PROTESTANTISM AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM: What's the difference?

Martin Luther and Pope Leo X

R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary Calfinornia, has posted a very helpful chart in two parts (Part 1 and Part 2) answering this question. Enjoy!

FRIDAY EDWARDS EXCERPT: The Vanity of the Philosophers

In "Sermon Twelve" of A History of the Work of Redemption Edwards comments on the intertestamental rise of the Grecian Empire under Alexander. Included in those comments is an evaluation of the ancient Greek philosophers.

These philosophers, many of them, were indeed men of great temporal wisdom, and that which they in general professed chiefly to make their business was to inquire wherein man's chief happiness lay, and the way in which men might come to be happy. They seemed earnestly to busy themselves in this inquiry, and wrote multitudes of books about it, many of which are still extant. And they were exceedingly divided in their opinion about it. There have been reckoned several hundreds of different opinions that they had concerning it. Thus they wearied themselves in vain and wandered in the dark, not having the gloroius gospel to guide [them]. God was pleased to suffer men to do the utmost they could with human wisdom, and to try the extent of their own understandings to find out the way to true happiness, before the true light came to enlighten the world, before he sent the great prophet to lead men in the right way to happiness.

God suffered these great philosophers to try what they could do for above six hundred years together, and then it proved, by the events so long a time together, that all that they could do was in vain; the world not becoming wiser, better, or happier, under their instructions but growing more and more foolish, wicked, and miserable. He suffered their wisdom and philosophy to come to its greatest height before Christ came, that it might be seen fow far reason and philosophy could go in their highest ascent, that the necessity of a divine teacher might appear before Christ came. And then God was pleased to make foolish the wisdom of this world, to show men the folly of their best wisdom by the doctrines of his glorious gospel, which were far above the reach of their philosophy, 1 Cor. 1:19-21 ["I will destroy the wisdom of the wise . . . hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? . . . it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe"] (277-78).

What is remarkable about this entry is that anyone who's read Edwards knows he freely employs the arguments of the ancients at points. Given that fact, it is best to view the above entry not as a questioning of the value of ancient philosophy in general but as a denunciation of the success of philosophy in achieving the ultimate goal of its project: the happiness of humanity. That is an achievement reserved for Christ alone!

JARED NELSON: Why I Cannot Be a Roman Catholic

Jared Nelson has begun a series of posts over at Dead Theologians entitled Why I Cannot Be a Roman Catholic. His first two posts have been excellent. Part 1, subtitled "I believe in the catholic faith," set the stage for the rest of the series with this summary statement:

Paradoxically, my inability to be Catholic depends on my inability to recant the catholic faith.

That's a great line. What a hook! And if that doesn't intrigue you, Part 2 was subtitled "I believe in tradition." Here's an excerpt (after mounting the argument that apostolic doctrine trumps apostolic position or office as evidenced in Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2):

The Protestant case is that of, as Jaroslav Pelikan put it, “obedient rebels.” The Reformation is a question of “catholic substance and protestant principle.” The obedience of the Reformers was to the catholic faith in rebelling against the claim of apostolic authority to invalidate a call to repentance. Peter denied the gospel in deed and then repented. Rome denied the gospel in deed, then invented (or solidified the teaching of) another doctrine of the gospel to validate its deeds.

I encourage you to check out this excellent series. Also see the replies to this post which served to inspire it, so to speak.

WHAT IS CHRISTIAN MATURITY?

This question communicates, I think, a central concern of youth ministry. Over the last year as I have thought more and more about Christian ministry in general and youth ministry in particular this question has been crucial.

A book my friend Brian Hough, youth pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Overland Park, KS, recommended to me was Mark DeVries Family-Based Youth Ministry. After having read and reread DeVries book, I am very impressed by his thesis that effective youth ministry must be integrative. It must help youth understand God's design with respect to their place in their respective communities (i.e. their families, their churches, their specific socio-economic cultures, their broader society, and the world at large) by both sound biblical teaching and actually being active constituents of their families and broader communities. This is the only way maturity can develop. It is the only way youth can begin to make the transition from a childhood faith to an adult faith. DeVries writes:

Jim Rayburn, the founder of Young Life, is frequently quoted as saying, "It's a sin to bore a kid with the gospel." Being, in many ways, a product of Young Life myself, I have a deep appreciation for what Rayburn was getting at: namely, that the traditional structures of the church are often obstacles rather than windows through which we see Christ.

But keeping teenagers from ever being bored in their faith deprives them of the opportunity to develop the discipline and perseverance they need to live the Christian life. Oswald Chambers was right when he said "Drudgery is the touchstone of character." It is precisely in those experiences that teenagers might describe as "boring" that the Christian character is often formed. In that sense, I wonder if it isn't more of a sin to imply to young people by our programming and our style that the Christian life is always fun and never boring.

Christian faith may begin on the mountaintop, but Christian character is formed in the crucible of pain. We should not be shocked, then, to discover the depth of faith maturity among Christians in our country pales in comparison to that of Christians who have lived out their faith under the shadow of persecution.

Mature Christian adults, then, are those people who no longer depend on whistles and bells to motivate them to live out their faith. They have become proactive Christians--not reactive ones. When young people grow up to be reactive Christian adults, they are constantly waiting for someone or something to attract them, to involve them, to impress them. A reactive Christian always puts the responsibility for his or her spiritual life on someone else.

If our programs are training teenagers to be reactive, immature Christians, we can expect those young people will eventually become discouraged by the difficuly and boredom of the Christian life. Could it be that much of our effort in programming and publicity may, in fact, move teens away from , rather than toward, mature Christian adulthood (27-28)?

While I am personally much more positive and appreciative "the traditional structures of the church," not viewing them as obstacles but opportunities for growth, I think DeVries point is very well taken. If we envision youth ministry primarily as entertainment rather than genuine engagement and involvement, we set our youth up for disappointment when they enter adulthood. Ministers would do well to heed DeVries' warning.

DeVries also includes a nice chart (p. 27) comparing the differences between a childish faith and a mature adult faith. Here are a few of those comparisons:

Childhood Faith- Good Christians don't have pain or disappointment.
Mature Adult Faith-God uses our pain and disappointment to make us better.

Childhood Faith- God helps those who help themselves.
Mature Adult Faith- God helps those who admit their own helplessness.

Childhood Faith- Faith will help us always explain what God is doing (things always work out).
Mature Adult Faith- Faith helps us stand under God's sovereignty even when we have no idea what God is doing.

Childhood Faith- The closer we get to God, the more perfect we become.
Mature Adult Faith- The closer we get to God, the more we become aware of our own sinfulness.

Childhood Faith- Mature Christians have answers.
Mature Adult Faith- Mature Christians can wrestle honestly with tough questions because we trust that God has the answers.

Childhood Faith- Good Christians are always strong.
Mature Adult Faith- Our strength is in admitting our weakness.

Childhood Faith- We go to church because our friends are there, we have great leaders, and we get something out of it.
Mature Adult Faith- We go to church because we belong to the body of Christ.

Before having children of my own, I resolved that the one virtue--what St. Augustine regarded as the summary Christian virtue--I wanted to instill in them was humility. As I read through the comparisons above, that is the word that comes to mind. Growth in Christian maturity is a quest for humility. It is learning to evaluate ourselves according to the truth of God's revealed design for us, in whatever station of life we find ourselves, and living according to that good design.

ROME RESPONDS

Yesterday I posted a video clip (originally posted by Reepicheep) of Nancy Pelosi's assertion that the church doctors were indeterminative as to when life begins (which is, by the way, beside the point and, historically speaking, a fundamentally deceptive way to address the question she was asked). Today Mickey Mclean at the World Magazine blog reports that Rome has responded.

Disclaimer: While I believe Roman Catholicism (defined according to its official dogma) is not a Christian church, the right to life issue is an arena in which we should certainly stand together.

Also, see this video clip from John Piper on abortion (HT: JT):

12 QUESTIONS THAT HAVE SHAPED CHURCH HISTORY (7): "How can I be assured of my salvation?"

John Tetzel preaching indulgences in the movie Luther (2003)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation
to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed (Romans 1:16-17a).

[Video clip from the movie Luther (2003). John Tetzel rides into a German town selling indulgences using his signature phrase, “When a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.”]

This scene crystallizes the two major tensions that developed in the west during the medieval period (600-1500) of church history. Teachers debated issues in ecclesiology (i.e. the doctrine of the church) and soteriology (i.e. the doctrine of salvation).

With regard to ecclesiology, the church struggled with its own identity, particularly its theory of authority. Tetzel’s selling of indulgences was part of Rome’s attempt to further solidify the institution of the church as a powerful, authoritative force in Western Europe. The church of Tetzel's day was concerned with gathering money for St. Peter’s Basilica, the largest of all the Roman Catholic sanctuaries, an enduring symbol of papal power and supremacy.

St. Peter's Basilica

With regard to soteriology, there was much confusion in the church. The penitential system prescribed four steps: (1) contrition, (2) confession, (3) satisfaction, and (4) absolution. Contrition was supposed to include a heartfelt sorrow for sin, leading one to confession. Priests would then hear confessions and instruct sinners on what work of satisfaction must be performed. Works of satisfaction included fasting, prayers, giving alms, etc. After the sinner performed the work of satisfaction, the priest could give absolution (i.e. forgiveness) for the sin. Eventually indulgences were included in the penitential system as works of satisfaction. And just as with all works of satisfaction it could only apply to past sins with contrition and confession preceding it in the penitential process. By Luther’s time the doctrine of indulgences was corrupt. Tetzel’s indulgence included forgiveness for not only past but future sins with no requisite contrition or confession.

Thus we see the two major tensions that developed in the church through the medieval period epitomized by Tetzel’s indulgence selling: (1) confusion about church authority and (2) confusion about salvation.

Confusion about Church Authority

In class five (How is the grace of God mediated to his people?) we learned that the early church’s theory of authority was apostolic succession to a plurality of elders. That theory works well until equally credentialed elders contradict one another, and contradictions did eventually come. There were a series of heresies and apologies offered in the early church. Apologies were reinforced through three means: (1) ecumenical creeds, (2) gathering the writings of the Apostles (i.e. the NT canon), and (3) the centralization of authority. In this lesson our focus will be on the third.

The fall of Rome left a power vacuum in the west that was filled by the Roman bishop. The Roman bishopric had always been highly regarded, and in the time of Gregory the Great (540-604) Rome claimed supremacy. The authority of the Roman bishopric grew during the early medieval period (600-1000).

The church divided in the East-West Schism of 1054 due to differences of understanding with respect to church authority (e.g. the filioque controversy). In the late medieval period (1000-1500), with the rise of nation states throughout Europe, the Roman see lost significant authority and was even threatened by secular forces. Rome boldly reasserted and reinforced its authority in the pronouncement of Unam sanctam in 1305, which taught that submission to the pope was necessary for salvation. But papal authority was undermined when the French emperor moved the papacy from Rome to Avignon, France in 1309. In 1377 the papacy returned to Rome with Urban VI, but Avignon, at the risk of losing its newly found significance, installed a rival papacy with Clement VII. This is known as the Papal Schism, Western Schism or Great Schism. Multiple popes claimed supremacy—a Spanish pope was even installed in Pisa for a time—each excommunicating the others. The confusion lasted nearly forty years.

During that time a new movement developed, redefining the nature of ecclesiastical authority. The Conciliar Movement held that in extreme circumstances, such as a Papal Schism, councils of church leaders should meet to elect a new pope and offer a fresh beginning. At the Council of Constance in 1415 they did just that. A new pope was elected. The council's action held, but it created a new set of difficulties.

If councils had the authority to elect popes, who was really supreme? The Conciliar movement ipso facto called the authority of the papacy into question. Added to this confusion was the general trend in secular governmental theory away from a top-down approach and the concurrent socio-economic change marked by the rise of the middle class. Some actively lobbied for the decentralization of power from pope to councils, but the pope put down the movement and re-exerted his supremacy afresh. This is the climate in which the indulgence preacher John Tetzel and the pastor-theologian Martin Luther lived in the early 16th century.

Confusion about Salvation

In class four (What is the moral capability of fallen humanity?) we discussed the Augustinian-Pelagian debates (ca. 400). Augustine taught that fallen humanity had no moral capability to merit the favor of God. God alone was the determinative power in salvation from beginning to end. He prayed, “Lord command what you will and will what you command.” Upon reading Augustine’s prayer, the British monk Pelagius found himself in sharp disagreement. How could God command his creatures to do what they cannot? Pelagius and his followers surmised, “If I ought, then I can.”

Eventually Augustine’s doctrine of grace won the day. Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431). But Augustine’s doctrine of predestination was difficult for many to accept. Elements of Pelagianism remained. Also, Augustine had been a bit confused on the distinction between justification and sanctification. He taught a progressive justification through the infusion of grace, which when divorced from his predestinarianism, proved to further facilitate a reversion toward Pelagianism. What came to be called the “Augustinian” tradition in early medieval thought was really semi-Augustinianism.

Semi-Augustinianism was the teaching of the Synod of Orange (529) in response to the semi-Pelagianism of John Cassian. Cassian proposed a middle way (via media) between Augustinianism and Pelagianism teaching that humanity was neither incapacitated by the Fall nor left wholly able to merit God’s favor. Instead, humanity was weakened in the Fall, but not to such an extent that it was unable to initiate and cooperate with God in salvation. Fallen humanity can do something independently of God’s determinative power to initiate the God-assisted process of salvation. In other words, Cassian fundamentally taught a sort of man-initiated cooperationism or synergism. At the Council of Orange, semi-Pelagianism was condemned and semi-Augustinianism was affirmed. Semi-Ausgustinianism included Augustine’s emphasis on God as the only determinative power in salvation but remained silent with respect to Augustine’s predestinarianism. Here's a summary chart of the controversy in the church over the doctrines of sin and grace:


Semi-Augustnianism continued to be affirmed throughout the early medieval church. But through the teaching of Peter Lombard, the medieval doctrine of salvation began to turn back toward semi-Pelagianism. Lombard stressed the sacramental authority of the church in salvation. Baptism got one to the point of innocence and ability, but from there one’s salvation was dependent on a sincere cooperation with the grace of God dispensed through the sacraments. If one persisted in cooperating with God long enough, he could move progressively closer to a justified state.


By the time of the late medieval period, the church had in effect completely reverted to a semi-Pelagian doctrine of salvation. William of Ockham, Robert Holcot, and Gabriel Biel taught that God gave grace to those who try their best.


While there had been reform movements the late medieval period, none had the impact that would come from the tongue and pen of a relatively insignificant German pastor-theologian named Martin Luther (1483-1546).

The Beginning of the Reformation

Martin Luther

Martin Luther was trained as a lawyer. After law school, he began his clerical career as a monk of the Augustinian order. His early days as a monk might best be described by the word unrest. Like the church of his times he yearned for stability. He struggled with the question, how can I be assured of my salvation?

Luther had a terribly sensitive conscience. He also had a great ability to read, understand, and retain the teachings of Scripture and the church. The combination of those two qualities produced restlessness. He understood the requirement of God (i.e. perfect righteousness) and the solution offered by the church to sinners (i.e. the penitential system). But no matter how hard he tried, he never could manufacture the purity both God and the church required from him for salvation. Luther was once asked, “Don’t you love God?” to which he responded, “Love him? I hate him? Who could love a God in which he can find no mercy?” Luther longed to find rest for his soul.

Luther’s superb abilities were recognized by his order, and he was sent to the University of Wittenberg to earn his doctorate and teach the Bible. Early in his career, while studying the Psalms and the epistles of Paul, he began to see discrepancies between the official church teaching and the biblical teaching on salvation. On October 31, 1517, after witnessing John Tetzel’s indulgence preaching firsthand, he posted his famous 95 Theses on the castle door at Wittenburg, challenging the abuse of indulgences and calling for a public debate. His challenge represents two trends of the times among the church: (1) a growing discontent over the moral corruption of the papacy and (2) a growing confusion on the doctrine of salvation in the church.

Two years after posting the 95 Theses, Luther said he came to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. He was reading Romans 1:16-17. The text reads, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel . . . for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” Luther had always understood the justitia Dei (the righteousness of God) to be his retributive righteousness, his wrath against sin. How could the revelation of God’s wrath against sin be the gospel? Luther said he pounded against Paul trying to understand what he meant. Then it finally came to him. The righteousness of God is not just his wrath against sin; it is also a gift of mercy that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. With that discovery Luther had grasped the biblical teaching of the sovereign grace and mercy of God in salvation, the mediatorial work of Christ on our behalf, and the imputation of righteousness through faith alone. He had returned to a thoroughly Augustinian doctrine of grace minus the problem of progressive justification.

Luther taught and wrote against the church’s teaching. His Address to the German Nobility challenged the authority of the pope to interpret Scripture and asserted the priesthood of all believers. On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church attacks the sacramental system, denies transubstantiation, denies ex opera operato, and asserts that the cup should be given to all who profess faith in Christ. The Freedom of a Christian Man defends liberty of conscience and affirms the centrality and priority of faith in all Christian life and practice. Aided by the newly invented printing press, his books spread quickly. Soon he was called to appear before a representative of the church for judgment.

At the Diet of Worms (1521) Luther was commanded to recant his teachings. He refused. In his refusal we see the transition from medieval thinking on church authority to the Reformation doctrine of Scripture alone (sola Scriptura). When asked how he could teach against 1500 years of church tradition, Luther responded:

Since then your serene majesty and your lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, not embellished: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or clear reason, for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradict themselves, I am bound to the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand. May God help me, Amen.

Notice his appeal to the authority of the Scriptures (sola Scriptura) over tradition and also his appeal to the liberty of conscience.

Perhaps his best work was published in 1525. It was entitled The Bondage of the Will. Here Luther answered the great humanist scholar Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus had written a treatise entitled The Freedom of the Will in which he argued against an Augustinian doctrine of grace and for an understanding of the will in salvation that was very similar to the semi-Pelagian teaching. Luther considered the doctrine of sovereign grace (sola gratia) the central issue on which the Reformation stood. He wrote:

Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability 'free-will' has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God (Bondage of the Will).

Luther was a thoroughgoing Augustinian on the doctrines of sin, grace, and predestination. Why? Because he found those doctrines to be the biblical teaching, and it was in those doctrines that he found rest for his troubled soul.

Final Thoughts

B. B. Warfield once said, “The Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the church” (Calvin and Augustine [Philadelphia, 1956], 322). Two things stand out in Warfield’s statement. First, it is important for us to understand that Medieval thought leading up to the Protestant reformation was primarily driven by the theological genius of St. Augustine. It is not an oversimplification to say that the medieval theology was simply a time of further analyzing and synthesizing Augustine’s thought. Second, theology in the medieval period can be summarily traced along two axes: ecclesiology (i.e. the doctrine of the church) and soteriology (i.e. the doctrine of salvation).

There were really two reformations during Luther's troubled time. What we see in both is a search for rest. We see a search for assurance with respect to one’s relationship to God, a search for an answer to the question, how can I be assured of my salvation?

On the one hand, the Roman Catholic reformers found rest in the institution of the church represented supremely in the papal office. According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, to be rightly related to God is to be rightly related to the church is to be rightly related to the papacy, especially, at the time, on the issue of the Protestant reforms. How can I be assured of my salvation? Roman Catholicism answered “Trust the church!” or more specifically, “Trust the pope!” since, there really was no assurance available by one's faith in God. As Trent said: "No one can know with the certitude of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God" (Canons of Trent, The Sixth Session, Decree on Justification, IX). In other words, trust that the church is right in asserting that there is no assurance to be found; rest in the doctrine that there is no rest for your soul.

On the other hand, the Protestant reformers found rest in the biblical doctrine of the sovereign grace of God in salvation represented supremely in the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide). Lutheran and Reformed confessions of the time offered theological reform and clarification of confused medieval developments. Of particular emphasis were the truly Augustinian doctrines of sin and grace. Accordingly, to be rightly related to God is to trust in the finished work of Christ on our behalf as taught in the gospel of Holy Scripture. How can I be assured of my salvation? Luther and the other Protestant reformers answered "Trust God!" or more specifically, “Trust Christ!”

[All charts from Charts of Reformation and Enligthenment Church History, John D. Hannah]

WHAT SAY YOU POPE?

Reepicheep posted a great question today with respect to this video. He asked: "Where's the Papal Bull when it's actually justified?"

FRIDAY EDWARDS EXCERPT: On Being a Minister of the Gospel

This weekend I had the privilege of traveling to meet a wonderful group of brothers and sisters in Christ, new friends that I pray become old friends in the near future. Our time was extremely well organized and, in my opinion, packed with the kind of sweet conversation that only a genuine love for the church and godly wisdom distilled by the fiery trials of divine providence can produce. But deeply contemplating gospel ministry, what the Puritans called the cure of souls, can be exhausting and sometimes even daunting.

Last night as I prepared for the Lord's Day worship, my soul was weary and thirsty, not because of any burdensome thing but due to the immensity of it all (or was it the Glennfiddich?). So I spent some time before bed drinking from that deep cool spring that still flows from the pen of Jonathan Edwards. The sermon was entitled "Ministers Need the Power of God" (2 Cornithins 4:7, "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.") recently published in The Salvation of Souls: Nine Previously Unpublished Sermons on the Call of the Ministry and the Gospel by Jonathan Edwards. The context in which this particular sermon was written is quite interesting.

Edwards's grandfather and longtime pastor of the church in Northampton, Solomon Stoddard, had just passed away. Stoddard's ministry was considered to have been extraordinarily successful. The 26 year-old Jonathan was chosen to be his successor. There was, of course, uncertainty as to whether God would bless his ministry to the degree he had blessed his grandfather's. Can you imagine the pressure Edwards must have felt succeeding his grandfather, the only minister Northampton had known for the previous 57 years? The editors' introduction says:

Edwards charted a course for his ministry in this sermon in which he addressed the uncertainties. God's Spirit and power had accompanied Stoddard's ministry, Edwards said, and the people should now pray that the same might accompany his own ministry. Edwards's conviction that God, not the minister, determined the success of the ministerial labors was central to his view of the ministry. Edwards saw ministers as "earthen vessels" in the hands of the Almighty, who uses them for his own glory. He asserted that ministers are "utterly insufficient" to carry on the work of God's grace.

As I read Edwards's sermon last night my soul was greatly comforted and refreshed in remembering that ultimately God bears the yoke of ministry. We are earthen vessels. He is the treasure. He is the beautiful one, the beatific vision, that fills the eyes of his faithful children. He is the balm with which souls are cured. Ministers are only able to do their work as they themselves have their eyes filled with divine glory and their hearts saturated with divine love, because God is the one who does the work in his good time. What a wonderfully freeing truth! Praise be to God!

A few passages of Edwards sermon were particularly beautiful to me:

[Ministers] can as soon create a reflection of the sun['s] beams when the sun does not shine as enlighten the soul of man when God does not shine into it. . . .

Surely physicians are, of themselves, none of them able to raise the dead. You may apply what medicines you please to a dead man, you cannot fetch him to life. You may set what food you will before him, it will not nourish him. You may represent what objects you will, he will not see. If you charm in his ears ever so wisely, he will not hear. You can do no good at all to a dead man. Nothing that you do will have influence upon him. So nothing that ministers can do, if God does nothing, can have any influence at all upon the souls of sinners, their conversion or spiritual good. . . .

There are some works that none can do but God, not men nor angels. Such is creation, and such is raising from the dead, and such is the conversion of the soul, which is both a creation and a resurrection. The grace of God is a gift that never any can bestow but God. It is a jewel that God has in his own keeping and never commits to any but his own Son to bestow.

If ministers knew perfectly the circumstances of every soul, knew all his thoughts and workings of his heart, and so knew how to suit the world exactly to his case; if he could set forth the gospel in the most powerful, moving, and convincing manner that the nature of words will allow of, yet if the matter be left there and God does nothing, nothing will be done. The soul will remain dead as before. . . .

[Ministers] should go to Christ, the great Prophet who calls them and sends them forth to labor in his vineyard. They should not depend upon their own parts, or learning, or eloquence, or on the goodness of their preparations, or in the good opinion that men have of them, but their eyes should be to God. They should look to him to bless them in this great work.

But just in case Edwards's hearers began to think that he had succumbed to some sort of antinomian passivism in his doctrine of ministry he writes:

Those that are about to undertake this work should do it with the greatest seriousness and consideration of the vast importance of the work, how great a thing it is to have the care of precious souls committed to them, and with a suitable concern upon their minds, considering the great difficulties, dangers, and temptations that do accompany it. . . .

And [ministers] should beg of God that his Spirit may accompany their administration. If their own abilities and performances are but mean, yet if they have a true love to souls and desire of advancing the kingdom of Christ, God is able to make the weapons of their warfare mighty to the pulling down of strongholds, as he made David that appeared so weak and insufficient a warrior to prevail over Goliath without sword or shield or spear, with only the instruments of a shepherd. . . .

Let us give all the glory to God when there is any success of the Gospel. This is what God designs by giving the treasure to earthen vessels, that we may acknowledge the treasure to be from God and not from the vessel itself, as we should be ready to think if the vessels were golden vessels.

I highly recommend this sermon to anyone either contemplating or involved in ministry. It is a garden of encouragement and challenge rooted in biblical truth.

DR. JOHN FRAME: The Problem of Evil

Today at Between Two Worlds Andy Naselli posted an excellent interview with Dr. John Frame on the problem of evil. If you'd like a quick primer on that complex issue, this would be a good place to start. Here's an excerpt:

As for the intellectual problem of evil, we must point out that the intellect itself is God’s creation, and it must operate according to God’s rules. That is, God himself has the right to govern our epistemology. So if we come up with an argument that questions or denies God’s existence, we subvert the intellect itself. God often asserts his authority when people charge him with evil: see Job 38-42; Matt. 20:13-15; Rom. 9:14-24.

LATES SERMON AUDIO: "Beginning with God"

Yesterday I was privileged to fill the pulpit at Ennis Bible Church in Ennis, TX. Here's the basic sermon info:

Title: "Beginning with God"
Text: Genesis 1:1-4a
Thesis: God fills seemingly insignificant beginnings with good things.
Themes: Divine providence, Divine goodness

I've put a link to the sermon audio in the sidebar under Sermon Audios or you can click here to listen.

DR. NIEL NEILSON ON THE HUMANITIES

Dr. Niel Nielson president of Covenant College posted an excellent article today on the importance of studying the humanities, especially in a culture that has in large part lost sight of humanity's special place in God's good creation. Nielson's article is apropos given the accelerating presidential campaigns of two candidates with widely divergent perspectives on human rights. Here's an excerpt:

In the Greek and Roman eras, the humanities stood against the reduction of the human to the animal, promoting “a rational nature that was assumed to be elevated above and distinct from that of mere animals.” During the Renaissance, the humanities brought renewed attention and delight in things human, not in contrast to the animal but to the divine.

By the 19th century, the emerging mathematical sciences tended “to picture the world and its phenomena ‘objectively’ and mechanistically, without reference to human subjectivity and meaning.” According to McClay, the humanities provided a crucial antidote, viewing the world and human beings very differently and preserving the distinctively human in “what seemed increasingly to be a soulless and materialistic age, dominated by large machines and larger social and economic mechanisms.”

So what is the distinctive challenge of our own age, standing against which we would be much aided by the humanities?

In our own age, the very category of “the human” is itself under attack, as philosophers decry the hierarchical distinction between humans and animals, or humans and nature, and postmodernists of various stripes proclaim the disappearance of the human “subject.”

The attack comes from many quarters and can be seen in a number of developments: human cloning, genetic engineering, species melding, body-parts manufacture, and eco-spiritual views of the earth and its inhabitants.

In the face of such challenges, the humanities are essential in “reminding us that the ancients knew things about humankind that modernity has failed to repeal, even if it has managed to forget them.” The stubborn capacity to understand and express ourselves humanly through the disciplines of the humanities serves to preserve the possibility of remembering and living out our distinctive place in the creation.

THE POWER OF THE DARK SIDE

STAR WARS CLONE WARS

Okay, I know I'm not the only grown-up that morphs into childlike form when he thinks about a galaxy far, far away. The Clone Wars opens tonight. I'm taking my son. Anybody else going? Let me know what you think of it.

FRIDAY EDWARDS EXCERPT: Preaching the Sun

Here are a few samples from what may be the most famous post-apostolic sermons ever preached, Jonathan Edwards's homiletic masterpiece "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Witness the imagery he invokes describing the true condition of an unconverted soul before the Holy God.

A preacher might say something like: "God is just and infinitely wrathful against the unconverted sinner."

Or, like Edwards, he might expand that same basic declaration using visceral images:

So that thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment: the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out; and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of; all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance, of an incensed God.

The preacher might say: "Really, you may not believe me, but you are wicked and in grave danger."

Or he might expand the declaration into images saying:

You probably are not sensible of this; you find you are kept out of hell, but do not see the hand of God in it; but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw his hand, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is suspended in it.

Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descended and plunge into the bottomless gulf; and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock.

A preacher might say, "God's wrath is great and increasing against you!"

Or he could say:

The wrath of God is like great waters that are damned for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. . . .

The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood. . . . [BTW, this is my FAVORITE sentence in this sermon. Terrible, powerful, beautiful!]. . . .

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towrds you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.

A preacher might call out: "Repent!"

Or he might cry:

O sinner! consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep you off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment.

A preacher might proclaim, "Come to Christ! He is your only hope! Trust in him!"

Or he might plead:

And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands calling, and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north, and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and wahsed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful it is to be left behind at such a day! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? . . .

Therefore, let everyone that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of Sodom: "Haste and escape for your lives' look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed."

Tremendous! Notice in particular how, rather than using a lot of adjectives and adverbs to modify and amplify his message, Edwards uses metaphors, images the hearer can see and hear and smell and touch and taste. That is brilliant preaching! Or should I say, That is preaching that breaks through winter clouds like the sun of spring!

[For more info on Edwards use of imagery in "Sinners" see this excellent lecture by Glenn Kreider, Professor of Theological Studies at DTS and Edwards scholar.]

NEW DESPAIR WEAR

Order one here.

THE WORKS OF JONATHAN EDWARDS ONLINE!

Almost two years ago, the guys over at The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University released an initial trial version of Edwards's Works online that included some of The "Miscellanies," sermons, and unclassified documents. The best feature of the electronic version is that it is searchable.

Today Michael McClenahan at the JEC blog announced that a new beta version is about to be released that will include all the published volumes of the Works.

Register on Tuesday August 19, 2008 or later to participate in the Beta testing! The participant with the highest number of suggestions, bug reporting and or user-navigation comments WILL RECEIVE A PRIZE in the form of a book.

Check it out!

Explore the Works of Jonathan Edwards Online 2.0 at http://jec.amindseye.org/ and to register please visit http://jec.amindseye.org/register.

Don't forget to mark your calendar!

DR. MARTIN LUTHER: Professor of Old Testament Studies

Jaroslav Pelikan writes:

It has been ingeniously suggested that if Luther had been a professor at a modern university, he would have to hold the chair of Old Testament, to which he devoted most of his classroom lectures, spending, for example, the final decade of his life on a lengthy exposition of the Book of Genesis. That exposition demonstrated, moreover, that, far from equating the Old Testament with law and the New Testament with gospel, he found the message of the gospel throughout the Scriptures (Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) vol. 4 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, [Chicago: Universtiy of Chicago press, 1984], 169).

CALVIN MILLER ON PREACHING

Ron Williams, Assistant Pastor at PCPC, spent time taking the pastoral interns through a preaching lab this spring. Ron was very helpful. He understands good preaching and has the wisdom to aid young ministers in their pursuit of it. I am thankful for the time Ron invested in me.

At the end of the internship Ron gave us Calvin Miller's new book Preaching: The Art of Narrative Exposition. I finished it a few days ago. While there are some aspects I didn't quite agree with (e.g. Miller's affection for the altar call, his shunning of manuscripting, and his belief that the pulpit is a barrier between preacher and congregation), overall Preaching is excellent. Miller has a wonderfully balanced view of the need for both proposition and story, head and heart, light and heat in every sermon. Bryan Chappel, president of Covenant Theological Seminary and author of Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon, writes:

Calvin Miller understands preaching. He understands that it is about the heart as well as the mind, about the imaginative as well as the rational, about reaching people as well as teaching the Word, about exegeting a culture as well as expounding a text, and about painting an image as well as stating a proposition. Most of all he understands that preaching is a work of the Spirit who will not be harnessed by our conventions, but who will bless those compelled to tell his story with a pastor's care for souls, an apologist's zeal for truth, and a poet's ear for culture's heartbeat. Calvin Miller has long been a poet of preachers; now he comes as a master storyteller to teach us how to tell the gospel to a generation thirsting for narratives to explain our world.

Miller is a pastor, preacher, poet, and professor of homiletics at Beeson Divinity School. Here are a few quotes from his new book:

The homily gains relational force when the sermon is passionate enough to be visceral and story-driven enough to be visual (12).

When so much was lost in Eden . . . when so much of the current world is captive to secular values and philosophies, preaching cannot afford to opt for being cute when it ought to be visceral (13).

We all still long to restore that pure rapport with the Almighty that ended at the apple (13).

Naivete is a wonderful quality: it allows even the least informed to enter every conversation with instant esteem (14). [BTW, Don't I know that!!!]

Commenting on secular culture: "Thus saith the Lord" seems to be a weak way to argue, when everyone believes themselves to be "lords" of their own affairs (14).

Commenting on secular culture: While God is welcome to his own opinions, he is only one voice, and he doesn't get extra points just for being God (15).

Only the truly otherworldly have earned the right to speak of the other world. Faith is the sine qua non of all who preach (29).

The world is tired of hearing pulpit "how-tos" that have arrived to take the place of genuine transcendence. How-tos seem to skate on the wheels of relevance. And no one wants to be accused of irrelevance in the pulpit. But if there really is a heaven and--God forbid--the hell that Jesus so frequently spoke of, never to mention eternity in favor of telling people how to handle their finances or relationships can hardly be called relevant (29).

The preacher is not an answer man. Preachers are God-lovers (30).

We ought never champion psychotics just because they are wild-eyed or otherworldly, but the church should also not be anxious to sanction leaders who have grown too heavy with doubt to dance alive the dead souls to whom they minister (35).

Sermons are food, sheep food, and sheep who are not regularly fed become restless and, in the furthest reach of the metaphor, begin to devour each other's wool. Only the Bible, regularly preached, can stay the wave of malnutrition that in our day leaves the sheep emaciated, wandering from suburban fold to suburban fold, seeking an adequate meal and bleating out their hungry condition (36).

There is no ending to the study that must be done to complete the exegetical work of preaching (42).

Preaching is one beggar telling another where to get bread (45).

God has a word for us, not an opinion. The kingdom of God is not a discussion club (46).

Hell is on the opposite end of the teeter-totter with heaven, and things have gotten so light on the hell end, that the heaven end is flat on the ground and being nibbled at by nuances of all kinds. It was bound to happen. Nearly all great truths are bipolar (in the best sense of the word) and to eliminate one pole is to destroy the other (47).

The key is for the preacher to be committed to the truth that doctrine articulates, and be able to preach it without having to stop to label it (49).

Nothing is worse than a napalm Calvinist, or for that matter an abusive Arminian, who feels like the world needs to be dressed down and whipped into humility (52).

Sermons sincerely preached are the red carpet down which the Spirit strides to make any ordinary day a day of jubilee (56).

Preaching Christ is a matter of getting Jesus across as a worldview (63).

To preach Christ is to place--here and there--within the sermon the preacher's own affirmation of love and respect for Jesus (63).

The best preached sermons don't try to write the Bible on the lives of their hearers, they write their heaerers into the Bible (69).

Spiritual formation is not a destination to which we arrive but a hunger of heart we long to satisfy. I believe preachers have lost a great deal of credibility in the ministry because they project that they are living in a spiritually satidfied state rather than living in a wilderness of hunger for closer intimacy with Christ (75).

Without application there is no sermon. Application is what gets the Sermon off the Mount, and down in the valley where the toilers live out their days (79).

The riskiest single sentence that appears in any sermon is, "Here's what you do with what I've just told you" (80).

Love empowers change, and the preacher who orders change is less effective than those who set forth a gentle counsel of love so that listeners want to change (82).

The best prophets listen before they preach--they reason before they rage. Their ears are always bigger than their mouths (83).

Application works best when what the sermon asks them to do can become an affair of the heart (94).

All application comes to rest on the hearer as one basic conundrum. Shall I be lord of my life or shall I have a Lord for my life? As ludicrous as this sounds, the ego ever seeks the upper hand in all our relationships and is most reluctant to abandon control to anyone, God notwithstanding (95).

Preachers are artists--their sermons are their art. So remember this: if you move too far afield from the lovely image sitting squarely in your soul, what you're bound to preach will be an amateurish, garish piece that will be neither persuasive nor interesting (102).

A great thesis is kindergarten in its clarity and Harvard in its force (107).

Getting ready to preach: this is the mysterious work without any one-two-threes or bulleted how-tos. Reaching the soul of the preacher in preparing to preach is a work more mighty than readying the mind. It is a life absorption in the call to preach, a daily walk, a sensitivity that is not born in a hurried lifestyle or a fit of rapture. It is far more than psyching up the soul. It is a love of God and an unending fascination with what he has made and how gloriously he orders our lives (114).

Preparing the mind and readying the soul are but two sides of the same coin. An unprepared mind has nothing enduring to say. An unprepared soul cannot preach what it has to say in any convincing way (116).

When it comes to adding authority to a sermon, the Bible is the most powerful way to comment on what the Bible has to say (133).

It does amaze me that highly propositional preachers seem not to understand that stories are the stuff of persuasion far more than propositions. Propositions may tell you what you should do, but stories motivate you to want to do them (134).

What you actually get people to visualize will be with them for a while. We do speak with words, but we store in pictures (137).

The sermon has a single point to make and every part of the sermon must play its part in making that point. If the sermon speaks with strength to establish any other argument, that argument must be set forth in some other sermon (163).

There is virtually no Scripture well preached that wants for drama (170).

Sermons should say one thing. The reason that crying "Wolf!" works so well is that it addresses only one danger. Cyring "Wolves and Tigers!" may say that some danger is real, but it is ambiguous and presents an alternative of devils, thereby clouding the issue of which demons are to be most feared (179).

A preacher must learn to handle words and apply them with enchantment and conviction and passion. I am convinced that most preachers cannot arrive at a professional use of rhetoric without developing a love of words (195).

DR. PETER ENNS INTERVIEWED ON PUBLIC RADIO

If you are a minister or ministerial candidate in the PCA and haven't been in a coma over the last year, then you're aware of a debate that has occurred at Westminster Theological Seminary with regard to Dr. Peter Enns' 2005 book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. I read Enns' book this winter and have been following the dialogue in the blogosphere. I have not commented on the various issues the book raises, because, quite honestly, they are very new to me. My first impression, however, has been that good points are being made on both sides of the argument. Nonetheless, I have found it difficult to understand the problem of the Old Testament for Evangelicals as Enns identifies it. It hasn't been my experience that there is such a problem, though obviously my experience is much more truncated than Enns' and the majority of the profs at WTS that voted in support of his teaching.

Today a former WTS Dallas student, PCPC pastoral intern, and colleague Will Nielson posted the audio file of a radio interview Dr. Enns did this morning with WHYY's Marty Moss-Coane. It is interesting listening for anyone who has been following this story.

[HT: NN]

12 QUESTIONS THAT HAVE SHAPED CHURCH HISTORY (5): "How is the grace of God mediated to his people?"

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt 16:18).

Settling into a definition of itself, the early church grappled with two fundamental questions: (1) What is the criterion for church membership? and (2) What is the basis of authority in the church? Answering these questions ultimately led to another summary question: How is the grace of God mediated to his people?

Defining Church Membership

In the apostolic and early post-apostolic period the church understood itself to be the new Israel, the people of God, the gathering of the faithful, the depository of apostolic truth. But amid harsh persecutions, problems arose that ultimately required a more specific definition. Those problems have been called the Novatian and Donatist controversies, named after men who began schismatic movements within the church. The issue at hand for both was church membership.

In A.D. 250 a severe year-long persecution began under the reign of Roman Emperor Decius. Some believers held firm and were martyred while others recanted. When it ended, many who had recanted wanted to rejoin the church. Should they be readmitted? What is the criterion for church membership? Two answers were offered.

The Novatianists taught that the criterion for church membership was ongoing moral purity or holiness. Therefore, those who recanted the faith should not be allowed to rejoin the church (And any others who commit “egregious” sins should draw a suspicious eye as well!).

The chief opponent of the Novatianists was bishop Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258). Cyprian taught, “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the church for his mother” (Unity of the Church 6). In other words, since the church is the depository of apostolic truth (i.e. the home of the gospel), denying readmission to those who have fallen away would condemn them. Therefore, Cyprian argued, those who recanted the faith should be readmitted so that they might be forgiven and once again receive the hope of eternal life. Cyprian taught that church membership was not dependent on moral purity but on professing faith in the gospel.

Fifty years later, in A.D. 303, the Roman Emperor Diocletian issued an edict against the Christians requiring the destruction of all Christian writings, thus releasing a new wave of persecution. Many priests held firm and were martyred, while others surrendered the Scriptures to be burned. When the persecution ended, the ministry of the priests who had surrendered the Scriptures, called the traditores, was questioned. Were baptisms performed by traditores valid? Again, two answers were offered.

The Donatists taught that the ongoing moral purity or holiness of the minister was required in order to validate a baptism he performed. Therefore, if a person was baptized by a minister who at any time surrendered to the threats of persecution, his baptism was invalid. Only the priests who held firm could perform valid baptisms.

St. Augustine argued against the Donatists by teaching that the validity of baptism is not based on the ongoing moral state of the one who administers it but on the faithful testimony of God alone as finally delivered through the person and work of Jesus Christ and the teaching of his Apostles.

Of course, since baptism is the entrance rite of the church, at stake in the Donatist controversy, like the Novatian controversy, was the doctrine of church membership. The Novationists and Donatists taught that ongoing moral purity was a criterion for church membership. Cyprian and Augustine, on the other hand, maintained that the church is the body of people who are connected to the apostolic faith. In other words, church membership is defined by a historical-theological connection to the apostles, not moral purity.



Defining Church Authority

In the early church the rule of multiple elders or bishops over each local body was gradually replaced by the rule of single regional bishops. This move from plurality to singularity was directly linked to problems with the theory of authority in the early church, the theory of apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession taught that authority in the church was derived by a historical-theological connection from teacher to teacher stretching back to the Apostles themselves. How was one to know whether their church was part of the true church? Why should one have confidence that their teacher was teaching the true faith? He should be able to trace a line of teachers from his current teacher back to the Apostles.



The early church theory of apostolic succession has much to commend it. It is simple and emphasizes primary sources. But there is one glaring problem. If three generations down the road you have a multiplicity of teachers who can legitimately claim succession from an Apostle, and yet their teachings contradict one another, what do you do? Who is right? On what basis can you discern the truth?

This problem led to the ecumenical creeds of the early church. It also led to the gathering of the apostolic writings into what would eventually be recognized as the NT canon. The ecumenical creeds and the gathering of the NT canon were both attempts to discern between contradictory teachings from equally credentialed teachers in the early church.

But while creeds and canon provided some relief, the doctrinal unity of the church continued to suffer significant strain. Each major doctrinal controversy was ultimately resolved by a vote. But what if the vote was close? In order to prevent a major schism, the most logical answer to the problem was the centralization of power. If fewer guys get a vote, there’s a greater chance they will vote unanimously. And if fewer is better, then one is best; therefore, the pope.

The Filioque Clause, the East-West Schism, and the Rise of the Roman Papal-Sacramental System

From the beginning the church struggled with several controversies that led to schism. One stands out as a major crossroad in church history, the East-West schism of 1054.

The contributing factors leading to the East-West schism are far too numerous and complex to treat adequately here (or perhaps anywhere). Nonetheless, the major tensions can be simplified into two aspects: (1) geopolitical and (2) doctrinal.

Geopolitical tensions arose with the fall of the Roman Empire (threat from within) beginning in the 5th century and the rise of Islam (threat from without) beginning in the 8th century. With the fall of Rome the empire was split into a Western (Latin) part and an Eastern (Greek) part. It is no coincidence that the future schism would have a similar line of demarcation.

Doctrinal tensions came to a head over one little clause, the filioque, which means "and the Son." Western bishops called a provincial synod that met in Toledo, Spain in 589. They added the phrase “and the Son” (filioque) to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed of 381. Before Toledo, the creed confessed faith in the Holy Spirit “who proceeds from the Father.” After Toledo, the creed confessed faith in the Holy Spirit “who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Since Toledo was not an ecumenical (i.e. universal) council, there was no immediate problem. Then in 867 Roman bishop Nicholas I taught that the Western-originating filioque clause was the true doctrine. Immediately Photius, bishop of the Eastern city of Constantinople, accused him of heresy.



The real issue behind the filioque controversy was the doctrine of authority. Exactly what authority does an ecumenical creed have in the church? Does a provincial synod in the West have the right to add to it? Rome and the West answered yes; the East answered no.

The Roman bishopric had always been highly honored. It was considered to have been established by the Apostle Peter himself, the one to whom Jesus said, “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt 16:18). It was understood that he was the one who had been given the keys to the kingdom. But as Rome gradually claimed more power, the Eastern bishops, who had at first supported Rome’s elevated position, began to react against it. When Pope Leo IX (1002-1054) called for the East to acknowledge his absolute authority over the catholic church and the truth of the filioque, the East refused and schism resulted.

Interestingly, not only did the promotion of the filioque clause in the West represent a power move, but so did an implication of its teaching. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, and Christ gave authority to Peter to be his special vicar on earth, then by proxy the Spirit proceeds from Peter. And if the Roman pope is the successor to Peter, then again by proxy the Spirit proceeds from the pope. This brings us full circle to our original question and the birth of the Roman Catholic sacramental system.

Summary and Conclusion

How is the grace of God mediated to his people? As we have seen amid church membership controversies and the inherent problems with the theory of apostolic succession, the early church confessed that divine grace was mediated through the apostolic teaching (i.e. the gospel) within the church. But in the wake of the filioque controversy, Rome offered a new answer: The grace of God is mediated to his people through the pope. This new hierarchy of mediation gave rise to the Roman Catholic sacramental system in the mid to late Medieval period (1200-1500).



[All charts except "Roman Catholic Hierarchy of Mediation" from Charts of Ancient and Medieval Church History, John D. Hannah]

LATEST SERMON AUDIO: "Who Is Worthy?"

A month ago I was scheduled to fill the pulpit at Ennis Bible Church the first two Sundays of August. I've posted a link to the audio file of this Sunday's sermon in the sidebar (or you can click here). Here's the basic info:

Text: Revelation 5:1-4
Title: "Who Is Worthy?"
Themes: Divine providence, Restoration
Thesis: Jesus Christ alone is worthy to restore the creation through judgment and redemption.

I am grateful to have been invited back to preach next Sunday. May the Lord bless the preaching of his Word.

ESV STUDY BIBLE COMING SOON

The ESV Study Bible is slated to hit the shelves in October. It looks like a great new resource! Reading through the list of contributors, I was thrilled to see it includes an article by Dr. John Hannah, my former historical theology prof. Check out the video clip on the official blog.

[HT: JT]

R. SCOTT CLARK: On Searching for a Pastor

As a young ministerial candidate seeking a call, I have had the opportunity to interact with several pastor search committees over the last few months. Along the way I have been making mental notes like "do that" and "don't do that" in the event that I have the opportunity to counsel a church on searching for a pastor some day. Today R. Scott Clark posted some excellent advice for churches seeking pastors over at the Heidelblog. He begins:

This is a sensitive topic. People don’t always think rationally or biblically or confessionally about the office of pastor. Many folk don’t understand what ministers do and most people who are involved in the pastoral search process are well-meaning but inexperienced. Most congregations only do a search every 7-10 years.

Having been intimately involved in the hiring process I know how difficult it is to find good people for highly responsible positions. Searching to fill a position is difficult even when one knows exactly what the job requires and the qualities for which one is looking. If one is not sure of the sort of person or qualities or even what the job entails, the search becomes considerably more difficult. Add to this mix the fact that, in churches, most searches are conducted by committee and we all know how much more difficult committees can make things. Think of 7 people with seven different sets of criteria and 7 different job descriptions! . . .

You can read the rest of the post here.

JOHN OWEN: On the Importance of the Christian Thought-Life

My friend George Deines recently started a blog dedicated to the study of the great English Puritan pastor-theologian John Owen. Its called John Owen Theology, Writings and Thoughts. His latest post, the second in a series of comments on excerpts from Owen's excellent work The Glory of Christ, is on the importance of one's thought-life. It reads:

Generally, Christ is night to believers and of a ready access; and the principle actings of the life of faith consists in the frequency of our thoughts concerning Him; for hereby Christ lives in us, as He is said to do. This we cannot do unless we have frequent thoughts of Him and converse with Him (Glory of Christ, 89).

How does one know they truly believe in Jesus Christ? One of the primary ways is what Owen mentions here, the thought life of a person. If you want to know how well you are being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, evaluate your thought life. At the end of the day sift through your thoughts for the day. Were they fixed upon the Savior, or frivolous items that have no bearing on eternity? Were they fixed on ways to better glorify God through Christ, or ways to better hide your heinous sins? If I were to tell you my thoughts for the day you’d never come back to this blog because of the wicked sin I produce everyday. The only way to fix that is to mortify the evil thoughts by replacing them with good thoughts on the Savior (vivification).

George and I took Dr. John Hannah's "Readings in John Owen" class together in seminary. We focused on Owen's doctrine of sanctification, reading works like Indwelling Sin, Of Temptation, The Mortification of Sin, and Communion with God. It was excellent! I highly recommend Owen's works. They are deep springs of cool water for thirsty souls. His writing style makes for difficult reading, but the privilege of gleaning from Owen's profound grasp of the human condition makes it well worth the effort. You will not be disappointed.

YOUNG, RESTLESS, REFORMED: Martin Downes' Review

Martin Downes has posted an excellent review of Colin Hansen's new book Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists. I need to read this book. Here's an excerpt from Downes' review:

The book is something of an apologetic for the positive transforming impact of a reformed understanding of salvation. Story after story is given of the humbling, God exalting, missions motivating, church planting, power of God's sovereign grace in the gospel.

Calvinism transforms lives. It is the solid rock on which the suffering saints stand, and it is when these notes are struck again and again that passionate songs of praise pour out from grateful hearts. . . .

The encounter with Calvinism often begins not with Calvin, or Edwards, or Spurgeon but with Moses in Exodus, with Jesus in the gospels, or with Paul's letters. Testimonies are provided throughout the book of young people who encountered Calvinism in the preaching, or the reading, of the Word of God. And they met it when they saw that the things of first importance, and how they impact a life in conversion, are shaped by Reformed adjectives. Depravity is total, grace is irresistible, election is unconditional.

Is there more to Calvinism than this? Of course there is. However, for many who are new to Reformed theology, it is met not in its grand historic vision or presentation (as found in the great churchly statements of the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession) but in relation to the power of God in salvation. This of course is also the common bond between Calvinists who hold to historic Reformed views across the board and those who embrace a Calvinistic view of salvation only.

I think this observation on an emphasis that runs throughout the book explains why this isn't yet your grandfather's Calvinism. There is more to the Reformation heritage, much more, and this needs to find its way into the rest of the story after p. 156. And I'm sure that there is more going on because once you follow the Calvinist trail of literature and history it leads to the rich pastures of the confessions and catechisms, and of covenant theology.