Faith through hearing by the Word of God...

Some thoughts on old business from this very long thread at Green Baggins: Roman Catholic apologist Bryan Cross responding to this phrase, "But faith come by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God," comments:

True, but one must first determine that something is divine revelation; otherwise, one falls into fideism by believing arbitrarily. So reason must be used in order to determine that an alleged divine revelation is truly such. Hence the motives of credibility, which I explain in “Wilson vs. Hitchens: A Catholic Perspective,” and the comments under that thread.

This highlights a significant difference between Rome and Reformed. The Reformed Christian believes that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, not by a determination arrived at through one's rational judgment (though the rational faculty is employed). Rather it is the Word of God rightly proclaimed through the operation of the God the Holy Spirit which is the power that creates saving faith in the one who hears.  And when that person believes, the Word ultimately makes sense to him.  "I was blind, but now I see!" (John 9:24-26).  He may not be able to explain everything as to the hows and whys, but now he knows that his sins are forgiven and that he has been saved through faith in Jesus who bore the penalty of those sins on the cross. God, in a sense, trumps any autonomous, personal/rational powers of self determination and judgment and sovereignly saves fallen man through His own initiative and power; the power of salvation found only in the Gospel (Rom. 1:16).

The idea that a lost man can and must use his rational powers to determine how to be found is an absurdity. Even more so if one were to say that a dead man must use his rational faculties in order to recognize Resurrection, lay hold of it, and thus receive Life. It is to those God chooses and calls that He cleanses, gives a new heart, and makes alive unto Himself.  It isn't about determining what is the right information and then believing it.  It is about a death to life transformation through the sovereign work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

Another commenter wrote: Might the peace mentioned in Philippians 4:7, be part of what you mean?

Yes, and more. That peace is a peace now established between sinful man and his holy God through the intervention and mediation of Another, Jesus Christ the crucified and risen. It is a mind-boggling thing that God the Savior would sovereignly, and without my input, pay the penalty for my sin and guilt and give to me, an enemy of righteousness, the gift of eternal life. As the B.J. Thomas song says – it’s more than a feeling. And it doesn't become true for me just because I happen to figure it out and then believe. By his law God sovereignly “shuts my mouth” (Rom. 3:19) and by his gospel graciously births His salvation in me through hearing by faith (Rom. 10:4-17). It isn’t a rational process per se, but an extra-rational intervention of God’s Word.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Rom. 1:16)

God's Word proclaimed doesn't need me as its interpreter/go-between. The Holy Spirit mediates his Word. By the Word and the Spirit the heart believes and receives salvation. With all the discussion of paradigms, logical argumentation, and presuppositions one can lose sight of the wonderful truth that Christianity is a supernatural religion. A sin-forgiving and life-imparting religion born of God in hard, stony hearts; hearts that become soft and believing when the powerful and Divine Word of salvation acts on and penetrates the soul. 

The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty Part 5

E. Grindal

The thought behind these series of posts, The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty (here, here, here, and here), is that the nature of the reformation in England was quite different under Queen Elizabeth than that which had been taking place under King Edward and Thomas Cranmer.  That isn't a big news scoop for anyone familiar with the history.  And while some consider that change in a negative light (my view), others do view it favorably.  Yet what is interesting to see is the role that Elizabeth played in moving the Church of England from a church that was reforming according to the Word of God (albeit with fits and starts) to that of a formerly reforming church, one that had begun to settle into a kind of compromised Protestantism; at crucial crossroads succumbing to the views of the Supreme Governor of the Church rather than the teachings of Scripture when it came to certain issues. In my view this is no where more evident than the reduced emphasis on and, and at times, even outright hostility toward the preaching of the Word of God after 1559.

State of preaching Pre-Marian:
Arguably, the first major reform enacted in the Church of England under Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was to place in every church an English version of the entire Bible.  Without the Scriptures in the language of the people there could be no reforming of the Church. Without the Word of God central in the Church there would be no biblical preaching to build the Church. It was in the year 1538 that Cromwell gave the directive that the clergy provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."

About nine years later in 1547, Cranmer issued the Book of Homilies entitled "Certain Sermons or Homilies Appointed to Be Read in Churches."  The need for biblical teaching and preaching in the formerly Roman Catholic churches was great but the number of clergy familiar with the reformational doctrines of the Christian faith were few.  The Book of Homilies was issued as a stop gap solution to this situation.  By publicly reading these sermons clergy could begin to nourish the faith and practice of God's people with the Word of God.

Over the next few years Archbishop Cranmer would bring several leading reformers such as Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli to England to help train prospective clergy in the biblical doctrines of the Church.  Vermigli was given the position of Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford.  Two years after his appointment he writes to Rudolph Gualter (June 1, 1550):

There is no lack of preachers in London, but throughout the whole kingdom they are very rare... The sheep of the divine pasture, the sheep of God's hand, the sheep redeemed by the blood of Christ, are defrauded of the proper nourishment of the divine word; unless the people be taught, the change of religion will certainly avail them but little. [emphasis added]

Vermigli's words were not only an accurate assessment of the situation, but also foreshadowed the years that were to follow Queen Mary's reign.  The purpose of these doctors of doctrine was to train men who would teach and preach from the pulpit the Scriptural truths regarding salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ alone.  By the proclamation of Christ in the Word the Church is birthed.  And by the Word of God  preached and taught the Church is reformed, nourished, and built.

Cranmer's path was the natural and logical consequence of his embracing the foundational truth of the Reformation - sola scriptura, the supremacy and authority of the Word of God in things pertaining to faith and practice in the Church, as later confessed in the Forty-Two Articles of Religion:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation - Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation...

State of preaching Post-Marian:

Queen Elizabeth I

After the reign of Queen Mary and the restoration of the Protestant Church in England, the need for preachers was indeed dire.  Yet the trajectory of progress going forward in this area was mixed and disappointing. This was in no small part due to the views of the new Supreme Governor of the Church, Queen Elizabeth.  John Jewell expressed his concern (and that of many) in a letter to Vermigli in January 1559:

The queen has forbidden any person, whether papist or gospeller, to preach to the people.  Some think the reason of this to be, that there was at that time only one minister of the word in London, namely, Bentham, whereas the number of papists was very considerable; others, that it was because the people, having heard only one public discourse of Bentham's, began to dispute about ceremonies, some declaring for Geneva, and some for Frankfort.  Whatever it be, I only wish that our party may not act with too much worldly prudence and policy in the cause of God.

And from an April letter of the same year Jewell further highlights the need for preachers of the Word of God:  "... and yet the people everywhere [are]... exceedingly thirsting for the gospel."  He later wrote to Martyr in two letters a year apart of his concern with the state of the schools in which preachers were to be trained and the desperate need for preachers:

Both our universities are now lying in a most wretched state of disorder, without piety, without religion, without a teacher, without any hope of revival.  Many of our leading men... are fixing their thoughts on yourself, and are anxious that you should be invited at the earliest opportunity, in spite of all the German leaguers." (Nov. 16, 1559)

 We are only wanting in preachers; and of these there is a great and alarming scarcity.  The schools are also entirely deserted; so that, unless God look favourably upon us, we cannot hope for any supply in the future.  The existing preachers, who are few in number, those especially who have any ability, are listened to by the people with favour and attention.        (Nov. 6, 1560)

Yet remedying this situation did not necessarily fit comfortably with Queen Elizabeth's vision for the Church.  M. Rosemary O'Day writes,

After Elizabeth's accession the Church in England was in a confused condition. The queen envisaged a politique settlement which, although protestant, was not reformed, thereby enabling her to avoid both international conflict and open internal rebellion. This meant that the established Church must not follow too closely the radical changes in ceremony, doctrine and administration associated with the continental Reformed Churches

Robust biblical preaching under the authority of the Word became a risk to Elizabeth's concept of the Church. Thus preaching, per se, was not desirable in and of itself nor in the best interest of maintaining order and peace in "her" new Church and kingdom.  In fact, her own personal preference regarding a church service was that of infrequent sermons which were to short and not especially doctrinal.

She herself was accustomed to listen to sermons only in the season of Lent, and on one such occasion had interrupted a sermon of the Dean of St. Paul’s (Nowell), a notable preacher, with the command to desist as the theme was not to her liking. Not surprisingly, the Dean was overwhelmed with confusion. To console him Archbishop Parker took him home to dinner afterwards! (Church Society)

Yet ironically, the pressing need to fill the vast number of vacancies in the office of bishop in 1559 led to the appointment of the only supply available to the new queen - many of the Marian exiles/preachers who had returned from the reformed churches of the continent with a high view of the authority of the Word of God.  Their intention to continue the reforms begun a decade earlier in the Edwardian church was a potential problem to contain.  One of those exiles appointed as a bishop under Queen Elizabeth was Edmund Grindal who would later be selected Archbishop of Canterbury.  Accepting the former office that Cranmer had held, he would clash almost immediately with the Queen over the issue of "prophesyings."  And it was this issue more than any other that revealed the change that had taken place between the Church under Cranmer and that of Elizabeth.

In 1576, Grindal conducted a metropolitan visitation (a sort of survey of standards in the archbishopric) and was shocked by how few ministers preached regularly to their flocks. He decided to try and rectify the problem by encouraging prophesyings. Prophesyings had begun spontaneously in various parts of the South-East c. 1571. They were meetings of clergy in the localities for prayer and sermons followed by mutual criticism and discussions about the state of the church... 

Prophesyings rapidly became very popular, and were often attended by zealous laymen. Elizabeth (who thought that four or five preachers per county were quite enough) saw them as inherently disruptive and a covert attack on royal control of the church...  

Elizabeth wanted prophesyings stopped, but Grindal merely issued orders for regulating their conduct. Elizabeth was furious - particularly when Grindal refused a direct order to suppress them, and wrote her a letter saying that it was his duty to obey God rather than her. She wanted to deprive him immediately of his post as Archbishop but was prevailed on by her Privy Council merely to suspend him until he submitted. He never did. (link here)

To paraphrase a the sixties Dylan song, The times they were a'changing!

To Grindal it seemed natural that the clergy should meet to discuss the scriptures; but with a view of appeasing objections he issued orders that such meetings should be licensed by the bishop and presided over by the archdeacon or his deputy; that only approved persons be permitted to speak, and that all political or personal references be rigidly excluded. This did not satisfy Elizabeth... (Grindal)

The situation had reached a point of crisis for Elizabeth. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes summed up the mindset of Elizabeth this way,

Now, however, matters came to a head. So far from reacting favourably to Grindal’s plan for the regularisation, and thus the retention, of the ‘prophesyings’, Elizabeth gave vent to her displeasure by commanding him to bring about their suppression forthwith. She objected that by attending these gatherings the laity were neglecting their proper affairs and were in danger of having their heads filled with seditious notions. She complained, further, that there were too many preachers, insisting that three or four were sufficient for a county, and that the people needed nothing more than to have the Homilies read to them. The Queen, indeed, laboured under an apparent inability to appreciate the value of biblical preaching not only for the progress of sound religion but also in the interests of promoting good and stable citizenship.

There could be only one ultimate authority in the Church of England and Elizabeth was determined that she would have that final position and not the Word of God as administered by those called and ordained to preach and teach it.  The reformation, at least for the institutional Church of England, was crippled, if not over...

Restoration and the Word...

The question, “what is necessary for reforming or restoring the Anglican faith and practice?”, has take up a number of posts here, as well as my commenting on other blogs discussing the same issue.  It is very much on the minds of Christians who have an affinity or identification with the church of Cranmer.  There are a number of blogs/organizations that are dedicated to getting back to first principles as taught and understood by the English reformers of the 1500’ and 1600’s.  Yet that task runs into the problem of how to agree on “divining” the positives and negatives of the various English Divines' teachings.  The result of that difficulty is a seemingly endless ‘back and forth’ between various camps, be they Anglo-Catholic, Reformed/Puritan, Evangelical, high church, low church, etc... I have no idea how to navigate these discussions with others except to continue to put out my own thoughts and listen and learn where I can.  As I have written earlier, I'm pessimistic about any meaningful restoration of Anglicanism that (in my understanding of things) reflects the theological intent of the early reformers (English and non-English) and some of those who followed.  

The list I would draw up of those to be consulted in order for us to lay hold of the theological development of the English reformation would include some who would be accepted by most... and some not.  But here are several:  Cranmer, Luther, Hooper, Bucer, Knox, Calvin, Jewell, Grindal, Bullinger, Whitgift, Hooker, Ussher, Davenant.  I include some non-English, as their theology had a more or less significant impact on that of the English church.  I leave out those following the 1500’s because the above reformers were more diligent and equipped than most today in understanding and weighing the teachings of those that went before.  This list comprises men who would by and large support a Protestant/Reformed position, as I think that is a fair reading of the direction of the English Reformation.  Some might ask, why not include Queen Elizabeth?  She was protestant, and as monarch played a significant role in the reintroduction of the Book of Common Prayer and the establishing the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.  Yet I see her impact as mixed, given the differing priorities that flowed from her position as both head of the civil realm and the “Supreme Governor” of the Church.  

A final thought... on what I see as maybe the greatest lack in today’s Anglican churches.  That is an under-valuing of Scripture, God’s Word, as our ultimate guide in doctrine.  Everything in faith and practice ultimately flows from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as God’s sovereign and gracious redemption of sinful man.  All doctrine has to do with this glorious Word whose story is revealed in Scripture through the Holy Spirit.  Jesus himself drew the attention of his disciples to this very thing after his resurrection.  And that is why various churches have instituted confessions - to clearly put forth the essential doctrines of this great salvation.  And to the degree they agree with Scripture they are dependable guides for the ministry of the Word and the life of the church.  

Some words of Martin Luther from his “Treatise Concerning Christian Liberty”:

“Christ was sent for no other office than that of the word; and the order of the Apostles, that of bishops, and that of the whole body of the clergy, have been called and instituted for no object but the ministry of the word...
“But you will ask, What is this word, and by what means is it to be used, since there are so many words of God? I answer, The Apostle Paul (Rom. i.) explains what it is, namely the Gospel of God, concerning His Son, incarnate, suffering, risen, and glorified, through the Spirit, the Sanctifier. To preach Christ is to feed the soul, to justify it, to set it free, and to save it, if it believes the preaching. For faith alone and the efficacious use of the word of God, bring salvation.”

This Word is the message, the doctrine, the gospel... the teaching of Christ’s church.  And as Luther wrote, it is the food of the soul unto justification and sanctification.  The food of this Word is ministered through preaching and received as eternal life by hearing with faith.  The food of this Word is ministered through the sacraments and received as grace unto salvation by faith.  The food of this Word is ministered through the shepherding of the flock and received as guidance for the soul through faith.  Everything in the church flows from this Word, Christ crucified and risen, given to his people. And for this spiritual food to benefit the Lord's people it must be faithfully and regularly communicated and fed to them by those called and ordained by the church as ministers of the Word.




XIX. Of the Church.HE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

This Age of the Church...

Timothy 1:13-15...
"though I was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord abounded exceedingly with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.  Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners..."


The above passage written by the Apostle Paul compliments what he wrote in Romans 5:8-10...
"But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.  For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life..."


This tells us that God initiated his mercy and grace toward us while we were yet in sinful unbelief, our natural fallen state.  The amazing act of Divine love through the death and resurrection of Christ brings to us forgiveness of sins and justification of life before God even while we were still enemies.  Yet as Scripture teaches, though now believers justified fully by Christ's merit, we remain sinners in this life (If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us).  This is a reality that we too often seek to diminish and cloud, as if the presence of sin in a believer's life is a problem for God.  Yet the evidence of our lives is that we are still very much fallen.  We still sin... more than any confessions can keep up with.  And we continue all too prone to disbelieve God's much needed grace while vainly looking to our own works and rationalizations; and in so doing deceptively diminishing the acknowledgment of sin in our hearts and  behavior.  This is what sinners do.


Thus this statement by Paul truly is 'worthy of all acceptance' - "Christ came into the world to save sinners."  This 'saving' of sinners isn't just the initial moment of trusting in Christ for forgiveness of sins.  That is our entrance into this grace in our time and space story.  But Christ came into the world "to save sinners" which we still are, though redeemed.  Saving redeemed sinners daily is the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit in this age of the church (much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life...).  God is calling, baptizing, sanctifying, restoring, edifying, and maintaining his saints who yet remain sinners, those set apart unto his great salvation.  


Isn't this indeed the work of God in the age of the church?  Is the present time to be one characterized by that of glory, of heavenly exalted experiences that lift us ever from the sojourn in this fallen world?  No, Christ came to save sinners.  And the work of the Holy Spirit is that of ministering this good news to humble and contrite hearts... sinners ever finding refuge in the one and only place where refuge is to be found in this life... in Christ... in his death and resurrection on our behalf.  As sinners forgiven we then glory in the Christ Jesus' death and resurrection.  As sinners daily washed in his cleansing blood we find increase of faith and trust in His merit alone.  And as sinners given new "right-willed" hearts born of the Spirit we are, with much limitation, putting to death the deeds of the flesh and ceasing from our empty attempts to establish our own merit in this life.  


This age of the church is not spectacular to the outward eye (even as Jesus didn't fit the image of the expected conquering  Messiah).  Yet, actually it really is spectacular when one considers what God is actually doing in the church by his Spirit.  Through the normal, regular means that Christ has given his people... the preaching and teaching of his Word, the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the shepherding of his people by those called, the communion of the saints... the Lord's people are being rooted, grounded and transformed in Christ.  Sinners resting more and more from their works; grace... unmerited favor, continually the heavenly response to those who owning their sinfulness and with repentant and humble hearts look to him for forgiveness and the resulting  increase of thankfulness and obedience through his Spirit.  


Though we are weak as to any godliness of our own, Christ is strong in his righteousness towards us for our sakes.  "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:21)  This is the good news.  This is our daily food in the present age of the church.  And in that day in the age to come it will continue to be our food and our song and our glory in Christ Jesus.