Bryan archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Author Archive for Bryan

Thinking About The Economy

Published by Bryan September 29, 2008 in Religion, Current Events, Philosophy and Theology. 3 Comments

There is one bit of advice given to use by the ancient heathen Greeks, and the the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money at interest; and lending money at interest - what we call investment- is the basis of our whole system.

Now it may not absolutely follow that we are wrong. Some people say that when Moses and Aristotle and the Christians agreed in forbidding interest (or ‘usury’ as they called it), they could not foresee the joint stock company, and were only thinking of the private money lender, and that, therefore, we need not bother about that they said. That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist and I simply do not know whether the investment system is responsible for the state we are in or not. This is where we want the Christian economist. But I should not have been honest if I had not told you that three great civilizations had agreed (or so it seems at first sight) in condemning the very thing on which we have based out whole life.

-C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

By providence I was re-reading some of Mere Christianity last week, and this section is a good place to start a discussion on Christians and the current economic crisis. Christian responses to what has happened are just beginning to appear. The most notable being The Archbishop of Canterbury . Although the ABC throwing Marx into the mix is bound to stir up some controversy, it is encouraging to see discussion on the issue that goes to actual discussion of how the economy should be set up.

I firmly believe that any response Christians give to a crisis must have both an immediate action attached, and a long term consideration of the situation. Often the Church does the first, but leaves the second.

What do I mean by an immediate action in response to a crisis? I think the end of It’s A Wonderful Life is a great example. A need is discovered, people rally around and do what they can to bring the person out of the immediate situation. I’ve heard that this has happened in this case with some churches offering counseling to people hit by this, and I have no doubt that when people loose their jobs the church will be there to offer financial support and friendship (If it does not drop the name church please). Even Starbucks understands the importance of this when right after they were offering free coffee in the morning to people who worked on Wall Street.

What the church likely won’t be as good at, is offering comment on the economic system as a whole. I don’t mind the church waiting a bit to do this, deal with the immediate concern first, but I fear it just won’t come. I’m glad the ABC has begun this, but where are the other voices? The ABC may be an intelligent man, but he is not an economist. Where are the economists to answer Lewis’ questions? Where are those from within the Church that can offer comment on how the economic system works? Where are they advising Christians how far to enter into it? How much of a role is the sin of greed at fault here and how much was poor decision making?

I think this is yet another example of a place where the church could step up to it’s calling and be involved in bringing God’s kingdom to the world, but instead will choose to continue in irrelevant pursuits (I’m building a growing list). I believe I’ve bemoaned the fact that the church has embraced a dichotomy that separates it from every “non-religious” concern enough that I don’t need to get into why it’s happening or why it’s wrong again, but it still saddens me when I see such an opportunity go to waste.

Scripture And The Church: In The Beginning

Published by Bryan September 2, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Theology. 9 Comments

This is the first entry on the topic of the Church. In this entry we will begin to discuss the role the Church played in the formation of Scripture

What came first, the Church or Scripture? What is the Church’s relationship to Scripture? It’s a very important question but the answer to the question depends, as these kind of questions often do, on how you define the terms. What do you mean by the Church and by Scripture? These are important questions that will be investigated in this first entry on the Church.

There is considerable debate on when the Church began. Did it begin at Pentecost, perhaps when Christ called his first followers, or does it stretch back as far as God choose people to carry out his mission to undo the fall? These are all positions held by various Christians. Likewise, when we refer to Scripture what are we referring to? Individual scripture that later were declared to be canon, the full canon, and does it include works that were for a time considered scripture but are no longer? Does it include both the New Testament and Old, or just one of them?

These questions in themselves cry out for more discussion, but we must stop asking questions that move us away from the main question in mind at some point. For the sake of simplicity when the term the Church is used in this piece it will refer to the believers who joined together in common purpose of living out the path Christ set down for them from Pentecost to today. I do believe that the Church has existed as God’s called out ones since the fall, but since I also plan to deal mainly with the New Testament we will leave that theological debate for another time. I mean to deal with the NT not because I wish to set it against the OT (I do not, although I do believe the NT to reveal much more then the OT did) but because with the writings that came out of the early church we can see how it interacted with scripture soon after it was written.

Now it is simply a chronological fact that the Church came before the NT Scriptures. It is also a fact that it was the church that wrote the Scripture. Now to this some may want to say to the first point, that although the church did chronologically come first, God ordered all from before time was created. I would agree with those that raise that point, but such an argument does nothing to further the position that Scripture has no relation to the church since just as God ordered scripture before time began so He also ordered the church. Others, citing 2nd Timothy 3:16, will say to the second point that the church did write Scripture, but they did it under the inspiration of God. Now I would also not disagree with them that God inspired the writers, but all that means is that God used his chosen instrument, the church, to bring his word into the world. It does not mean that the church does not have the authority to interpret scripture, or to even choose what scriptures belonged in the canon.

What 2nd Timothy also does not do, which many evangelics believe it does, is set out a particular quality that only the scriptures collected in the canon have. The term simply wasn’t used that way as Craig D. Allert points out in A High View of Scripture?

In this argument, appeal is made to 2 Timothy 3:16, which states, “All Scripture is inspired by God [theopneustos] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”…a few words about therm translated “inspired by God” (NASB) or “God-breathed” (NIV) are in order here. Basicly, the argument is that the biblical term theopneustos is reserved and used only in refrence to the biblical documents, and that this is what gives these documents their unique authority. This argument is dependent, of course, on the understanding that the fathers understood and accepted this designation. If theopneustos was accepted as the unique designation for only canonical documents, then the implication follows that the fathers would be reluctant to apply that designation to anything other than canonical documents. An examination of the patristic literature, however, contradicts this argument.

Allert then goes on to list commentaries, a tomb inscription, and synod decisions that were said to be theopneustos. This is important because it goes directly to the relationship between Scripture and the Church. Protestants have often said that the church played no role in accepting the canon. The argue that the Scriptures that belonged in the canon had a quality, that is, they were inspired, and all the church did was recognize that quality. Besides the fact that this has been shown that is not how the term “inspired by God” was used, it also does away with the debate and disagreements within the early church as which books belonged in the canon.

The church discussed and debated which scriptures belong in the canon. Over many years they compared what they had been taught about Christ to the writing that they had accepted the scriptures that agreed with what they understood and were deemed important. Am I saying then that the church chose the canon? In one real sense yes, it was not simply them recognizing the scriptures that belonged right from the beginning, but a process. Could the church have then chose otherwise? Could the church have got it wrong? Are we missing books, or have included books that should not have? I do not believe so.

Just as God used the Church to write the Scriptures, so He used it to announce what books were Scripture. God works through His Church. He uses the Spirit to guide it. He would not let it choose the wrong books. We must believe that the God who had the power to sacrificed His Son for us has the power to tell us about it. Does this mean that the church never makes mistakes? No, of course not. But on an issue such as what books are Scripture we must have faith that we have the right books.

In the next entry we will look at what this means for the authority of Scripture and the role the Church now has in understanding it.

Putting The Church First

Published by Bryan August 20, 2008 in Religion, Philosophy and Theology. 12 Comments

The Archbishop of Canterbury is in a very odd situation.

To briefly explain for those who will not read the linked to article, before Rowan Williams was the Archbishop of Canterbury he held to the position that it is wrong to condemn homosexual relationships. In fact, in personal letters that have come to light he says that a consensual loving homosexual relationship may not be against scripture. This is in opposition to official Anglican Church teaching, and is at odds with the public position he has taken recently as Archbishop (As has been pointed out by his defenders). This therefore puts the Archbishop in a position where he is publicly defending the churches teaching, yet in all likelihood, privately disagrees with it. The liberals believe he has betrayed their cause, the conservatives don’t believe he can be trusted. Both of those positions opposing him seem to be quite clear, but what of those bishops who are defending him?

Is there anyway that the Archbishop positions in this matter can be reconciled? I think they can, if it is recognized that he is putting the churches understanding of scripture above his own understanding of scripture. I do not doubt that Rowan Williams understands scripture not to condemn loving homosexual relationship, but he recognizes that this understanding is out of sync with the historic Christian understanding. Taking his position as Archbishop seriously he has recognized that he must protect the churches understanding above his own. Rowan Williams has separated what he believes as a theologian from what he practises as a church leader. Is this however valid?

I must first applaud Rowan Williams’ commitment to the church and his office. Putting weight in how the church understands scripture is something that needs to be encouraged among Christians today. Today’s Christians are individualistic. They have no time for traditional understandings, or abiding by decisions made outside of their control. The Archbishop’s willingness to abide by the churches understanding is refreshing. Scripture is the book of the church, not of the lone wolf.

I of course disagree with the Archbishop’s personal understanding of the topic of homosexuality, yet I would rather have him admit what he does believe then cover it up.

I have often asked myself what I would do if I was put in a similar situation as the Archbishop; one where I come to, after much study, an understanding of scripture that is different then what the church teaches. I have faced this decision on a local church level, having reached conclusions on the sacraments that were incompatible with the church I was a member of, but a question such as homosexuality is a bigger question. What if I was to, no matter how much I wanted to agree, disagree with the historic church on a question such as the Trinity, the nature of Christ, or justification?

I have said many times before to friends that a person cannot go against what they believe is right. That is, I cannot simply stop believing something if I am convinced it is true. I can however subject myself to follow an authority that I disagree with if I believe following that authority is more important then my personal beliefs. This may sound strange in a modern world where freedom is placed as the most important goal, but in a world view where community and tradition is put above freedom holding to such a position would not be unnatural.

In the perfect world my understanding of scripture (as well as everyone else’s including the Archbishop’s) would match up with what the church has historically taught. It doesn’t. I therefore have to decide on each individual issue if I think my understanding is so much more important then my commitment to the church, and if the issue in question is worth going against the churches teaching over. I also have to decide what the church has historically understood (which is a huge task in and of itself). This, or something similar is the position the Archbishop is in, and it seems that he has chosen the church on this particular issue..

Now I would much prefer the Archbishop to actually be convinced homosexuality is sinful, and by the Spirit’s working I hope that one day to happen. I also think it is important for the leader of the church to actually believe what the church teaches. However, with the situation being what it is, I am happy that the liberal who is Archbishop does take the church seriously since there are many liberals and conservatives who do not.

Were Old Testament Saints Born Again?

Published by Bryan August 5, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Theology. 6 Comments

Recently a discussion arose on this blog about the status of people who followed after God before Christ died. In this entry I will attempt to show that old testament saints were born again and had the same status before God as we do today. This is not to say that the experience of a believer before Christ and those who believe after Christ are exactly the same, but I believe there is more continuity between the experiences then often assumed. We will begin our discussion with a brief examination of John 3:1-10:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

Here Christ is explaining that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. He offers no date as to when this type of experience is to begin, it reads as if one must already be born again to enter the kingdom. But I want to draw attention to the last line in particular; Jesus assumes that Nicodemus should know this. Jesus is not laying down a new teaching here, this is what the Old Testament teaches and as a teacher of Israel you should know this. It is taught and shown throughout the Old Testament (as well as the new) that one is saved by being born again, this is the simplest reading of this passage. For the purposes of this entry the question of what “water” refers to in this passage will be left aside and we will examine only the role of God’s Spirit in this action. To prove this several passages will be examined that shows this.

So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him (Num 27:18).

With Joshua (see also Caleb Numbers 14:21) we have a clear example of an OT saint who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and Romans 8:7-11 explains that the indwelling of the Spirit is what gives life to the believer (a more detailed explanation of what Jesus was discussing with Nicodemus). The concept of the Spirit being in the believer is therefore not something new to the New Testament, it happened in the Old. A further explanation of what this means is given in the New Testament, but although Christ’s connection to the the Spirit is not explained until the New Testament does not mean it did not exist in the Old. The OT saints understood in part, but they still understood part (or should have) and took part in the Spirit.

And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live (Deu 30:6).

The saints in the OT had circumcised hearts, they loved God with their hearts. This can only be true of someone born again, only the Spirit can do this. Romans 2:8-29, explaining further on this as the NT does, making it clear that this is done through the Spirit.

But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought out a man after his own heart, and the LORD has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you (1Sa 13:14).

Here we see why God choose David to be king; He wanted someone who was after Hid own heart. Could someone be after God’s heart and not be born again? Romans 8:8 says that “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” How does one leave the flesh but by being born again? How can one please God but by being after His heart?

When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day (1Sa 10:9).

Often it is assumed that being given a new heart by God is what makes one born again and that it happens only in the New Testament, yet the one instance where it is explicitly said to have happened in scripture takes place in the Old Testament. King Saul when he was made King by God was given a new heart. We also see in Ezekiel 18:31 God telling people to turn away from their sin and embrace a new heart. The people in the OT had an understanding of what this meant and had the ability to do so.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem; then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar (Psa 51:10-19).

Here we have King David in the OT touching on all aspects of what it means to be born again. The Spirit, joy in salvation, true worship of God, and a heart set after God. Of course this passage brings up the question of if someone can have the Spirit taken away from them or not, and is the answer different in the OT from the NT. Although I have recently become convinced that someone can have the Spirit removed both in the OT and the NT, I do not believe a view that holds that the Spirit can be removed in the OT and not the NT proves that OT saints were not born again. Is not being able to give up one’s salvation what it means to be born again? What scriptures that discuss being born again makes that the central point? It may be argued that it is a difference between the OT and NT (and as I admitted at the beginning there are differences) but I don’t believe it’s a difference (assuming it is different which will take a whole other entry to work out) that has anything to do with what it means to be born again

All of this now begs the questions; if the saints in the Old Testament were born again how were they before Christ?

When this topic was discussed in another blog entry a few weeks ago John 1:12-13 was brought up as proof that a direct knowledge of the incarnate Jesus was needed to be born again, but is that what that passage teaches?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus does not come and dwell incarnate in this passage until verse 14 when the Word becomes flesh, yet verse 12 and 13 speak of being born of God. How is that possible? Verses 10 and 11 explain; Jesus was in the world He just was not incarnate yet. The saints in the Old Testament received Christ in this form and were born again. They did not fully understand who it was that they were embracing, but they trusted God and had faith that He would send a Messiah who would save them from their sin. This was the experience of Simeon and Anna in Luke 2. They had placed their faith in a coming saviour, they embraced Him even though He had not yet been born. For this they were part of those who became children to God, they were born again.

The Christ was known to those in the Old Testament through the shadows in the temple, through the prophets, and through their history as a nation. Trusting in God and His Messiah was how one received the Spirit of god, how one was given a new heart and how one loved God. Those who believe that the Old Testament saints were not born again must show how the born again experience we have today differs in these regards.

The Importance Of The Christian Story

Published by Bryan July 22, 2008 in Essays, Religion, Philosophy and Theology. 9 Comments

Cultures are identified by their stories, and the Church is a culture. It follows that they Church too is defined by her story. But what is that story?

-Peter J. Leithart, Against Christianity

If you were to spend some time in a Christian Church today, would you be able to discover what their story is from the preaching you hear? More often then not, Christian preaching disregards the story. This happens in one of two ways:

First, the story is told, but only as a means to draw out abstract theoretical considerations. What happened is therefore of far less importance then the abstractions that can be drawn out of it an universally applied to the Church.

Second, the story is not told, and instead what is offered as preaching is not anything drawn from the Christian story, but from the stories of the world around us. Pop psychology, self-help, and the latest in cultural trends become the message delivered to the people.

Is it any surprise then that we have a generation of Christians who either are full of only theoretical knowledge, or Christians who are nothing other then moralists? But these two things are only the way the story is disregarded, we should before going any further, answer Dr. Leithart’s question about what our story is.

The answer should be obvious, and every Christian knows it, they just simply don’t understand what it means. The story, the Church’s story, is our history. Beginning in the beginning, through the Old and New Testaments, through the early Church, the medieval period, the Reformation, the revivals, and right to today. Unfortunately, the Church has not only forgotten it’s history, but has actively sought to at best limit the importance given to it, and at worse repudiate it. All that is allowed to be discussed as the history of the church is what can be found in the scriptures from the death of Christ onwards.

The Old Testament is nice for children’s stories that offer good morals (which shows just how little these stories are stripped of what they actually say and are made into abstracts), but is really the history of the Jews. After the New Testament the Church began to go bad very fast so we can learn very little from it. The Reformation was a great period in Church history, but lets keep with the slogans we have inherited from it and understand them outside of any context. Revivals are great, but let us not study the First Great Awakening. I once read some of “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God” and it’s obviously not what the Church needs today. No, lets keep with what we have today, let us remember no more past Billy Graham. We have the truth, and it’s unchangeable so why worry about the past anyway?

This view has set the Church adrift. We are swept along with whatever currents come our way because although we may have a a solid ground under the waves in the form of scripture, we have no way to anchor to it anymore.

Stories have the ability to anchor to something. They connect us, and bind us to something, yet more then that they conform us to it. By reading the Church’s stories, we learn what it is to live the life of someone following after God. Although abstract theological knowledge has it’s place, it cannot, in practice, conform us to anything. We may learn what we are to do in general, but stories show us, in specific instances, how God’s people in the past dealt with how to live out their faith.

Christians today can deal in the abstraction, in the theoretical, but put them into flesh and blood situations and they no longer know what to do. No one has trained them how to act as Christians, how to follow after Christ in practice. That is the job of stories, they show us what we can be, what we should be. They show the failures we may have, and the successes that are possible.

More then that, if the Church has lost it’s own stories, it must seek new ones out. Every culture, every institution, needs something to conform to; it needs stories to remember who it is. The Church, in giving up it’s own stories, has embraced the world’s stories. Secular humanism is the story that has crept into the Church. Our stories allowed us to speak to all issues of society; politics, medicine, finance, religion…etc. Today, with the stories we appropriated into the church we can speak only on religion.

This is the tragedy of modernity for the Church. We’ve embraced the story of it, and by doing so have relegated us to observer, occasional commentator, but mostly leftover appendage trying to find something, anything but our own story, to rally around. The Church must re-discover it’s history, it’s story. It needs to look again at the Old Testament, and take seriously the people and stories in it. It needs to look at it’s glorious, and sometimes not-so-glorious, history and rally around it. Hold it up as what it means to follow after Christ, learn from it, and use it as boundaries to keep us walking on the same path we have for all of history.

The Church must become radical again. We must cast off the philosophical positions that was not just pushed on us, but often readily embraced. We need to begin once again work out the implications of the gospel (that is the announcement that Jesus is Lord, that He has begun to set up His Kingdom and will allow no rival one) and begin to apply it to all areas of our lives. Only then will the world take note of the Church, only then will the world will realize the power of Christ, only then will the world see the threat that the Church posses to it.

Leaving Canterbury For The Other Side Of Tiber?

Published by Bryan July 8, 2008 in Religion, Current Events and Theology. 15 Comments

The following is what I see happening, it does not mean I agree with what I see.

There were news reports this weekend (see HERE, and HERE) that some conservative Anglican bishops opposed to female bishops in particular, and the general liberal direction of the church as a whole, are considering joining the Roman Catholic Church. If these bishops convert to Roman Catholicism they would not be the first Anglicans (think of John Henry Newman and Thomas Howard), and surely will not be the last. But why would any Protestant want to convert to Roman Catholicism?

The answer I think is quite simple; the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) on many, many, doctrines is more orthodox then Protestant churches.

Women in the ministry, the homosexual question, the Trinity, and the importance of the church, are all topics (and there are more) that many Protestants have moved away from their historic teaching on, yet the RCC has remained steadfast on them. If a Protestant is leaving a church or denomination because it is too liberal, the RCC should at least have some appeal to them. The appeal for some Anglicans is even more however, as besides being conservative, they also have similar liturgy, structure (somewhat but not identical, as there are huge differences between the position of Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury), and history. This has lead to the Anglo-Catholicism movement within Anglicism, and converts to Rome seeing it as not a big shift.

The Anglican church however is a big tent church, and not every conservative Anglican could jump into the RCC. Evangelical Anglicans, although quite conservative, place so much importance on the doctrine of “Justification By Faith Alone” that no matter how many other orthodox teachings the RCC has, they don’t see themselves as ever being able to be part of it because of it’s view on justification. Others see the supremacy of the Pope as a huge stumbling block, or other doctrines such as prayers for the saints.

But still, even with the disagreement over justification evangelical conversions are not unheard of. Last year Francis J. Beckwith, an evangelical although not an Anglican evangelical, made headlines when he joined the RCC (althouh not to escape the liberal creep, he’s still a good example of the possibility to evangelical conversions). I’m not sure how much Beckwith’s understanding of justification had changed to allow for conversion, but in an interview after his conversion he pointed to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document as being helpful in his conversion so I would assume he would hold to something along the lines of what it says:

We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ. Living faith is active in love that is nothing less than the love of Christ, for we together say with Paul: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2)

So maybe there is even room in the RCC for some evangelicals who can agree with this?

In the future I can only see more conversions to Catholicism out of liberal protestantism. Within Christianity there is a division happening, between the conservative and liberal faction. Within the Anglican Communion it’s coming to a head now, and if some see no other option conversion to Catholicism may increase. Of course no one wants to leave the Anglican Church. Plans are being devised for everything from compromise to dual power structures for conservatives and liberals. These may work, they may not, but the idea of jumping to one of the most conservative Christian traditions can’t be far from mind for many conservatives with mainline liberal churches.

Stepping Back - What Is A Sacrament, And Does It Do Away With “Faith Alone”?

Published by Bryan June 24, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Theology. 10 Comments

About The Series In General
This will be the final entry directly on the subject of sanctifying grace being given in the Lord’s Supper. In past entries we have looked at: The Frequency Of The Lord’s Supper, If The Lord’s Supper Is Magic?, and Calvin’s View Of The Lord’s Supper. In the next few entries we will be turning to other aspects of the Lord’s Supper before moving on to baptism. Today we will examine the objection to the view that sanctifying grace is given in the Lord’s Supper which argues that such a view does away with the Protestant doctrine of “Faith Alone”.

Stating The Objection
The objection has been stated on here in the following form:

Our FAITH is what bestows grace (and that faith is also a gift from God). Belief in magic rituals that “force” God to bestow grace is unbiblical. Grace is not something we do acts to earn, it is a gift granted despite our complete inability to do anything to deserve it…

And summed up as

Grace granted as the result of an act isn’t grace, it is a wage that was earned.

Since sacraments have already been distinguished from “magic” in a previous post in which were given biblical examples of acts brining about God’s grace not being considered magic, I will first only briefly address the magic comment before moving onto the main trust of the argument.

What Is Magic?
Magic is the act of relying on a supernatural force to bring about some desired end. The supernatural force is under the command of the magician and in popular cultural is usually brought about by some kind of ritual.

A Christian sacrament on the other hand is a gift given by God to help the church perform it’s mission on earth. It is God who brings about the result of the sacrament, it does not rely on any power in the one who performs it. Whereas magic attempts to either appease or control of a supernatural power or being into performing the whim of the magician, there is no appeasement or control in a sacrament. Man does not force God to given grace in a sacrament, God freely gives it because it is a gift to the church.

A Comparison To Prayer
Why sacraments are accused on being magic, and doing away with “Faith Alone” and not prayer confuses me. One way to think of sacraments are prayers of physical matter. In prayer Christians ask for grace to be given them (Lord give me the strength to overcome XYZ so I can conform more to Christ) and in the Lord’s Supper one takes the bread and wine expecting help to become more like Christ. The only major difference in this respect is that one is spoken, and the other a physical action. If sacraments are magic rituals, then prayer is magic enchantments. We will return to this comparison of prayer later.

The Doctrine Of Faith Alone
No Protestant will argue with the importance of faith in the life of the believer. No Protestant will argue with the statement that “It is by faith alone that one is justified.” However, Protestants will differ on what that statement means. The first Reformers who championed the doctrine saw no contradiction between that doctrine and the belief the the sacraments bestow grace.

As we saw in the last entry, that was Calvin’s view, and it was also Luther’s, the greatest champion of the doctrine to to mention the hundreds of other Reformers who held similar views. One could argue, and it often is, that those Reformers were still caught up in some Roman Catholic doctrine and it was left to others to shed the remaining Roman Catholic doctrines. While such an argument may be made, futility I believe, all I wish to point out is that historically we need not see a break between sacramental grace and the doctrine of faith alone.

How Is That Possible
One modern evangelical writer who has bucked the trend of seeing the Lord’s Supper only as an act of remembrance, and has made room for grace being given in it is Wayne Grudem. Chapter 48 of Grudem’s Systematic Theology is entitled “Means of Grace Within The Church” and will be used to explain why sacraments and the doctrine of “faith alone” are not mutually contradictory.

Grudem begins by asking the question:

All of the blessings we experience in this life are ultimately undeserved - they are all of grace. In fact, for Peter, the entire Christian life is lived by grace (1 Peter 5:12).
But are there any special means that God uses to give additional grace to us? Specifically, within the fellowship of the church are there certain means - that is, activities, ceremonies, or functions - that God uses to give more grace to us? Another way of formulating that question is to ask whether there are certain means through which the Holy Spirit works to convey blessings into the life of the believer. Of course, personal prayer, worship, and Bible study, and personal faith, are all means through which God works to bring grace to us as individual Christians. But in this chapter we are dealing with the doctrine of the church, and we are asking specifically within the fellowship of the church what the means of grace are that God uses to bring blessing to us.

Grudem identifies 11 activities, ceremonies and functions that God uses to bestow grace on the believer (For example; teaching the word, prayer, worship, giving…etc). Two of them are ceremonies (Baptist and the Lord’s Supper) which are which are the sacraments. It is important to note that in Grudem’s understanding, and all orthodox Christians, these means are only avenues that the Holy Spirit uses. The ritual in and of itself does not bring about grace, but it is the Holy Spirit working through them that does.

On the Holy Spirit working through the sacraments Grudem is lock step with Calvin who said in section 19 of his Short Treatise On The Lord’s Supper:

But to understand this advantage properly, we must not suppose that our Lord warns, incites, and inflames our hearts by the external sign merely; for the principal point is, that he operates in us inwardly by his Holy Spirit, in order to give efficacy to his ordinance, which he has destined for that purpose, as an instrument by which he wishes to do his work in us.

Not Ex Opere Operato
Ex Opere Operato is a Latin term that means that the work of the sacrament being performed confers the grace to the recipient, for the sake of our discussion, regardless of their faith. Such a belief would do away with the Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”, but Grudem is clear that this is not what he means:

But on a Protestant view, the means of grace are simply means of additional blessing within the Christian life, and do not add to our fitness to receive justification from God (However, the Anglican Church teaches that baptism is “generally necessary” for Salvation [My Note: We will deal with this in a later post if we get to baptism]). Catholics teach that the means of grace impart grace whether or not there is subjective faith on the part of the minister or the recipient, while Protestants hold that God only imparts grace when there is faith on the part of the persons receiving these means.

Once again we can turn to prayer to see a correlation. Prayer must be made in faith, in fact prayer is an act of faith. It must be made by someone who is trusting in God, and they put that trust into action by, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says “…offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgement of his mercies.” The fact that the faith of a person is acted on in a way commanded by God to receive grace does not do away with the supremacy of faith in prayer just as it does not do away with it in the Sacraments. In the sacraments the faith of the person is acted on through the means that God has ordained (Baptism or the Lord’s Supper) and it is because of faith that the grace is given, just as in prayer.

Why Then External Ritual?
The obvious question at this point should be; “If it is faith that is what matters in the sacraments, why bother with the external sign?” This is a huge question and one that I can only deal with in part in this entry. For an excellent extended answer see Evangelical Is not Enough by Thomas Howard The simple answer, and one that I heard given this past weekend, is because God commands it, but such a view seems to make the sacraments into a burden instead of the gift that they are. Yes God commands participation in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but He does it for our own good. To base participation in them on a command is akin to saying the reason your use a gift is because your dad who gave it to you our of love forces you to. God knows that humans enjoy ritual, that the physical is something that humans need to connect with, and there is so much meaning locked up in the sacraments that participating in them makes the gospel come alive in ways that reading about them can not bring about.

Conclusion
Are sacraments magical? No, they are means that the Holy Spirit use to bring grace to the Church. Do sacraments do away with faith? No, faith is the heartbeat of them. They are nothing without faith on part of the recipient. Is there nothing then to the external ritual of them? No, God has ordained the rituals of the sacraments, they are the means that our faith is expressed. Will this explanation satisfy everyone? No the debate that been going on in Protestant churches since Luther and Zwingli, but I hope at least to have done away with some misconceptions on the topic.

Calvin On The Lord’s Supper - Or What I Mean By Sanctifying Grace

Published by Bryan June 10, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Theology. 15 Comments

Continuing the ongoing discussion of the Lord’s Supper (Part One, and Part Two) we will be looking at John Calvin’s view of what happens in the Lord’s Supper since there is much in it I share.

John Calvin, in section 4.17.3 of The Institutes of Christian Religion says the following regarding what the body and blood of Christ does:

As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate.

This is the best explanation of what I mean when I use the term “sanctifying grace”. The grace that is given by the eating the body and blood of Christ is not grace that saves a person, but the grace that works like physical food does. It renews us, gives us energy, and keeps us healthy, not physically like ordinary food does, but spiritually. This is what feeding on the body and blood of Christ does.

But is this feeding on the body and blood of Christ what happens in the Lord’s Supper, or is it something that happens only spiritually through relying and trusting in Christ? Most evangelicals would agree with Calvin if he was referring only to what happens through trusting and relying on Christ through faith with no connection to the Lord’s Supper, except perhaps through some disjointed symbolism. But it is clear that Calvin is not only referring to what happens only when one trusts in Christ, but what happens when one trusts in Christ through the Lord’s Supper as section 4.17.10 discusses.

Section 4.17.10 begins by repeating section 4.17.3 in a condensed form which shows it is the same line of reasoning continuing:

The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ.

Calvin then goes on to answer the question of how Christ, being far away from us (sitting at the right hand of God) can be connected to us, allowing us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Although this question has not been a point I have dwelt on in my discussions of the Lord’s Supper it is an important point of which the Reformed and Lutherans have historically disagreed on.

This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive, viz., that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space.

Calvin then enters into discussion of the question we have here been considering in the past blog entries; what happens in the Lord’s Supper. His answer is that exactly when was said in 4.17.3 is what happens:

That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude. For this reason the apostle said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10: 16.) There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified.

Calvin believes scripture connects the Lord’s Supper to what is symbolized by it. When we drink the wine we are participating(ESV)/sharing(GNB) in the blood of Christ, likewise when we eat the bread we are participating(ESV)/sharing(GNB) in the body of Christ. If this is the case, then when we take the bread and wine we are in fact taking the bread and blood of Christ and the benefits that come with it. This is not to say that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Christ, Calvin would deny the Roman Catholic doctrine, but they are connected. How are they connected?

I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true, let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.

The bread and wine symbolizes the body and blood of Christ, but the symbol is not a mere symbol. Through the taking of the symbol what the symbol represents is given. The benefits of the body and blood of Christ are given in the Lord’s supper because by receiving the symbol, one receives what is symbolized. To steal an explanation of this consider the example of a wedding ring. The wedding ring is a symbol (among other things) of the marriage, but when the ring is placed on the finger what it symbolizes comes into being. The ring is not the marriage, but it is so connected to the marriage that it is not an empty symbol; it truly represents the truth of the marriage and one who receives it receives the benefits of the marriage covenant through it.

How then shall this all be summed up? According to Calvin the Lord’s Supper gives the Christian sanctifying grace, that is grace for the Christian life, because the bread and wine are the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and through those symbols we participate with what they symbolize.

Oh No, It’s Magic… Or Maybe Not.

Published by Bryan May 27, 2008 in General, Religion and Theology. 11 Comments

Usually the first objection that is brought up when a person who holds to a memorialist position learns that I hold to the view that some kind of sanctifying grace is imparted to a participant in the Lord’s Supper is that I’m believing in magical elements. To quote a commentator on a previous thread, where I introduced this idea:

The Bible does NOT teach that magic rituals obtain grace, but rather that faith is rewarded with grace.

I believe there are two reasons that this, and similar responses I’ve heard from many people, occur. The first, and one I will only touch on here, is that it comes from a lingering rejection of the Roman Catholic Church. Having “grown up” in Baptist churches, where the memorialist position was the norm, all other positions were pretty much lumped together as being the Roman Catholic view, or at least on the way to it. I don’t believe this was done intentionally, by most, but was done simply for lack of knowledge on other traditions in general and lack of thought on the Lord’s Supper particularly.

As an example to this, I was talking with a friends dad the other day who use to be a pastor in The Christian And Missionary Alliance (Not to put either the dad [who I enjoy talking with] or the CMA [which I am attending a church of and enjoying it very much at the moment] down but only to illustrate the issue) and the fact that I think grace is imparted in the supper came up. His first reaction was to call it a Catholic view and begin to discuss what is wrong transubstantiation. The fact that I didn’t mention the topic of Christ’s presence, but only wished to talk about what happens in the Lord’s Supper didn’t seem to matter. It was a deviation from the memorialist position and therefore must be Catholic and include the whole of the Catholic teaching. This is of course absurd, but it happens often. The only way to combat this is education on the fact that protestants have historically had varying views on the Lord’s Supper and not everything different is Catholic. Of course a better understanding of what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches and why would also help.

The second reason that any grace position is rejected as magic, and I think the more pervasive one, is that the vast majority of people today have in their minds a radical separation between the spiritual and physical world. We can chalk this dichotomy up to gnosticism or enlightenment philosophers, but the fact is that it’s there and it’s undeniable. The idea that God would use an object to give grace, seems so very strange to many because of this.

Today’s average Protestant Christian has simply accepted the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and never actually looked to see what it means. It has therefore morphed into something much closer to a doctrine that says “justification by faith in faith alone” eliminating any physical connection and bringing in the nebulous idea that it is faith the saves a person and not something or someone. When pressed on it, every protestant worth their salt will respond that it is Christ that saves, but in the abstract, the fact that He was a physical person whose action we put faith in to accomplish what scripture promises putting faith in Him will, is not considered. The physical actions of Christ are often overlooked on account of faith. We are not saved by faith, but saved by a person who in faith we trust in to do what He promised.

To bring this a bit away from the abstract, we could ask the question: If Christ did not go to the cross, commit a physical action, would salvation still be open to people even if they had faith? The answer I think is no, Christ needed to go to the cross, and He needed to be raised again or else our faith would be in nothing.

This is all well and good you say, but that was Christ committing a physical action, your speaking of us performing a physical action of receive grace. Isn’t that works salvation?

Works is the funny thing in Protestant theology. I was once asked long, long ago, how I could say I didn’t believe works saved and then say that faith was needed to be saved. Wasn’t faith a work? The question perplexed me for a while, I was a very new believer, but the answer is quite simple; faith may be a work, but it is one that is done not by our own power but by God’s (Ephesians 2:8).

The Protestant argument against works is, or at least should be, that the person is trying to save themselves. They are doing works of their own power to get a spiritual result. They think that by doing something they are storing up merit that counts towards them in heaven. These are not views I want to put forward as what happens in the Lord’s Supper at all.

When I say sanctifying grace is given in the Lord’s Supper I mean that God uses the elements of it to give us grace. It’s the avenue which He sends His grace to us through. There is no inherent quality in the bread and wine that gives grace to any eater of it, but God sends His grace through it to those who take it in faith. As we saw earlier God uses the physical Christ to bring saving grace to us, and we see other examples in scripture of Him using physical objects to bring grace to people.

Consider Numbers 21:9:

So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

There are several questions to ask with a passage like this. Was it a work for the people to look at the snake? Did they heal themselves? Was it the snake that healed, or was it God? Of course we will say it was not a work, that God healed them and it wasn’t the snake that did but God working through the physical object. The same questions should be asked with Mark 8:23-25 where Christ used physical objects to heal a man of his blindness.

None of this is proof, or even an argument, that sanctifying grace is given in the Lord’s supper, thats not the point here. The point is to give the person pause who rejects that view out of hand because it comes across as magic. God can, and does, use physical means to distribute His grace. He did it with Christ, with the serpents on the pole, and with mud and spit. The absolute dichotomy between physical and spiritual is not one found in scripture. Our God works in mysterious ways, and through mysterious objects, and we should embrace that!

Don’t Make Wikipedia Your Only Source

Published by Bryan May 13, 2008 in General and Religion. 12 Comments

I use Wikipedia a fair bit. When wanting information on a topic I haven’t read on before I will often look it up on Wikipedia and use what I find there as a launching board for further research. However I am careful not to simply accept what Wikiedpia says but to actually look into the topic more. I do this because ever so often I will read something on it, and knowing a fair bit about the subject already, I shake my head at how wrong the article is.

For example, in the article on Archangel, Wikipedia says:

A similar opinion is held by certain Protestants, such as Seventh-day Adventists,[11] the Baptist evangelist Charles Spurgeon[12] and the Presbyterian Commentary author Matthew Henry,[13] who believe that the Archangel Michael is not an angel but is instead , the divine Son of God. In this view “archangel” means “head of the angels” rather than “head angel,” and is a title similar to “Prince or Leader of the host.” (Daniel 8:11)

Spurgeon and Henry did not, as best as I can tell, hold to what is being attributed to them here. If you look at the citation they have for Spurgeon (Morning and Evenings, Morning of October 3rd) what he says is:

He it is whose camp is round about them that fear him; he is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to thee this family offers its morning vows.

Spurgeon is not here saying Micheal is Jesus, but instead saying that Micheal is a type of Christ. Michael kills the dragon , and that points to what Christ has done to death.

The citation that they have for Henry (His commentary on Daniel 12) seems to be similar:

Jesus Christ shall appear his church’s patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, Dan_12:1. The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, Dan_10:21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deu_32:36. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev_1:5. And, if he stand up for his church, who can be against it? But this is not all: At that time (that is, soon after) Michael shall stand up for the working out of our eternal salvation; the Son of God shall be incarnate, shall be manifested to destroy the works of the devil. Christ stood for the children of our people when he was made sin and a curse for them, stood in their stead as a sacrifice, bore the cure for them, to bear it from them. He stands for them in the intercession he ever lives to make within the veil, stands up for them, and stands their friend. And after the destruction of antichrist, of whom Antiochus was a type, Christ shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, shall appear for the complete redemption of all his.

Henry is not as explicit as Spurgeon is, but to attribute to him the simplified view that Wikipedia does is to do him a great disservice.

Another Example: Augustine
An entry that I just came across tonight where Wikipedia really drops the ball is it’s entry on Augustine in it they say:

The Church of England disavowed the state of original sin in the 16th century.[citation needed]

Yet the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church clearly state:

IX. Of Original or Birth Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.

This doesn’t mean that Wikipedia is useless, as I said I myself make use of it, but with anything you want to properly understand you cannot stop with only one source (and a secondary source at that) but you need to use many sources, and go to the primary ones whenever possible. If you don’t do this, you many get close to the truth (As with the archangel example), or you may end up with something completely wrong (As with the Original Sin example). The problem with Wikipedia is that it makes people lazy. They will read it and simply assume that what they are reading is true, they ignore primary resources, and don’t look at what is being cited in Wikipedia (if a citation is given at all).

Zeal For Truth