Here's an essay I wrote some time ago. I sent it out to a few select friends, and Dr. Renihan asked if he could put it on the new IRBS site.
I'd say a few things differently, but the substance would remain unchanged.
I'm posting the link here because it will give you, the reader, a greater understanding of my convictions and what you can expect to read here in the future.
Enjoy.
http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=25
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sabbath Observance
In the course of study for the coming Lord's Day, I found this searching statement from John Eadie, Paul: The Preacher, 297-298.
Speaking of Paul preaching on the Lord's Day to the congregation at Troas (Acts 20:7ff.) Eadie comments:
The disciples must have rejoiced at their privilege, and eagerly embraced it. What could keep any of them back from enjoying Paul? Alas! that so many in modern times regard so little the first day of the week...or otherwise [profane] it in the pursuit of lawless pleasure or pastime. And even of those who "come together," how many stay away for very trivial reasons, a passing cloud throwing a chiller shadow upon their souls than it does upon the earth, and betokening a fall in their religious affections deeper than the depression of the barometer. If one may thus absent himself, why may not all; the minister, too, as well as any of the people? Who keeps at home for such paltry reason from a scene of secular enjoyment, or the place of ordinary business? Are there not many sicknesses so cunning in their coming and going, so endowed with forethought as never to invade a weekday, but to appear with the dawn of the Sabbath and disappear on its evening? Is it not a law of our nature that difficulties grow with indulgence, and if weather regulate church-going, other barriers will soon make themselves be felt - irregularity followed by long pauses, and ending in utter spiritual remissness and death. Does not such fluctuation in duty deprive one of the divine promise, and may it not rob him of the very word which was adapted to his benefit? And if heaven is an eternal Sabbath for which this recurring Sabbath prepares, how can any one hope to enjoy it who cries out as to "the weariness" of the periodical rest on earth - who finds not exceeding luxury in...worship, or who regards not the day which God has blessed and sanctified as the happiest, holiest day of all the seven?
Speaking of Paul preaching on the Lord's Day to the congregation at Troas (Acts 20:7ff.) Eadie comments:
The disciples must have rejoiced at their privilege, and eagerly embraced it. What could keep any of them back from enjoying Paul? Alas! that so many in modern times regard so little the first day of the week...or otherwise [profane] it in the pursuit of lawless pleasure or pastime. And even of those who "come together," how many stay away for very trivial reasons, a passing cloud throwing a chiller shadow upon their souls than it does upon the earth, and betokening a fall in their religious affections deeper than the depression of the barometer. If one may thus absent himself, why may not all; the minister, too, as well as any of the people? Who keeps at home for such paltry reason from a scene of secular enjoyment, or the place of ordinary business? Are there not many sicknesses so cunning in their coming and going, so endowed with forethought as never to invade a weekday, but to appear with the dawn of the Sabbath and disappear on its evening? Is it not a law of our nature that difficulties grow with indulgence, and if weather regulate church-going, other barriers will soon make themselves be felt - irregularity followed by long pauses, and ending in utter spiritual remissness and death. Does not such fluctuation in duty deprive one of the divine promise, and may it not rob him of the very word which was adapted to his benefit? And if heaven is an eternal Sabbath for which this recurring Sabbath prepares, how can any one hope to enjoy it who cries out as to "the weariness" of the periodical rest on earth - who finds not exceeding luxury in...worship, or who regards not the day which God has blessed and sanctified as the happiest, holiest day of all the seven?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
From the Lord's Supper to Amyraut
Earlier today I promised a blog entry for tomorrow. Well, you're getting it today instead. How's that for making up for lost time?
Anyways, what follows are my musings on a couple of random subjects which have captivated my attention recently.
1. The Lord's Supper.
Christ ordained the ministry of word and sacrament for his visible church. These, along with prayer, are the God-ordained means of grace (at least for those of us in the British Reformed tradition; see the Shorter Catechism Q.88-89). Reformed Christianity has a long history of trumpeting the centrality of the Word read and preached; and this is only right. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the other elements of public worship are relegated to a secondary status. While baptism and the supper, for instance, cannot be properly administered apart from the word (i.e., preceded by it), they are not something less than the word. Yet, as I survey the phenomenon that is American Reformed Christianity, the only conclusion I can reach is that for generations now we've largely ignored (or worse, forgotten) the significance of the Supper in the life and worship of the church. [To be fair, there has been a revival of interest in the Supper in recent years; yet, this can only be considered the beginning, not the end.]
The Supper is a sign and a seal of Christ's person and work, and specifically of the redemptive benefits of his substitutionary death. Through the Spirit, Christ presides at his table and feeds his sheep, on his broken body and on his blood, and yet we seem content not to eat of and receive the benefits of this spiritual feast. We come once a month or once a quarter or, in some cases, whenever the elders determine it is time again. If the nature and the benefits of the Supper are what they are, then what prevents us from observing the supper with greater frequency? Why should we not conclude, as Calvin did, that we ought to come to the Table of our Lord "at least weekly"? This conclusion seems harder to avoid especially when we consider in at least two instances the apostolic church appears to have adopted this very practice (see Acts 2:42; 20:7, 11). The only valid reasoning for less frequent observance of the Supper is, as T. David Gordon has concluded, is that we do not perceive the Supper to be of significant spiritual value, as was the case with Zwingli.
So, my question is this: If the Supper is one of the divinely appointed means whereby Christ communicates the benefits of his mediation, and if it was observed regularly, frequently, if not weekly by the early church under apostolic oversight, why, then, do we, as Reformed churches, not practice frequent or weekly communion?
2. Calvin vs. the Calvinists (especially with regard to the doctrine of limited or definite atonement).
To be honest, I have very little by way of expertise in this subject. Yes, I've read a number of the primary sources and a handful of secondary sources, both of which lead me to conclude that the Muller thesis (i.e., substantial continuity) is basically correct. Calvin's successors did not fundamentally depart from the basic contours of his theology; they did not corrupt a supposedly more biblical theology by the use of scholastic structures of teaching and thought.
My biggest difficulty in taking seriously the Kendall-Armstrong-et al thesis (that is, the discontinuity thesis) is that it always seems as though it has an theological ax to grind. This is no more apparent than with the doctrine of limited or definite atonement, which argues that Christ's death was efficient for the elect only. The saving efficacy of Christ's death takes into account only those for whom Christ was given to die (i.e., the elect, and not all men indefinitely). Though Calvin's view is admittedly difficult to understand (probably because of the context of the Reformation when compared to the context of the post-Reformation era), the views of historical and confessional Calvinism are not hard to understand. Both Dordt and Westminster (and with them Savoy and 2nd London) clearly confess that while Christ's death lacks nothing in terms of its sufficiency, his death is efficient for the elect only. Nevertheless, the discontinuity thesis wants to say that Calvin and his successors are so different at this point, that true Calvinism does not believe in limited atonement. They will jump on any and every instance of an isolated theologian making statements regarding the universal sufficiency of Christ's death and turn those theologians into proto Amyraldians (e.g., Ursinus).
My question to such a reading of historic Calvinism is this: why, then, has confessional Calvinism in every single instance affirmed the doctrine of definite atonement, and repudiated the teachings of Amyraut and those of his ilk. If the discontinuity thesis is correct on this point, why do the confessional documents of the entire Reformed tradition argue the very opposite? Why can't such fellows simply admit that they find the arguments of Dordt and Westminster unconvincing rather than attempting to turn nearly every Reformed theologian of the 16th and 17th centuries into a mouth-piece to voice their own theological agenda?
I know what the response from the discontinuity folks will be: "you've misunderstood, read this sound bite from the past". That won't do. It is insufficient. Read the historical confessions of the Reformed church and be honest. What do these documents (unanimously and unequivocally) teach?
Integrity, it seems to me, is still something worth maintaining, even whilst engaged in historical theology.
Peace...
Anyways, what follows are my musings on a couple of random subjects which have captivated my attention recently.
1. The Lord's Supper.
Christ ordained the ministry of word and sacrament for his visible church. These, along with prayer, are the God-ordained means of grace (at least for those of us in the British Reformed tradition; see the Shorter Catechism Q.88-89). Reformed Christianity has a long history of trumpeting the centrality of the Word read and preached; and this is only right. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the other elements of public worship are relegated to a secondary status. While baptism and the supper, for instance, cannot be properly administered apart from the word (i.e., preceded by it), they are not something less than the word. Yet, as I survey the phenomenon that is American Reformed Christianity, the only conclusion I can reach is that for generations now we've largely ignored (or worse, forgotten) the significance of the Supper in the life and worship of the church. [To be fair, there has been a revival of interest in the Supper in recent years; yet, this can only be considered the beginning, not the end.]
The Supper is a sign and a seal of Christ's person and work, and specifically of the redemptive benefits of his substitutionary death. Through the Spirit, Christ presides at his table and feeds his sheep, on his broken body and on his blood, and yet we seem content not to eat of and receive the benefits of this spiritual feast. We come once a month or once a quarter or, in some cases, whenever the elders determine it is time again. If the nature and the benefits of the Supper are what they are, then what prevents us from observing the supper with greater frequency? Why should we not conclude, as Calvin did, that we ought to come to the Table of our Lord "at least weekly"? This conclusion seems harder to avoid especially when we consider in at least two instances the apostolic church appears to have adopted this very practice (see Acts 2:42; 20:7, 11). The only valid reasoning for less frequent observance of the Supper is, as T. David Gordon has concluded, is that we do not perceive the Supper to be of significant spiritual value, as was the case with Zwingli.
So, my question is this: If the Supper is one of the divinely appointed means whereby Christ communicates the benefits of his mediation, and if it was observed regularly, frequently, if not weekly by the early church under apostolic oversight, why, then, do we, as Reformed churches, not practice frequent or weekly communion?
2. Calvin vs. the Calvinists (especially with regard to the doctrine of limited or definite atonement).
To be honest, I have very little by way of expertise in this subject. Yes, I've read a number of the primary sources and a handful of secondary sources, both of which lead me to conclude that the Muller thesis (i.e., substantial continuity) is basically correct. Calvin's successors did not fundamentally depart from the basic contours of his theology; they did not corrupt a supposedly more biblical theology by the use of scholastic structures of teaching and thought.
My biggest difficulty in taking seriously the Kendall-Armstrong-et al thesis (that is, the discontinuity thesis) is that it always seems as though it has an theological ax to grind. This is no more apparent than with the doctrine of limited or definite atonement, which argues that Christ's death was efficient for the elect only. The saving efficacy of Christ's death takes into account only those for whom Christ was given to die (i.e., the elect, and not all men indefinitely). Though Calvin's view is admittedly difficult to understand (probably because of the context of the Reformation when compared to the context of the post-Reformation era), the views of historical and confessional Calvinism are not hard to understand. Both Dordt and Westminster (and with them Savoy and 2nd London) clearly confess that while Christ's death lacks nothing in terms of its sufficiency, his death is efficient for the elect only. Nevertheless, the discontinuity thesis wants to say that Calvin and his successors are so different at this point, that true Calvinism does not believe in limited atonement. They will jump on any and every instance of an isolated theologian making statements regarding the universal sufficiency of Christ's death and turn those theologians into proto Amyraldians (e.g., Ursinus).
My question to such a reading of historic Calvinism is this: why, then, has confessional Calvinism in every single instance affirmed the doctrine of definite atonement, and repudiated the teachings of Amyraut and those of his ilk. If the discontinuity thesis is correct on this point, why do the confessional documents of the entire Reformed tradition argue the very opposite? Why can't such fellows simply admit that they find the arguments of Dordt and Westminster unconvincing rather than attempting to turn nearly every Reformed theologian of the 16th and 17th centuries into a mouth-piece to voice their own theological agenda?
I know what the response from the discontinuity folks will be: "you've misunderstood, read this sound bite from the past". That won't do. It is insufficient. Read the historical confessions of the Reformed church and be honest. What do these documents (unanimously and unequivocally) teach?
Integrity, it seems to me, is still something worth maintaining, even whilst engaged in historical theology.
Peace...
Nearly two years...
Yes, that is the amount of time I have spent away from this blog. I figured after such a long hiatus, no one was reading this. I was wrong. Two people in the last several months have mentioned stumbling on to my blog. That got me thinking a bit, and I have concluded it is either time to delete the blog, or get it up and running (meaning: trying to post at least once a week). Time to put up, or shut up.
So, here's what I'm going to do: I'll attempt to post at least weekly for the next month or so. If I receive feedback, I'll keep going. If not, I'll probably shut 'er down. So, at the end of the day, people, it's up to you...
See you tomorrow with my first "return" post.
So, here's what I'm going to do: I'll attempt to post at least weekly for the next month or so. If I receive feedback, I'll keep going. If not, I'll probably shut 'er down. So, at the end of the day, people, it's up to you...
See you tomorrow with my first "return" post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)