Thursday, October 28, 2021
"If we give our assent to this word which Christ pronounced, we ought to be satisfied with his death alone for salvation, and we are not at liberty to apply for assistance in any other quarter; for he who was sent by the Heavenly Father to obtain for us a full acquittal, and to accomplish our redemption, knew well what belonged to his office, and did not fail in what he knew to be demanded of him. It was chiefly for the purpose of giving peace and tranquillity to our consciences that he pronounced this word, It is finished. Let us stop here, therefore, if we do not choose to be deprived of the salvation which he has procured for us."
Calvin, John. Complete Commentaries, Gospel of John
Tuesday, October 26, 2021
because of the caution with which the Prayer Book and Articles were phrased back in the sixteenth century--so as not to give offense to people who believed in baptismal regeneration--an ambiguity is there.
[W]hen Cranmer contemplated an improved edition of the Liturgy, he was anxious to consult the judgments of two learned foreigners, Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr. These pious and highly gifted men had been drawn over to our shores by Cranmer's importunities, and promoted through his means, to the two chairs of divinity in our two Universities – Martyr to that of Oxford, and Bucer to that of Cambridge. A high proof, undoubtedly it was, of the confidence which he reposed in their theological ability when he submitted a work of such national importance, and which he and his colleagues had so carefully compiled, to their revisal and correction; but it was more — it was a proof of his own modesty and self-distrust, and of the unfeigned anxiety he felt to retain nothing in his Liturgy but what was thoroughly scriptural and sound...
First, that it may be said to exhibit Peter Martyr's views and sentiments as well as those of Bucer; for, as Strype observes, — “Martyr agreed clearly in judgment with Bucer about the book, as he wrote to him..."
Roberts lays a bit of groundwork to enable the reader to see the clue that speaks so loudly from its silence:
II . The reader will observe that the emendations proposed by Martin Bucer in the First Prayer - book of King Edward VI. were neither few nor unimportant, but involved, on the other hand, some fundamental points of doctrine.
III. It cannot but be regarded as a singular circumstance that not a word is said in these strictures upon that language of our Church in her Baptismal Service, which has occasioned so much controversy — especially as both Bucer and Martyr, during the time of their Professorships, delivered their minds so strongly as to the separableness of the outward sign and inward grace in infant, as well as adult, baptism; which (strong Calvinists as they both were) was of course to be expected. This circumstance, therefore, can only be accounted for by their considering our service to express nothing more than the language of charity and hope. It will be observed that, in dealing with the Confirmation Service, Bucer imagines the case of the catechumens being unregenerate, which sufficiently indicates his view of the subject. Doubtless had he so understood our formularie as divines of what are called, though not very correctly, the High - Church school, he would have taken great exception to them. As it is the men who think with him on the baptismal question may acquiesce as he in our baptismal forms though it were well, perhaps, if they were less capable of misapprehension.
Saturday, September 11, 2021
“May a merciful God preserve me from a Christian Church in which everyone is a saint! I want to be and remain in the church and little flock of the fainthearted, the feeble and the ailing, who feel and recognize the wretchedness of their sins, who sigh and cry to God incessantly for comfort and help, who believe in the forgiveness of sins.”
Tuesday, September 7, 2021
“Now in speaking of the righteousness of faith scripture leads us to quite another place; that is, it teaches us to turn our attention away from our works to regard only God's mercy and the perfect holiness of Christ. For it shows us this order of justification: that from the beginning God receives the sinner by His pure and free goodness, not considering anything in him by which He is moved to mercy except the sinner's misery, since He sees him completely stripped and empty of good works; and that is why He finds in Himself the reason for doing him good. Then He touches the sinner with a feeling of His goodness so that, distrusting everything he has, he may put the whole sum of his salvation in the mercy which God gives him. That is the feeling of faith, by which a person enters into possession of his salvation: when he recognizes by the teaching of the gospel that he is reconciled to God because, having obtained the remission of his sins, he is justified by means of Christ's righteousness. Although he is regenerated by God's Spirit, he does not rest on the good works which he does, but is reassured that his perpetual righteousness consists in Christ's righteousness alone.”
John Calvin, The Institutes of Religion: The First English Version of the 1541 French Edition
Monday, September 6, 2021
“That person is said to be justified before God who is counted righteous before God's judgment and is acceptable to His righteousness. Since iniquity is hateful to God, the sinner cannot find grace before His face; therefore, where sin is, there God's wrath and vengeance make themselves known. So that person is justified who is not counted as a sinner but as righteous, and for this reason he can rest tranquilly at God's judicial throne, before which all sinners stumble and are confounded. As when some person who was wrongly accused, when he has been examined by the judge and absolved and declared innocent, we say that he is justified in righteousness; so we say that a person is justified before God who, being separated from the number of sinners, has God as witness and proof of his righteousness. So we say that a person is justified before God by his works when there is such a purity and holiness in his life that it deserves the name of righteousness before God, or when by the integrity of his works he can satisfy God's judgment. On the contrary, that person is said to be justified by faith who, being excluded from the righteousness of works, by faith grasps Jesus Christ's righteousness and, clad in that, appears before God's face not as a sinner but as righteous.
“However, because the majority of people imagine a righteousness of faith mixed with works, let us also show (before we pass on) that the righteousness of faith is so different from that of works that if the one is established, the other is overturned. The apostle says that "he has counted all things as excrement to gain Christ and to be found in Him, not having his own righteousness which is of the law but that which is by faith in Jesus Christ, that is the righteousness which is from God by faith" (Phil. 3[8-9]). We see here that he compares the two things as opposites, and shows that it is necessary for the one who wants to obtain Christ's righteousness to abandon his own.”
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: The First English Version of the 1541 French Edition
Saturday, September 4, 2021
The ground of our justification, therefore, is that God reconciles us to himself, from regard not to our works, but to Christ alone, and, by gratuitous adoption, makes us, instead of children of wrath, to be his own children. So long as God looks to our works, he perceives no reason why he ought to love us. Wherefore, it is necessary to bury our sins, and impute to us the obedience of Christ (because [his is] the only obedience which can stand his scrutiny), and adopt us as righteous through his merits.
John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church
Monday, August 30, 2021
The case for the Reformed/Calvinist roots of Anglicanism has been made by many Anglicans over the years; Augustus Toplady, J.C. Ryle, J.I. Packer to name a few. One can go back to primary sources such as the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion which has always been included in the lists
of Reformed confessions along with the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity (Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession). Unfortunately over the years the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion has undergone a number of reinventions by those who wished and largely succeeded to move the Church of England and worldwide Anglicanism away from its early Calvinist connections towards a more broad church or Anglo-Catholic position. Well, this just doesn't stand up when actual history is brought into focus.
Continental historians, both Protestant and Catholic, rank the Church of England among the Reformed Churches as distinct from the Lutheran, and her Articles are found in every collection of Reformed Confessions... the theological interpretation of the Articles by English writers has been mostly conducted in a controversial rather than an historical spirit. (Philip Schaff as quoted by J.I. Packer in his book The Thirty-Nine Articles - Their Place and Use Today, p 33)
One can have their own interpretation of the Articles, but not their own history. As Packer notes in the same book, "it is crooked thinking when the case for redefining Anglicanism is presented as the verdict of Anglican history" (p 36).
Below is an extended excerpt from what is commonly referred to as Nowell's Catechism. The catechism teaches the theology of Anglicanism as it stood a mere 16 years after the martyrdom of Thomas Cranmer when it was officially adopted by the Church of England in 1572. It presents the Reformed teachings on justification and good works echoing Calvin as well as unpacking doctrines found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (esp. Chapter 11 - Of Justification and Chapter 16 - Of Good Works) sixty years before the Westminster Assembly met! Go figure...
Dive in. Carefully read and you'll find mainstream Reformed soteriology as held by Anglicanism in its earliest years.
From Nowell's Catechism:
Master: Now thou hast declared the Creed, that is the sum of the Christian faith, tell me, what profit get we of this faith?
Student: Righteousness before God, by which we are made.
Master: Doth not then our own godliness toward God, and leading of our life honestly and holily among men justify us before God?
Student: Of this we have said somewhat already after the declaring of the law, and in other places, to this effect. If any man were able to live uprightly according to the precise rule of the law of God, he should worthily be counted justified by his good works. But seeing we are all most far from that perfection of life, yea, and be so oppressed with conscience of our sins, we must take another course, and find another way, how God may receive us into favour, than by our own deserving.
Master: What way?
Student: We must flee to the mercy of God, whereby he freely embraceth us with love and goodwill in Christ, without any our deserving, or respect of works, both forgiving us our sins, and so giving us the righteousness of Christ by faith in him, that for the same Christ’s righteousness he so accepteth us, as if it were our own. To God’s mercy therefore through Christ we ought to impute all our justification .
Master: How do we know it to be thus?
Student: By the gospel, which containeth the promises of God by Christ, to the which when we adjoin faith, that is to say, an assured persuasion of mind and stedfast confidence of God’s goodwill, such as hath been set out in the whole Creed, we do, as it were, take state and possession of this justification that I speak of.
Master: Dost not thou then say that faith is the principal cause of this justification, so as by the merit of faith we are counted righteous before God?
Student: No; for that were to set faith in the place of Christ. But the spring-head of this justification is the mercy of God, which is conveyed to us by Christ, and is offered to us by the gospel, and received of us by faith as with a hand.
Master: Thou sayest then that faith is not the cause but the instrument of justification; for that it embraceth Christ which is our justification; coupling us with so strait bond to him, that it maketh us partakers of all his good things?
Student: Yea forsooth.
Master: But can this justification be so severed from good works, that he that hath it can want them?
Student: No: for by faith we receive Christ such as he delivereth himself unto us. But he doth not only set us at liberty from sins and death, and make us at one with God, but also with the divine inspiration and virtue of the Holy Ghost doth regenerate and newly form us to the endeavour of innocency and holiness, which we call newness of life.
Master: Thou sayest then that justice, faith, and good works, do naturally cleave thogether, and therefor ought no more to be severed, than Christ, the of them in us, can be severed from himself.
Student: It is true.
Master: Then this doctrine of faith doth not withdraw men's minds from godly works and duties?
Student: Nothing less. For good works do stand upon faith as upon their root. So far, therefore, is faith from withdrawing our hearts from living uprightly, that, contrariwise, it doth most vehemently stir us up to the endeavour of good life; yea and so far, that he is not truly faithful that doth not also to his power both shun vices and embrace virtues, so living always as one that looketh to give an account.
Master: Therefore tell me plainly how our works be acceptable to God, and what rewards be given to them?
Student: In good works, two things are principally required. First, that we do those works that are prescribed by the law of God; secondly, that they be done with that mind and faith which God requireth. For no doings or thoughts enterprised or conceived without faith can please God.
Master: Go forward.
Student: It is evident, therefore, that all works whatsoever we do, before that we be born again and renewed by the Spirit of God, such as may properly be called our own works are faulty. For whatsoever shew of brightness and worthiness they represent and give to the eyes of men, since they spring and proceed from a faulty and corrupted heart, which God chiefly considereth, they cannot but be defiled and corrupted, and so grievously offend God. Such works, therefore, as evil fruits, growing out of an evil tree, God despiseth and rejecteth from him.
Master: Can we not, therefore, go before God with any works or deservings, whereby we may first provoke him to love us, and be good unto us?
Student: Surely, with none. For Gos loved and chose us in Christ, not only when we were his enemies, that is, sinners, but also before the foundations of the world were laid. And this is the same spring-head and original of our justification, whereof I spake before.
Master: What thinkest thou of those works which we, after that we be reconciled to God's favour, do by the instinct of the Holy ghost?
Student: The dutiful works of godliness, which proceedeth out of faith, working be charity, are indeed acceptable to God, yet not by their own deserving; but for that he, of his liberality, vouchsafeth them his favour. For though they be derived from the Spirit of God, as little streams from the spring-head, yet of our flesh, that mingleth itself with them, in the doing by the way, they receive corruption, as it were by infection, like as a river, otherwise pure and clear, is troubled and mudded with mire and slime, wherethrough it runneth.
Master: How then dost thou say that they please God?
Student: It is faith that procureth God's favour to our works, while it is assured that he will not deal with us after extremity of law, nor call our doings to exact account, nor try them as it were by the square: that is, he will not, in valuing and weighing them use severity, but remitting and pardoning all their corruptness, for Christ's sake and his deservings, will account them for fully perfect.
Master: Then thou standest still in this, that we cannot by merit of works obtain to be justified before God, seeing thou thinkest that all doings of men, even the perfectest, do need pardon?
Student: God himself hath so decreed in his word; and his Holy Spirit doth teach us to pray that he bring us not into judgment. For where righteousness, such as God the Judge shall allow, ought to be throughly absolute, and in all parts and points fully perfect, such as is to be directed and tried by the most precise rule, and, as it were, by the plumb-line of God's law and judgment; and therefore our works, even the best of them, for that they swerve and differ most far from the rule and prescription of God's law and justice, are many ways to be blamed and condemned; we can in no wise be justified before God by works.
Master: Doth not this doctrine withdraw men's minds from the duties of godliness, and make them slacker and slower to good works, or at least less cheerful and ready to godly endeavours?
Student: No: for we may not therefore say that good works are unprofitable or done in vain and without cause, for that we obtain not justification by them. For they serve both to the profit of our neighbour and to the glory of God; and they do, as by certain testimonies, assure us of God's goodwill toward us, and of our love again to God-ward, and of our faith, and so consequently of our salvation. And the reason it is, that we being redeemed with the blood of Christ the Son of God, and having beside received innumerable and infinite benefits of God, should live and wholly frame ourselves after the will and appointment of our Redeemer, and so shew ourselves mindful and thankful to the Author of our salvation, and by our example procure and win other unto him. The man that calleth these thoughts to mind may sufficiently rejoice in his good endeavours and works.
Master: But God doth allure us to good doing with certain rewards, both in this life and in the life to come, and doth covenant with us as it were for certain wages.
Student: That reward, as I have said, is not given to our works for their worthiness, and rendered to them as recompence for deservings, but by the bountifulness of God is freely bestowed upon us without deserving. And justification God doth give us as a gift of his own dear love toward us, and of his liberality through Christ. When I speak of God's gift and liberality, I mean it free and bountiful, without any our desert or merit: that it be God's mere and sincere liberality, which he applieth to or salvation only whom he loveth and which trust in him, not hired or procured for wages, as it were a merchandise of his commodities and benefits used by him for some profit to himself, requiring again of us some recompence or price, which once to think were to abate both the liberality and majesty of God.
Master: Whereas then God doth by faith both give us justification, and by the same faith alloweth and accepteth our works, tell me, dost thou think that this faith is a quality of nature, or the gift of God?
Student: Faith is the gift of God, and a singular and excellent gift. For both our wits are too gross and dull to conceive and understand the wisdom of God, whose fountains are opened by faith, and our hearts are more apt either to distrust, or to wrongful and corrupt trust in ourselves, or in other creatures, than to true trust in God. But God, instructing us with his word and lightening our minds with his Holy Spirit, maketh us apt to learn those things that otherwise would be far from entering into the dull capacity of our wits; and sealing the promises of salvation in our souls, he so informeth us that we are most surely persuaded of the truth of them. These things the apostles understanding, do pray to increase their faith.
In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified [i.e. accepted]; and that the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause. (John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote)
See also this post: John Calvin: The Recompense of Good Works
Saturday, August 7, 2021
Sunday, July 25, 2021
Now rehearse me briefly and in a sum these most large benefits which the faithful receive of the death of Christ, and his most grievous pain.Student:
Briefly, with the one only sacrifice of his death he satisfied for our sins before God, and appeasing the wrath of God, made us at one with him. With his blood, as with "most" pure washing, he hath washed and cleansed away all the filth and spots of our souls; and defacing with everlasting fulness the memory of our sins, that they shall no more come in the sight of God, he hath cancelled, made void, and done away the hand - writing whereby we were bound and convicted, and also the decree by the sentence whereof we were condemned. All these things hath he done by his death, both for the living and for the dead that trusted in him while they lived.
Friday, July 23, 2021
J.I. Packer's excellent new and final book, The Heritage of Anglican Theology, shows the value of putting theology in its proper historical context. An example is the selection below (pp 282-285) which helps bring clarification to often contentious debates over the Anglican doctrines of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration:
"A word must be said also about the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. In the early 1800s, the final court of appeal in matters of dispute about the doctrine of the Church of England was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Now, the Privy Council was a company of people who were thought of as the monarch's most intimate advisers. This committee was a subcommittee of that larger body consisting of experts in the law who functioned as the highest court of judicial appeal in England when legal questions arose about the meaning of the law. These were legal experts, all laymen, but competent at interpreting documents and checking the precedents of case law and so forth.
One case that eventually came before the Judicial Committee involved a scholarly clergyman named George Cornelius Gorham. The case was brought by a High Church bishop in Exeter named Henry Phillpotts. Gorham had been nominated to a pastorate in Brampford Speke, Devon. Phillpotts suspected that Gorham was an evangelical, and indeed he was. Phillpotts asked him some questions at the bishop's discretion, which Phillpotts expected would expose Gorham's evangelicalism and allow Phillpotts to pronounce him unfit to minister in the Church of England and therefore to refuse to institute him to the pastorate for which he had been nominated in that diocese.
One of the questions was whether Gorham believed in baptismal regeneration. Gorham said no. Phillpotts replied, in effect, "Then I am not going to institute you because the Prayer Book affirms baptismal regeneration, and the Articles do also."
Gorham, the learned man, replied that, on the contrary, that is an interpretation of the Articles and Prayer Book that some hold, but it is not the only possible interpretation, and it is not the interpretation that the authors of the Prayer Book and Articles--the sixteenth-century Reformers--held themselves. Phillpotts thought this was nonsense, but Gorham appealed the verdict of Phillpotts against him. Gorham was confident he could prove his case.
So he took Phillpotts to court, demanding to be instituted to the pastorate to which he had been nominated. The case ended up before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It took two years for the case to get there. During that time, an evangelical scholar named William Goode wrote a learned treatise canvassing all the Reformers who had ever hon into print on this subject. Goode's treatise was called The Effects of Infant Baptism, and the hinge of its argument was that all these Reformers had insisted that salvation is through being justified by faith alone, and without faith no one is justified.
That, of course, does not match baptismal regeneration. In all that the Reformers said about the effects of infant baptism they did not go as far as affirming baptismal regeneration. They did celebrate the fact that the rite of baptism--water on the forehead, representing going under the water--symbolizes, signifies, and personalizes the promise of Christ, the promise of new life to those who will receive it through faith. In baptism, that promise is personally delivered to the candidate. This includes infant baptism, which Anglicanism has always regarded as consistent with the institution of Christ.
As the infant grows up, he or she has to learn to exercise the faith that was in the hearts of the parents and godparents when they brought the child to baptism. Their faith was that God would work in their child's heart to bring that child to faith, and that God would sanctify the rite of baptism whereby, in his mercy, God would personalize the promise to this child. This would be explained to the child as soon as he or she were old enough to understand it. God then sanctifies all that as a means of grace to bring the child to a living, personal faith.
William Goode demonstrated all this in The Effects of Infant Baptism, and in 1850 the Judicial Committee found that Gorham's view was a permitted interpretation of Anglican doctrine. His claim was vindicate, and Phillpotts had to institute him. Otherwise, Phillpotts would have been breaking the law.
The Gorham case--decided in this way against a cherished Anglo-Catholic doctrine and decided by a company of laypeople, rather than by the clergy or by bishops--became a great cause of offense to High Churchmen and Anglo-Catholics who disagreed with the verdict (and with Gorham's view). Furthermore, they thought the church should settle its own legal problems, and that bishops and clergy--not secular lawyers--should be having the last word. One of the effects of the Gorham decision was quite a flurry of Anglican-Catholics becoming Roman Catholics. For the Church of England to settle matters of faith this way destroyed Anglican credibility, in their minds.
Today Anglo-Catholics who know about the Gorham judgment will smile and shake their heads and basically say, "It ought not to have been done that way." Remember, the verdict was only that George Gorham's interpretation of the church's foundational documents was possible. Certain of the Catholic clergymen will counter that is not the interpretation one ought to embrace. Thus, Anglican-Catholics go on maintaining baptismal regeneration.
Evangelical Anglicans, as you would expect, go along with the Gorham judgment, and they are backed by quite a bit of writing. But because of the caution with which the Prayer Book and Articles were phrased back in the sixteenth century--so as not to give offense to people who believed in baptismal regeneration--an ambiguity is there. It is a matter of fact, and some of us feel that this is a pity."
Relevant portions of The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion [emphasis added]:
XI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
Wednesday, July 21, 2021
Monday, June 28, 2021
The other day I came across this quote from Charles Jefferson who wisely observed,
“When the minister goes into the pulpit he is the shepherd in the act of feeding, and if every minister had borne this in mind many a sermon would have been other than it has been. The curse of the pulpit is the superstition that a sermon is a work of art and not a piece of bread or meat… Sermons, rightly understood, are primarily forms of food. They are articles of diet. They are meals served by the minister for the sustenance of spiritual life.”
In light of the above I thought I'd repost this entry from July 2011:
Following up on my two posts (here and here) concerning feeding the sheep through word and sacrament, I want to present a couple of analogies to hopefully amplify what I think is lacking in much of the preaching in churches today.As a thumbnail sketch: most pastors preach from the Bible. There is usually a text upon which the sermon is based. The passage is often presented in terms of its historical, doctrinal, and character settings. As one listens, he may hear that God is loving, gives grace, and that there is much to be thankful for as a believer. The listener is encouraged to trust in God's faithfulness as lessons are drawn from the verses. The believer is admonished to go forth with renewed obedience trusting in Jesus and the ever-present grace and help of the Holy Spirit. In the same way God was faithful to [list any number of Biblical characters], he is faithful to you, the present day believer. As the song says, "trust and obey - there's no other way..." What is missing?
Analogy #1: Imagine you are plagued with a failing heart, one riddled with disease. You schedule an appointment with a skilled surgeon. You go to the hospital. You're taken into the operating room and the doctor enters. From his scholarly medical books he begins laying out before you the procedures that have been developed over many years that have been shown to be successful in curing heart disease. He explains in detail the countless individuals who have benefited from these amazing techniques. Step by step and precept upon precept the medical procedure is detailed. He concludes by explaining how one can be healed and live a normal life as a result of this amazing wonder of medicine. He smiles, shakes your hand, gives you a bill having finished what he came to do.
Analogy #2: Imagine that you and many others have been invited to a dinner party hosted by a highly-trained chef. You arrive at the restaurant in a very hungry state. Upon entering the reserved dining room you observe an elaborately prepared setting. The finest linen, expensive china dinnerware, sterling silver utensils, and fine crystal glasses adorn the table. Everyone sits down. The chef enters. Appetites are whetted and hopes run high for a much anticipated and needed satisfying feast.
The chef then opens his cookbook and spends the next forty minutes describing how the meal is prepared. He shows pictures of each course of the dinner while reciting all the ingredients with their proportions and nutritional values. Most of all, he stresses how delicious, healthful, and sustaining the food is. He then thanks everyone for coming, bids them farewell until the next dinner party. The people leave, duly impressed and yet wondering what the aching, empty feeling in their stomach could mean. You think to yourself, "if only I can remember these recipes and apply them better to my life..."Preaching is more than good scholarly biblical exegesis. Sheep need to hear why they are hungry and that they are prone to look for food in all the wrong places. Sheep need to be fed.
"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water" (Jer. 2:13)
"Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." (John 6: 27).
* Pastors, identify what is going on in your sheep. Diagnose it for what it is... our sinful beliefs and behaviors that still wage war against the spirit. Though saved by the grace of God, sheep come to the church service wearied and dirtied with dust from the week's past sojourn. Then having rightly diagnosed the inward reality of doubt and self-directed ways of the sheep, wash their feet by once again dispensing the heavenly food which is the Gospel. Proclaim the Good News of Christ crucified that feeds, renews, sustains, and nourishes the believer's faith:
Oh people of God, what you have failed to do... Jesus has done for you, in your place, by his perfect obedience. Even more! Jesus, by his death on the cross, paid your penalty and cleanses you from the filth of all your sin (past, present, and future) which sin so stubbornly assails your conscience. This is God's unbreakable covenant in Christ’s blood for you.
Christians need to hear that their sin which so easily entangles them is in fact that which qualifies them for the remedy of heaven declared in gospel (Luke 5:31-32). Real food - Jesus Christ crucified and risen for you - that removes sin and assures of God's love (Romans 5:8) now, tomorrow, and forever. Serve the gospel food that feeds one’s faith and brings forth renewed a heart which redirects the will and bears the fruit of good works.
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion:
Believers-still-sinners are fed by the Gospel preached; nourishing and strengthening a true and lively faith.
And I will bring Israel back to his pasture and he will graze on Carmel and Bashan, and his desire will be satisfied in the hill country of Ephraim and Gilead. In those days and at that time,’ declares the LORD, ‘search will be made for the iniquity of Israel, but there will be none; and for the sins of Judah, but they will not be found; for I will pardon those whom I leave as a remnant.’ (Jer. 50: 19-20)
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. (Rom 5: 6-10)
Monday, January 18, 2021
John Calvin unpacks the intersection between our obedience to Christ’s commands and God’s love for us in Christ:
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my
Father's commandments and abide in his love. - John 15:10
For these two things are continually united, that faith which perceives the undeserved love of Christ toward us, and a good conscience and newness of life. And, indeed, Christ does not reconcile believers to the Father, that they may indulge in wickedness without reserve, and without punishment; but that, governing them by his Spirit, he may keep them under the authority and dominion of his Father. Hence it follows, that the love of Christ is rejected by those who do not prove, by true obedience, that they are his disciples.
If any one object that, in that case, the security of our salvation depends on ourselves, I reply, it is wrong to give such a meaning to Christ's words; for the obedience which believers render to him is not the cause why he continues his love toward us, but is rather the effect of his love. For whence comes it that they answer to their calling, but because they are led by the Spirit of adoption of free grace?
But again, it may be thought that the condition imposed on us is too difficult, that we should keep the commandments of Christ, which contain the absolute perfection of righteousness, -- a perfection which far exceeds our capacity, -- for hence it follows, that the love of Christ will be useless, if we be not endued with angelical purity. The answer is easy; for when Christ speaks of the desire of living a good and holy life, he does not exclude what is the chief article in his doctrine, namely, that which alludes to righteousness being freely imputed, in consequence of which, through a free pardon, our duties are acceptable to God, which in themselves deserved to be rejected as imperfect and unholy. Believers, therefore, are reckoned as keeping the commandments of Christ when they apply their earnest attention to them, though they be far distant from the object at which they aim; for they are delivered from that rigorous sentence of the law,
“Cursed be he that hath not confirmed all the words of this law to do them.” (Deuteronomy 27:26)
John Calvin’s Commentary on the Gospel of John
Here are some related posts:
Christ's Active Obedience: The End of the Law Unto Righteousness To Everyone That Believes - https://theworldsruined.blogspot.com/2014/10/christs-active-obedience-end-of-law.html
Obedience Envy? - https://theworldsruined.blogspot.com/2014/09/obedience-envy.html
Gratitude and Obedience: https://theworldsruined.blogspot.com/2019/07/gratitude-and-obedience.html
Musings on Gratitude and Obedience - https://theworldsruined.blogspot.com/2014/12/musings-on-gratitude-and-obedience.html
Justification to Life - https://theworldsruined.blogspot.com/2015/07/justification-to-life-no-part-of-works.html
Salvation Possessed By Faith — Expressed In Obedience - https://theworldsruined.blogspot.com/2016/04/salvation-possessed-by-faith-expressed.html
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
commandments. (1 John 2:3)
Saturday, November 21, 2020
It seems to me that many pastors and elders have assumed that it is their responsibility to not only encourage their church members follow these State Covid mandates at worship, but to enforce them. I want to challenge that assumption. But first things first: What kingdom does the Church belong to - 1) the kingdom of this world, 2) the kingdom of heaven, or 3) both? The working answer tends to be #3 based mostly on the Romans 13 passage on obedience to the civil magistrates. I’ll address that in a later paragraph. With the previous question as context another question follows: what is the Church’s duty in relation to the State?
Scripture’s answer as to what kingdom the Church belongs is #2 - the kingdom of heaven. Just like the law is not of faith (Gal 3:12), the Church is not of this world (John 17:14). Though Christians individually are citizens of both kingdoms the Church is not, even as Jesus Christ is not (John 18:36). The Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth. She is the sovereign embassy in this world of a heavenly kingdom under the dominion of Christ Jesus her Lord. She has one allegiance, one charter. From that flows her mandate and calling. And that mandate is to proclaim the gospel message (calling sinners out of sin and death), confess one Lord, one faith, one heavenly birth. And the sole duties of that calling are summed up as the ministry of word and sacrament (the means of grace). These are the ordained or mandated tasks given by Christ to pastors and elders, ambassadors of His local embassies in the world.
On the other hand, believers are citizens of both the civil earthly kingdom and the heavenly spiritual kingdom. The Church is not. She is Christ’s kingdom on earth and as such is not of this world (John 18:36; Heb 12:22, Gal 4:26).
He declared that his kingdom was not of this world. It is not of the same kind with worldly kingdoms; it has different ends to accomplish, and different means for the attainment of those ends. It is spiritual, that is, concerned with the religious or spiritual, as distinguished from the secular interests of men. It moves, therefore, in a different sphere from the State, and the two need never come into collision. (Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge)
The Church in this world is of the heavenly King. Her officers are His envoys. Her expertise is not in the disciplines or politics of this world but in the gospel means of grace, i.e. solely in the the things from above. Further, she is not a citizen nor agent of the State, the civil kingdom. She is an agent of Christ and her charter is to represent Him by preaching the gospel, calling sinners out of this world to salvation in Christ through faith, and to nurture and maintain believers in that faith. When a church loses sight of that unique heavenly calling she is inevitably tempted to wander into areas where angels fear to tread.
Like Augustine, Luther and Calvin defended in theory a two-kingdoms approach that they did not always follow in practice. More clearly than Augustine, Luther and Calvin articulated the distinction between the heavenly and earthly kingdoms. The former proceeds by the Word alone, not by the secular sword, they insisted... Because Christ inaugurated his kingdom and poured out his Spirit as a harbinger of the last days, this reign is partially realized and becomes visible through the gospel ministry. (The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way by Michael Horton, Chapter 28)
As pastors and elders wade into the murky marshes of State mandates they might soon find themselves enforcing those mandates with a sword. No mask? You’re not loving your brother! Sorry, you must leave the worship service. This is the implicit warning put out by church leaders. As a result, many believers are staying home on Sunday. Discouraged by it all they self exile. Discipline according to the State, not discipline according to Scripture.
So what about Romans 13? Well, I don’t think this passage is referring to the Church as an organization visa-vis the State. In Paul’s day the Church had no officially recognized civil standing. Individual Christians did. They were subjects of the State and obliged to submit to civil authority. The Church as a civil organization didn’t exist and thus wasn’t a legally recognized entity in the Roman Empire. Paul was addressing believers. So likewise, shepherds in the church should indeed admonish the saints to submit to civil authorities because, though citizens of heaven, they are also members of the civil kingdom. But it gets murky. The supreme “magistrate” of our day in the U.S. is the written law of the Constitution not a caesar or provincial governor. Not to mention in many locales the guidelines are optional and subject to interpretation. Yet church leaders often decide to make them mandatory. Murkier still. I would argue it is not the place of pastors and elders to require compliance/obedience to State guidelines as a condition of entrance to the worship service.
As a result, many Christians, because of enforced State guidelines have stopped coming to church altogether. It’s a situation that becomes more and more untenable as the weeks and months pass. Sheep are wandering from the fold. Virtual services on computer screens in individual homes fall way short of nourishing the saints before the heavenly throne of grace. Yet the State protocols stay in place! What to do?
Some church members believe it essential for all to wear masks and social distance. Others think it is unnecessary for all demographics. Some think that masks are necessary for all. Some think masks are ineffectual for the asymptomatic and preventing spread of the virus. Both can marshal supporting evidence from authoritative sources. I don’t think church leaders are called to sort out the “science.” What to do? Perhaps allow two or more services? One with masks/social distancing and one that is optional in order that none feel compelled to offend their consciences? The overall mission is: Tend the sheep. Feed the sheep. Caring for the souls of the saints should be the preeminent concern and duty of the church.
But what about those States mandating that churches should enforce the Covid guidelines? Well, what if next the State announces that all churches must worship only online for a period of two years due to the growing number of cases? [Cases - what does that even mean? But that’s for another time] Elders need to consider whether or not they want to be an enforcement arm of the State or ambassadors of the heavenly kingdom. Not an easy path forward given the authoritarian impulses of the State. And that path is all the more difficult because churches by and large have chosen to legally organize under the State as non-profit corporate citizens [501(c)(3)] under existing Federal IRS law. A very modern development.
Prior to 1954, there was no such thing as a 501(c)(3) church. All donations, contributions, gifts, etc. given to churches were automatically tax‑deductible under the old English common law, known as the "Law of Charities." Then in 1954, Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson (D‑Texas) sponsored legislation which brought churches under the new 501(c)(3) section of the Internal Revenue code. As a part of this legislation, churches would incorporate, and having that status, they could not be sued in a legal action. (History Of 501c3 Government Licensing Of Churches by David J. Stewart)
The result is that most churches now exist as civil corporate citizens, subject in some sense to the State, if you would. So there could be real negative judicial and financial consequences for any church organized under State law that deviates from State orders. This is another reason why it is essential for elders and leaders to consider the Church’s heavenly calling so that they may chart a faithful course in the face of encroaching Statism. No easy answers. But we look heavenward…
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)