they struggled with temptation in their quest for spirituality, that is, for "reverence joined with love of God which the knowledge of his benefits induces." Calvin recommended regular reading of Scripture as the principal means of progressing in sanctification. As the Holy Spirit creates faith in the Word of God, piety requires believers to organize their lives around Scripture, applying its teachings in all areas of their endeavors. They must participate in public worship to hear the Word expounded, and they must reinforce that with private study and meditation on biblical teachings.

You can read the entire article here.

Along these same lines I recommend the article John Calvin: Servant of the Word published in the Ordained Servant.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 11:07 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Think and Smoke Tobacco

I am both a cigar and a pipe smoker (traditional pipes; not the kind that need water). I’m also a connoisseur of good Reformed theology. What a treat it is to have these good gifts brought together by Scottish churchman Ralph Erskine (1685-1752) in Think and Smoke Tobacco. So grab your favorite pipe and read on!

Part I
This Indian weed now wither'd quite,
'Tho' green at noon, cut down at night,
Shows thy decay;
All flesh is hay.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

The pipe so lily-like and weak,
Does thus thy mortal state bespeak.
Thou art ev'n such,
Gone with a touch.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And when the smoke ascends on high,
Then thou behold'st the vanity
Of worldly stuff,
Gone with a puff.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And when the pipe grows foul within,
Think on thy soul defil'd with sin;
For then the fire,
It does require.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

Then to thyself thou mayest say
That to the dust
Return thou must.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

Part II
Was this small plant for thee cut down?
So was the plant of great renown;
Which mercy sends
For nobler ends.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

Doth juice medicinal proceed
From such a naughty foreign weed?
Then what's the pow'r
Of Jesse's flow'r?
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

The promise, like the pipe, inlays,
And by the mouth of faith conveys
What virtue flows
From Sharon's rose.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

In vain th' unlighted pipe you blow;
Your pains in inward means are so,
'Till heav'nly fire
Thy heart inspire.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

The smoke, like burning incense tow'rs
So should a praying heart of yours,
With ardent cries,
Surmount the skies.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

Ralph Erskine (1685-1752)

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 1:04 PM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, October 21, 2011

So Great a Salvation

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 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 | 6:08 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Baptism Resources

New Horizons magazine offeres two fine articles regarding baptism.

Baptism in Our Confessional Standards

In this article Rev. Alan D. Strange, professor at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, takes us through a guided tour of baptism in the Westminster Standards. Addressed are topics such as the . . .

  • Nature of baptism

  • Efficacy of baptism

  • “Improvement” of our baptism

You can read the entire article here.

A Better Case for "Infant Baptism"

In 2006, Rev. William Shishko, pastor of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Franklin Square, N.Y., debated Reformed Baptist and apologist Dr. James White: "Resolved: The subjects of Christian baptism are only those who have personally repented and believed in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord."

Rev. Shishko explains the reason for the article this way: “The purpose of this article is to reflect on this debate. We can learn from projects like this, and become better able to respond biblically to those who differ with us.”

You can read the article here.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 3:46 PM | 0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Thought of the Day: Objective Morality

Here’s the Christian claim: Morality is based upon God’s holy, just, and perfect character. He is the standard for morality. We know this in two ways. First, we are beings created in His image; because of this, we are moral beings imprinted with His moral code. That’s why everyone engages in moral reasoning. Second, He has revealed His moral law to us in the Bible. Consequently, morality is objective.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:30 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Dog-Nawpers, Churchwardens, and Ale-Houses

From Forgotten English . . .

Dog-nawper: A church beadle . . . with his long wand of office [for] tapping (nawping, we lads called it) the heads of either sleepers or unruly youngsters.

Dog-Whipping Day

At one time, any dogs found on the streets of York on October 18 were subject to being whipped. This practice commemorated an eighteenth-century incident in which a dog had consumed consecrated wafers in York Minister Cathedral. Many English churches of that time employed wardens who not only supervised the canines that accompanied their owners to church but also were at times assigned to keep parishioners awake during services. But these minor officials’ duties were not confined to the church.

As Frederick Hackwood’s Inns, Ales, and Drinking Customs of Old England (1909) explained: “The practice in the later centuries was for the churchwardens and the beadle . . . to sally forth on Sunday morning at the commencement of the reading of the second lesson, and to visit all the public-houses in the neighborhood of the church. Anyone found tippling during the church service was instantly apprehended and placed in the stocks, which not infrequently stood near the churchyard gates.”

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 8:21 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Notable Quote: C.G. Kirkby

C.G. Kirkby on the sacraments . . .

Only two sacraments are known and administered by the Church in the New Testament era – Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These are both equally signs and seals and intended to be attached to the Word. The word “sacrament” comes from the Latin term SACRAMENTUM and is equivalent to the Greek term MYSTERION which in the New Testament denotes the divine plan of salvation hidden in past ages but now brought to light in the preaching of the Word (Rom. 16:25, 26). They are called “mysteries” or “sacraments” because they have enabled men to participate in the mysterious union of God and man through the atoning death and resurrection of Christ.

It was Augustine who first gave the general definition of a sacrament, which later became traditional, as “an outward and temporal sign of an inward and enduring grace.” Accordingly to the catechism of the Book of Common Prayer, a sacrament is “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” The Reformers insisted that the sacraments were given to the Word of God. This predominant purpose of a sacrament is for a sign and a seal. It is to declare to us what God has done for us and to us and within us..

Signs and Seals of the Covenant

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 5:30 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, October 17, 2011

Thought of the Day: Those Who Have Not Heard

If you died after not having chemotherapy, you died not because of the absence of chemo, but because of the cancer. Thus men suffer God’s wrath not because they didn’t hear the gospel, but because they’re sinners rebelling against a holy God—the gospel is the solution, not the problem.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:54 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Reformation Hymnody

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing; our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevaling. For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe; his craft and power are great, and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal.

Martin Luther (1529)

October 31 is Reformation Day. As we take time to thank the Lord for the recovery of the Gospel, let us not forget the other fruits of the Reformation, such as hymnody. Informed by the recovery of the great truths of Scripture, hymns of the Reformation were Christocentric and theologically astute. They not only aided in worship, but they also acted as a teaching tool. (I used to joke with my former pastor that the hymns protected me from him.)

Salem-Ebenezer Reformed Church in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, has a fine tradition of singing Reformation-period hymns during the month of October (see list below). This is not only a fitting means of giving thanks to the Lord for the Reformation, but it's also a reminder of the often overlooked treasures found in our Reformed and Presbyterian hymns.

Jesus is My Boyfriend Music

Hymnody has fallen on hard times. The Second Great Awakening, Pentecostalism, and the Jesus Movement have taken a toll. No longer are hymns theologically informed and centered upon the Glory and majesty of God; instead, the great truths of Scripture that moved the pens of hymnists have been replaced by the man-centered lavender quills of romantics.

Dr. Michael Horton, professor of theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California, reflects upon this transition in an article titled, Are Your Hymns Too Spiritual? Here's how the article begins:

The average Christian will learn more from hymns than from any systematic theology. Hymns chart progression from classic hymns of the 17th and 18th centuries (especially those of Charles Wesley, Augustus Toplady, John Newton and William Cowper) to the Romantic "songs and choruses" of the 19th and 20th centuries. They reflect the shift from Reformation categories (God, sin and grace, Christ's saving work, the Word, church, sacraments, etc.) to Romantic individualism. We sing, "I come to the garden alone while the dew is still on the roses. And the voice I hear, singing in my ear, the voice of God is calling. And he walks with me and he talks with me, and he tells me I am his own." Or, "He touched me." The number of 19th century hymns that talk about the objective truth of Scripture, and that which God has done outside of my personal experience, is overwhelmed by the number of hymns that focus on my personal experience. It is my heart, not God and his saving work, that receives top billing.

If that was true of the 19th century, the 20th century only exacerbated this emphasis, and the style of the commercial Broadway musical was imitated in songs that elevated personal experience and happiness above God and his glory. Today, the vast majority of entries in the Maranatha, Vineyard, and related praise songbooks are not only burdened with this self-centered and Gnostic tendency, but often contain outright heresy--probably not intentionally, but as a result of sloppy theology. In our day, sloppy theology usually means some form of Gnosticism.

You can read the rest here.

Reformation Hymns

The words for the following hymns were authored in the 16th or 17th centuries.

Hymn and Author
All People That On Earth Do Dwell Louis Bourgeois, William Kethe
All Praise to God, Who Reigns Above Johann Schutz
Now Blessed Be The Lord Our God Scottish Psalter
Ye Holy Angels Bright Richard Baxter
O Come, Let Us Sing to the Lord Scottish Psalter
Let us, With a Gladsome Mind John Milton
Praise to the Lord, Almighty, the King of Creation Joachim Neander
With Glory Clad, With Strength Arrayed Tate and Brady's
The Lord's My ShepherdScottish Psalter
A Mighty Fortress Is Our God Martin Luther
Now Thank We All Our God Martin Rinkart, Johann Cruger
O God, We Praise Thee; and Confess Tate and Brady's
Lord, Keep Us Steadfast In Thy Word Martin Luther
Whate'er My God Ordains is Right Samuel Rodigast
O Thou My Soul, Bless God the Lord Scottish Psalter
O Lord, How Shall I Meet Thee? Paul Gerhardt, Melchior Teschner
Fairest Lord Jesus, Ruler of All NatureMunster Gesangbuch
Wondrous King, All-Glorious, Sov'reign Lord VictoriousJoachim Neander
Greet Thee Who My Sure Redeemer Art Strasbourg Psalter
Lift Up Your Heads, Ye Mighty Gates! Georg Weissel
Comfort, Comfort Ye My PeopleJohannes Olearius, Louis Bourgeois
All My Heart This Night RejoicesPaul Gerhardt, Johann Ebeling

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 8:29 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Today in Church History: Christianity Today, Edmund P. Clowney

On October 15, 1956, articles by G. C. Berkouwer, Billy Graham, and Addison H. Leitch graced the cover of volume one, number one, of Christianity Today.

Edited by Carl F. H. Henry, the neo-evangelical magazine borrowed its title from a journal by the same name that J. Gresham Machen helped to start in 1930 (the predecessor to the Presbyterian Guardian). Its purpose was "to express historic Christianity to the present generation," and to provide evangelical Christianity with "a clear voice, to speak with conviction and love, and to state its true position and its relevance to the world crisis." Reaction to the magazine from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was mixed. The Presbyterian Guardian made a brief and lukewarm reference to the new "undenominational fortnightly." Westminster professor Ned B. Stonehouse agreed to serve as a contributing editor, but his colleague, E. J. Young, declined. In its first few years, Christianity Today published occasional articles from Westminster faculty, including Meredith G. Kline, John Murray, Stonehouse, Cornelius Van Til, and Young.

Also debuting in the inaugural issue was a column by Edmund P. Clowney that he would write for four years under the pen name of "Eutychus."

John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 8:48 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, October 14, 2011

Today in Church History: John Murray


On October 14, 1898, John Murray was born in Bonar Bridge, Scotland.

Educated at Princeton Theological Seminary, Murray joined the faculty at Westminster Seminary in 1929 where he taught systematic theology until his retirement in 1967. Far from the ivory tower theologian, Murray was a remarkably active Orthodox Presbyterian churchman. In 1966, The 33rd General Assembly recognized Murray's labors with a testimonial scroll which read:

To our esteemed brother, father in the faith, teacher of the Word of God, fellow presbyter and undershepherd of Jesus Christ in the labors of the gospel, to Professor John Murray:

We, the commissioners of the Thirty-third General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, meeting in Oostburg, Wisconsin, April 28, 1966, affix our names on the following tribute:

You have been a warm friend and counselor to us, one and all, giving individual counsel whenever we sought always out of a rich wealth of knowledge and inspiring reverence for the written Word.

You have been a faithful presbyter, spending untold days in the service of our beloved church, both in its assembly services and as a member of many of its committees.

You have been a gracious reprover, a hearty encourager, and an un-bitter dissenter in our deliberations.

To many of us you have been a patient teacher and more, for you have taught us exactness in the study of Holy Scripture, and a deep reverence for its high doctrine.

We honor you in our hearts. We respect you for your scholarship and wisdom. We are grateful to our God for you, Professor Murray. But we are compelled to say more: we love you dearly, and it is with deep sorrow that it appears that we may not see your face or hear your voice in future assemblies. We pray God that He may lay His hand on you for a most useful and happy ministry during your retirement years in your native land. We "thank God on every remembrance of you.

Upon his retirement, Murray returned his native Scotland, where he died on May 8, 1975, in the same town in which he was born.

John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 8:40 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Notable Quote: John Calvin

On justification . . .

We explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favour as righteous men. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. (Institutes 3:11:2)

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 12:41 PM | 0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Female Elders/Pastors? A Debate - Part 3 (Conclusion)

Here we pick up where we left off in the debate. Before that, though, I would like to mention that having this discussion with one of my former Pentecostal pastors (he is still of that persuasion) was quite a breakthrough. When I left the fellowship (and Pentecostalism) the pastors announced to the church that I was demon possessed and that no one was allowed to talk to me. So please pray that God will continue to open doors such as this, for this man is quite influential in his circles, and his wife (my wife’s former best friend) is a popular recording artist; so a change towards orthodoxy could positively affect others.

The Bible does make it very clear that women are to play essential roles in local church ministry and thank God we have had the privilege to see the fruit of Grace working within submitted women Pastors already in our church. Roles for women in the church are visible in biblical times to the dawning of the 21st century and women as I know you agree have always played key roles in the church. In my opinion, New Testament scripture in the Bible still presents a pattern for service with women in roles of ministry oversight. Many churches in our generation use terms as Director, Overseer, coordinator or minister as a title used to describe a woman in a role of oversight. Even though these titles can be appropriate for those who do not have the calling or gift to Pastor, sometimes these titles given to women are just a politically right term defining their Pastoral role over a specific ministry within the church.

We do agree that women can have very fruitful and valuable ministries. And I think you’re right that sometimes churches make women pastors and then just call them something else. This brings us to something else to consider: women pastors is a modern issue. In the Old Testament the priest were men. In the New Testament there are no examples of women pastors, and Paul excludes them by limiting the role to men in his “overseer” instructions of Timothy and Titus. It wasn’t until the last few generations that this started gaining traction, until women were pressing for more civil rights. (Something to chew on.)

In my opinion when The Apostle Paul challenged the women to be silent, not to teach or not to have authority, It was to re-establish Godly order and to detour those who were being disruptive or insubordinate to the authority of Godly men in the church NOT to set the rule of NO WOMEN PASTORS.

If you’re referring to 1 Cor. 14, then I agree.

There is no indication that Paul restricted women in their callings to specific GIFTS before God for the service of the church. Throughout Paul’s ministry he speaks of women as his co-laborers in the gospel and in Romans 16:7 it says "Salute Andronicus and Junia (feminine), my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." Here we can see confirmation in the Bible that Paul had women working Key roles with the original apostles as well as Priscilla in Acts 18:26 & Romans 16:3.

In his letter to the Romans 16:1-2, Paul commends Phoebe a woman deacon, to the church of Rome. He is sending her himself as a minister of the gospel. The Greek word for “servant” is diakonos, a deacon. It implies that Phoebe had the same status in the early church as Stephen the martyr and Philip the evangelist. In speaking of Phoebe Paul also charges the Church to serve her with anything she would have need of to accomplish her business or in other words – ministry. This implies that she as a woman was sent with authority to fulfill a certain mission. Throughout the centuries, God has raised up remarkable women in the Body of Christ to places of leadership. They have stood in the five fold ministry of the church as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. As I mentioned to you before according to Ephesians 4:11-“ It was He who gave some to be Apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be Pastors and Teachers.”

We agree that women can have wonderful ministries. And yes, in modern times, women have served as pastors. The question is, should they serve? And that question isn’t answered by quoting Eph. 4:11, which simply teaches that God provides ministers. If we want to find out the qualifications for those ministries, pastors in this case, then we must go to the Scriptures that provide us with that information: 1 Tim. and Titus.

Postscript

On a final note, My brother- and sister-in-law also attended that fellowship (it’s where we all met as teenagers). When my wife and I left, the pastors met with my in-laws and acknowledged that there would be occasions that they, my in-laws, would have to talk to me; so they were forbidden to talk to me about the bible—they misjudged my brother-in-law terribly. He immediately called me and requested a meeting to go over the Scriptural case for my departure. Today he is a deacon in the Reformed Church of the United States.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:36 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Church Recognition


A little levity . . .

The Reformed don’t recognize the Roman Catholics
The Roman Catholics don’t recognize the Lutherans
The Lutherans don’t recognize the Baptists
And the Baptists don’t recognize each other in Wal-Mart’s beer aisle

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 12:41 PM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, October 10, 2011

Female Elders/Pastors? A Debate - Part 2

In Part 1 of the debate I made my case against women pastors/elders. In this offering I’m posting "pastor Bob's" retort and my subsequent response.

Pastor Bob kicks things off:

Thanks for your response and your concern for us to know the truth. I appreciate you taking time to share your view point and respect your insights concerning this subject of women Pastors. I enjoyed your outline especially since I have looked at all those points extensively many times before and at one point in my life held the some of the same views as you. You were clear and made very valid points. Yes I do agree there are plenty of verses that instruct women to be silent or not to be given a role of authority over a man within the church (I Corinthians 11, I Corinthians 14, I Timothy 2, Titus 2). The question is “what was the reason for these instructions from the Apostle Paul”? The funny thing is he never specifically says that a woman is not to be a Pastor although as you pointed out we automatically conclude this because of his charge in 1Tim.2:12 not to permit a woman to teach or have authority and as you mentioned because of the gender used while defining the qualifications of an overseer.

Obviously as you mentioned Paul in 1Cor.11:5 says that a woman can pray or prophesy if her head is covered (Representing being under authority)..Than we can only accurately suggest that Pauls charge in 1Cor.14:34 “Let your women keep silent in the church, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive”..was to address a particular problem in the Corinthian church with a specific group of women who were being disruptive or insubordinate during their assembly. Just the same I truly believe in 1Timothy2:11-12 Paul himself prohibited women teaching or having authority because I believe that Paul was very clearly challenging a certain teaching or issue that the women of ephesus were challenged with. His challenge was that women were not to overthrow or undermined the authority of Godly Men including their Husbands within the church as you mentioned: “It is men who are called to “be the husband of one wife,” and it is men who God holds ultimately responsible for the managing of the household and the upbringing of the children” So it was important to Paul that the women understood God’s order correctly and if they did not they would not be granted a right to teach or have any type of authority but rather learn to be silent and submissive.

Bob, I think you’re probably right about the 1 Cor. 14 passage. The message of chapter 14 can be summed with the words of verse 40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Based on what this chapter is addressing, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the women were being disruptive. But this is very different from what Paul is addressing in 1 Tim. 2. While here Paul is instructing as to how to behave during a service, in 1 Tim. 2 he's telling them how a church should operate. The context is different, and it’s the context that determines the meaning.

Paul’s message to the Corinthians is for the women to be quite during the service, and if they have any questions they are to ask their husbands afterwards. In 1 Tim. 2, Paul mentions that women should be submissive too, but he adds that they are not “to teach or exercise authority over a man . . .” This separates the two instructions; here Timothy is being told that women may not have an authoritative teaching role (pastor, given the context, since he logically moves into the qualifications), not simply that they mustn’t be disruptive.

One final note. You say that unless they understand God’s order they won’t be granted the right to teach or given authority. That caveat isn’t anywhere in the text. We must take great care not to add to God’s word or “think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

We see in Paul’s writings that even though he acknowledged the work or ministry of women, he also was very concerned with their understanding of submission and respect to their husbands and the authority of men within the church. This would make sense especially in his culture according to Jewish law where women in many senses were not allowed to be educated or have any major role of authority within their community outside of raising their children. I believe through much study of his writings I have found a pattern that grew within The Apostle Paul in His Grace and acknowledgement towards women in ministry. His revelation of even acknowledging women and their work in ministry was not a little thing coming from his strict background of guidelines given by God in the old covenant to women within the Jewish culture. The Apostle Paul had to establish order to women who were learning how to come OUT of THE constraints of the LAW and INTO the LIBERTY of GRACE without losing their sense of Order. Galatians 3:26 For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith. (27) For as many (of you) as were baptized into Christ into spiritual union and communion with Christ, the anointed one (clothed yourselves with) Christ.(28) THERE IS (NOW NO DISTINCTION), NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK, THERE IS NEITHER SLAVE OR FREE, THERE IS NOT MALE AND FEMALE; FOR YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS.

Gal. 3:26-29 teaches that we are all equal in Christ. In other words, when it comes to salvation, the Jew doesn’t have a leg-up on the Gentile, and the man doesn’t over the women. There are no such advantages when it comes to being united with Christ in his finished work, “For we are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” Paul here is teaching on salvation, not church officers.

Stay tuned for Part 3 of the debate!

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:35 AM | 2 comments links to this post

Sunday, October 09, 2011

Plaguenation and Henry Alford

From Forgotten English . . .

Plaguenation: A barbarously formed substitute for damnation.

Birthday of Henry Alford (1810 – 1871)

English divine and fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. He wrote about the Bible and the classics, and he composed poems and hymns. In the The American Language (1919) H.L. Mencken presented a number of barbarisms that derived from religious sources, guessing at Alford’s likely reaction when hearing them: “Some of the characteristic coinages of the time make one sympathize with the pious horror of Dean Alford. Bartlett quotes to dozologize, from the Christian Disciple, a quite reputable religious paper of the [18]40s. To funeralize [originally to make melancholy, but extended to the conducting of a funeral in America], and to pastor, along with to missionate [to perform the services of a missionary], and consociational, were other contributions of the evangelical pulpit; it also produced hell-roaring and hellion, the latter a favorite of the Mormons and even used by Henry Ward Beecher. To deacon, a verb which in colonial days signified to read a hymn line by line, began to mean to swindle or adulterate.”

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 8:34 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, October 08, 2011

Notable Quote: Edmund Clowney

Edmund Clowney on maturing in holiness . . .

The Puritan John Owen wrote: “Holiness is nothing but the implanting, writing and realizing of the gospel in our souls.” What Christ seeks in his church is what the gospel promises and provides. The quest for gospel holiness cannot mean acquiring confident expertise in the practice of the virtues. When Benjamin Franklin proposed to reform his life by shedding one vice at a time, he prepared an unintentional caricature of a Puritan spiritual journal.

The life of holiness is the life of faith in which the believer, with a deepening knowledge of his own sin and helplessness apart from Christ, increasingly casts himself upon the Lord, and seeks the power of the Spirit and the wisdom and comfort of the Bible to battle against the world, the flesh, and the devil. It is not a lonely or cheerless struggle, for Christ gives the Spirit to the members of his body to help one another . . . Maturing in holiness means maturing in love, love that knows God’s love poured out in our hearts, and answers with love that tastes the goodness of the Lord.

The Church

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 2:35 PM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, October 07, 2011

Female Elders/Pastors? A Debate - Part 1

Recently I had an email conversation with one of my former Pentecostal pastors about female pastors. (He was about to ordain a slew of them.) My wife asked him about it on Facebook because back when we attended his fellowship he disallowed female pastors. “Why the change?” she asked.

What follows is my response to his reasoning. Please note that although I’m only referring to pastors (teaching elders, 1 Tim. 5:17), my case equally applies to ruling elders.

Your question:Where in Scripture does it say that women can be Pastor's? My simple answer is Eph.4:7-8 -...and HE gave gifts to "MEN"- meaning all mankind..Eph.4:11-12 -and He Himself gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some to be Pastors and Teachers. 12-For the equiping of the saints for the work of the ministry."

. . . Our Qualifications are: That they are GIFTED by God to lead in the area they are called on, Submitted to their husband, DWC discipleship, Faithfulness of Service, Understanding the DOCTRINE OF GRACE and RIGHTEOUSNESS through Faith in Jesus Christ and Last of all EXPERIENCE.

Greetings, “Bob.” This is The Chatechizer. The fetching Mrs. Catechizer asked if I would help her out a little on this, so here it goes . . .

First, you’re right: He does give gifts to “men” (general), but I’m sure that you would agree that he does not give all people the same gifts. God does, however, call people to ministry (Eph. 4:7-8) and provide those called with the needed gifts to fulfill that ministry (Eph. 4:8). Of course, for this discussion, if God does not allow women to be pastors, then he’s not calling them to that office nor is he so gifting them (although they might have similar gifts, like teaching). So first we need to answer the question of whether or not God allows female pastors before we can move on to calling and gifting.

There are a few verses that speak directly to this issue. Consider Paul instructing the young pastor, Timothy, in I Tim 2:

11) A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.

12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Paul’s letter to Timothy is meant as a guide to how a church should operate. In the above passages, Paul is telling Timothy that women should respect the governing role of the church officers. Since they are being forbidden from teaching or exercising authority over the men in the church, women may not have that governing role. (By the way, I do think women can teach in a non-authoritative role, like Priscilla did in Acts 18:26; and I also don’t think that they are restricted when it comes to public prayer or other types of edifying proclamations: I Cor. 11:15.)

Paul finishes chapter 2 by grounding the functional hierarchy of the church in creation. He then continues his instruction in chapter 3 by providing the qualifications for a pastor:

1) It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

2) An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,


3) not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.

4) He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

5) but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?,

6) and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.

7) And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Paul here is not using “man” or “he” in the general sense, especially since these passage follow directly after he specifically talked about women in the church (unless those are to be taken that way too). It is men who are called to “be the husband of one wife,” and it is men who God holds ultimately responsible for the managing of the household and the upbringing of the children. Likewise, God holds the pastors responsible for His household.

Consider the flow of Paul’s thought: women may not teach or have authority over men in the church, followed by the qualifications for the pastorate, which are directed solely to men.

Paul makes the same case in the first chapter of Titus, where he again directs it to only men (husband of one wife, etc.). After completing his teaching about pastors, he starts chapter 2 by giving instructions to “older men” (vs. 2) and “older women” (vs. 3), followed by instructions to young men and bondservants. He finishes the chapter by saying that “. . . the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men” (vs. 11). I mention this because he has switched to the general use of “men.” Before this passage, he was directly addressing specific groups.

Well, that’s it in a nutshell. I might be totally wrong about this, but it seems to me that the case against women being pastors is pretty strong (especially when you add to the mix the example of Scripture—from the Aaronic priesthood, to the apostles, to a young pastor like Timothy). Something to chew on, at least.

Stay tuned for Part 2 where "pastor Bob" replies.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:31 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Thursday, October 06, 2011

Skepticism, Agnosticism, and Atheism: A Brief History of Unbelief

The Modern Reformation Web site offers a fascinating history of Atheism. Here’s how the article begins . . .

The last two years have been good for atheism. A rash of books making the case for unbelief, including Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (2006) and Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007), have sold millions of copies. Strident atheist Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass, one of his atheistic tomes designed to rescue children from belief in God, was made into a movie. Even pop star Elton John got into the act, calling for a ban on religion. Leaders of the so-called New Atheism are aggressive and proselytizing. They don't just condemn belief in God; they also condemn respect for belief in God.

But how new is the New Atheism? It is said best in Ecclesiastes 1:9: "There is nothing new under the sun." To be sure, explicit and public atheism is a somewhat new phenomenon. But atheism, agnosticism, and good old-fashioned doubt have strong and lengthy histories worth learning. Because atheism is parasitic on theism and even more on Christianity, to learn the history of atheism is to learn the history of the church.

You can read the entire article here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 8:28 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Today in Church History: Jonathan Edwards

Three hundred years ago, on October 5, 1703, Jonathan Edwards was born in East Windsor, Connecticut.

Generally regarded as America's greatest theologian, Edwards authored several classics in Christian literature, including The Religious Affections, The Freedom of the Will, and The Nature of True Virtue. In addition he is well known for preaching what might be the most famous sermon in American history, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." He was an ardent supporter of the Great Awakening, defending the revival both against its critics and its zealous extremists.

Pastor, theologian, missionary to Native Americans, and President of the College of New Jersey for a brief time before his death in 1758, Edwards' legacy has generated divided assessments. For some his theological orthodoxy and spiritual zeal exemplify the best of "experiential Calvinism." For other interpreters, his incorporation of Enlightenment ideas inevitably led to theological deviation of his successors in the rise of "New England Theology."

Several books have been recently published to mark the Edwards tercentenary, including George Marsden's biography, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (Yale, 2005) and The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards: American Religion and the Evangelical Tradition, ed. by D. G. Hart, S. M. Lucas, and S. J. Nichols (Baker, 2005).

John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 8:37 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, October 03, 2011

Slavery in Ancient Israel – Part Three (Conclusion)

In Part 2 we learned that slavery was for the benefit of the poor and was voluntary. We also learned that it was the last resort for the impoverished, and that before the poor had to sell themselves into servitude, God had made many provisions for their care.

In this post we’ll look at the issue of daughters being sold as slaves by their fathers ( Ex. 21:7–11).

If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. (vs. 7)

We must remember that the Middle East of 4,000 years ago was a tough place to live. Difficult decisions had to be made in order to ensure the survival of a household. One such decision would be to “sell” a daughter either to payback a debt and/or to ensure her survival by joining her to a wealthy family. Although “sold,” they were not slaves, which is why they were not released after seven years like the men were.

If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. (vs. 8)

These girls were purchased to be secondary wives (concubines), which was a common practice at the time (Gen. 16:3, 22:24; 30:9, 36:12; Judges 8:31). If, however, she displeased her husband, he had to allow her to be “redeemed” (Lev. 25:47-54) either by herself or by a family member. He cannot sell her to foreigners, for they would not recognize her rights under Israelite law.

If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. (vs. 9)

If the master is purchasing her to be a bride to his son, he must treat her like a daughter and accord her with the associated respect and honor.

If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. (vs. 10)

If the husband takes another bride, he must still provide for her as he previously had, including conjugal rights.

If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (vs. 11)

Finally, if the husband fails to meet his responsibilities in caring for her, he must release her without gaining any compensation in return.

Conclusion

We see in the above passages laws put into place to help a family survive and to help a poor girl better her lot in life by marrying into a wealthy family. Moreover, we see that the laws are actually for the protection of the girl and disallow any type of exploitation.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:16 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, October 01, 2011

Justification - The Reformation v. Rome


Are there things still separating Rome from Protestants? Evangelicals will typically say “yes,” citing the obvious examples of the papacy, the worship of saints and Mary, and the mass. Although these are valid and important differences, what was really at the heart of the Reformation was the doctrine of Justification . . .

This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness

(Martin Luther)

In a day where most Protestants are unfamiliar with the term “Protestant,” and in a day when eminent Protestant scholars write, “Catholics and evangelicals now believe approximately the same thing,” it is essential for us to reacquaint (learn?) ourselves with this key difference, a difference where the very gospel itself hinges.

To this end I recommend an article penned by R.C. Sproul reposted at the Reformation Theology site. Here’s an excerpt:

Both Roman Catholic and Reformation theology are concerned with the justification of sinners. Both sides recognize that the great human dilemma is how unjust sinners can ever hope to survive a judgment before the court of an absolutely holy and absolutely just God. If we define forensic justification as a legal declaration by which God declares a person just and we leave it at that, we would have no dispute between Rome and Evangelicalism. Though Rome has an antipathy to the concept of forensic justification, this antipathy is directed against the Protestant view of it. In chapter 7 of the sixth session of the Council of Trent, Rome declared: "...not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure...." Here Rome is jealous to distinguish between being reputed just and actually being just, yet it is still true that God calls the baptismally regenerated just. That is, for Rome justification is forensic in that justification involves God's legal declaration. A person is justified when God declares that person just. The reason or the ground of that declaration differs radically between Roman Catholic and Reformed theology. But both agree that a legal declaration by God is made. Nor is it sufficient merely to say that Rome teaches that justification means "to make just," while Protestants teach that justification means "to declare just."

For Rome God both makes just and declares just. For Protestants God both makes just and declares just -- but not in the same way. For Rome the declaration of justice follows the making inwardly just of the regenerate sinner. For the Reformation the declaration of justice follows the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the regenerated sinner (Rom.4:4-8; 2 Cor. 5:21).

You can read the entire article here.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 12:50 PM | 8 comments links to this post