Many there are who cannot see these truths [the doctrines of God's sovereignty], who yet are in a state truly pleasing to God; yea many, at whose feet the best of us may be glad to be found in heaven. It is a great evil, when these doctrines are made a ground of separation one from another, and when the advocates of different systems anathematize each other…In reference to truths which are involved in so much obscurity as those which relate to the sovereignty of God mutual kindness and concession are far better than vehement argumentation and uncharitable discussion.
Charles Simeon
Monthly Archives: May 2007
The Mathers
My reading of The Mathers by Robert Middlekauff, has already shed alot of light on the period and our reformed heritage to my dull mind. Richard Mather has impressed me, so has Increase. But I see something disturbing in the pastoral role of Increase that may be common in our circles:
“He slighted the pastoral functions, visiting the sick and catechizing the young, in favor of studying and preaching.”
Now, this seems a common trap to me: who cares about the “menial” work, the real hero gets in his study 50 hours a week and emerges like Moses from the mount to blast his listeners with heavenly knowledge. Don’t get me wrong, I’m impressed with Increase Mather, but not this aspect of his ministry. And then there’s this:
“For Increase, Christian charity was a limited concept. The ungodly did not excite his sympathy; rather, he felt only revulsion from them, a feeling he expressed in his insistence that good men should avoid them. Necessity, say the demands of one’s particular calling, might lead to some contacts but they should be kept to a minimum. The company a godly man kept constituted a test of his regeneration:…”
What did he make of Christ eating with sinners and tax-collectors I wonder? Maybe Middlekauff isn’t being fair, but I doubt it. The identification of New England as sort of a new Israel, chosen by God, seems to have originated with Increase’s generation. A good read thus far.
Fleming on our attitude
Thomas Fleming writes:
The policies promoted by stupid liberals destroyed marriage, and now another set of stupid liberals want to take the next step. Let them. Let them redefine marriage to cover significant relationships between lesbians and their cocker spaniels. All they will do is to teach Christians and conservatives not to look to the government for moral support. If I were a young “social conservative” contemplating marriage, I think I would forego the usual government dog license and content myself with the vows exchanged in church. These people have nothing to say to us about anything, and I would not believe them if they told me the right time while I was staring at my own watch.
If conservatives could ever get over the idea that they are running the country, if they could wake up to the fact that their enemies are destroying everything good, decent, and true, they might begin to understand that there is no point to compromising with the left. If we are true to our principles, they will attack us, and they will continue to attack until we cry uncle–as most conservatives do, fairly early in the game.
We don�t have to be rude or call them names. We can tell them, ever so politely, that ours is the party of Christ and theirs is the party of Anti-Christ. We create; they destroy; we remember; they forget. We speak truth; they lie–all the time and about everything. Once you are clear in your own mind, you are free to go about your business with the same cheerful spirit as the Christians displayed in the days of Diocletian.
A day in the life
In answer to the question,”How did Calvin spend his days?” one could easily conclude that they were full from early morning long into the night. As the leading pastor in Geneva he had the chief responsibility for the church’s life and organization, but he was also actively engaged in pastoral work. His time was not spent sitting in an office and planning, nor was it devoted to numerous committee assignments. Rather he busied himself with preparation for preaching and teaching, meeting with couples to be married, counseling parents whose children were to be baptized, visiting those who were sick or in some kind of trouble. On the Lord’s Day there was a 6 A.M. service in the summer (7 A.M. in winter), catechism for children at midday, with another sermon at 3 P.M. Most weekdays there was a sermon as well, not to mention the preparation for that message and others to come. He preached steadily through book after book of the Bible. On Sunday mornings the text was from the New Testament, whereas on Sunday afternoons it was often from the Psalms. During the week the text was always from the Old Testament. He expounded books of the Bible, a passage at a time, day after day, until he completed the exposition. This meant that he was forced to deal with the scriptural range of ideas (Parker 1954:82-83).
John Calvin as Pastor John K. Baumann
Ventrella on missions
Jeff Ventrella (one of my elders) writes in the new Chalcedon:
On a global scale, consider the following data: Of these 12 nations (Singapore, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, The United States, The United Kingdom, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, and Brazil), only one of them, Singapore, sends more than one missionary per Christian congregation. The cumulative average ratio of missionaries per congregation for these twelve nations is a deplorable 0.12. Within these twelve countries, thousands of congregations exist. And yet, a covenantal and tangible commitment by the local churches to support live, personally known missionaries is decidedly lacking. Reformed congregations do not fare any better.
For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church includes dozens of congregations, but supports as a denomination only fifteen foreign missionaries. Money follows ministry. If a congregation’s (or denomination’s) heart promotes missiological zeal, then funding to effectuate that zeal will not be lacking. As someone once quipped: “God’s work, done God’s way, will never lack God’s funding.”
It is the Reformed Faith, “Christianity come into its own,” as Warfield remarked, that provides the potent doctrinal foundation that both motivates and sustains missiological efforts. On paper, therefore, the Reformed churches should have the “market cornered” in evangelism and missions. Sadly, they do not. Why?
One reason the gospel is not zealously proclaimed stems from a potent heart problem: the fear of man: “We don’t want to be Arminian;” or, “Door-to-door knocking that’s what those goofy charismatics do;” or, “God is sovereign; He will bring people to our [dead, lifeless, rote, unfriendly, inhospitable, clannish] church in His time, but in secret we hope He doesn’t.” As the Scripture makes plain: “The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe” (Pr. 9:25 ESV). Are we more interested in “Reformedness” than being faithful?
The reality is, as Calvinistic Baptist Ernest Reisigner declared: “The church that does not evangelize will fossilize, that is, dry up and become useless to Christ and the world.” Evangelism and missiological efforts are not somehow antithetical to the robust Calvinism of the Reformed Faith. Just the opposite is true. And, this is especially the case when Calvinism melds with an optimistic eschatology.
To somewhat balance this equation, it should also be noted that in the past decade the OPC’s efforts in supporting church planting “home missionaries” has greatly increased resulting in the establishment of many new congregations. Currently, the OPC supports 34 such “Home Mission” works, many of whom involve my friends and acquaintances. But the central point remains: Are these new congregations now expressing missiological and evangelistic zeal?
Ventrella on praxis
From Jeff Ventrella’s new article:
Recovering a Christendomic consciousness means, among other things, keeping the main thing the main thing. The Scripture’s priorities must be recaptured � in both word and deed, faith and works, doctrine and duty. Many obstacles or constraints impair Christendomic consciousness, even (especially?) among those professing an optimistic eschatology. Here are some suggestions for remedying this situation:
Being Long-Suffering with Our Brothers
2 Timothy 2:22-25 requires servants of the Lord to be gentle, patient, and humble. And the reality is that, according to Christ, love is the mark of the visible church (Jn. 13:34, 35). While differences among brothers are important and ought to be resolved, they are differences among brothers, and should be considered accordingly.
Negating the Cult of Personality
The Reformed often (and rightly) critique Rome’s Papacy. However, splintered Protestantism, including the Reformed, appear to function in terms of many Popes or other Pied Pipers. “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, or Calvin, or Augustine, or Machen, or Clark, or Van Til, or Rushdoony,” or � whomever with a bit of reflection, this list could be greatly extended. The reality is, however, that neither Calvin (nor any other great or not-so-great leader) died for anyone’s sins, and though Christians do and ought to learn with gratitude from those whom God has illumined, a divisive party-spirit has no place in the kingdom. One solution to the party-spirit is to intentionally foster Christendomic consciousness. After all, loyalty is owed exclusively to Christ alone.
Pursuing Biblical Peacemaking
Where schism exists, reconciliation in the gospel should be actively pursued. Jesus makes this point with utmost clarity and urgency: worship itself is secondary where brothers are estranged by personal offense (Mt. 5:23, 24). To be conscious of the covenant requires reality in relationships, especially where conflict exists.
Postmillennialism provides a Biblically tenable basis for hope in God’s future grace. But what must not be forgotten is that God’s decree ordains both the telos as well as the means. Christians must “work out their own salvation,” and this means ethical living by God’s holy standard, that is, theonomically. But note: Paul’s command to do so (Phil. 2:12) is a conclusion he draws after admonishing Christians to embrace a Christendomic consciousness:
Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 2: 3-5, ESV)
Theonomic postmillennialism demands no less.
wise words from C.S. Lewis
“Do ye think so?” said the Teacher with a piercing glance. “It is nearer to such as you than ye think. There have been men before now who got so interested in proving the existence of God that they came to care nothing for God Himself…as if the good Lord had nothing to do but exist! There have been some who were so occupied in spreading Christianity that they never gave a thought to Christ. Man! Ye see it in smaller matters. Did ye never know a lover of books that with all his first editions and signed copies had lost the power to read them? Or an organiser of charities that had lost all love for the poor? It is the subtlest of all the snares.”
C.S. Lewis from The Great Divorce
theonomic fathers
Now the Churches which are multiplying throughout the world are, as it were, sacred seminaries of public instruction, in which this sound morality is inculcated and learned, and in which, above all, men are taught the worship due to the true and faithful God, who not only commands men to attempt, but also gives grace to perform, all those things by which the soul of man is furnished and fitted for fellowship with God, and for dwelling in the eternal heavenly kingdom. For this reason He hath both foretold and commanded the casting down of the images of the many false gods which are in the world. For nothing so effectually renders men depraved in practice, and unfit to be good members of society, as the imitation of such deities as are described and extolled in pagan writings.
–Augustine, Letters 91.3
C. Th. XVI.x.4: It is decreed that in all places and all cities the temples should be closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease from making sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with the avenging sword. And we decree that the property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city, and that rulers of the provinces be punished in the same way, if they neglect to punish such crimes. Constantine and Constans Augusti.
C.Th. XI.vii.13: Let the course of all law suits and all business cease on Sunday, which our fathers have rightly called the Lord’s day, and let no one try to collect either a public or a private debt; and let there be no hearing of disputes by any judges either those required to serve by law or those voluntarily chosen by disputants. And he is to be held not only infamous but sacrilegious who has turned away from the service and observance of holy religion on that day. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius Augusti.
C.Th. XV.v.1: On the Lord’s day, which is the first day of the week, on Christmas, and on the days of Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost, inasmuch as then the [white] garments [of Christians] symbolizing the light of heavenly cleansing bear witness to the new light of holy baptism, at the time also of the suffering of the apostles, the example for all Christians, the pleasures of the theaters and games are to be kept from the people in all cities, and all the thoughts of Christians and believers are to be occupied with the worship of God. And if any are kept from that worship through the madness of Jewish impiety or the error and insanity of foolish paganism, let them know that there is one time for prayer and another for pleasure. And lest anyone should think he is compelled by the honor due to our person, as if by the greater necessity of his imperial office, or that unless he attempted to hold the games in contempt of the religious prohibition, he might offend our serenity in showing less than the usual devotion toward us; let no one doubt that our clemency is revered in the highest degree by humankind when the worship of the whole world is paid to the might and goodness of God. Theodosius Augustus and Caesar Valentinian.
C. Th.XVI.i.2: We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the apostolic teaching and the authority of the gospel. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius Augusti.
C. Th. XVI.v.iii: Whenever there is found a meeting of a mob of Manichaeans, let the leaders be punished with a heavy fine and let those who attended be known as infamous and dishonored, and be shut out from association with men, and let the house and the dwellings where the profane doctrine was taught be seized by the officers of the city. Valentinian and Valens Augusti.
from the Theodosian Code
long post on righteousness
My internet aquintance Jay (not Horne) wrote:
Moore wrote:Righteousness, in the conception of it which Judaism got from the Scriptures, had no suggestion of sinless perfection. Nor are the sins of the righteous all venial ; the gravest moral lapses may befall them, as they did David. What distinguishes the righteous man who has fallen into sin is his repentance — a remedy which God, in knowledge of man’s frailty and foresight of his sin, mercifully created before the world. Paul’s definition of righteousness as perfect conformity to the law of God would never have been conceded by a Jewish opponent, to whom it would have been equivalent to admitting that God had mocked man by offering to him salvation on terms they both knew to be impossible. .
Well, I’m very glad you raise Moore’s work on early Judaism. While many of his conclusions have been shown to be faulty (through no shortcomings of his own-remember, his 3 volumes were published 1927-1930, before the Qumran finds, et al), he is critically important as a corrective to the Reformation conception of Paul and the law. He, Montefiore (1894, 1901, 1914), Schoeps (1961), et al, anticipate in many ways the work of Stendahl (1976), Sanders (1977, 1983), Davies (1984), Dunn (1983) and others. Moore is an indispensable part of the beginnings of the ouster of Luther as the paradigm for Paul.
From Luther and Calvin and subsequent this misunderstanding of Paul, the law, and early Judaism became firmly established. The ensuing history-of-religions and salvation-history models didn’t help matters either. Wellhausen and Noth in OT scholarship and Weber, Sch�rer, Bousset, and through to Bultmann, all helped to entrench the “new paradigm” (which seemed to meet the theological needs of the times, including an occasional overt anti-Semitism [cf. Weber's reliance on Eisenmenger]).
Moore criticized Weber (Bultmann’s influence) for shrouding a “missionary” purpose in the cloak of objective historical analysis of Judaism, that he had imposed Lutheran dogmatics upon the Jewish sources. Yet, the view of Judaism as just another 16th century Catholicism continued; oddly enough Moore was even cited in support of this view, despite his argument against it within the same work cited. Even today, the Lutherist paradigm lives -primarily in dogmatics and popular theology. Of course there is much resistence in Lutheran and Reformed systematics departments. And at the level of the churches it is simply pervasive. “Of course Jews tried to earn their way to heaven by doing good deeds.”
Now, as for the Moore citation:
Righteousness, in the conception of it which Judaism got from the Scriptures, had no suggestion of sinless perfection. Nor are the sins of the righteous all venial ; the gravest moral lapses may befall them, as they did David. What distinguishes the righteous man who has fallen into sin is his repentance — a remedy which God, in knowledge of
man’s frailty and foresight of his sin, mercifully created before the world. Paul’s definition of righteousness as perfect conformity to the law of God would never have been conceded by a Jewish opponent, to whom it would have been equivalent to admitting that God had mocked man by offering to him salvation on terms they both knew to be impossible. . .
I don’t have the context of the citation before me and so it is hard to evaluate exactly his point. (It’s really easy to understand these kinds of things out of their contexts; remember Moore’s own protests for being citing in support of the Lutheran view even though his work was in opposition to it.) But there is some sense to it:
Righteousness, in the conception of it which Judaism got from the Scriptures, had no suggestion of sinless perfection.
Kind of a contemporary dogmatics category still being used. I don’t recall the expression “sinless perfection” ever used in OT or Jewish literature. But in Judaism it was possible to keep the law perfectly, for in the law itself was provision for lapses. The Jew was already “righteous,” just by being a Jew! And the law was the “sign” of that righteous status. They “have” the law. Not only the “sign,” the law was the provision for “maintenance” of that “righteous” status, the sacrifices, etc. The Jew was never “partly righteous.”
It is interesting that Paul does not argue against this. He simply corrects Judaism’s understanding of the identity of “Israel” and the nature of the “law” (which had now been written upon the hearts, as promised in the OT). In Messiah covenant participants are “righteous” (“perfect” — that is, not “partly righteous”). The Spirit is the “sign” that we are members and have (obey) the law. And the law is fulfilled by us in our participation in Him. There is provision for lapses — approaching Him, the final sacrifice!
What distinguishes the righteous man who has fallen into sin is his repentance — a remedy which God, in knowledge of man’s frailty and foresight of his sin, mercifully created before the world.
Sounds fine. Slightly ambiguous — that is, could be read a couple nuanced ways.
Paul’s definition of righteousness as perfect conformity to the law of God would never have been conceded by a Jewish opponent, to whom it would have been equivalent to admitting that God had mocked man by offering to him salvation on terms they both knew to be impossible. . .
This is ambiguous, too. Here is a great example where dogmatics might try to co-opt Moore’s words for their own purposes in maintaining the Lutheran perspective. I’ll just reiterate Moore’s own objection: this does not support the Lutheran view!
The Jews never would have conceived of righteousness (which simply means perfect conformity to the law) as not possible. It was already their status. No concept of “attaining” it; only maintaining it. And, perfect conformity to the law WAS possible BECAUSE in that very law was provision for lapse.
Paul says that for one to be righteous they must “do” the law. And they must do it perfectly. There is no “partial” righteousness in Paul NOR Judaism. All understood that the law must be done perfectly. For Judaism it was by means of sacrifice for lapse. For Paul and his OT sources it was a different way. Abraham is the model, the exemplar of righteousness. Abraham is said to have fulfilled the law perfectly. How? Obedience! And what constitutes obedience? FAITH in Israel’s covenant God, YHWH.
Calvin on judgement
I thought the following comments from Calvin could be applicable to modern day America:
“This verse was intentionally added; for the Israelites were so inflated with their present good fortune, that they laughed at the judgement denounced. They indeed knew that they were well furnished with arms, and men, and money; in short, they thought themselves in every way unassailable. Hence the Prophet declares, that all this could not prevent God from punishing them. “Ye are,” he says, “inflated with pride; ye set up your velour against God, thinking yourselves strong in arms and in power; and because ye are military men, ye think that God can do nothing; and yet your bows cannot restrain his hand from destroying you. But when he says, I will break the bow, he mentions a part for the whole; for under one sort he comprehends every kind of arms. But as to what the Prophet had in view, we see that his only object was to break down their false confidence; for the Israelites thought that they should not be exposed to the destruction which Hosea had predicted; for they were dazzled with their own power, and thought themselves beyond the reach of any danger, while they were so well fortified on every side. Hence the Prophet says, that all their fortresses would be nothing against God; for in that day, when the ripe time for vengeance shall come, the Lord will break all their bows, he will tear in pieces all their arms, and reduce to nothing their power.
We are here warned ever to take heed, lest any thing should lead us to a torpid state when God threatens us. Though we may have strength, though fortune (so to speak) may smile on us, though, in a word, the whole world should combine to secure our safety, yet there is no reason why we should felicitate ourselves, when God declares himself opposed to and angry with us. Why so? Because, as he can preserve us when unarmed whenever he pleases, so he can spoil us of all our arms, and reduce our power to nothing. Let this verse then come to our minds whenever God terrifies us by his threatening; and what it teaches us is, that he can take away all the defences in which we vainly trust.”
