Friday, 11 September 2009
Where is the Seat of Church Authority (Matthew 18:15-20)?
One of the consequences of the Separatist movement that somewhat polarised positions was the evolutionary development of idea as to the exact seat of church authority. During this pursuit of a pure church two ideals or admonitions emerged: some Anglicans and Presbyterians understood that for practical purposes, that authority rested with the ministers and elders; whereas many of the Independents and Separatists favoured the view that this was to reside within the congregation.[1] It must be recognised though, that during this time of flux that there was much variance in the Puritan ideals, and hard and fast boundaries do not always work well in assessing this time period. However, many of its leaders did struggle with the question of church authority and it is perhaps helpful to understand in some measure how these two positions developed.
From the outset, any church that looked to Calvin and Geneva as its theological fountainhead invariably included church discipline as a non-negotiable ingredient for a truly Reformed church. In 1539, during a time of temporary exile in Strasbourg, the pastor from the church, Calvin, clearly defended the Reformed doctrine of the church in a letter to Cardinal Sadolet. He writes that ‘there are three things on which the safety of the church is founded, namely, doctrine, discipline and the sacraments’[2] and also that ‘the body of the church, to cohere well, must be bound together by discipline as with sinews’.[3] This concern for a well-ordered church highlights discipline as an important strand of Calvinistic ecclesiology.
The majority of the Puritan movement, and especially the Separatists up until 1608 at least, were ‘convinced Calvinists’[4] according to White, and besides which, the application of outward discipline would most likely have been more pressing with the use of church covenants to bind believers together. How else could the ideal of a pure church be realised and maintained other than through rigorous discipline? Presbyterians who advocated a different pattern for Anglican government while remaining within the church, White clarifies that in the ‘1570–80s they looked to Calvinistic Geneva as the ideal church’ and they were seeking ‘the one apostolic pattern revealed in Scripture, the Presbyterian pattern’.[5] This discloses a recurring issue that has remained to our day concerning the reformation of church polity and practice. Whether or not there is a single NT pattern and blueprint to be copied has remained a topic for much debate and this matter cannot be side-stepped concerning any vision that may pursue a connection between the Trinity and the church.
The classicus locus for the subject was Matthew 18:15–20 and the precise meaning of the phrase ‘tell it to the church’ (18:17) was hotly contested. Did this mean ‘tell the elders’ or ‘tell the congregation’? White has probably irreversibly established that there was a developed Separatist tradition and he devotes almost one whole chapter to these matters concerning Matthew 18:17. In an analysis of the apparent changing views of the English Separatist pastor in Amsterdam, Francis Johnson (1562–1618), White discerns: ‘In the interpretation of the key text, Matthew 18:17, “tell the church” he [Johnson] now understood “the church” to be “the elders”, and not, as the English Separatists had all held until then, “the whole congregation”.’[6]
The way this passage was expounded, often impacted what was a delicate balancing act between the spiritual authority of the elders and the congregation. This was frequently a reaction to the clerical control of parishes where members had little input in church governance. Church discipline may have been the starting point for discussion but this led to other matters relating to the locus of authority for the calling of ministers and congregational decision making. White maintains that a vital principle throughout Separatism (at least up until the end of Smyth’s ministry) was the conviction that Anglican ministry in its entirety was to be rejected as impure and apostate. Certainly any persistent participation in private fellowship with individual members of parish congregations and the listening to the preaching of even godly parish ministers would have led to excommunication.[7]
The shifting of church authority from the hands of the ordained ministers, into the midst of the gathered believers, led to an irreversible distancing from the Church of England. This left no room for the Episcopal authority of Bishops while simultaneously rejecting Calvin’s Presbyterianism. Perhaps this issue of authority also opened the door for many other unexpected wholesale changes that emerged, such as the validity of Anglican Baptism and Calvinistic soteriology.[8] Hopefully this sketch of the background to the times in which Smyth ministered is helpful, prior to our more detailed investigation of his theology. Crucial ecclesial issues have already arisen so far and these can be summarised with three questions: Is it valid to pursue a single all controlling blueprint for the reformation of the churches? Did a Separatist tendency towards ‘always progressing’, pave the way for unbridled fluidity in all aspects of ecclesiology? Where is the final seat of church authority?
[1] The historical context of English church reform during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century is a much discussed topic. Here are some references that are helpful to give some preliminary insights: Meic Pearse, The Great Restoration, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998; Nick Lunn, ‘Laurence Chadderton―Puritan, Scholar, and Bible Translator’, Banner Magazine, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008, 537; J. I. Packer, Among God’s Giants, Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1991, repr 2000; Basil Hall, ‘Puritanism: The Problem of Definition’ in Studies in Church History, Vol. 2, ed. G. J. Cunning. Nashville: Nelson, 1965; Francis J. Bremer, The Puritan Experiment: New England Society from Bradford to Edwards, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1976; Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, Wotton-Under-Edge: Clarendon Press, 1967, repr. 1990, 86.
[2] John Calvin, ‘Reply by John Calvin to the Letter by Cardinal Sadolet to the Senate and the People of Geneva’ in Calvin’s Tracts Relating to the Reformation, Vol. 1, Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1844, 38. Hereafter called Calvin’s Tracts.
[3] Calvin, Calvin’s Tracts, 55.
[4] B. R. White, The English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century, Didcot: Baptist Historical Society, 1996, 18.
[5] White, The Development of the Doctrine of the Church Among the English Separatists, i–iii.
[6] White, The English Separatist Tradition, 142.
[7] Ibid., 158.
[8] Lee, ‘Chapter 1: Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Background’ in The Theology of John Smyth. This offers some helpful background of the historical context of John Smyth. This book also maps Smyth’s theological changes concerning baptism and soteriology that ran parallel to Smyth’s changing views on authority.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
The Lost Art of Catechising
Whatever happened to the use of catechisms in the land of England and among English Christians? Before we go a little further I had better explain what a Catechism is.
Pr 22:6 ¶ Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.
Some Bibles have a cross reference to the word 'train' which suggests a meaning of 'to catechise'; this verse refers to the training up of children. So, what does catechise mean?
1.To instruct by asking questions, receiving answers, and offering explanations and corrections, - esp. in regard to points of religious faith.
2.To question or interrogate; to examine or try by questions; - sometimes with a view to reproof, by eliciting from a person answers which condemn his own conduct.
The philosophy of this method is crucial to dynamic discipleship in the church. In many areas Maria and I feel that we have been robbed of truth as many things have been simply withheld or not told us by Christian leaders over the years. Catechising is one such area. How does this work practically?
We as a family aim to have our evening meal together around the table at 6.00pm or there abouts and I give thanks for the meal (1 Timothy 4:4-6) and then after the meal we each get out our Bibles (including the children) and and we read out loud one question from the Westminster Larger Catechism and some of the Bible verses that are referenced to it. The children are involved in the discussion around the particular question and it greatly sharpens up Maria and I as well. At the end of the conversation we ask for prayer requests and we close by all praying. This means that family worship is established, the children are instructed and this forms an excellent corporate 'quiet time'.
It would greatly benefit churches also if they based their instruction of children and the youth on the Larger and Shorter (Shorter is generally for children) Westminster Catechisms. Especially if they had Sunday School before the main morning service service for instruction for the adults and children in seperate classes; this should then be followed by the whole family worshipping together for the whole service. This includes the children staying in for the preaching...preaching is the high point of worship and children should not be deprived from hearing preaching. Why? Romans 10:17, 'Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God'. How can the faith of children grow if they never hear preaching.
May the lost art of catechising be recovered in the church of God!
Pr 22:6 ¶ Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.
Some Bibles have a cross reference to the word 'train' which suggests a meaning of 'to catechise'; this verse refers to the training up of children. So, what does catechise mean?
1.To instruct by asking questions, receiving answers, and offering explanations and corrections, - esp. in regard to points of religious faith.
2.To question or interrogate; to examine or try by questions; - sometimes with a view to reproof, by eliciting from a person answers which condemn his own conduct.
The philosophy of this method is crucial to dynamic discipleship in the church. In many areas Maria and I feel that we have been robbed of truth as many things have been simply withheld or not told us by Christian leaders over the years. Catechising is one such area. How does this work practically?
We as a family aim to have our evening meal together around the table at 6.00pm or there abouts and I give thanks for the meal (1 Timothy 4:4-6) and then after the meal we each get out our Bibles (including the children) and and we read out loud one question from the Westminster Larger Catechism and some of the Bible verses that are referenced to it. The children are involved in the discussion around the particular question and it greatly sharpens up Maria and I as well. At the end of the conversation we ask for prayer requests and we close by all praying. This means that family worship is established, the children are instructed and this forms an excellent corporate 'quiet time'.
It would greatly benefit churches also if they based their instruction of children and the youth on the Larger and Shorter (Shorter is generally for children) Westminster Catechisms. Especially if they had Sunday School before the main morning service service for instruction for the adults and children in seperate classes; this should then be followed by the whole family worshipping together for the whole service. This includes the children staying in for the preaching...preaching is the high point of worship and children should not be deprived from hearing preaching. Why? Romans 10:17, 'Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God'. How can the faith of children grow if they never hear preaching.
May the lost art of catechising be recovered in the church of God!
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Wisdom From Martin Luther
One of the watchword phrases of the early Reformation was the statement of Martin Luther when he disputed with the Roman Catholics as to the source of his authority. Luther declared:
"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen".
The question is; could we say the same thing today? It seems like there is a very subtle attempt to usurp the authority of the Bible where people place alongside biblical revelation, their own impressions, opinions, dreams, visions etc. All subjective 'words' have no place in the church.
God promises that it is in His Word that we will hear Him speaking, indeed God has spoken. Listen to the book of Hebrews chapter 1 verse 1-2:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.
God is no longer speaking the way he did in days of old, because he has revealed his gospel and it is found in Holy Scripture, and Scripture alone. This is not bondgage or the dead letter but it is God's will and we must submit to this or else be found rebelling against the very person we profess to love (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
The public worship of God should be saturated with the Word of God (found in the Bible) and nothing else. We should be devoted to the pure preaching of Scripture, the reading of Scripture, singing based on Scripture alone, including literal psalm singing. God's Word should be our delight (Psalm 119). We should shun the use of unscripural content in our public worship and freely reject the wild enthusiasms of some, who claim to speak for God, but use their own words in man made prophesies. Let us return, let us return to the Word of God and may there be a fresh exodus from what Luther called the Babylonian captivity of the church.
Listen to Isaiah 8: 20
To the teaching and to the testimony. If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.
"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen".
The question is; could we say the same thing today? It seems like there is a very subtle attempt to usurp the authority of the Bible where people place alongside biblical revelation, their own impressions, opinions, dreams, visions etc. All subjective 'words' have no place in the church.
God promises that it is in His Word that we will hear Him speaking, indeed God has spoken. Listen to the book of Hebrews chapter 1 verse 1-2:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.
God is no longer speaking the way he did in days of old, because he has revealed his gospel and it is found in Holy Scripture, and Scripture alone. This is not bondgage or the dead letter but it is God's will and we must submit to this or else be found rebelling against the very person we profess to love (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
The public worship of God should be saturated with the Word of God (found in the Bible) and nothing else. We should be devoted to the pure preaching of Scripture, the reading of Scripture, singing based on Scripture alone, including literal psalm singing. God's Word should be our delight (Psalm 119). We should shun the use of unscripural content in our public worship and freely reject the wild enthusiasms of some, who claim to speak for God, but use their own words in man made prophesies. Let us return, let us return to the Word of God and may there be a fresh exodus from what Luther called the Babylonian captivity of the church.
Listen to Isaiah 8: 20
To the teaching and to the testimony. If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Have We Forgotten Something About John Calvin?
As many people will be aware this year is the 500th anniversary since the birth of John Calvin and many conferences are devotong sessions to the impact of Calvin's life and teaching. In all the excellent seminars and conference talks I wonder if we have forgotten something about Calvin. What is it? Calvin's doctrine of the church.
Calvin's Institutes ranks among one of the most influential works in the history of the church and it is made up of four books. The fourth book is all about the doctrine of the Church and yet I have not seen a single article or paper commenting on this aspect of Calvin. I would say that if we do not understaand Calvin's doctrine of the church then we do not understand this Reformer at all. Reformation was all about re-forming the church back to its apostolic pattern. So, whata are some of the aspects of Calvin's doctrine of the church.
1. A fourfold government of pastor's, elders. deacons and doctors (this means teacher, and especially those given to the training of pastors). The deacons were responsible for practical mercy and did not form the spiritual government. The spiritual oversight was given to ruling elders and the minister. The minister was trained, examined and equipped to preach pure doctrine and administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper.
2. The Sacraments were very important. This involved a covenantal view which included the baptism of infants...not so popular among Reformed Baptists today. Could it be that the neglect or silence concerning Calvin's doctrine of the church, actually relates to the suppressing Calvin's view of the Sacraments? Could it be that we tend to 'pick n mix' from Calvin's theology? In reality Calvin's theology and doctrine of the church were an interconnected and integrated whole. If we do not understand Calvin's ecclesiology we probably do not understand Calvin because the whole purpose of the Reformation was to re-form the church back to the apostolic pattern.
Maybe we need to re-think ecclesiology in England because the best summary of the Christian faith in the English language are the Westminster Standards and these were made in England, yet almost unknown at this time in this country. The need for contemporary reformation is immense and at times overwhelming. Yet if we learn from Calvin he did not shrink from the task and copied the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ who said that 'new wine ' has to be put into 'new winsekins (Matthew 9:17)'. Calvin recovered the wineskin and gave the church a framework to build, nothing new, but a recovered apostolic pattern and doctrine (Acts 2:42).
Calvin's Institutes ranks among one of the most influential works in the history of the church and it is made up of four books. The fourth book is all about the doctrine of the Church and yet I have not seen a single article or paper commenting on this aspect of Calvin. I would say that if we do not understaand Calvin's doctrine of the church then we do not understand this Reformer at all. Reformation was all about re-forming the church back to its apostolic pattern. So, whata are some of the aspects of Calvin's doctrine of the church.
1. A fourfold government of pastor's, elders. deacons and doctors (this means teacher, and especially those given to the training of pastors). The deacons were responsible for practical mercy and did not form the spiritual government. The spiritual oversight was given to ruling elders and the minister. The minister was trained, examined and equipped to preach pure doctrine and administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper.
2. The Sacraments were very important. This involved a covenantal view which included the baptism of infants...not so popular among Reformed Baptists today. Could it be that the neglect or silence concerning Calvin's doctrine of the church, actually relates to the suppressing Calvin's view of the Sacraments? Could it be that we tend to 'pick n mix' from Calvin's theology? In reality Calvin's theology and doctrine of the church were an interconnected and integrated whole. If we do not understand Calvin's ecclesiology we probably do not understand Calvin because the whole purpose of the Reformation was to re-form the church back to the apostolic pattern.
Maybe we need to re-think ecclesiology in England because the best summary of the Christian faith in the English language are the Westminster Standards and these were made in England, yet almost unknown at this time in this country. The need for contemporary reformation is immense and at times overwhelming. Yet if we learn from Calvin he did not shrink from the task and copied the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ who said that 'new wine ' has to be put into 'new winsekins (Matthew 9:17)'. Calvin recovered the wineskin and gave the church a framework to build, nothing new, but a recovered apostolic pattern and doctrine (Acts 2:42).
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
What Do I Think About the Book Called 'The Shack'?
I was preaching in Germany recently and a lady at the church where I preached, who ran the bookstall asked me what I thought about the book. In German it is called 'Die Hutte' (I Think) and I gave my opinions which were not too favourable but I thought I need to read it to give an informed judgmnent.
The front of the book claims that over seven million copies are in print and the back cover has some dramatic and glowing recommendations. The evangelist J. John declares that 'this is the most heart-warming inspirational story I have ever read in decades'. Eugene Peterson the author of the controversial Bible paraphrase 'The Message' states that 'this book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his'. Wow!! Stunning recommendations.
I have to admit that so far I have not finished the book and I do not need to; at one stage I broke down in tears that so many 'professing' Christians are deceived and mislead by this blasphemous book. The book is fiction and it portrays the Triune God as three human beings where God the Father is an African-American woman, God the Son is a Middle-Eastern handy man and the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman. Need I say more! This book is not Christian and it represents a god made in the mind of the author Wm. Paul Young; merely a god made in the image of what the author would like God to be like. So, what is the problem?
1. It Breaks the First Two, of the Ten Commandments.
A. "You shall have no other gods before Me (Exodus 20:3)
B. Ex 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
This leads people to an unbiblical image of a false god; this is idolatry.
2. There is no mention of Sin
It seems that all that matters with this false god is that all that counts is a relationship founded on love. Jesus displayed his love by dying for sin and taking the wrath of God in the place of sinners (Romans 5:1-9). There is no mention of sin, righteousness or judgment which Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would convince the world of (John 16:7-10).
3. This Book is a Test of our Discernment
If someone read this book and they have no problems with it I would have to say a number of possibilities exist. Either they are:
a. A new Christian
b. Not a Christian
c. A Christian that has lost all sight of biblical discernment (1 John 4:1)
Maybe this book is a good self-test of where we stand before the God of the Bible. I can confidently say that this book is blasphemy, a portrayal of a false god and in no way is the book remotely comparable to Pilgrim's Progress.
The front of the book claims that over seven million copies are in print and the back cover has some dramatic and glowing recommendations. The evangelist J. John declares that 'this is the most heart-warming inspirational story I have ever read in decades'. Eugene Peterson the author of the controversial Bible paraphrase 'The Message' states that 'this book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his'. Wow!! Stunning recommendations.
I have to admit that so far I have not finished the book and I do not need to; at one stage I broke down in tears that so many 'professing' Christians are deceived and mislead by this blasphemous book. The book is fiction and it portrays the Triune God as three human beings where God the Father is an African-American woman, God the Son is a Middle-Eastern handy man and the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman. Need I say more! This book is not Christian and it represents a god made in the mind of the author Wm. Paul Young; merely a god made in the image of what the author would like God to be like. So, what is the problem?
1. It Breaks the First Two, of the Ten Commandments.
A. "You shall have no other gods before Me (Exodus 20:3)
B. Ex 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
This leads people to an unbiblical image of a false god; this is idolatry.
2. There is no mention of Sin
It seems that all that matters with this false god is that all that counts is a relationship founded on love. Jesus displayed his love by dying for sin and taking the wrath of God in the place of sinners (Romans 5:1-9). There is no mention of sin, righteousness or judgment which Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would convince the world of (John 16:7-10).
3. This Book is a Test of our Discernment
If someone read this book and they have no problems with it I would have to say a number of possibilities exist. Either they are:
a. A new Christian
b. Not a Christian
c. A Christian that has lost all sight of biblical discernment (1 John 4:1)
Maybe this book is a good self-test of where we stand before the God of the Bible. I can confidently say that this book is blasphemy, a portrayal of a false god and in no way is the book remotely comparable to Pilgrim's Progress.
Monday, 10 August 2009
Have We Forgotten Some Things?
There seems to be so many things that the English church has forgotten that it is hard to know where to begin in explaining this. Most likely my experience among English Christians will be repeated in many countries around the world. Imagine that you and I go to your local city centre or a Christian conference to survey Christians and ask them some questions. Here are some possible questions.
Question: What is the Lord’s Day?
Answer: Commonly many people would have no concept that the day we call Sunday is what the Bible calls the Lord’s Day. The Jew’s observed Saturday but Christ rose from the dead on Sunday and ever since this day has been a day when Christians have gathered for worship, in remembrance of the resurrection of the Son of the Living God.
1Corinthians 16:1 ¶ Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.
2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.
Acts 20:7 ¶ And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul [began] talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.
Question: What is worship? Or, how do you worship God?
Answer: This question will receive a whole range of answers but most of them will include the idea of music, anointed songs and a sense of the presence of God. In other words it often involves a sense of us engaging with God with our feelings, often with a gifted musician to get us there. However this is a departure from a historic understanding of worship. In Reformed Churches the high point of our worship should be listening to faithful preaching out of the Bible and the whole service is worship. Worship is not restricted to singing, though congregational singing is part of our worship.
The whole idea that when we sing is the only time when are worshipping would be rather strange to most Christians over 2000 years. Worship includes the reading of the Bible (not poems and Christian books), prayer, congregational singing, preaching and the right administration of the sacraments which are: baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Question: How important is preaching on the Lord’s Day to the church’s edification?
Answer: I will answer this from one of the Reformer’s called Heinrich Bullinger who wrote:
‘The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. Wherefore when this word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; that neither any other Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven’.
Bullinger rules out what would commonly be understood to be prophetic words, sharing of ‘pictures’ and people claiming to speak on behalf of the Lord. This alone would cause quite a vacuum in many congregations if they were restricted to the Bible alone!!
There seems to be so many things that the English church has forgotten that it is hard to know where to begin in explaining this. Most likely my experience among English Christians will be repeated in many countries around the world. Imagine that you and I go to your local city centre or a Christian conference to survey Christians and ask them some questions. Here are some possible questions.
Question: What is the Lord’s Day?
Answer: Commonly many people would have no concept that the day we call Sunday is what the Bible calls the Lord’s Day. The Jew’s observed Saturday but Christ rose from the dead on Sunday and ever since this day has been a day when Christians have gathered for worship, in remembrance of the resurrection of the Son of the Living God.
1Corinthians 16:1 ¶ Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.
2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.
Acts 20:7 ¶ And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul [began] talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.
Question: What is worship? Or, how do you worship God?
Answer: This question will receive a whole range of answers but most of them will include the idea of music, anointed songs and a sense of the presence of God. In other words it often involves a sense of us engaging with God with our feelings, often with a gifted musician to get us there. However this is a departure from a historic understanding of worship. In Reformed Churches the high point of our worship should be listening to faithful preaching out of the Bible and the whole service is worship. Worship is not restricted to singing, though congregational singing is part of our worship.
The whole idea that when we sing is the only time when are worshipping would be rather strange to most Christians over 2000 years. Worship includes the reading of the Bible (not poems and Christian books), prayer, congregational singing, preaching and the right administration of the sacraments which are: baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Question: How important is preaching on the Lord’s Day to the church’s edification?
Answer: I will answer this from one of the Reformer’s called Heinrich Bullinger who wrote:
‘The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. Wherefore when this word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; that neither any other Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven’.
Bullinger rules out what would commonly be understood to be prophetic words, sharing of ‘pictures’ and people claiming to speak on behalf of the Lord. This alone would cause quite a vacuum in many congregations if they were restricted to the Bible alone!!
The word recover means ‘to get back something that is lost’ The Church has forgotten and lost many things and we need to pray for a recovery of biblical truth in the land where we live.
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Charismatic Influences: Is the Bible Sufficient for the Church Today?
Charismatic movements and influences have impacted many sections of the church, producing a ‘new tradition’ often founded on experience, dynamic worship, the expectation that God will speak through prophetic utterances in gatherings and manifestations of signs and wonders. Commonly, a polarisation of views occurs during conflict and thus an opposing ‘cessationist’ group has emerged, particularly among those who hold reformed and dispensationalist positions. Charismatic claims are judged unbiblical and are seen to undermine a New Testament understanding of authority. Wayne Grudem identifies a third group of ‘Christians who are neither ‘charismatic’ nor ‘cessationist’ and are simply unsure about what to think of the gift of prophecy.’[1] Even if we are undecided, looking briefly at the two groups and their relation to our subject will provide a tool for the examination of their consequences for our faith.
The cessationist argument is cogently defended by Robert L. Reymond[2] and O. Palmer Robertson, with the proposition that prophecy and supernatural signs are erroneous because these gifts ceased with the end of the apostolic era and canonical closure. Spirit-empowered revelations are seen as unnecessary; as Robertson summarises, ‘Christ is the final word’ and our goal ‘is living out of the sufficiency of the final word as it is found in the Christ of the Scriptures.’[3] A dual or competing source of revelation is rejected as a distraction from the uniquely inspired Bible as our sole foundation for authority.
Wayne Grudem and Jack Deere[4] persuasively expound a charismatic position and defend from Scripture a well-thought-through argument to encourage the exercise of spiritual gifts. Grudem hopes to present a middle ground[5] position and while he addresses certain charismatic excesses it would be fair to conclude that his proposition sits comfortably with those endorsing continuing prophetic revelation. The focus of discussion centres on chapters twelve to fourteen of 1 Corinthians and revelations are seen as a supernatural mixture of God revealing and someone speaking fallibly ‘something God brings to the mind.’[6] Potential objections regarding the sufficiency of Scripture are anticipated and explanations offered that prophecy is not equal in authority to the Bible and must be tested by the written word of God.[7] In a sense, providing revelations do not contradict Scripture, they can be sifted and accepted; but this opens the door for subjective impressions that can be neither verified nor falsified.
A. Sufficiency: Is Scripture Our Only, Supreme Authority?
What sense do we make of these polarised views where the issues at stake clearly relate to knowing God, authority and our submission? In many ways the charismatic emphasis on the inerrant authority of Scripture and endorsement of the Bible as being an all-sufficient revelation of God is misleading. The expectation of and emphasis on revelations through prophecy moves the locus of authority and interest from Scripture to additional extra-biblical words, in what could fairly be described as a competing source of revelation, the general revealed will in the written Scriptures being supplemented by more specific guidance and understanding through personal revelations. Therefore the logical conclusion of the charismatic position is that the Bible is not the only all-sufficient source of authority. A reassessment of the finality of the authority of Scripture is urgently needed and it must be stressed that the Bible is the only revelation of God today and should occupy an unchallenged and exclusive place in the church. The inevitable result, when the centre of authority is changed and biblical sufficiency is undermined, is that subjectivism is subconsciously welcomed and human reason ascends the throne of final authority.
The theme of redemptive history needs revisiting because this is perhaps the most persuasive argument by which to demonstrate that prophetic revelation and the offices of apostle and prophet have ended.[8] The definition of prophecy must be freshly reviewed and the suggestion by the puritan William Perkins moves dialogue in a different direction altogether. He defined prophecy as a duty of the Christian minister whereby ‘there are two parts: preaching the Word and public prayer.’[9] Furthermore, confusion concerning the sufficiency of the written word may be either eliminated or increased by the place we assign, within the life of the church, to the Holy Spirit’s work of illumination. The puritan John Owen is helpful in clarifying contemporary debate because he wrestled with the enthusiasm of the Quakers and their supposed revelations, and stated that ‘if their private revelations agree with Scripture, they are needless, and if they disagree, they are false.’[10] Why expend time and effort on fallible subjective impressions when we can have a sure foundation of the unchanging infallible Scriptures?
Conclusion
Solomon foresaw about three thousand years ago that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’[11] and this is a timely reminder to forewarn us when we face the new challenges that will emerge in the coming decades. The disputes between Augustine and Pelagius, or Athanasius and Arius, caused the truth to shine even more clearly and provide encouragement to press on through doctrinal conflict. It is hard to see a way through the maze of confusion which exists today, unless there is a fresh Exodus event which, by breaking the philosophical enslavement of the Bible, will lead toward the crucial doctrine of Scripture alone, founded on the rock of God’s unchanging revelation. Paul wrote from his prison cell at the end of his life to exhort Timothy:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.[12]
The church father John Chrysostom paraphrased these same words written to Timothy: ‘You have Scripture for a master instead of me; from there you can learn whatever you need to know.’[13]
[1] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988, repr. 2000), p 17.
[2] Robert L. Reymond, What about Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1977).
[3] O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1993, repr. 2004), p 135.
[4] Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1993).
[5] Wayne Grudem, op cit, pp 17-19.
[6] Wayne Grudem, ‘The Source of Prophecies: Something God Brings to Mind’ (in) Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988, repr. 2000).
[7] Wayne Grudem, ‘Appendix C: The Sufficiency of Scripture’ (in) Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988, repr. 2000).
[8] An alternative Pentecostal position disagreeing with this assertion is presented by Jon Ruthven, ‘The Foundational Gifts of Ephesians 2:20’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), vol. 10, no. 2.
[9] William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1592, repr. 1996), p 7.
[10] John Owen, ‘John Owen on Communication from God’ (in) J. I. Packer, Among God’s Giants: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1991, repr. 2000), p 113.
[11] Ecclesiastes 1:9 quoted from English Standard Version of the Holy Bible (London: Collins, 2002).
[12] 2 Timothy 3:16-17 from English Standard Version (ESV), (London: Harper Collins, 2002).
[13] William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: The University Press, 1849), p 637.
Charismatic movements and influences have impacted many sections of the church, producing a ‘new tradition’ often founded on experience, dynamic worship, the expectation that God will speak through prophetic utterances in gatherings and manifestations of signs and wonders. Commonly, a polarisation of views occurs during conflict and thus an opposing ‘cessationist’ group has emerged, particularly among those who hold reformed and dispensationalist positions. Charismatic claims are judged unbiblical and are seen to undermine a New Testament understanding of authority. Wayne Grudem identifies a third group of ‘Christians who are neither ‘charismatic’ nor ‘cessationist’ and are simply unsure about what to think of the gift of prophecy.’[1] Even if we are undecided, looking briefly at the two groups and their relation to our subject will provide a tool for the examination of their consequences for our faith.
The cessationist argument is cogently defended by Robert L. Reymond[2] and O. Palmer Robertson, with the proposition that prophecy and supernatural signs are erroneous because these gifts ceased with the end of the apostolic era and canonical closure. Spirit-empowered revelations are seen as unnecessary; as Robertson summarises, ‘Christ is the final word’ and our goal ‘is living out of the sufficiency of the final word as it is found in the Christ of the Scriptures.’[3] A dual or competing source of revelation is rejected as a distraction from the uniquely inspired Bible as our sole foundation for authority.
Wayne Grudem and Jack Deere[4] persuasively expound a charismatic position and defend from Scripture a well-thought-through argument to encourage the exercise of spiritual gifts. Grudem hopes to present a middle ground[5] position and while he addresses certain charismatic excesses it would be fair to conclude that his proposition sits comfortably with those endorsing continuing prophetic revelation. The focus of discussion centres on chapters twelve to fourteen of 1 Corinthians and revelations are seen as a supernatural mixture of God revealing and someone speaking fallibly ‘something God brings to the mind.’[6] Potential objections regarding the sufficiency of Scripture are anticipated and explanations offered that prophecy is not equal in authority to the Bible and must be tested by the written word of God.[7] In a sense, providing revelations do not contradict Scripture, they can be sifted and accepted; but this opens the door for subjective impressions that can be neither verified nor falsified.
A. Sufficiency: Is Scripture Our Only, Supreme Authority?
What sense do we make of these polarised views where the issues at stake clearly relate to knowing God, authority and our submission? In many ways the charismatic emphasis on the inerrant authority of Scripture and endorsement of the Bible as being an all-sufficient revelation of God is misleading. The expectation of and emphasis on revelations through prophecy moves the locus of authority and interest from Scripture to additional extra-biblical words, in what could fairly be described as a competing source of revelation, the general revealed will in the written Scriptures being supplemented by more specific guidance and understanding through personal revelations. Therefore the logical conclusion of the charismatic position is that the Bible is not the only all-sufficient source of authority. A reassessment of the finality of the authority of Scripture is urgently needed and it must be stressed that the Bible is the only revelation of God today and should occupy an unchallenged and exclusive place in the church. The inevitable result, when the centre of authority is changed and biblical sufficiency is undermined, is that subjectivism is subconsciously welcomed and human reason ascends the throne of final authority.
The theme of redemptive history needs revisiting because this is perhaps the most persuasive argument by which to demonstrate that prophetic revelation and the offices of apostle and prophet have ended.[8] The definition of prophecy must be freshly reviewed and the suggestion by the puritan William Perkins moves dialogue in a different direction altogether. He defined prophecy as a duty of the Christian minister whereby ‘there are two parts: preaching the Word and public prayer.’[9] Furthermore, confusion concerning the sufficiency of the written word may be either eliminated or increased by the place we assign, within the life of the church, to the Holy Spirit’s work of illumination. The puritan John Owen is helpful in clarifying contemporary debate because he wrestled with the enthusiasm of the Quakers and their supposed revelations, and stated that ‘if their private revelations agree with Scripture, they are needless, and if they disagree, they are false.’[10] Why expend time and effort on fallible subjective impressions when we can have a sure foundation of the unchanging infallible Scriptures?
Conclusion
Solomon foresaw about three thousand years ago that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’[11] and this is a timely reminder to forewarn us when we face the new challenges that will emerge in the coming decades. The disputes between Augustine and Pelagius, or Athanasius and Arius, caused the truth to shine even more clearly and provide encouragement to press on through doctrinal conflict. It is hard to see a way through the maze of confusion which exists today, unless there is a fresh Exodus event which, by breaking the philosophical enslavement of the Bible, will lead toward the crucial doctrine of Scripture alone, founded on the rock of God’s unchanging revelation. Paul wrote from his prison cell at the end of his life to exhort Timothy:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.[12]
The church father John Chrysostom paraphrased these same words written to Timothy: ‘You have Scripture for a master instead of me; from there you can learn whatever you need to know.’[13]
[1] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988, repr. 2000), p 17.
[2] Robert L. Reymond, What about Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1977).
[3] O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1993, repr. 2004), p 135.
[4] Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1993).
[5] Wayne Grudem, op cit, pp 17-19.
[6] Wayne Grudem, ‘The Source of Prophecies: Something God Brings to Mind’ (in) Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988, repr. 2000).
[7] Wayne Grudem, ‘Appendix C: The Sufficiency of Scripture’ (in) Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988, repr. 2000).
[8] An alternative Pentecostal position disagreeing with this assertion is presented by Jon Ruthven, ‘The Foundational Gifts of Ephesians 2:20’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), vol. 10, no. 2.
[9] William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1592, repr. 1996), p 7.
[10] John Owen, ‘John Owen on Communication from God’ (in) J. I. Packer, Among God’s Giants: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1991, repr. 2000), p 113.
[11] Ecclesiastes 1:9 quoted from English Standard Version of the Holy Bible (London: Collins, 2002).
[12] 2 Timothy 3:16-17 from English Standard Version (ESV), (London: Harper Collins, 2002).
[13] William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: The University Press, 1849), p 637.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)