f The Wittenberg Door

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.

Friday, May 29, 2015

Today in Church History: Synod of Dort

On May 29, 1619, the Synod of Dort was adjourned at the conclusion of its one hundred eightieth session.

Convened on November 13, 1618, in the Dutch city of Dordrecht, the international Reformed council answered the Arminian heresy through its canons, arranged according to five heads of doctrine, that affirmed the sovereignty of God in salvation. Contrary to popular modern impressions, the Canons of Dort were not a “rigid statement of monolithic Calvinism,” according to Robert Godfrey. Instead, they should be understood as “a moderate, inclusive compromise drawing all Calvinists together around the essentials of the faith and preventing the movement from fragmenting over peripheral matters.”

The Canons of Dort joined the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism as the three-fold doctrinal standard in the Dutch Reformed tradition. In analyzing the significance of the Synod, Cornelius Van Til wrote, “The followers of Dort, together with their brethren, the followers of Westminster, alone have the wherewithal with which to proclaim the gospel of the sovereign grace of God at all.”

--John Muether

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 6:17 AM | 0 comments

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Today in Church History: Westminster Assembly of Divines

On April 14, 1648, the Westminster Assembly of Divines presented its Catechisms to Parliament: the Larger Catechism for pulpit exposition and the Shorter Catechism for the education of children.

When the 121 divines convened in 1643, they set out at first to review the Anglican -Nine Articles of Religion, which was considered essentially but not sufficiently Calvinistic. Soon the work of the Assembly expanded, and five years and 1,163 sessions later, it produced the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Directory for Public Worship, and the Form of Church Government.

In the words of John Murray, "The Westminster Confession and Catechisms are . . . the mature fruit of the whole movement of creed-formation throughout fifteen centuries of Christian history, and, in particular, they are the crown of the greatest age of confessional exposition, the Protestant Reformation. No other similar documents have concentrated in them, and formulated with such precision, so much of the truth embodied in the Christian revelation."

John Muether

Labels: , ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 5:47 AM | 0 comments

Saturday, March 07, 2015

Fathers, Instruct Your Children!

Being raised in an unbelieving home, I had no idea how to instruct my children in the faith. When my first child was born, I was attending a Pentecostal church. I was taught how to demand God do certain things for my daughter, and I was taught how to chase away those pesky demons, but I was never taught the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. So what was I to do except to book another trip to the next Benny Hinn crusade?

After six years of demon chasing, loud suits, and big hair, God providentially brought me out of Pentecostalism and into the Reformation. On my first Lord’s Day in the Reformed church I was awarded a Heidelberg Catechism. I devoured it! What a treasure I had found; not only for my own growth—learning to worship the right God rightly—but also for my children’s. Now I had a tool to instruct my children, a tool that has been tried and tested for 400 years.

What is a Catechism?

To catechize a child is to instruct her in the faith using questions and answers. It’s a method that traces its history back to Scripture (Mat. 16:13, 22:42). The catechism I use in my home is the Heidelberg Catechism. Completed by Zacharius Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus in 1563, the Heidelberg Catechism offers 192 questions and answers and is divided into three parts: man’s guilt, God’s grace, and our gratitude. Here’s a sample:

Q. What is your only comfort in life and death?

A. That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me, that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto Him.

If you are raising children, or if you're just a Christian who wants to better understand his faith, I recommend a good catechism—it’s a tried and true method of learning the faith that has stood the test of time.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 5:50 AM | 0 comments

Thursday, March 05, 2015

Why Systematic Theology?


“[Systematic theology] is like the box top of a jigsaw puzzle, and every believer is a theologian in the sense of putting the pieces together. If we fail to recognize there is a box top (i.e., a unified whole) to Scripture, we will have only a pile of pieces.”

Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way

In the words of LeCrae Moore, "I was a drug baby...," meaning, my grandmothers drug me to church. I was raised in an environment that was purportedly Christian. It’s still murky to me as to how much of that was based in cultural norms rather than Biblical imperatives. As I got older my allegiance to the latter became more pronounced--it all seemed a proper exercise of my free will. Looking back, though, now that I’m older, wiser, and more Biblically informed, I understand that this was a sovereign work of God's Spirit.

Over time my hunger for good teaching grew, and so did my discontentment with my spiritual diet. I was dissatisfied with my ability to weave all of my theological beliefs into a cohesive whole. Unlike many who come to the Doctrines of Grace through the study of the Scriptures, it was this "study" itself which I pursued. "How do I study the Bible so I that can be convinced of the verity of the concepts taught therein?"; "How do I know what the concepts are?"; "How do I walk someone through my belief system from point A to point B to point C, etc."; "How does what I believe about God relate to what I believe about man?” And, “How does that relate to what I believe about atonement, forgiveness, sin, the Law, the Old Testament?,” and so on.

Without knowing the term, I was in pursuit of "systematic theology.” A number of years ago I was introduced to the Heidelberg Catechism and was struck by the way each question naturally flowed into the next. "What comfort do we have...?” “What knowledge is necessary to avail oneself of this comfort?” “From where do you know these things?” “What is required of us?” Is this possible?..." I knew shortly after discovering this treasure that I had found what I was looking for.

If you have a desire to improve your understanding of the Bible, then learning how to systematize Scripture’s teachings is a great place to start. The historical, orthodox creeds of the Church can help you do just that, as well as resources available from Logos Bible Software. Here are a few titles now available for download:



--The Deacon

Labels: , ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 5:39 AM | 0 comments

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Why Christians Need Confessions

I didn’t grow up in the church, so when I became a believer I came in cold. Once I did start going to church I fell in with a bad theological crowd: Word of Faith Pentecostals. After six years of binding, loosing, and demon chasing, I realized that I didn’t know squat about Christianity. That’s where the creeds, confessions, and catechisms came in. They taught me the Christian faith, as they have to millions of believers for generations.

But not only are Christians taught the faith through these documents, but they are also a means of protecting the believer from the church. Indeed, if I had known them when I became a believer I wouldn’t have wasted six years with the big-hair and loud-suits crew.

Carl R. Trueman, Professor of church history at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, offers the following seven reasons why every church needs these standards in an article in New Horizons:

  1. Confessions delimit church power.

  2. Confessions offer succinct summaries of the faith.

  3. Confessions allow for appropriate discrimination between office-bearers and members.

  4. Confessions highlight that which is of importance.

  5. Confessions relativize the present and connect us to the past.

  6. Confessions reflect the substance of our worship.

  7. Confessions fulfill a vital part of Paul’s plan for the post-apostolic church.

Click here for Dr. Trueman’s explanation of each reason.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 6:04 AM | 0 comments

Thursday, December 11, 2014

The Necessity of Creeds By Rev. Robert Grossmann

The Word of God calls upon believers to confess their faith. Jesus said, Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven (Matt. 10:32). The apostle Paul concurs: If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom. 10:9). To assure a purity of confession, the church has written various creeds over the years. Creeds are universal as summaries of the truth of the gospel.

Even those who proclaim "No Creed but Christ" have a list of propositions that defines the Christ they believe in. The problem is that they are not willing to publish this list since it might change. There should be no fear to publish the teachings of Scripture, though: the Lord got his doctrines right the first time! Nevertheless, as Christians we must agree that, if our creedal summary is in error, we will change it.

The Bible teaches that man's conscience should be bound only by the Word of God (Mark 7:9). This does not lead to anarchy, as one might suppose, because the Bible also teaches the unity of the true faith and separation from those who do not hold to the clear teaching of God's Word (2 Cor. 6:14ff.; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 10).

Basic Christian unity is confessed by Reformed Christians with all who sincerely hold to the teachings of the Apostles' Creed (see Heidelberg catechism, Questions 22 and 54). Historic confessions have generally used the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer to structure their more specific doctrinal statements.

Reformed churches, along with other churches descending from the Reformation, have followed the ancient church tradition of writing expository creeds which state Biblical teaching in a way that separates believers from unbelievers (cf. the Nicene Creed, which declares that all Christians must believe in the Trinity). Reformed confessions include the Heidelberg catechism, the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Canons of Dort, the Second Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Standards (the first three creeds constitute the confessional base of the RCUS). These expository creeds serve as the skin and bones for the church as an organization on earth. As bones, they give it a unifying structure, since all members and officers confess the truth of the doctrines they set forth; as skin, they separate those of a particular denomination from others outside the church structure.

Because Reformed churches hold that unity in truth is the basis of all other unity (2 John 10), they form close-knit denominational fellowships and establish ecumenical connections with other Reformed bodies holding similar creeds. Such fraternal relations should not be confused with the modern tendency of church unionism.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 6:08 AM | 3 comments

Monday, December 01, 2014

How the Church Failed Brad Pitt

From the Wittenberg Door archives...

"She [his college girlfriend] helped me more than anyone else as far as setting off in my own direction," he explains. "It was my first year in college and I was pushing back against the religion thing. In my eyes it was a mechanism of guilt, this engrained system, used to keep the flock in servitude." Brad was raised a conservative Southern Baptist. "Guilt is the thing I find most evil about it. It's the thing I rail against the most. She helped me in defining what I believed.

"Religion works," he goes on. "I know there's comfort there, a crash pad. It's something to explain the world and tell you there is something bigger than you, and it is going to be alright in the end. It works because it's comforting. I grew up believing in it, and it worked for me in whatever my little personal high school crisis was, but it didn't last for me. I didn't understand this idea of a God who says, 'You have to acknowledge me. You have to say that I'm the best, and then I'll give you eternal happiness. If you won't, then you don't get it!' It seemed to be about ego. I can't see God operating from ego, so it made no sense to me.

Brad Pitt in a Parade.com interview

Based on the reasons Brad Pitt gives for abandoning his Baptist roots, I think that we can surmize the following:

  • He doesn’t understand man’s plight

  • He doesn’t understand God's nature

Man’s Plight

Mr. Pitt finds guilt the most evil thing about Christianity. We can infer from his comments that he thinks his feelings of guilt are a result of his Baptist upbringing; that without that upbringing he would live a guilt-free life. But is that the case? Do those outside of the Christian community live a conscience-free existence? The answer is, unless you’re a sociopath, no (Rom. 2:14 – 15).

What Mr. Pitt should have learned in church is that people of all types of rearing experience the crises of conscience known as guilt, and the reason for this is simple: we feel guilty because we are guilty.

Scripture teaches that Adam’s sin brought spiritual death to us all (Gen. 2:16–17, 3:1–7; 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 such as a guilty conscience? He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). This is all something Mr. Pitt should have learned in church.

God’s Nature

Mr. Pitt is offended by the idea that God would require honor. I suppose his view is that any being who would have himself honored is undue that honor. An odd claim coming from a man who accepted the honor of his peers through both Golden Globe (he won one) and Academy Award nominations. I don’t’ recall him repudiating these accolades. Apparently, he is due honor, but God isn’t.

Here’s why God deserves honor:

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

Again, something he should have learned in church.

Conclusion

The reasons Mr. Pitt gives for abandoning his childhood faith show that he doesn’t understand Christianity. As mentioned, all of this should have been learned in church, but his church failed him. Not only that, his parents failed him too. But Mr. Pitt is not alone. We see a trend of children departing the faith as soon as they enter the college parking lot. So what are we as the church and as parents to do?

Catechize

To catechize a child is to instruct her in the faith using questions and answers. It’s a method that traces its history back to Scripture (Mat. 16:13, 22:42). The catechism that I use in my home is the Heidelberg Catechism. Completed by Zacharius Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus in 1563, the Heidelberg Catechism offers 129 questions and answers and is divided into three parts: man’s guilt, God’s grace, and our gratitude. Here’s a sample:

Q. What is your only comfort in life and death?

A. That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me, that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto Him.

The best way to inoculate your child (or yourself, for that matter) against error is by knowing the truth. Catechization is a tried and true method of learning the faith that has stood the test of time. Perhaps this could have made the difference in Brad Pitt’s life.

--The Catechizer

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 6:30 AM | 0 comments

Saturday, May 24, 2014

The Necessity of Creeds By Rev. Robert Grossmann

The Word of God calls upon believers to confess their faith. Jesus said, Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven (Matt. 10:32). The apostle Paul concurs: If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom. 10:9). To assure a purity of confession, the church has written various creeds over the years. Creeds are universal as summaries of the truth of the gospel.

Even those who proclaim "No Creed but Christ" have a list of propositions that defines the Christ they believe in. The problem is that they are not willing to publish this list since it might change. There should be no fear to publish the teachings of Scripture, though: the Lord got his doctrines right the first time! Nevertheless, as Christians we must agree that, if our creedal summary is in error, we will change it.

The Bible teaches that man's conscience should be bound only by the Word of God (Mark 7:9). This does not lead to anarchy, as one might suppose, because the Bible also teaches the unity of the true faith and separation from those who do not hold to the clear teaching of God's Word (2 Cor. 6:14ff.; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 10).

Basic Christian unity is confessed by Reformed Christians with all who sincerely hold to the teachings of the Apostles' Creed (see Heidelberg catechism, Questions 22 and 54). Historic confessions have generally used the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer to structure their more specific doctrinal statements.

Reformed churches, along with other churches descending from the Reformation, have followed the ancient church tradition of writing expository creeds which state Biblical teaching in a way that separates believers from unbelievers (cf. the Nicene Creed, which declares that all Christians must believe in the Trinity). Reformed confessions include the Heidelberg catechism, the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Canons of Dort, the Second Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Standards (the first three creeds constitute the confessional base of the RCUS). These expository creeds serve as the skin and bones for the church as an organization on earth. As bones, they give it a unifying structure, since all members and officers confess the truth of the doctrines they set forth; as skin, they separate those of a particular denomination from others outside the church structure.

Because Reformed churches hold that unity in truth is the basis of all other unity (2 John 10), they form close-knit denominational fellowships and establish ecumenical connections with other Reformed bodies holding similar creeds. Such fraternal relations should not be confused with the modern tendency of church unionism.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 5:17 AM | 2 comments

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Mary, Mother of God

What is the meaning of “conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary?"

That the eternal Son of God, who is and continues true and eternal God, took upon Himself the very nature of man, of the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, so that He might also be the true seed of David, like unto His brethren in all things, except for sin.

The Heidelberg Catechism, Q & A 35

The Council of Ephesus (also known as the Third Ecumenical Council) met in 431 A.D. to confront a heresy called Nestorianism. The Nestorius controversy centered on the term “Mother of God.” Instead of Theotokos (Mother of God), Nestorius (c. 381–c. 451) taught that Mary was Christotokos, or “Mother of Christ.” In a nutshell, Nestorius claimed that Jesus was two persons (one human, the other divine) in one body, and that Mary only gave birth to the “human” part, not the divine.

The council declared Nestorianism heresy and affirmed the Nicene Creed (325, 381) which maintained that Christ was both human and divine and “incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary . . .”

What Say Protestants

Protestants affirm the Nicene Creed and the Council of Ephesus. Consequently, we affirm the statement that Mary is the mother of God. That being said, I do have a recommendation for when you’re discussing this: clearly define what you mean when you use the term. Here’s why. Consider the following syllogism:

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

So far so good; but then . . .

Mary is the mother of God.
God is a Trinity.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of the Trinity.

You can see how this can get away from you. For this reason it’s important that you understand and clearly communicate the doctrine of the incarnation, so that it’s clear what you mean by Mary being the mother of God. I particularly favor the Athanasian Creed (c. 500) on this topic.

Named after Athanasius (293–373 A.D.), defender of the Trinity against another Christological heresy, Arianism
(great granddaddy to the Jehovah Witnesses), the creed comprises two parts: the first sets forth the doctrine of the Trinity, and the second the incarnation and dual natures of Christ. Here’s a portion:

. . . The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however not by conversion of the Godhead in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ . . .

Can’t Get Enough of Mary?

On a similar note, Rev. Lee Johnson at the Two-Edged Sword blog has two great posts pertaining to Mary:

  • Rejecting Mariology
    Did the early church fathers believe that Mary was sinless? Did they worship her? In this post Rev. Johnson provides the history behind Mary’s rise to veneration.

  • Roman Degradation of Mary
    Was Mary sinless? Was she perpetually a virgin? Here Rev. Johnson answers the charge that Protestants degrade Mary and shows that it’s actually Rome who’s doing the degrading by making her into something she’s not.

--The Catechizer

Labels: , , ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 6:08 AM | 0 comments

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Should We Seek Extra-Biblical Revelations?

One of the issues resolved by the Reformers was that of final authority, i.e., Are the Scriptures sufficient for doctrine and life? The Reformers, of course, answered in the affirmative. Louis Berkhof summarized their case as follows:

In Scripture each succeeding book connects up with the proceeding (except in contemporary narratives), and is based on it. The Psalms and the Prophets presuppose the Law and appeal to it, and to it only. The New Testament comes to us as the fulfillment of the Old and refers back to nothing else. Oral traditions current in the time of Jesus are rejected as human inventions, Matt. 5:21–28; 15:4, 9; I Cor. 4:6. Christ is presented to us as the acme of the divine revelation, the highest and the last, Matt. 11:27; John 1:18; 17:4, 6; Heb. 1:1. For the knowledge of the way of salvation we are referred to Scripture only, to the word of Christ, and the apostles, John 17:20; I John 1:3 . . .

Both Rome and the Anabaptists rejected the sufficiency of Scripture. Rome put as Scripture’s rival her church councils and traditions, with the ultimate authority residing in the pope. The Anabaptists, however, had a low view of Scripture for other reasons: they sought guidance from an “inner light” and direct revelations from God, resolving that the Spirit worked apart from the Word because the Word was dead.

Swarmers

Renting the Spirit from the Word by claiming direct revelations from God was something the Reformers could not abide. For that reason, Martin Luther derisively referred to them as “swarmers” because they were “swarming everywhere, deranged by the devil, regarding Scripture as a dead letter, extolling nothing but the Spirit and yet keeping neither the Word nor the Spirit.”

Likewise, in speaking of the link between the Spirit and the Word, John Calvin wrote . . .

Two things are connected here, the Word and the Spirit of God, in opposition to the fanatics, who aim at oracles and hidden revelations apart from the Word.

The Sufficiency of Scripture

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men . . .

Westminster Confession, chapter 1, article 6(a)

The confession states that everything we need to know for doctrine and life is either expressly or by consequence set forth in Scripture. Moreover, because it is the “whole counsel of God” there is nothing left to be revealed in this life. In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient for all men at all times and therefore can’t be added to.

Incomplete to the Complete

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son . . .

Hebrews 1:1-2

The writer of Hebrews juxtaposes the patriarchs and prophets to Christ. The point being that their writings were partial, incomplete; this is why there was a succession of prophets and books of the Bible. Christ, however, being the pinnacle of revelation, was truth in its entirety (John 14:6; Col. 2:9).

No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.

John 15:15

All that the Father wanted revealed was made known to the Biblical writers. This information, and only this information (Jn. 21:25), was later codified into the Scriptures by the work of the Spirit (Jn. 14:26). It is this completed, inscripturated word that is to be taught (I Tim. 4:13), and it is by this completed work of revelation that we are fully equipped:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

Furthermore, because God’s revelatory work is complete, we are able to proclaim “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), and we are able to rest in the knowledge that what we have in the Scriptures is “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

Modern Swarmers

Modern “swarmers” abound. Some, like Harold Camping, Pat Robertson, or the late David Wilkerson, are well known to us, and so is the shame they brought on the body of Christ because of their claims of revelations. But these “God whispers” don’t only occupy leadership roles in major ministries, nor do they only fill the gaudy stages of “Christian” TV programs. Pentecostals, Charismatics, and many Evangelicals seek revelations apart from Scripture. For those seeking these revelations I have two things I’d like you to consider:

First, think about what you’re saying when you say something like, “God spoke to me,” or “God is giving me a word for you,” or, as a former “pastor” of mine would say mid-sermon, “Yes, yes, lord, I’ll say that.” God doesn’t take kindly to those who claim to be speaking on His behalf when He has not spoken. As a matter of fact, this crime is so heinous that, in Old Testament times, God commanded that the offenders be put to death (Deut. 13, 18:20-22, 13:12-13; Ez. 13:1-9; Zech. 13:3).

Second, what’s wrong with the revelation that He already provided? Considering the case made above, why do you think the Scriptures are incomplete? Why are they not sufficient for you? Instead of seeking a new “word,” how about mastering the revelation you’ve been provided (2 Tim. 2:15)?

Conclusion

All those seeking extra-Biblical revelations must stop trying to find a back door to God (or, as Martin Luther put it, stop trying to view God in the nude). God has spoken, and still speaks, through the Bible—and those same Scriptures remain sufficient for doctrine and life. Not the Spirit working apart from the Word, but the Spirit working through the Word.

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, Foundations of the Christian Faith, pg 48

--The Catechizer

Labels: , ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 5:18 AM | 8 comments

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

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.

Bearing the Pains of Hell

John Calvin believed that this statement refers to Christ suffering the pains of Hell upon the cross. Here’s how he 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 Calvin was correct (and when I confess this creed, this is what I have in mind), that Christ suffered 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.

--The Catechizer

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 5:52 AM | 0 comments

Thursday, January 23, 2014

What You Need to Know About the First 7 Church Councils

I didn’t grow up in the church, so when I became a believer I came in cold. Once I did start going to church I fell in with a bad theological crowd: Word of Faith Pentecostals. After six years of binding, loosing, and demon chasing, I realized that I didn’t know squat about Christianity. That’s where the creeds, confessions, and catechisms came in. They taught me the Christian faith, as they have to millions of believers for generations.

But not only are Christians taught the faith through these documents, but they are also a means of protecting the believer from the church. Indeed, if I had known them when I became a believer I wouldn’t have wasted six years with the big-hair and loud-suits crew.

Many of these documents would not exist if it wasn't for church councils. Tim Challies does the church a good-turn through his series, 7 Councils. In it he provides the tale-of-the-tape (setting and purpose, major characters, the conflict, the result, and lasting significance) for the councils that were held from 325 AD, First Council of Nicaea, through 787 AD, Second Council of Nicaea. Here’s an excerpt regarding the significance of the First Council of Nicaea:

The First Council of Nicaea is most significant in settling an essential issue related to the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was decreed to be eternal and divine, equal with the Father, and infinitely greater than a created being. However, the Council is also significant as the first attempt to achieve a consensus among all Christians through a debate between representatives from the opposing sides. It set a precedent for holding councils to decide other doctrinal and practical church matters, and for turning these decisions into creeds and canon law.

You can read more on this council, and start the series, here.

--The Catechizer

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 6:04 AM | 0 comments

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Should We Seek Extra-Biblical Revelations?

One of the issues resolved by the Reformers was that of final authority, i.e., Are the Scriptures sufficient for doctrine and life? The Reformers, of course, answered in the affirmative. Louis Berkhof summarized their case as follows:

In Scripture each succeeding book connects up with the proceeding (except in contemporary narratives), and is based on it. The Psalms and the Prophets presuppose the Law and appeal to it, and to it only. The New Testament comes to us as the fulfillment of the Old and refers back to nothing else. Oral traditions current in the time of Jesus are rejected as human inventions, Matt. 5:21–28; 15:4, 9; I Cor. 4:6. Christ is presented to us as the acme of the divine revelation, the highest and the last, Matt. 11:27; John 1:18; 17:4, 6; Heb. 1:1. For the knowledge of the way of salvation we are referred to Scripture only, to the word of Christ, and the apostles, John 17:20; I John 1:3 . . .

Both Rome and the Anabaptists rejected the sufficiency of Scripture. Rome put as Scripture’s rival her church councils and traditions, with the ultimate authority residing in the pope. The Anabaptists, however, had a low view of Scripture for other reasons: they sought guidance from an “inner light” and direct revelations from God, resolving that the Spirit worked apart from the Word because the Word was dead.

Swarmers

Renting the Spirit from the Word by claiming direct revelations from God was something the Reformers could not abide. For that reason, Martin Luther derisively referred to them as “swarmers” because they were “swarming everywhere, deranged by the devil, regarding Scripture as a dead letter, extolling nothing but the Spirit and yet keeping neither the Word nor the Spirit.”

Likewise, in speaking of the link between the Spirit and the Word, John Calvin wrote . . .

Two things are connected here, the Word and the Spirit of God, in opposition to the fanatics, who aim at oracles and hidden revelations apart from the Word.

The Sufficiency of Scripture

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men . . .

Westminster Confession, chapter 1, article 6(a)

The confession states that everything we need to know for doctrine and life is either expressly or by consequence set forth in Scripture. Moreover, because it is the “whole counsel of God” there is nothing left to be revealed in this life. In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient for all men at all times and therefore can’t be added to.

Incomplete to the Complete

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son. . .

Hebrews 1:1-2

The writer of Hebrews juxtaposes the patriarchs and prophets to Christ. The point being that their writings were partial, incomplete; this is why there was a succession of prophets and books of the Bible. Christ, however, being the pinnacle of revelation, was truth in its entirety (John 14:6; Col. 2:9).

No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.

John 15:15

All that the Father wanted revealed was made known to the Biblical writers. This information, and only this information (Jn. 21:25), was later codified into the Scriptures by the work of the Spirit (Jn. 14:26). It is this completed, inscripturated word that is to be taught (I Tim. 4:13), and it is by this completed work of revelation that we are fully equipped:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

Furthermore, because God’s revelatory work is complete, we are able to proclaim “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), and we are able to rest in the knowledge that what we have in the Scriptures is “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

Modern Swarmers

Modern “swarmers” abound. Some, like Harold Camping, Pat Robertson, or the late David Wilkerson, are well known to us, and so is the shame they brought on the body of Christ because of their claims of revelations. But these “God whispers” don’t only occupy leadership roles in major ministries, nor do they only fill the gaudy stages of “Christian” TV programs. Pentecostals, Charismatics, and many Evangelicals seek revelations apart from Scripture. For those seeking these revelations I have two things I’d like you to consider:

First, think about what you’re saying when you say something like, “God spoke to me,” or “God is giving me a word for you,” or, as a former “pastor” of mine would say mid-sermon, “Yes, yes, lord, I’ll say that.” God doesn’t take kindly to those who claim to be speaking on His behalf when He has not spoken. As a matter of fact, this crime is so heinous that, in Old Testament times, God commanded that the offenders be put to death (Deut. 13, 18:20-22, 13:12-13; Ez. 13:1-9; Zech. 13:3).

Second, what’s wrong with the revelation that He already provided? Considering the case made above, why do you think the Scriptures are incomplete? Why are they not sufficient for you? Instead of seeking a new “word,” how about mastering the revelation you’ve been provided (2 Tim. 2:15)?

Conclusion

All those seeking extra-Biblical revelations must stop trying to find a back door to God (or, as Martin Luther put it, stop trying to view God in the nude). God has spoken, and still speaks, through the Bible—and those same Scriptures remain sufficient for doctrine and life. Not the Spirit working apart from the Word, but the Spirit working through the Word.

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, Foundations of the Christian Faith, pg 48

--The Catechizer

Labels: , ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 5:37 AM | 0 comments

Sunday, August 04, 2013

Catechisms and Catechizing in England from 1530 to 1740

The following is an excerpt from the chapter Catechizing in Church in Ian Green’s The Christian’s ABC: Catechisms and Catechizing in England (1530 – 1740). It provides a fascinating look into how the English churches of that time catechized.

The attitude of the English church to basic catechizing was not very different from that of the mature Luther or Calvin in the stress that was put on the role of the minister. Luther did not abandon his earlier belief that parents had a duty to teach their children the basics at home, but by the time he published his shorter catechism, it was on the shoulders of the “faithful, godly pastors and preachers” that he put the main responsibility for teaching it. Calvin too thought that householders and school teachers had a role to play, but in the text of his 1541 catechism the exchanges were between minister and child, and in the ordonnances ecclesiastiques of the same year it was to the minister in the church at midday on Sundays that parents were told to bring their children to be catechized.

In England, too, while many bishops and enthusiasts envisaged a role for parents in instructing their charges, there is no sign of great confidence that they would play it, or of any official attempt to make instruction domestic compulsory. Instead, in England from the early stage the brunt of the burden of ensuring the basic catechism was mastered and understood, especially by those who never attended a school, fell on the parish clergy.

The official reliance on the clergy for basic catechizing was laid down in the rubrics of the Edwardian, Elizabethan, and Caroline Prayer Books and the canons of 1571 and 1604. Catechizing was to be performed by what the rubric in the original Book of Common Prayer called “the curate of every parish.” In the absence of assistant clergy in the majority of the parishes at this time, “curate” referred literally to the man with the cure of souls: the parson, rector, vicar, or perpetual curate, or minister as he was often referred to in later Episcopal injunctions and visitations articles.

Basic catechizing was to take place on those days when all the faithful were supposed to attend church: Sundays and those holy days retained by the Protestant church. However, it is worth noting that regular catechizing on a weekday was not unheard of ... according to Samuel Clarke, the puritan hagiographer, a number of godly clergy not only preached twice on Sundays but also catechized or gave a catechetical lecture on weekdays as well.

Being catechized in church was part of a process of growing up in a village or town in which community and congregation overlapped, and was, at least in theory, a means to the end of further participation in the rites of passage which (as parents knew full well) only the church could provide. And from the point of view of a highly perceptive child like William Wordsworth, there may have been a frisson of excitement about b eing catechized and an element of anticipation about being ‘bishoped,’ as an initiation rite into adulthood. By the eighteenth century (and sometimes earlier) there was also the prospect of a reward or treat for those who were confirmed. Such thinking may have made children accept, if not necessarily welcome, their parents’ insistence that they attend church for catechizing for a period of time.

By was of conclusion and comparison, a word may be said about catechizing in Presbyterian churches and separatist congregations from the 1650s. In the 1650s the exercise was certainly comparable to that in ‘church’...

For there were always many Presbyterians and other nonconformists who were anxious to catechize in public if they could. Hence the elementary catechisms prepared by men like John Owen, John Wallis, Richard Baxter, George Fox, Benjamin Keach, Isaac Watts, and others for their particular groups of catechumens.

There was also a comparable commitment to securing understanding as well as instilling knowledge, a growing variety of catechetical forms and methods, and some extremely zealous catechists, such as Richard Baxter, Henry Stubs, Thomas Wadsworth, Thomas Lye, Thomas Doolittle, Thomas Vincent, Philip Henry, and his some Matthew, Samuel Bourn the younger and many others. Thomas Lye’s thirty year ministry, mainly in London, was marked by his zeal for catechizing, and his unflagging attempts to find new ways to make the Westminster Shorter catechism easier to master and understand, especially by those with ‘weakest capacities and memories.’ He taught catechism publicly on Saturday afternoons at Dyers’ Hall in the mid 1670s and among those he instructed was a very young Edmund Calamy. Of Thomas Doolittle it was said that “catechizing was his special excellency and delight, wherein he took much pains himself, and which he earnestly recommended to his brethren in the ministry, as greatly tending to their people’s profit, and their own comfort.” By his own account, his normal catechumens ranged from 6 to 28 years in age, though he also tells us he had helped some in their thirties and forties, and up to their seventies. In the preface of an early venture, which turned the Shorter Catechism into a series of questions requiring yes and no answers, Doolittle recorded the delight that children found in this exercise: they “would with great willingness for an hour or two together, answer yes or no to the questions, and so may yours,” he added to the householders to whom the published work was dedicated.

--The Catechizer

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 5:43 AM | 0 comments

Sunday, December 02, 2012

Notable Quotes: The Scots Confession

The Scots Confession (1560) on the three marks of the church . . .

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the Word of God, in which God has revealed Himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, with which must be associated with Word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.

HT: Valiant for Truth

Labels: , ,

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 5:49 AM | 0 comments

Thursday, September 23, 2010

The Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, Rejection of Errors, Paragraph Eight

Synod condemns the error of those ...

VIII Who teach that it was not on the basis of his just will alone that God decided to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation or to pass anyone by in the imparting of grace necessary for faith and conversion.

For these words stand fast: He has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes (Rom. 9:18). And also: To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given (Matt. 13:11). Likewise: I give glory to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding, and have revealed them to little children; yes, Father, because that was your pleasure (Matt. 11:25_26).

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, CA, and co-host of the White Horse Inn, provides an excellent explanation of this portion of the Canons of Dort. Here's how it begins . . .

The error identified and refuted in paragraph eight is one which attempts to locate reprobation in people’s misuse of their freedom, not in the sovereign will of God. According to this error, people somehow manage to reprobate themselves, by using their free will in such a way as to disqualify themselves from that which they could have otherwise obtained–salvation from sin. In other words, these people could have co-operated with God’s grace, and then believed the gospel. Instead, they “chose poorly,” as someone once put it.

This erroneous notion results from the Arminian contention that despite the fall of the human race into sin, men and women are still able to co-operate with the grace of God, and when they do so, they are thereby inclined to believe, repent, and live in holiness before God. When the logic of the Arminian view is applied to those whom do not chose co-operate with God’s grace (the reprobate), the reason given as to why these people are not numbered among the elect is because they did not chose to believe, repent, and live a holy life before God. To put it crudely, they reprobated themselves by not co-operating with grace.

You can read the entire explanation here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 2:43 PM | 0 comments

Saturday, December 02, 2006

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 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 and The Deacon | 11:40 AM | 6 comments

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Apostles' Creed


Although not written by the Apostles (despite its name), this first or second century creed was written to guard against certain heresies that were worming their way into the church. The Apostles' Creed is the oldest known extra-biblical creed. The authorship is unknown.

The Apostles' Creed

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.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 6:56 AM | 2 comments