The Early Church Fathers & Calvinism

Were the Early Church Fathers Calvinists? – A Brief Reply to Dr. Fernandes

by Austin Brown on August 5, 2011

In a recent debate over the five points of Calvinism, Dr. Fernandes said the following:
“Another problem for Calvinism: No one held the Calvinist view of predestination until Augustine.  If the apostles taught Calvinism, then they apparently didn’t consider it important enough to convey this doctrine to their successors.  Until Augustine embraced unconditional predestination in about 380 AD, we know of no church father who was a Calvinist.”

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard an Arminian make this claim.  And I don’t suppose it will be the last.  Regardless, what should we make of the statement?  Is it true?  Was there not one poor Calvinist running around Macedonia or Italy in the days before Augustine, the first *gasp* Calvinist?

The frustrating thing about this claim is the manner in which it is framed.  If anyone has read through the apostolic fathers, for example, they’ll know that they simply weren’t concerned with expounding the doctrines of sovereign grace, or nearly any other doctrine for that matter!  They wrote letters, not systematic theologies.  They were dealing with false teachers and persecution.  They were trying to survive.  And since the early false teachers weren’t distant cousins of a guy by the name of Pelagius, the issue wasn’t a matter of great concern.  So no, the apostolic fathers weren’t running around with tulips for bookmarks.

That being said, what did they say?  During one my reads through the apostolic fathers, I marked every location that touched on the sovereignty of God, at least in an overt way.  If I have missed one, please let me know.  I likewise kept an eye out for “Arminian” proof texts.  But in all honesty, I’m not aware of any distinctly Arminian statements.  Again, if someone thinks otherwise, please let me know.  At the end of the day, I think you’ll find that while the apostolic fathers didn’t articulate a robust view of the doctrine of unconditional election (either for or against!), they nevertheless held to a very high view of the sovereignty of God, which, of course, provides the necessary substructure for the doctrine.

Want to see what I found?  The following quotes are taken from “The Apostolic Fathers,” second edition, edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes.

1 Clement
1 Clement 0.0, “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns at Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ…”
A potentially (it’s a LONG stretch) synergistic statement, 7.5, “Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn that from generation to generation the Master has given an opportunity for repentance to those who desire to turn to him.”
21.9, “For he is the searcher of thoughts and desires; his breath is in us, and when he so desires, he will take it away.”
27.4-5, “By his majestic word he established the universe, and by a word he can destroy it. “Who will say to him, ‘What have you done?’ Or who will resist the might of his strength?”  He will do all things when he will and as he wills, and none of those things decreed by him will fail.”

Ignatius to the Ephesians
0.0, “Ignatius… to the church at Ephesus in Asia, blessed with greatness through the fullness of God the Father, predestined before the ages for lasting and unchangeable glory forever, united and elect through genuine suffering by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God…”

To the Smyrnaeans
4.1b, “But I am guarding you in advance against wild beasts in human form- men whom you must not only not welcome but, if possible, not even meet.  Nevertheless, do pray for them, if somehow they might repent, difficult though it may be.  But Jesus Christ, our true life, has power over this.”

The Didache
3.10, “Accept as good the things that happen to you, knowing that nothing transpires apart from God.”

Barnabas
(This isn’t a copy error) 19.6b, “Accept as good the things that happen to you, knowing that nothing transpires apart from God.”

The Epistle to Diognetus
5.4, [speaking of Christians] “But while they live in both Greek and barbarian cities, as each one’s lot was cast, and follow the local customs in dress and food…”

9.1, “So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his Child, he permitted us during the former time to be carried away by undisciplined impulses as we desired, led astray by pleasures and lusts, not at all because he took delight in our sins, but because he was patient; not because he approved of that former season of unrighteousness, but because he was creating the present season of righteousness, in order that we who in the former time were convicted by our own deeds as unworthy and, having clearly demonstrated our inability to enter the kingdom of God on our own, might be enabled to do so by God’s power.”

[There are several statements to effect of our needing to persevere in order to obtain the promises, but I won’t reproduce them here.  Any Calvinist worth his salt believes that every Christian must continue in the faith.]

The Modern “Evangelical” Version of the Nicene Creed

Warning! Satire below:

I sort of believe in one God, The father, powerful over only all the good things,

Who stood by and allowed the heaven and earth to take its natural course

And our friend Jesus Christ, the Son

Who is really just the same thing as the Father,

By whom some things were made, but the Father really did all that.

Who for ALL men and for every single person who ever existed or will exists salvation came down,

Who didn’t rely on the Holy Ghost, born of some woman only Catholics talk about.

And looked like a man but was really only God.

Was crucified and did that thing we only talk about on Easter.

He didn’t really suffer because he was God and was buried,

He rose again in accordance with only the New Testament

He lives in our hearts,

And He became an ethereal spirit in heaven,

He shall come again and only judge unbelievers.

Whose kingdom doesn’t really matter right now.

People might think I’m Charismatic, so I never talk about the Holy Ghost,

Who is just some general feeling,

I don’t know where he comes from,

Who we don’t ever worship or glorify.

Who completely overcame the mind of the writers of scripture. (Especially the New Testament)

I believe in my, understandably flawed, local, and culturally relevant church.

I know we do baptism but it doesn’t really mean anything.

I look for God to make me happy and give me the job I want.

And a happy life now.

Institutes 12

Blog 22: 1.13.8 - 1.13.12

Posted by Rick Phillips

 

In these sections, Calvin proves the deity of Christ over against those who would deny it.  The argument here provides a good instance of Calvin's proof-texting.  We generally hear of proof-texts only in negative terms today.  But Calvin's approach reminds us that where verses from Scripture can be brought forth that truly do demand the doctrine at hand, then this kind of proof-texting is not only wholesome but also necessary.  It is with proof-texts that Calvin would answer heretics like Servetus (mentioned here in the Institutes for the first time).  

Calvin's argument for Christ's deity is both robust and edifying.  He first argues the eternity of Christ as He is named the Word who was with God in the beginning.  This is followed by a section on texts from the Old Testament and then by a section on texts from the New Testament.  In treating the Old Testament, Calvin focuses on how Christ is both named with divine titles and also how Christ fulfills prophecies that were made with respect to God.  It would be good if we all knew these verses so as to demonstrate from the Old Testament the deity of Jesus.  In the New Testament, Calvin shows how the apostles cite Christ as fulfilling prophecies pertaining directly to God and also how Jesus is specifically identified as God.  Moreover, Jesus' works are specifically cited as being the works of God, especially as Christ forgives sins, which even the Pharisees agree can only be done by God.
I particularly enjoyed Calvin's argument from the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament (1.13.10).  Most scholars today speak in only tentative terms in identifying the angel of the Lord as the Second Person of the Trinity.  Calvin has no such reservations at all and persuasively argues this point, which I have been persuaded of for a long time. 

Institutes 11

Blog 21: 1.13.4 - 1.13. 7

Posted by Rick Phillips

 

Having defended the use of technical theological language as an aid to our understanding of Scriptural doctrines like the Trinity, Calvin in 1.13.4 argues that accurate theological terminology helps us to "unmask false teachers."  Precise terminology nails us down as to what we are really saying, with the effect that false teachers are unable to "evade [truth] by their shifts."  In characteristically colorful language, Calvin points out that "these slippery snakes glide away unless they are boldly pursued, caught, and crushed."  Calvin could hardly speak in a more timely way for us, since false teachers today hate nothing more than the confessional theology of the church.  Why?  Because it requires them to state their teachings plainly, affirming or denying clear propositions.  Calvin points out that it was only this approach that enabled the early church to nail down the evasions of Arius and defeat his heresy.  Despite the complaints that such an approach enshrines human formulas over God's Word, the reality is that only by means of clear confessional theology is the church able to defend the truth of Scripture.

Calvin then cautions lest we should be overly devoted to mere words, when it is the truth of the ideas that really matters.  Terminology must be a servant of truth, never the master.  Thus, in 1.13.5, Calvin relates how numerous orthodox theologians of the early church wrestled in their varied approach to terminology, but who because of the orthodoxy of their ideas were able to come to eventual accord.  Remembering that our definitions are more apt for guarding against error than in containing all truth, we avoid a wrongly severity in our devotion to terminology.  Everyone who engages in theological dispute should be obliged to read this paragraph of Calvin's for the wealth of wisdom it contains. 
Calvin then, in 1.13.6, specifies his own terminology in treating the Trinity, informing us that for him "subsistence" correlates to the three divine Persons, while "essence" refers to the one divine "being".  Each subsistence (person) shares the same essence (being), while possessing individual qualities that differentiates itself from the other subsistences.  Thus the word "God" is applied equally to all three persons of the Godhead, while each of the persons is distinctively and uniquely Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. 

Turning to focus on the eternal deity of the Son in 1.13.7, Calvin begins by appeal to John's description of God the Son as "the Word" in John 1:1-3.  Since Genesis 1 tells us that God created all things by his Word, and since John tells us that that divine Word in creation was personified in God's Son, we must therefore agree that Christ is coequal with God in eternity and divinity.  Here we see Calvin practicing the very procedure he earlier applauded: sorting carefully through the Scriptural data so as to detect theological statements that can properly affirm truth.

I love the BBC, but their liberal lies clouded the truth in the Biblical texts

Challenging the BBC’s Higher Critics Misuse of Codex Sinaiticus

In the conversation that has recently erupted regarding the authenticity and reliability of Codex Sinaiticus, a concern has been raised regarding how higher critics, particularly those featured in a recent BBC documentary, are using this manuscript in order to cast theological doubt on such core Christian doctrines as Christ’s deity and his resurrection appearances. The fear expressed by some, who cannot read Sinaiticus, is that because these Higher Critics point to particular features of the codex as alleged proof to support their hypercritical views of the New Testament, the manuscript itself is corrupted and that it is not only unwise to base any modern translations on its text, it is probably harmful to Christian orthodoxy to do so.
As someone who has a degree in Biblical languages, has been reading the Greek New Testament for 25 years and is capable of reading Codex Sinaiticus, I will demonstrate that it is not Sinaiticus that is to blame for the fear and confusion that is being spread. Instead, the real culprits, as you will soon see, are the faulty logic and selective (mis)quoting of the codex by the BBC’s higher critics.
What the BBC’s Higher Critics Said About Sinaiticus
In order to bring you up to speed, it is necessary for you to watch the BBC’s short discussion of Codex Sinaiticus. To help facilitate that, I’ve embeded the video below.

 Link to You Tube Video from the BBC!!!

Note: I’ve already addressed the issue of the nature of the textual variants / corrections in Codex Sinaiticus on the September 9th, 2013 episode of my radio program. You can listen to it by clicking here.

In this article I will answer the question, “Does Codex Sinaiticus Teach that Jesus Wasn’t the Son of God Until He Was Baptized?"


In my follow up article I will answer the question, “Does Codex Sinaiticus Deny That Jesus Rose Bodily From the Grave by Omitting the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus?”
Does Codex Sinaiticus Teach that Jesus Wasn’t the Son of God Until He Was Baptized?
Here’s the relevant quote from the BBC’s documentary that I will be focused on in this article:

“Today’s Mark begins with “Jesus Christ the Son of God”. But, the Original Codex Sinaiticus didn’t have “Son of God”. Someone added it later... This is highly significant because in the earlier version Jesus became divine only after his baptism by John the Baptist. The edited insertion makes Jesus divine at birth. Some 19th century readers would have been shocked that Mark did not share that belief.”

Is it true that Codex Sinaiticus’ version of Mark omits the words “Son of God” and that because of that Mark didn’t believe Jesus was divine at birth?
The claim put forward by the higher critics featured in the BBC’s documentary is a classic example of a tiny bit of truth being mixed with some huge inaccuracies.
It is true that within the main body of the text of Codex Sinaiticus that the words “Son of God” are omitted in Mark 1:1. It is also true that there is a correction within the text that re-inserts the words “Son of God”. This is a well known variant within the text of Sinaiticus. What is patently false and scholastically indefensible is the outrageous conclusion that Mark didn’t believe Jesus was divine until his baptism. This is a criminal twisting of facts intentionally designed to prop up the preposterous claim that the early Christians didn’t believe Jesus was divine until his baptism. The odd thing is that the BBC’s higher critics are trying to make Codex Sinaiticus an accomplice to their crime. As you will see, Codex Sinaiticus doesn’t bend to their will and clearly reveals that the earliest Christians believed and taught that Jesus is the eternal Son of God.
How to Properly Understand Sinaiticus’ Variant at Mark 1:1
Here is a photo of the opening verses from the Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus:
Why were the words “Son of God” originally omitted then re-inserted in a correction between lines one and two of the manuscript?
The late Bruce Metzger, who was a formidable textual scholar and wasn’t known for being a conservative fundamentalist, wrote about this variant and offered two plausible explanations. Said Metzger:



“The absence of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in א (Sinaticus)...may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the nomina sacra. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed) to expand titles and quasi-titles of books.”¹

Metzger believed the original omission was either due to a simple common scribal error or that the copy of the New Testament the scribe(s) who penned Sinaiticus were working from didn’t have the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Son of God). If the text the scribe(s) were working from didn't contain the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ, Metzger knew that there was no theological significance that could be gleaned from the omission due to the fact the first line of most ancient manuscripts oftentimes functioned as the title of that work. Therefore, Metzger knew that whether or not the original Gospel of Mark contained the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Son of God) in its title, no honest scholar could claim that Mark believed that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God until his baptism because the actual body of the Gospel of Mark doesn’t begin until verse two. The BBC’s higher critics either knew this fact and purposely failed to mention it or weren’t aware of this fact and are not real paleographic scholars.
Did Bruce Metzger believe that the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Son of God) existed in the original title of the Gospel of Mark? Here’s what he wrote:

“Since the combination of D (Codex Vaticanus) D (Codex Bezae) W (Codex Washingtonianus) al (other witnesses) in support of υἱοῦ θεοῦ is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether.”²

Metzger wasn’t comfortable removing the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Son of God) from the title of the Gospel of Mark because the evidence for it is, in his words, “extremely strong”. Some of our earliest and best manuscripts, most notably Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae, and Codex Washingtonianus all contain υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1.
The other reason Metzger wasn’t comfortable removing the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Son of God) from the title of the Gospel of Mark is because he knew that it was possible that the omission was due to a common scribal error know as, homeoteleuton. This error of omission occurs when a scribe paused, then resumed writing but skipped ahead because of the similarity of the endings of lines or words, thus leaving out a passage or small segment of a text.
A simple comparison of Sinaticus and Vaticanus will demonstrate how easy it would have been to make this error.
Below is a computerized rendition of Mark 1:1-2a from Codex Vaticanus:
Now, compare this with a computerized rendition of the same text from Sinaticus:
Notice that line two in Sinaticus has far fewer letters when compared to the same line in Vaticanus. If Metzger’s explanation is correct, the scribe who penned Sinaticus was working with a text similar to Vaticanus and accidentally did not resume where he left off and inadvertently skipped two words.
This explanation for the omission also means that it is possible that the correction in Sinaticus at Mark 1:1 could have been made by the original scribe after he noticed his mistake. There is no valid reason to conclude that the correction was inserted for theological reasons such as exalting Jesus from being a mere man to being the divine Son of God. That wouldn’t be necessary because, as you are about to see the text of Sinaticus clearly affirms Jesus’ deity throughout its leafs. There would be no reason whatsoever, therefore, to engage in theological editing of that sort.
A Survey of the Texts Supporting the Deity of Christ Taken From Codex Sinaticus
Mark 1:11
I will begin our survey of Sinaiticus by looking at Mark 1:11, the verse that the BBC's higher critics assert teaches that Jesus became divine at his Baptism. Here is the text of Sinaiticus:

The Greek text reads: και φωνη [εγενετο] εκ τω ουνων συ ει ο υς μου ο αγαπητος
My translation: and a voice [came] out of heaven, "You ARE my son, the beloved"
The verb in this sentence, ει, is the 2nd person singular present active indicative form of the verb ειμι (to be). If, as the BBC's higher critics claim, this text were saying that when Jesus was baptized He became the Son of God then the text would not use ειμι it would instead use the verb γινομαι (to become). Rather than saying,

σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (you ARE my son, the beloved)

the text would instead need to say say,

σὺ γεγόνας ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (you HAVE BECOME my son, the beloved).

But the text of Sinaiticus at Mark 1:11 does not have γεγόνας it has ει. This proves that the BBC's higher critics are not conveying accurate information about what this text says. Mark 1:11 in Sinaiticus, rather than teaching that Jesus became divine at his baptism actually affirms that Jesus was already divine at his birth!
John 1:1
There is no clearer passage in the New Testament that teaches that Jesus is the eternal divine Son of God than John 1:1. Does Codex Sinaiticus' rendering of this text confirm or deny the eternal divinity of Jesus? Let's take a look.

The Greek text reads: εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θν και θς ην ο λογος
My translation: In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and God was the word.
I'm sure that this passage must prove to be an major embarrassment to the BBC's higher critics because the text of Sinaiticus so clearly and unambiguously teaches that Jesus was already God at the beginning of beginnings.
Philippians 2:5-8
Philippians 2:5-8 is another one of the clearest passages that teach that Jesus was divine prior to the incarnation. Do you think Sinaiticus affirms or denies Jesus pre-incarnate deity? Here's the text.

The Greek text reads: τουτο [γαρ] φρονειτε εν υμιν ο και εν χω ιυ ος εν μορφη θυ ϋπαρχω ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ϊσα θω αλλα εαυτον εκενωσεν μορφη δουλου λαβων εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων γενομενος και σχηματι ευρεθεις ως ανθρωπος εταπινωσεν εαυ τον γενομενος ϋπηκοος μεχρι θανατου θανατου δε του σταυρου.
My translation: Have this mind in ya'll which is in Christ Jesus, who being by nature God did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped. But emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men and being found in the form of a man he humbled himself becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
In this passage, Sinaiticus clearly affirms that Jesus is by His very nature, God and was God prior to His incarnation. If the story that the BBC's scholars are feeding us were true then we'd expect to see all sorts of corrections and redactions in this text. But, we don't. Why? Because the BBC's higher critics aren't telling us the truth.
Conclusion
I could cite many more examples from Codex Sinaiticus that demonstrates that this manuscript clearly and unambiguously affirms Christ's divinity. However, the texts that I've already covered are enough to debunk the claim's being made by the BBC's higher critics. Their story is a liberal fiction and the text of Codex Sinaiticus itself, proves it.
Rather than reject Sinaiticus, Christians would be wise to learn how to use Sinaiticus to reject the outlandish and absurd claims of liberal higher critics.
What do you think?
χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη σοι,

Documenting James MacDonald's fall from Leader to Apostate...one step at a time

Former Elders Scott Phelps and Barry Slabaugh are publicly ex-communicated by HBC and release a statement.

Posted on September 15, 2013 by theelephantsdebt

On June 22, 2013, The Elephant’s Debt issued an update informing you that three HBC elders (Dan Marquardt, Scott Phelps and Barry Slabaugh) had resigned from the elder board.  Subsequent to that post, we then released a copy of Marquardt’s resignation letteras well as three other documents that all pertained to his resignation.
Now, as of late last week, we came into possession of a new document, which has been authored by Scott Phelps and Barry Slabaugh.  It was our intention to publish the original piece on Monday morning.  However, events have unfolded quickly; and we now have additional information to report.
After sending a brief letter in which Phelps and Slabaugh offered their public support of Marquardt to the Elephant’s Debt, Scott Phelps sent a text to Robert Jones, the Chairman of the Harvest Elder Board.  His text reads as follows:

“Robert, as a courtesy, I want you to know that Barry and I have made a public statement indicating our full support and agreement with Dan.  We have attempted to speak with grace and truth.  I expect that our statement will be posted shortly.  – Scott”

Subsequent to that, Robert Jones called Phelps and they had what Phelps describes as a “candid conversation.”  The next morning, the elders of Harvest met in an emergency meeting and made a decision to place Phelps and Slabaugh (but, interestingly, not Marquardt) under public church discipline.  A letter, which can be found here, was delivered to Phelps and Slabaugh on Saturday.  Then, beginning on Saturday night, a video, which can be found here,  was shown to the congregation in which James MacDonald and four other elders explained to the church why these two former elders were being placed under “discipline.”
Very significantly, the video begins with James MacDonald asserting that when local elders speak with a unified voice, they speak for God:

I just want to remind you that God has entrusted spiritual authority to the local church.  And every local church has an authority under God.  We believe that the Bible teaches that the authority is invested in the elders.  And when the elders speak collectively, in agreement, the elders speak for God to our church.

Following this theologically misguided introduction, elders Paul Inserra, Steve Huston, Randy Williams and Jamie Harrison then speak for five minutes on the subject of Phelps and Slabaugh.  According to these elders, Phelps and Slabaugh are “working to destroy” James MacDonald by “sowing discord” and “creating division.”  Furthermore:

“… if these men would express even a fraction of the constant and ongoing grace and humility that we see so frequently in our pastor, they could move beyond their bitterness to healing.”

Phelps and Slabaugh are then charged with “defiling many people,” before they are labeled as having a “spirit of superiority and self-righteousness.”  Finally, in a rhetorically shocking move, Steve Huston, argues that Phelps and Slabaugh’s decision to publish a letter on The Elephant’s Debt is “Satanic to the core.”  What must be noted here and recalled with absolute clarity is that per MacDonald’s admonition, when the elders speak, God Himself is speaking.  So God Himself has declared that these men are “Satanic to the core” for their decision to publish a letter on The Elephant’s Debt.
Near the end of the video, the congregation is informed that Phelps and Slabuagh are no longer allowed to worship at HBC until they publicly repent.  Furthermore, the congregation is strongly advised to avoid any and all contact with these two men until such time as they might turn from their “sin.”
Interestingly enough, Harvest’s reaction may have been predicated upon a simple misunderstanding.  The original letter, received by the Elephant’s Debt, did not contain a 13-point list of accusations against MacDonald and his character.  Rather, as Phelps said to Robert Jones in his text, the original letter he and Slabuagh sent to us was merely in support of Dan Marquardt and sought to keep things very general.  The original letter is very similar in nature to the revised letter on this site.  And, if anything, it is gentler and more gracious in tone.  Moreover, with the revised letter that he has submitted to this website, we see a fuller picture of what actually occurred.
At the same time that Phelps and Slabaugh sent their original letter to us, another letter was was sent to Harvest.  This letter, which Phelps claims is written by eight former elders, was a private letter addressed solely to the Harvest Bible Chapel Elder Board.  This letter did in fact contain thirteen specific concerns pertaining to MacDonald and his ministry.  This letter has never been sent to The Elephant’s Debt; and it is only because Harvest has now publicly acknowledged it that the congregation is aware that eight former elders are speaking with a unified voice.   If, at some point, these elders wish to make this letter known to the whole church, we will publish it for your consideration.  Until such time, we leave you with Phelps and Slabaugh’s revised letter that now details some of this unfolding story.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On June 18, 2013, along with Dan Marquardt, we brought several concerns to the Elder Board of Harvest Bible Chapel, in keeping with the biblical requirement of two or three witnesses.  This fundamental principle requiring the verification of testimony is taught by Moses, (Dt 19.15), Jesus (Mt 18.16), and Paul (2 Ct 13.1, 1 Tm 5.19).
With Dan’s resignation letter now made public, we recognize our obligation to corroborate his testimony in accordance with this biblical principle.  We now come forward to verify Dan’s statements.  Dan Marquardt is a godly man of integrity and character and he has provided a truthful account of the events he records in their proper context.  We share his concerns and the three of us are in complete agreement on these matters.  (Scott was not present for the January, 2013 meeting at which the budget was approved, however Barry and Dan were present and so provide the two witnesses necessary.)
It has only been our intention to fulfill our responsibilities as elders according to Scripture, ever mindful that we are ultimately accountable to Christ alone (2 Ct 5.10).  We have prayerfully and consistently sought the good of our pastor, the good of our church, and most importantly, the glory of God.  We continue to pray for Harvest to these ends.
We have not been eager to bring these matters forward and have remained silent until now.   However, since our resignations we have heard from many members as well as former members, elders and staff.  The consistency of these testimonies we have heard has only bolstered our concerns.
We three have been engaged in a struggle with Harvest leadership for nearly a year in seeking to fulfill our responsibilities as elders to address consequential matters, many of which are detailed on this site.   Until now, we have not said anything publicly.  We have not posted on any website, or Facebook, nor have we sent out a single tweet about these matters.  Our goal has been to challenge the elders and work for reform in a God-honoring way, keeping these matters private.
We have maintained close communication with the elder board chairman through all of this.  So, having written the above statement in support of Dan, Scott sent the following text to the elder chairman on Friday, September 13th:  “Robert, as a courtesy, I want you to know that Barry and I have made a public statement indicating our full support and agreement with Dan.  We have attempted to speak with grace and truth.  I expect that our statement will be posted shortly.  – Scott”
His text response was:  “Thanks for the heads up.  I’m traveling on business…will call in 3 min.”  He called.  We talked.  Cordial and candid as always.
In addition to making the brief public statement above in support for our friend, we also felt it necessary to send a private letter to the elders.   Eight of us former elders, including the former chairman of the board, drafted a strong private letter of concern to the elders.  We want to emphasize that this was a private letter sent only to the elders.  The existence of this letter has only become known because the elders announced it to the church during the weekend worship services.   This letter was never intended to be made known.
On the weekend of September 14^th & 15^th, we were publicly rebuked by name, in all services on all seven campuses.  This rebuke was then posted on the Harvest website.
Through all of this, we trust that God is in control.  We are not bitter or vindictive.  We pray that the leadership of the church will address the concerns that we have brought to their attention in our private letter, as well as many of the issues that have been raised on this website.
For the Glory of God,
Scott Phelps & Barry Slabaugh  – Psalm 27.4-5.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Editor’s Note:  Finally, we wish to inform you that Scott Bryant attended Harvest Bible Chapel – Crystal Lake on the morning of 15 September 2013.  He was a quiet participant through the service; and had attended solely for the purpose of confirming the Phelps/Slabaugh discipline statement first hand so that The Elephant’s Debt did not inaccurately portray what had been said via video.  After the service, Greg Bradshaw, Campus Pastor of Crystal Lake, confronted this author in the lobby of the church.  After chastising this author for failing to bring his Bible to church, Mr. Bradshaw informed this author that he was not welcome to attend services at Harvest until such time that he would publicly repent of his “gross, sinful behavior.”  This is the first time that this author has been informed that he is not allowed to attend the church; and thus, it should be noted publicly that he was not acting in violation of previous church mandates.  In point of fact, no leader of Harvest has ever contacted either author of TED following its publication in October 2012.

Al Mohler

Preaching with Authority: Three Characteristics of Expository Preaching

Friday • September 6, 2013

Authentic expository preaching is marked by three distinct characteristics: authority, reverence, and centrality. Expository preaching is authoritative because it stands upon the very authority of the Bible as the word of God. Such preaching requires and reinforces a sense of reverent expectation on the part of God’s people. Finally, expository preaching demands the central place in Christian worship and is respected as the event through which the living God speaks to his people.

A keen analysis of our contemporary age comes from sociologist Richard Sennett of New York University. Sennett notes that in times past a major anxiety of most persons was loss of governing authority. Now, the tables have been turned, and modern persons are anxious about any authority over them: “We have come to fear the influence of authority as a threat to our liberties, in the family and in society at large.” If previous generations feared the absence of authority, today we see “a fear of authority when it exists.”

Some homileticians suggest that preachers should simply embrace this new worldview and surrender any claim to an authoritative message. Those who have lost confidence in the authority of the Bible as the word of God are left with little to say and no authority for their message. Fred Craddock, among the most influential figures in recent homiletic thought, famously describes today’s preacher “as one without authority.” His portrait of the preacher’s predicament is haunting: “The old thunderbolts rust in the attic while the minister tries to lead his people through the morass of relativities and proximate possibilities.” “No longer can the preacher presuppose the general recognition of his authority as a clergyman, or the authority of his institution, or the authority of Scripture,” Craddock argues.

Summarizing the predicament of the postmodern preacher, he relates that the preacher “seriously asks himself whether he should continue to serve up monologue in a dialogical world.”

The obvious question to pose to Craddock’s analysis is this: If we have no authoritative message, why preach? Without authority, the preacher and the congregation are involved in a massive waste of precious time. The very idea that preaching can be transformed into a dialogue between the pulpit and the pew indicates the confusion of our era.

Contrasted to this is the note of authority found in all true expository preaching. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones notes:

Any study of church history, and particularly any study of the great periods of revival or reawakening, demonstrates above everything else just this one fact: that the Christian Church during all such periods has spoken with authority. The great characteristic of all revivals has been the authority of the preacher. There seemed to be something new, extra, and irresistible in what he declared on behalf of God.

The preacher dares to speak on behalf of God. He stands in the pulpit as a steward “of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1) and declares the truth of God’s word, proclaims the power of that word, and applies the word to life. This is an admittedly audacious act. No one should even contemplate such an endeavor without absolute confidence in a divine call to preach and in the unblemished authority of the Scriptures.

In the final analysis, the ultimate authority for preaching is the authority of the Bible as the word of God. Without this authority, the preacher stands naked and silent before the congregation and the watching world. If the Bible is not the word of God, the preacher is involved in an act of self-delusion or professional pretension.

Standing on the authority of Scripture, the preacher declares a truth received, not a message invented. The teaching office is not an advisory role based on religious expertise, but a prophetic function whereby God speaks to his people.

Authentic expository preaching is also marked by reverence. The congregation that gathered before Ezra and the other preachers demonstrated a love and reverence for the word of God (Neh 8). When the book was read, the people stood up. This act of standing reveals the heart of the people and their sense of expectation as the word was read and preached.

Expository preaching requires an attitude of reverence on the part of the congregation. Preaching is not a dialogue, but it does involve at least two parties—the preacher and the congregation. The congregation’s role in the preaching event is to hear, receive, and obey the word of God. In so doing, the church demonstrates reverence for the preaching and teaching of the Bible and understands that the sermon brings the word of Christ near to the congregation. This is true worship.

Lacking reverence for the word of God, many congregations are caught in a frantic quest for significance in worship. Christians leave worship services asking each other, “Did you get anything out of that?” Churches produce surveys to measure expectations for worship: Would you like more music? What kind? How about drama? Is our preacher sufficiently creative?

Expository preaching demands a very different set of questions. Will I obey the word of God? How must my thinking be realigned by Scripture? How must I change my behavior to be fully obedient to the word? These questions reveal submission to the authority of God and reverence for the Bible as his word.
Likewise, the preacher must demonstrate his own reverence for God’s word by dealing truthfully and responsibly with the text. He must not be flippant or casual, much less dismissive or disrespectful. Of this we can be certain, no congregation will revere the Bible more than the preacher does.

If expository preaching is authoritative, and if it demands reverence, it must also be at the center of Christian worship. Worship properly directed to the honor and glory of God will find its center in the reading and preaching of the word of God. Expository preaching cannot be assigned a supporting role in the act of worship—it must be central.

In the course of the Reformation, Luther’s driving purpose was to restore preaching to its proper place in Christian worship. Referring to the incident between Mary and Martha in Luke 10, Luther reminded his congregation and students that Jesus Christ declared that “only one thing is necessary,” the preaching of the word (Luke 10:42). Therefore, Luther’s central concern was to reform worship in the churches by re-establishing there the centrality of the reading and preaching of the word.

That same reformation is needed in American evangelicalism today. Expository preaching must once again be central to the life of the church and central to Christian worship. In the end, the church will not be judged by its Lord for the quality of its music but for the faithfulness of its preaching.

When today’s evangelicals speak casually of the distinction between worship and preaching (meaning that the church will enjoy an offering of music before adding on a bit of preaching), they betray their misunderstanding of both worship and the act of preaching. Worship is not something we do before we settle down for the word of God; it is the act through which the people of God direct all their attentiveness to the one true and living God who speaks to them and receives their praises. God is most beautifully praised when his people hear his word, love his word, and obey his word.
As in the Reformation, the most important corrective to our corruption of worship (and defense against the consumerist demands of the day) is to rightly return expository preaching and the public reading of God’s word to primacy and centrality in worship. Only then will the “missing jewel” be truly rediscovered.

Al Mohler

Can Evangelical Chaplains Serve God and Country?—The Crisis Arrives

Tuesday • September 17, 2013

Can chaplains committed to historic biblical Christianity serve in the United States military? That question, though inconceivable to our nation’s founders, is now front and center. And the answer to that question will answer another, even more important question: Can religious liberty survive under America’s new moral order?

The repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, coupled with the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, set the stage for this crisis. The full normalization of same-sex relationships within the U.S. military is part of the unprecedented moral revolution that is now reshaping American culture at virtually every level.

The crisis in the chaplaincy arrived with these developments. The presenting issue is clear: Can a chaplain committed to historic biblical Christianity remain in military service? Does the normalization of homosexuality require that all members of the military, including chaplains, join the moral revolution, even if doing so requires them to abandon their biblical convictions?
The answer, at least from the advocates of the moral revolution, is that evangelical Christian chaplains must go—and Southern Baptist chaplains must go first.

In recent weeks, the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, the endorsing agency for SBC chaplains, formulated a set of policies on these issues. These policies are required of all SBC-endorsed chaplains, and the guidelines are clear. SBC chaplains are to minister in line with the biblical convictions of the SBC and its churches as made clear in our denomination’s confession of faith, The Baptist Faith & Message. Chaplains are to offer respect to all, respect for the religious liberty of all, and respect for the religious diversity represented within the armed forces. But evangelical chaplains cannot deny or compromise the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As the document states:  ”Responsible pastoral care will seek to offer repentance and forgiveness, help and healing, and restoration through the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ’s sacrificial gift of love on the cross.”
At the same time, SBC endorsed chaplains—the largest single group of non-Catholic chaplains—cannot violate their own convictions by conducting or attending a same-sex marriage ceremony, and they certainly cannot bless such a union. They cannot minister in any context that “would give the appearance of accepting the homosexual lifestyle or sexual wrongdoing.”

In accordance with established U.S. military policy and law, all chaplains are free to minister in accordance with the teachings and beliefs of their own churches, even as they minister to all and respect the religious liberty of others. And yet, the great moral revolution of our times now threatens the continued service of chaplains committed to the moral teachings of historic Christianity.
That point was made abundantly clear in an article published on Monday, September 16, by Associated Baptist Press. The author of the article is Tom Carpenter, identified as co-chair of the Forum on the Military Chaplaincy and an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Carpenter wastes no time in declaring his argument that Southern Baptist chaplains must immediately resign from military service. Given the guidelines set down by the Southern Baptist Convention’s endorsing agency, “the only honorable course is to resign from the military chaplaincy and return to civilian ministry.”

Carpenter insists:

The North American Mission Board has turned the Army motto on its head. They have forced their endorsed chaplains into the untenable position of either serving God or country. Given that choice, as men (NAMB forbids women to serve as ordained chaplains) of God the only honorable course of action for most will be to resign their commissions and return to civilian ministry.

Carpenter then asserts:

If these Southern Baptist chaplains were civilian pastors, there would be no problem. As civilians, they undisputedly have an absolute First Amendment right to believe, preach and counsel in accordance with their denominational tenets. But they are not civilians, and have a duty to not only God, but also country. It is instructive that they are not salaried by the NAMB but by the American taxpayer.

Yes, and they do not surrender their constitutional guarantee of religious liberty when they accept a commission as a military chaplain. Carpenter’s group was on the forefront of advocating for homosexual rights within the military, calling for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to be revoked and for the Defense of Marriage Act to be struck down. At the same time, his group assured the nation that this moral revolution would not lead to any major exodus of chaplains from the Armed Services. In fact, they accused evangelicals of “crying wolf” in warning of such a crisis. Now, Carpenter is openly calling for Southern Baptist chaplains to join the moral revolution or get out of the military.

Make no mistake, the moral revolution driven by those who demand the total normalization of homosexuality and same-sex relationships will not stop with the crisis over military chaplains. But at this moment, the chaplains are on the front lines of the great cultural and moral conflict of our times. This is a moment of crisis for the chaplains; but it is also a moment of crisis for the entire nation. If religious liberty is denied to evangelical Christian chaplains in the military, if they must surrender their convictions or their commissions, then religious liberty is lost in America, and the chaplains will be but the first casualties of this loss.

Southern Baptist chaplains have been singled out in this call for mass resignation, but they will not be alone. Thousands of Roman Catholic chaplains are committed by their church to the same moral convictions. Chaplains representing other evangelical churches and denominations will find themselves facing the same moment of decision. Muslim and Jewish chaplains who cannot endorse homosexuality and same-sex marriage will face the same challenge.

In reality, it is the entire nation that now faces this crisis. Is America ready to demand that military chaplains choose between serving God and serving their country? We will soon know the answer to that question.

We will also know the answer to another, even more urgent question: Where will every Christian church stand on this matter? The great theological divide between those churches and denominations committed to biblical Christianity and those who are given over to the spirit of the age has never been more clear. Indeed, the divide grows clearer day by day.

Also clear is this: Southern Baptist chaplains cannot surrender their commitment to Christ in order to maintain their commitment to ministry within the Armed Services. Furthermore, Southern Baptists will take their instruction from their own churches, not from those churches and denominations who are wearing out their knees bowing to Baal.

Jared Wilson - Gospel Coalition

How Your Preaching Might Increase Sin in Your Church

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering . . .
– Romans 8:3

We tread lightly here, but I fear we vastly underestimate the spiritual damage inflicted on our churches by “How To” sermons without an explicit gospel connection. The Bible is full of practical exhortations and commands, of course, but they are always connected to the foundational and empowering truth of the finished work of Christ. When we preach a message like “Six Steps to _______” or any other “be a better whatever”-type message — where the essential proclamation is not what Christ has done but what we ought/need to do — we become preachers of the law rather than Christ. (And it is not rare that this kind of message with barely any or no mention of Christ(!) at all gets preached.)

But is it just merely unfortunate? Something that could be improved but not really that big of a deal?
I think the Scriptures show us that this kind of preaching isn’t just off-center, but actually does great harm, actually serves to accomplish the very opposite of its intention. How?

1. Preaching even a “positive” practical message with no gospel-centrality amounts to preaching the law. We are accustomed to thinking of legalistic preaching as that which is full of “thou shalt not”s, the kind of fundamentalist hellfire and brimstone judgmentalism we’ve nearly all rejected. But “do” is just the flipside to the same coin “don’t” is on. That coin is the law. And a list of “do”‘s divorced from the DONE of the gospel is just as legalistic, even if it’s preached by a guy in jeans with wax in his hair following up the rockin’ set by your worship band.

2. The message of the law unaccompanied by and untethered from the central message of the gospel condemns us. Because besides telling us stuff to do, the law also thereby reveals our utter inability to measure up.

3. Therefore, a steady dose of gospel-deficient practical preaching doesn’t make Christians more empowered, more effective, but more discouraged, less empowered. Because the law has no power in itself to fulfill its expectations. The only thing the Bible calls power for the Christian is the grace of Christ in the gospel.
But it gets more serious than that.

4. The Bible goes further to suggest, actually, that without the gospel of Christ’s finished work, the preaching of the law of works serves to exacerbate disobedience. See Romans 5:20 and Romans 7, for this consideration. The law arouses passions eventually against itself or against its referent. In other words, without the saving power of the gospel, we go one of two ways in having the law preached to us: we end up being pushed to disobey (whether from anger at its judgment or discouragement from inability to keep it) or we end up thinking ourselves righteous apart from the righteousness the law really points to, that of Christ.

5. The law brings death (Romans 7:10). So the preaching of practical, relevant, applicational “do” messages aimed at producing victorious Christians is fundamentally a preaching of condemnation. It is the proclamation of grace, counter-intuitive though it seems and oddly enough, that trains us to obey God (Titus 2:11-12).

6. The preaching of Christless, gospel-deficient practical sermons increases self-righteousness. Because it is not focused on Christ’s work but our works. Christ-implicit, gospel-deficient practical sermons do not make empowered, victorious Christians, but self-righteous self-sovereigns. And the self-righteous go to hell.

Again, we tread lightly. But the stakes are high. And I think they are higher than we tend to think.
Brothers, let us preach the practical implications and exhortations of Scripture, yes. But let us not forget that the message of Christianity is Christ. It is the message of the sufficiency and power of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Let’s not preach works, lest we increase the sinfulness of our churches and unwittingly facilitate the condemnation of the lost.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is of first importance.
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
– 1 Corinthians 2:2

A W Pink on The Sovereignty of God.

The Sovereignty of God. What do we mean by this expression? We mean the supremacy of God, the kingship of God, the god-hood of God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in Heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will (Psa. 115:3). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is “The Governor among the nations” (Psa. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the “Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15). Such is the God of the Bible.

Institutes 10

Blog 20: 1.12.3 - 1.13.3

Posted by Phil Ryken

 

After concluding his arguments against idolatry, proving that any use of images in worship is a sacrilege, Calvin turns to a consideration of the Trinity, as taught in Scripture.

In addition to providing a basic definition of the doctrine--there is one and only God in three distinct persons--Calvin introduces some important principles for doing biblical and systematic theology.
One is the principle of accommodation.  In speaking of the mystery of God's infinite being, and of the impossibility of measuring him by our own physical senses, Calvin explains why the Bible nevertheless ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet.  Of course God does not have a physical body.  But by using this familiar imagery to describe himself--lisping, as Calvin calls it--God is accommodating himself to our limited understanding. 

The other principle he introduces concerns the use of theological vocabulary.  The orthodox definition of the Trinity uses the term "person" to distinguish the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit within the one Godhead.  But some critics object to this term on the grounds that it is not biblical, but a word of human invention. 

Here Calvin defends the appropriate use of terms like "person" (or "Trinity," for that matter) as legitimate labels for biblical truths.  Even if they do not come directly from Scripture, theological vocabulary words can help to clarify the complex doctrines of Scripture.  Such is the case here, where traditional terminology for the being of God can help us grasp a fundamental truth of the faith: though united in their perfect and undivided essence, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist eternally as three persons. 

Institutes 9

Blog 19: 1.11.13 - 1.12.2

Posted by Phil Ryken

 

Calvin continues to make his case against the use of images (icons, crucifixes, and the like) in Christian worship, which he believes to be nothing less than an idolatrous violation of the Second Commandment.

One of Calvin's arguments is historical: in the first five hundred years of the Christian church, there were no images in the church, but pure doctrine flourished.  The implication is that images have a corrupting effect on Christian theology.

Another argument is practical: when images are introduced to Christian worship, the power of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) is diminished.  As visible symbols of the Word, they now have to compete with other visual images, and thus they lose some of their unique and divinely-intended force.

Yet another argument is exegetical: Calvin considers many of the arguments in favor of images--such as those used at the Second Council of Nicaea (787)--and judges them so inept as to be absurd. 
But perhaps his most powerful argument is theological.  When God is worshiped by way of idols and images, his powers and perfections are parceled out to lesser gods and goddesses.  Instead of seeing God as the locus of all majesty and grace, people look to other things in life to provide security, hope, protection, pleasure, and satisfaction. 

Earlier Calvin described the human heart was an idol factory.  Here he says, in effect, that the human heart is also a distribution center.  The sinful nature takes the prerogatives that properly belong to God alone and divides them among many deities. 

This is an important insight about idolatry: our temptation is not simply to worship some false god, but also to worship less and less of the true God by taking away his glory a little at a time. 

Institutes 8

Blog 18: 1.11.7 - 1.11.12

Posted by Phil Ryken

 

This section of the Institutes includes one of the most helpful comments that Calvin ever made about the Christian life.  "Man's nature," he said, "is a perpetual factory of idols."

In context, Calvin is referring to idols in their most technical sense as physical objects used as a substitute for the worship of God.  But the principle behind his statement has a much wider application.  Calvin teaches us to see the human heart as a locus for the manufacture of other gods. 
We are always busy making ourselves new things to worship.  Some of these idols may well be physical representations of the deity, such as the Canaanite gods that the Israelites were tempted to worship, or that many Hindus and Buddhists worship today.  Then again, some of our idols may be pleasures of the body (like sex), or objects in the world around us (like money), or attitudes of the heart (like the power to control other people).  In any case, the problem is that we are idol producers; we carry the means for the production of false worship in our own souls.

Calvin's theology of idolatry is polemical as well as pastoral.  In addition to exposing the idols of every human heart, he also attacks what he sees as the idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church.  Although Catholic theologians tried to draw a distinction between the honor or the service that they offered to various images and the worship they offered to God, Calvin argued that this was a distinction without a difference.  To serve is to worship, and to honor God in any way through any image is to deface his deity.

Institutes 7

Blog 17: 1.11.2 - 1.11.6

Posted by Phil Ryken

 

The Institutes is a positive presentation of Christian faith and doctrine.  But it is also something more: a polemical response to the Roman Catholic Church, in which Calvin defends the theology and practice of the Reformation. 

Here we find the Geneva Reformer arguing against the idolatrous practice of using images for God in public worship.  To be more specific, Calvin is objecting to the crucifixes, icons, and other visible representations of the divine being that became common in the Medieval Church. (Wow, did you read that? Calvin was apposed to Crucifixes. That's pretty harsh!)

Calvin's main argument against the use of such images is that they are unworthy of the majesty of God.  God is an invisible, omnipotent, and infinite being.  To represent him in any physical form, therefore, is to reduce him.  This is the problem with idolatry: it sullies the dignity of God by making him out to be something less than he is.  Every idol, says Calvin, is an absurd and unworthy fiction.
While Calvin acknowledges that God has given us some visible signs of his invisible glory, he also points out that these visible signs--like the clouds and smoke on Mount Sinai, for example--always point in some way to God's mystery and inaccessibility. 

The Roman Catholic Church often defended the use of images in worship as a practical necessity for people who are illiterate ("images are the books of the uneducated").  Calvin responded by arguing that whatever people learn from images is false, and also by pointing to the example of the biblical prophets, who never viewed idols as anything except a distraction from the Word.  God has not given us an image of himself to see and worship; he has spoken to us with a voice to hear, believe, and obey.

Institutes 6

Blog 16: 1.9.3 - 1.11.1

Posted by Phil Ryken

It is characteristic of Calvin's theology in general and of his Institutes in particular to give strong affirmation to the person and work of the Holy Spirit.  

Generally speaking, Calvin does not do this by treating the Third Person of the Trinity as a separate topic of doctrine, but by highlighting the Spirit's work in connection to every other subject that he addresses.  

Calvin makes such a connection here, in his teaching about the Word of God.  Because of their strong emphasis on the unique and indispensable authority of Scripture, the Reformers were sometimes accused of placing too much emphasis on the Bible, and thus of failing to heed Paul's warning that "the letter kills," whereas "the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6).  

Yet Calvin rightly understood that the best way to let the Spirit do his life-giving work is to teach more Scripture, not less.  Remember that the Spirit gave us the Word to begin with, and that he is present in power whenever the Word is truly and faithfully preached.  The way to experience the Spirit's work, therefore, is not through some experience apart from Scripture, but by hearing his voice in the reading and preaching of the Spirit's very own Word.     

Also characteristic of Calvin's theology--from the very first sentence of the Institutes--is instruction in the knowledge of God, not a matter of theological speculation, but as a living experience.  

Beginning in chapter 10, Calvin moves beyond general revelation (what God has revealed of his character in creation) to special revelation (what God has revealed about himself through his Word).  He does this so that we can know God "as he is toward us"--our Creator and Redeemer. 

Institutes 5

Blog 15: 1.8.10 - 1.9.2

Posted by Paul Helm

Calvin skilfully weaves themes together like strands of thread.  Faith  appears in connection with the self-authentication of Scripture, then disappears from view, returning in Book III. Word and Spirit come together, and then come together again. This style is partly due to his care to safeguard his teaching against misunderstanding. He qualifies what he says, and then qualifies the qualification.
At this point he can see a danger - that his emphasis on the Holy Spirit might be misunderstood as favouring the 'left wing' of the Reformation. The Anabaptists and Libertines, with their emphasis on the Spirit as against the Word, misused Paul's teaching on the Spirit and the letter. So the final Chapter of his treatment of Scripture, on the character of divine revelation, is designed to head off this misunderstanding. Does Calvin's appeal to the Spirit mean that he also is among the Libertines? No,  certainly not. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is not fanatical nor 'frenzied'. Why not? Because it's a case of Word and Spirit, not Spirit against Word.

The Spirit not only illumines and authenticates the Word, his authenticating is also tested by the Word. In his theological thought Calvin is quite fond of the idea of two things being linked by a 'bond' - the knowledge of God and of ourselves, for example, and justification and sanctification. Here it is Word and Spirit.  'For by a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit so that the perfect religion of the Word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God's face, shines'. (1.9.3)

Institutes 4

Blog 14: 1.8.2 - 1.8.9

Posted by Paul Helm

We noted earlier the distinction Calvin draws between certainty and opinion. The Holy Spirit brings about the certain conviction that Scripture is the Word of God, whereas the testimony of the church can only help us to form the opinion that it is God's Word.  It is therefore somewhat surprising to find that in Chapter Eight he devotes two or three times more space to the place of reason in establishing biblical authority than he does in Chapter Seven to the self-authenticating character of Scripture. Why is this?

His procedure certainly shows that he has some confidence in the use of reason, despite the fallenness of our natures. This also underlines the fact that Calvin is not a 'fide-ist'. If a label is needed, he's an 'evidential-ist'. In 1. 7 the evidence that Scripture is the Word of God is made convincing by the Holy Spirit's powerful illumination of the text of  Holy Scripture and arousing faith in the truth of its promises of mercy and grace through Jesus Christ. In 1. 8 the authority of Scripture is vindicated at the level of opinion by the powers of human reasoning dwelling not so much on the distinctive evangelical content of Scripture as on its more 'formal' properties - its antiquity, the presence of miracles, fulfilled prophecy, the coherence of its teaching, and so on. Neither strategy is fide-ist.  First the internal evidence, and then in chapter 8 the external evidence, are highlighted.

But what is the use of such evidence, acquired by reason, if the Internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is already at work granting certainty? Part of the answer, at least, is that Calvin sees a role for reason in 'negative apologetics', ensuring that Scripture is 'vindicated against the wiles of its disparagers'.

Institutes 3

Blog 13: 1.7.3 - 1.8.1

Posted by Paul Helm

The Christian church is subordinate to the Word of God.  (Sorry Papists!) She does not grant the Bible its authority. Divine authority exercised through Scripture comes before the church, it is not established by the church.

Calvin here begins to develop a contrast between the certainty conveyed by the Holy Spirit and 'mere opinion', a discussion which continues at least to the end of Chapter 9. Certainty comes by the operation of the Spirit on our minds as we attend to Scripture. The Spirit  begins to clear our ignorance and unbelief, making it apparent 'that the teaching of Scripture is from heaven'. (1.7.4). The Spirit graciously compels this response in those hearts in which he works. How? By illuminating the content of Scripture, its saving message, its heavenly doctrine.  The matter of Scripture is intrinsic to the manner of its reception. So whoever remains ignorant of Scripture cannot expect to have its divine authority conveyed to his soul. Hence the urgent need for Bible translation and for faithful preaching and teaching The certainty that the Spirit conveys that here the living God is speaking is stronger than mere opinion, which is as high as the authority of the church, or of human argument, can reach.

This is Calvin's famous and distinctive teaching on the self-authentication of Scripture. By the Spirit, Scripture bears testimony to itself. The doctrine is here stated briefly, forcefully and eloquently. 'By this power we are drawn and inflamed, knowingly and willingly, to obey him, yet also more vitally and more effectively than by mere human willing of knowing!' What Calvin says here is not to be missed, for it is foundational for the entire theological project that is to follow.

Institutes 2

Blog 12: 1.6.2 - 1.7.2

Posted by Paul Helm

What is the knowledge of God that Scripture makes sense of? Calvin insists that, before it is the knowledge of God the redeemer, Scripture gives us the true knowledge of God our Creator and sustainer. First nature, then grace. The place of Scripture in giving us the knowledge of the God of nature leads him to begin to think of the authority of Scripture and how that authority is recognized. Reliance on Scripture is for Calvin the paradigmatic and controlling act of faith.  Faith in the Word of God is, in a nutshell, faith in the promises of God. In at least two places (1.6.1 and 1. 7. 3) he notes that to separate the recognition of Scripture's authority from the life of faith is artificial and unnatural, and he clues us in to the long discussion of faith that will occur in Book 3. This Word of God originated with the patriarchs. It conveyed to them the knowledge of the one true God, kept them from idolatry, from forgetfulness and error, and prompted in them the hope of redemption. (Ps. 19.1-2)

Now written down and preserved, handed down to us in the form of sixty-six books, the Word of God to the patriarchs, prophets and apostles may do the same for us as it did for them. Scripture is the written Word of the living God. Faith does not make Scripture God's Word, nor is it a leap of faith, a leap into the dark.  Faith, God-given faith, recognizes the evidence conveyed by the pages, of the written Word, that it is breathed by Almighty God. Calvin insists that this recognition is personal and immediate, though not necessarily all-at-once.  It does not and cannot come via the say-so of the church or of any other intermediate authority, but by the Spirit. Word and Spirit together, one great cry of the Reformation.

Institutes 1

Blog 11: 1.5.12 - 1.6.1

Posted by Paul Helm

Whether or not Calvin patterns the Institutes after the Letter to the Romans it is pretty clear that at this point he has Romans 1-2 in mind. God manifests his nature, his power and goodness, to all men and women through the  creation. Its regularity and power, beauty and order, as well as its bountiful goodness, unmistakably testify to God as creator. But humanity, self-deceived through sin, generates idols, and 'casts out all awareness of God'.

Calvin's case for this verdict seems to be made in two phases. There is empirical evidence, from the pagans, Stoics, Epicureans,  from the rough as well as the smooth. Even though not all are as bad as each other, no one jumps the hurdle. When men and women know God (through the creation) they do not glorify him as God. But since the knowledge of God is clear, they are without excuse. Though we should build on what we know, we fabricate idols.

Hence the need for the Scripture, which acts like a pair of glasses, enabling its readers to focus. But focus on what? Not - yet - on the God of gracious redemption, but (still) on God the creator.  Calvin speaks here of Scripture's theology of nature. Only that? Is there within that testimony facts that may provide arguments for God? Is that the significance of Calvin's reference to 'common proofs' at this point?  However that may be, for Calvin grace builds on nature, God's hand in nature revealed by direct testimony but especially, due to our sin, nature's author and nature's purpose revealed through Scripture.

Packer on the Institutes

Posted by Justin Taylor

A helpful book to have in your library is A Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis, ed. David Hall and Peter Lillback.

J.I. Packer has a most helpful foreword, which is a helpful preface to reading the Institutes itself. You can read the foreword online.

Here is an excerpt:

Great theology, like the Bible in which all great theology is soaked, is essentially transhistorical and transcultural, and interprets us, joltingly sometimes, as we seek to interpret it. The 1559 Institutio is great theology, and it is uncanny how often, as we read and re-read it, we come across passages that seem to speak directly across the centuries to our own hearts and our own present-day theological debates. You never seem to get to the book's bottom; it keeps opening up as a veritable treasure trove of biblical wisdom on all the main themes of the Christian faith. Do you, I wonder, know what I am talking about? Dig into the Institutio, and you soon will.

Yep, I'm gonna slowly begin re-posting Reformation 21's archive - Blogging the Institues

Why read through Calvin's Institutes in 2009?

Posted by Ligon Duncan

 

Why should you read through Calvin's Institutes with the lads here at ref21 as we blog through this work every weekday of 2009? Ten reasons:
1. Because it the most important book written in the last 500 years.
2. Because it is foundational for every Reformed systematic theology ever since.
3. Because Calvin was the best exegete in the history of Christianity.
4. Because Calvin is one of the five greatest theologians in Christian history.
5. Because he wrote it as a "sum of piety" not as an arid, speculative dogmatic treatise.
6. Because it gave J.I. Packer the idea for "Knowing God."
7. Because Calvin thought and wrote succintly and clearly. "Brevitas et claritas" was his motto - brief and clear!
8. Because you will know God better, if you read it prayerfully and believingly.
9. Because it's the 500th anniversary year of Calvin's birthday. Don't be a party pooper.
10. Because I agree with what Derek and Iain say in their posts.

Blogging the Institues, it all begins HERE!

In Praise of John Calvin's Institutes

Posted by Derek Thomas

Some find it misguided to praise men.  It was, after all, the Corinthian problem that they openly declared their allegiance to men: Apollos, Paul, or Peter. In doing so they caused major divisions in the Corinthian church.

But we are not, I think, to conclude from this that we are never to express our appreciation for the lives of men (and women!) whose gifts have helped not only their own generation but our own also. Surely, this is the meaning of the gallery of the faithful in Hebrews 11.

For my part any such gallery must include John Calvin. The opening sentence of The Institutes of the Christian Religion alone is worth a lifetime's contemplation: 'Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.'

Not everyone would agree, of course. My favorite criticism of Calvin (monstrously over-done and deliciously vitriolic) is by Will Durant, the famous author of the eleven-volume series, The History of Western Civilization. 'We shall always find it hard to love the man, John Calvin,' Durant writes, 'who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense.'  That would be enough to make anyone want to read Calvin!

What is it about Calvin that so inspires me? This: his disciplined style, his determination never to speculate, his utter submission to Bible words as God's words, his submission to Christ's Lordship, his sense of the holy, his concern to be as practical as possible; the fact that godly living was his aim and not theology for the sake of it. In a forest of theologians, Calvin stands like a Californian Redwood, towering over everyone else.

I know that the word 'Calvinist' is a theological swear-word in some circles.  I am convinced that folk who use the word that way have never read Calvin at all!  They may have read about him; but they have not read the careful, reverential way in which he wrote.  It is, of course, what Calvin said about predestination that goads certain people. But Calvin was extremely careful not to speculate here.  He talked about predestination--in the same way that Paul does in Romans 8 and 9. Rather than introduce election at the very beginning of his treatment on theology (the logical place to put it), he placed it after spelling out what the gospel is and does.  Calvin talked about the free offer of the gospel first: that the gospel is for 'whosoever-will'.  Only after he has established this does he introduce predestination, and then in the context of re-assuring believers of their eventual glorification (in exactly the same way as Paul does at the end of Romans 8).  Calvin was concerned to answer the question: why, when the gospel is proclaimed, do some respond and others do not? Not for Calvin the smugness and ugly exclusivism of the old Particular Baptist hymn:

        We are the Lord's elected few,
        Let all the rest be damned;
        There's room enough in hell for you,
        We won't have heaven crammed!

Calvin simply wanted to extol the marvelous grace of God, that, though he deserved damnation, God had chosen to show his love instead.  He would readily agree to the perspective of John Newton:

        Amazing grace! how sweet the sound,
        That saved a wretch like me!
        I once was lost, but now am found,
        Was blind, but now I see.

Calvin saw what I suspect even those who despise him also concede in some way or another, that election (God's powerful work) provides the only hope of certainty as far as our salvation is concerned.  For my part, if any part of it depends in the last analysis on me, I have no basis for any confidence at all!

But the point of this introduction is to let you know that starting in January 2009, an extra blog feature will appear in this site - "Blogging the Institutes." The usual bloggers at ref21 will appear and in addition we will be joined by two outstanding Calvin scholars, Sinclair Ferguson and Paul Helm. Bloggers will contribute brief 250 word blogs each day for a week, the project spanning the entire year.

Why 2009?  Where have you been? It's Calvin's 500th birthday!

Now, did you ever read the Institutes carefully from beginning to end? It is one of the most important theological texts ever written and has been the source of immense help to Christians for four and a half centuries.

Need a copy? Make sure it is on your Christmas wish list! We'll let you know on our partner Alliance web site of how you can obtain a copy from us.