...ET TUNC VENIET CONSUMMATIO

Book Review - Berkouwer on General Revelation

2011-12-26T20:19:00.000-05:00

G. C. Berkouwer, General Revelation, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1971. 336pp., hardcover.

Berkouwer’sbook on general revelation is a classic on the subject. A famous professor ofthe University of Amsterdam, Berkouwer’s own doctoral dissertation was on thesubject of revelation (entitled Faith and Revelation in Recent German Theology)and this particular book on general revelation was first published in 1955. Thebook is divided in eleven chapters. The first four chapters are devoted toapologetical engagement. In them, Berkouwer investigates Karl Barth’s view ofgeneral revelation and refutes it through the work of Barth’s friend, EmilBruner, and another German scholar, Paul Althaus. Still in his apologeticalmaterial, Berkouwer analyses and refutes the modern understanding of generalrevelation embrace by the Roman Catholic Church, especially after the SecondVatican Council. In the remaining of the chapters, Berkouwer develops his ownidea of general revelation.

Berkouwersituates his readers in the discussion in the very beginning of the book. Hereminds the readers that the idea of general revelation has been abused to thepoint that “the unique significance of revelation in Christ was relativized andendangered” (11). According to him, a true and valid formulation of thedoctrine must offer not threat to the unique revelation in Jesus Christ. “Theremay be no competition between God’s general and special revelation, and everyconception of general revelation which is the result of doubt as to theabsoluteness of the revelation in Christ is to be condemned” (14). The resultof such commitment will prove to be the affirmation of natural revelation. Thenext question Berkouwer wrestles with is if from general revelation there mustflow a natural theology. “We must discuss”, he affirms, “the background ofnatural theology and ask whether general revelation and natural theology areindissolubly united” (15).

Thechapter on Karl Barth’s theology of revelation is clear and insightful.Berkouwer clearly spells out Barth’s view or revelation, setting him on a kindof vendetta against both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Berkouwerexplains that, for Barth, everyone missed the train concerning revelation. Noone really understands it. And as a fruit of this lack of understanding amortal enemy has been created: natural theology. “Barth’s rejection ofnatural”, Berkouwer affirms, “is motivated by his conception of God’srevelation in Christ as the unique and exclusive revelation in the world” (22).Anything apart for Christ may be labled as signs or witnesses, but never asrevelation. For Barth, there is no revelation apart from the incarnation. Godcannot be known apart from his grace. It was exactly this narrow view ofrevelation that granted Barth’s theology the “christomonistic” classification.

Berkouwer masterfullydescribes Barth’s position on the biblical texts that refer to a specialrevelation like Romans 1 and places him against the great French reformer JohnCalvin. When both are compared, Berkouwer affirms “Barth’s exegesis of Romans 1is radically different” (31). Barth acknowledges that the text speaks of arevelation of God in nature but such revelation is not in the eyes of thenatural man, of the pagans who reject Christ; but in the eyes of the apostlePaul, a regenerated man. Because of whom Paul is in Christ he can see God’srevelation in nature, he gazes at God in creation “in the light of therevelation in Christ, in the light of the cross and the resurrection” (31).Barth’s calls this a “reading-into”. Paul is not speaking of a generalrevelation that every man in the world has access to but he is interpretingnature through his redeemed eyes. Berkouwer reveals Barth problem and affirmthat this awkward and unique reading of Paul is due to Barth’s fear in creatinga competitor to God’s revelation in Christ. In Barth’s mind, if there is anyother kind of revelation except that of the incarnate Son, than redemption iscompromised. “Such a second source of knowledge would, he thinks, be in sharpconflict with the redemptive character of God’s revelation” (32).

Berkouwer does nothimself refute Barth’s position. Instead, he summons one of the Barth’s bestfriends, Emil Brunner, and another German theologian, Paul Althaus. Both manappealed to a clear reading of the scriptural evidence concerning generalrevelation. Brunner rejects Barth notion that Christ is the only source ofGod’s revelation and affirms that, in this point, “Barth is in direct conflictwith Scripture” (38). For Brunner, the Bible does affirm that God revealshimself in creation, the problem is how this general revelation relates withspecial revelation in Christ. Creation declares that there is a God that isknowable only through a Christian theology. With the theology of the 16^thCentury, “Bruner maintains that it is at this point that the Reformationdiffers fundamentally from Rome: there is general revelation but no naturaltheology” (43). Paul Althaus approach, in spite of his affirmation of generalrevelation was very different from Bruner’s. Going on the road built by Rome,Althaus affirmed a salvific natural theology as a product of generalrevelation. On the basis of the natural theology, Althaus stressed the closerelationship between other religions and the Christian faith to the point of“denying that Christianity was the absolute religion and hold that it was onlya special form of the general ‘revelation which lay behind all religions’”(48).

Berkouwer devotes a wholechapter to refute the Roman Catholic position on general revelation. Heexplains that the idea of a natural knowledge of God and a natural morality asfruits of God’s general revelation is not a new concept for Rome. But it was inthe Vatican Council that natural theology was crowned with the status of“rational knowledge and carefully distinguished from the knowledge of faith”(62). For Rome, natural theology means “a natural knowledge or theology derivedfrom the created things by means of reason” (64). Through this knowledge, Romeaffirms, man can know God certainly and truly. Berkouwer explains that what isbehind Rome’s is an unbiblical “anthropology or view of man, which lifts theso-called rational soul out of the sin-depraved life of man, and then by way ofthis non-corrupt reason considers man capable of true knowledge of God” (67).

On the issue of sourcesof revelation, Berkouwer wrestles with the question of revelation beingexclusively in Christ and sets a distinction between christocentrism andchristomonism. Revelation is christocentric, he affirms. Every speaking of Godpoints to Christ, but this is “entirely different from revelation commencingwith him” (106). He accuses neo-orthodoxy of creating a “once-and-for-all” ideaof revelation in Christ which is contrary to Scripture when it speaks of God’srevealing voice everywhere, particularly in the Old Testament narratives. Berkouweraffirms, appealing to 1 Peter 1:11, that either God indeed revealed himselfapart from the incarnation or the Israelites never truly new God. If Abraham,Moses, and David did not know God the Old Covenant was just an illusion.

Is there a knowledgetransmitted by God’s general revelation? If there is one, what kind ofknowledge is that? Berkouwer considers the positions of Troeltsch and Barth onthis subject but seems to embrace a “third way” found on the thought of Kuyper.Berkouwer recognizes the problem of false religions and adopts the explanationfor their existence in the general revelation found in creation. The reason whythese religions depart from the truth of Christianity, according the Kuyper,lies in “man’s corrupted natural knowledge of God” (166). Therefore, generalrevelation indeed produce a kind of natural theology. However, “the perversionof man’s natural knowledge of God plus a given people’s natural disposition andhistory produce a particular kind of false religion” (167). Different fromRome, Berkouwer affirms with Kuyper that the natural theology drawn fromgeneral revelation is enough for man’s condemnation but never for hissalvation.

Berkouwer spends a greatdeal of time dealing with the controversy around article II of the Belgicconfession. He first considers Barth’s disagreement with the text of theconfession and the reactions of three theologians: Koopmans, Haitjema, andPolman. After considering the strengths and weekenesses of their positions,Berkouwer moves on to a positive and detailed explanation of what exactly isthe meaning of the Belgic confession when it talks about “two-sources” of revelation.He, first, affirms that the goal of the confession is not “to give adissertation on general and special revelation, neither does it deal with man’ssituation before and after the fall” (276). The confession’s intention is onlyto affirm the existence of two means of revelation, completely different fromthe counter-reformation Romanist two-source-theory (Scripture and tradition)and also different from the universalist idea of the Vatican Council of anatural theology. Given that the confession expresses a thoroughly Calvinisticview of the fall of man, the text of Article II simply affirms “the majesty andgoodness of him who is not the hidden God, but the God who reveals himself insuch an abundance of evidence, that this glory can be passed by only out ofutter blindness” (278).

Berkouwer’s book is agem. It not only transmits the biblical view of general revelation and itrelevance to both believers and unbelievers but also situates the reader in allthe important debates, and important figures, concerning this issue not so longago. The strength of the book is Berkouwer’s insistence in rejecting anytheological idea that is not in accordance to Scripture. We must not be afraidto accept what Scripture has to say about a specific topic even if what it saysmay be wrongly used and interpreted by others. The principle of Sola Scriptura must always be held ifone wants to embrace the whole counsel of God. There is no need to fear generalrevelation, as long as we keep with the biblical view of a completely depravedman, totally dependent on God’s grace. Thus, incarnational revelation is keptit is place of absolute glory!

1 Peter 5:1-4 - The Hight Calling of the Eldership

2011-04-24T09:10:00.001-04:00

Senior sermon preached at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in April 2011.

Resisting your adversary - 1 Peter 5:8-9

2011-03-29T09:38:00.002-04:00

One of the most fun things to watch in the entire world is a group of Brazilians cheering for their soccer team. No matter what their occupations are, they become professional coaches right there in that moment. They scream instructions to the players even if they cannot hear a thing. They are alert to all threats that the opposing team’s strategy offers. They jump and wave their hands in the air when they score a goal. All this hysterical and energetic behavior takes place for one reason alone: they want their team to win the adversary.

As we approach this passage in the first letter of Peter let us have this question in mind: how do we face the fact that we have a spiritual adversary who is willing to use all kinds of strategies to destroy us. What has been our preparation? Are we mindful of his existence and of his primary intent (which is to overcome the church of Christ)? In these two verses the apostle call his original readers attention to the existence of the devil as their personal adversary, to the strategy he uses in his attacks and of how to resist him.

The devil is the personal adversary of the Christian. Along with the indwelling sin in believers and the fallen world in which they live in, Satan personally plans and executes his plots aiming to make the sons of God fail in the progress of their sanctification and in their harmony and intimacy with their Saviour. This Peter expresses when he says “your adversary” (verse 8). Today, some say that the devil does not exist, that this is something Christians created in order to escape from the blame of their sins but you, young brethren, do not underestimate your adversary neither doubt his existence. Remember that your Saviour, Jesus Christ, personally engaged in combat against him, and so must you.

What is the devils strategy? Peter uses the illustration of a lion to describe his methods. First, Peter says that he “prowls around”. He circulates the Christian, being attentive to their weaknesses and to those things that might be useful in making them fall. Second, he “roars” against Christians, in the attempt to scare and terrorize them, to make them flee from their Shepherd straight into his trap! Third, he “devours” his pray. After he make the Christian fall in his trap, he feasts on him. He not only rejoices in that he accomplished his infernal intent, but he proceeds in destroying that Christian’s life with the particular sin (or sins) in which he is entrapped.

The solution to the coward attacks of the adversary, Peter says, is to “resist him” (verse 9). Christians need to oppose their adversary just as there are opposed and offer him unbearable resistance. How? “Stand firm in your faith.” Do not abandon what you have been learning from every sermon you hear, from all the bible studies you do, do not relax in your duty to pray and, most of all, do not relay on yourself. Your faith is not on your personal ability to fight against Satan, but as the hymn says: your “hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” This is your faith!

Young brethren, just as the young sheep are the preferred pray of a flock, so are you in the eyes of your adversary. As you fight against him be encouraged by the saying of another apostle: “I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one” (1 John 2:13).

Who are Gog and Magog in the book of Ezekiel?

2010-12-22T11:11:00.001-05:00

After reading this short article consider taking a look at the following resources:

The identity of גּוֹג֙ and מָּג֔וֹג in the visions of the prophet Ezekiel has been for centuries the target of much speculation and uncertainty. Scholars have proposed the most different positions concerning this mysterious character of Ezekiel’s prophecy and this lack of consensus indicates how difficult and delicate the task is.

In order to establish the identity of Gog, affirms Block, “we are dependent entirely on this oracle.”[1] There is no mention of Gog and as a historical character in the OT. Attempts have been made to associate Gog with Gyges, the king of Lydia. Given the association of Gog with Meshech, Tubal and other parts of the region of Anatolia (supposedly Magog), Alan Millard affirms that: “There is no reason to doubt, therefore, that Gog and Magog in Ezek 38-39 are the King Gyges of Lydia and his realm.”[2] On the other hand, this association does not seem to fit neither history nor the character of Gog in the oracle. The prophecy describes Gog and his associates as a threat to the restored people of Israel; on the other hand there is no historical proof that Gyges or any prince from the region of Lydia has ever made any attempt against Israel after its restoration from Babylonian captivity. It might be argued that the association of Gog with Gyges was only illustrative and not literal. But even so the association is still inadequate given that Gog and his horde is described as a massive invincible super-power while Gyges was utterly defeated by the Assyrians. The historical Gyges does not represent the fearful Gog. According to Iain Duguid, “Gog of Ezekiel transcends historical categories and takes on mythical proportions, rather like the figure of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie The Terminator.”[3]

Given the unique characteristics of Gog, Fairbairn seems to be right when he said that it is an “ideal name” and not a real person[4]. Block reinforces the old Scottish theologian affirming that the “combination of mystery and brutality made Gog and his confederates perfect symbols of the archetypal enemy, rising against God and his people.”[5] But who is this enemy? The answer lies in the redemptive-historical reading of the prophecy. Robertson wisely notes that “the names of the nations attacking Israel derive from the ancient table of nation in Genesis 10.”[6] Noah’s blessings to Shem and curses to Canaan were carrying over the enmity between the seed of the woman and the serpent (Gen. 3:15), between the sons of Seth and the sons of Cain (Gen. 5) and between the sons of God and the sons of man (Gen. 6). Gog, therefore, represents the archenemy of God and his people, Satan, along with all his allies (Magog) doing what he has been doing since creation: assaulting God’s children.

There are other factors in the oracle which supports this biblical-theological reading. First, David is the king of the restored people, resurrected by God in Ezekiel 37, since David has been dead for quite some time when Ezekiel revealed this oracle to Israel, it is reasonable to assume that this new David is the Messiah. As Fairbairn says, “the new David, the all perfect and continually-abiding Shepherd, presides over them, and at once prevents the outbreaking of internal disorders, and shields them from the attacks of hostile neighbors.”[7] Therefore, while ultimately Gog’s war is against Yahweh, the oracle depicts the battle between Satan and the Messiah.

Second, the presence of elements of eschatological proportions (seven nations representing the totality of peoples of the earth, their scattered geographic location representing the whole world) forces the attentive reader to consider the redemptive-historical character of the prophecy. The gory description of the final battle and its unrealistic high number of dead soldiers along with the presence of a cataclysmic earthquake links this prophecy with others known passages in Scripture which are widely recognized as eschatological. The earthquake is found in Isaiah 29:6 and in Joel 3:16 and the great final battle engaged against an ideal enemy is found in Numbers 24:17-24, Isaiah 14:28-32, Joel 3 and Daniel 2:44-45. In fact, the prophecy itself issues a rhetorical question from Yahweh which demands an affirmative response (Ezek. 38:17) linking this conflict with Gog with the other prophecies from the past. Fairbairn writes: “It (the prophecy) appeared now only in a new form, but the thing in itself had been many times described by God’s servants.”[8]

Third, this eschatological battle finds its fulfillment in the Day of Judgment as revealed in Revelations 19-21. That John intended these chapters to depict the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy is clear from the similarities between the final vision of Ezekiel (chapters 37-48) and the celestial Jerusalem (chapters 20-21)[9]. The presence of Gog and Magog, the infinity number of nations (“as the sand of the sea”) associated with Gog, their destruction by fire before they can do any harm to the saints, all these elements follow the prophecy of Ezekiel and depicts it as being fulfilled here.

Given these reasons it seems extremely unwise to try to locate Gog and Magog in the history of human kind in any place else except in the return of Christ. Against fellow brothers who associated this super-villain with the Goths (Augustine), the Turks (Luther), or the communist Soviet empire (dispensationalists), we affirm that Gog and Magog are a figurative representation of Satan as his allies who strived against the Messiah and were utterly defeated and will be totally destroyed in the day when Yahweh will judge all.

Among many practical applications from this great battle, Christian should be encouraged by at least two. First, the absolute and sovereign control that Jehovah possess over the forces of darkness. It is God who raised them for He himself predicted their coming. It is God also who restring their attack and control them in all that they do. And it is God who finally brings them to complete destruction. All these things should bring Christians courage to fight their battles and dependence on God knowing that only in Him they can overcome the enemy of their souls. Second, it also give Christians great assurance that nothing can take away from them the harmonious fellowship and peaceful relationship they have now with Yahweh in Christ. With Paul, they can be sure that nothing can separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:31-39). According to Christopher Wright: “the destruction of Gog as the final great enemy of Israel and Yahweh thus stands as ultimate reassurance to God’s people that their future is secure, No enemy will disturb the peach of god’s people in God’s earth ever again.”[10]

[1] Daniel Isaac Block, The Book of Ezekiel, The New international commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1997), 432.

[2] New International Dict of OT Theology & Exegesis. Pradis CD-ROM:Topical Dictionary/G/Gog and Magog.

[3] Iain M Duguid, Ezekiel, NIV application commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1999), 447.

[4] Patrick Fairbairn, Commentary on Ezekiel (Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Publications, 1989), 429-430.

[5] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 436.

[6] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets (Phillipsburg, N.J: P & R Pub, 2004), 307.

[7] Fairbairn, Commentary on Ezekiel, 434.

[8] Ibid., 425N3.

[9] Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2007). 1145.

[10] Christopher J. H Wright, The Message of Ezekiel: A New Heart and a New Spirit, The Bible speaks today (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 317.

Preaching from Genealogies

2010-12-10T10:23:00.000-05:00

It is often hard to preach from genealogies and preachers generally skip them. But Rev. Marty Martin from Fellowship Presbyterian Church (who happens to be my pastor) did an magnificent job last Sunday on the genealogy of our Saviour registered in the Gospel of Matthew.

Here is the sermon:

Check as well this suggestions on the subject:

Does Psalm 150 allow worshiping God with dancing?

2010-12-01T21:31:00.002-05:00

Psalm 150 is part of the last collection of Hallel psalms in the Hebrew Psalter. This last collection starts in Psalm 146 and some theologians have notice a progression in this five psalms of the theme halelu yah (Praise Yahweh) in which the worship of God starts in the individual (Psalm 146), extends to the community (Psalm 147), until it encloses the whole creation (Psalm 150).[1] If this progression is questionable, the generalized imperative to the whole body of creation (celestial or earthly beings, live or lifeless entities, rational and irrational beings, Israel and other nations, all kinds of musical instruments) to worship its Creator is not.

1. Does it speak of dancing in this Psalm?

The word מָח֑וֹל appears seven times in the Hebrew Bible: one time as a proper name[2], three times it is contrasted with the word “mourning” (מִסְפֵּד or אֵבֶל)[3], one time with the word שָׂחַק[4], and two times with the musical instrument תֹּף.[5]

English translations in their great majority translated מָח֑וֹל as “dancing”. This is also the position of the most known commentaries on the book of Psalms. The NIDOTTE associates this word etymologically to the root חול which means “to perform a whirling dance”.[6] In spite of affirming the possibility that in Psalm 149 and 150 the word may denote the idea of musical instrument, this meaning is not fruit of the original meaning of the word itself (in other words, of its root) but is consequence of a figurative usage (synecdoche). The enhanced edition of BDB also affirms the root of מָח֑וֹל as חול and, thus, its meaning as “dancing”. It seems that this root association was influence by an article written in 1981 by M. I. Gruber.[7] On the other hand, Gruber seems to have been influenced yet by another scholar. Julian Morgenstern, professor in the Hebrew Union College, wrote an article in 1916 in which he also affirmed that מָח֑וֹל was a development of חול.[8] If all this sources are correct and no doubt can be raised concerning the relationship between root and derivative word, then one is stuck with the rendering of מָח֑וֹל as “dancing”.

But among all the commentaries consulted in the composition of this paper one alone mentioned an alternative root for מָח֑וֹל. On Calvin’s commentaries on Psalm 149 there is a footnote, certainly not from Calvin[9], which affirms that the root of מָח֑וֹל is the Hebrew חל which means, to make a hole or opening.[10] According to someone named Parkhurst[11], the translation of מָח֑וֹל to English should be “some fistular wind instrument of music, with holes, as a flute, pipe, of fife”. The footnote also mentions the observation made on the translation on the word מָח֑וֹל by the Methodist Rev. Dr. Adam Clark who said: “I know of no place in the Bible that מחוֹל, mechol, or מחלת, mechalatah, mean dance of any kind; they constantly mean some kind of pipe.”[12] It is important to remark, although, that I could not find the root חל in modern lexicons.

In 1894 this position on the root and meaning of מחוֹל as a musical instrument was still prevalent. The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, published in that same year, in its sixth volume, pages 763 to 773, presents a well researched article on music instruments in the Bible in which it asserts that “the word ‘dance’ is used in the AV for the Hebrew term machol, מחוֹל, a musical instrument of percussion supposed to have been used by the Hebrews at an early period of their history.”[13] The article also indicates the changing in meaning of the word mentioning “some modern lexicographers who regard machol as synonymous with rakod (Eccles. iii, 4), restrict its meaning to the exercise or amusement of dancing.”[14] In spite of the arising controversy, it reinforced its main proposition of מחוֹל being a musical instrument by recurring to the Semitic and Arabic[15] versions of the Old Testament and the Targumists rendering of that word. Among scholars, in addition to Dr. Adam Clarke and Parkhurst, it finds support in Rosenmuller who “in his commentary on Exod. xv, 20, observes that, on comparing the passages of Judg. xi, 34; 1 Sam. xviii, 6; and Jer. xxxi, 4, and assigning a rational exegesis to their context, machol must mean in these instances some musical instrument, probably of the flute kind, and principally played on by women.”[16] Another scholar mentioned in the article is Joel Brill, who wrote a preface to Mendelssohn’s Psalms, who comments precisely on Psalm 150 and affirms of it that “it is evident from the passage, “Praise him with the toph and the machol,’ that machol must mean here some musical instrument, and this is the opinion of the majority of scholars.”[17]

Therefore, given the existence of a different translation for the word מחוֹל, especially one that fits perfectly with the context of Psalm 150, it seems appropriate to affirm that this psalm is not refereeing to the activity of dancing but to another musical instrument that along with all other indisputable instruments mentioned in the pericope must be employed in the praise of Jehovah.[18] The necessity remains now of an investigation to discover why in around 22 years this meaning of machol was so neglected and rejected to the point that modern lexicons do not even mention it as a usage once employed. I suspect that at some point in the history of the study of Biblical Hebrew language, given the difficulty of the word, scholars simply embraced the meaning by the Septuagint to מחוֹל without asking too many questions. Gesenius seems to have adopted this position.[19] Another possibility is the imposition of a synonymity between מחוֹל and x, in Ecclesiastes 3:4, restricting the meaning of the former to the “exercise or amusement of dancing.”[20]

[1] Geoffrey Grogan, Psalms – Two Horizons Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 225.

[2] I Kings 5:11.

[3] Psalm 30:12, Jeremiah 31:13, Lamentations 5:15.

[4] Jeremiah 31:4.

[5] Psalm 149:3, Psalm 150:4.

[6] New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Pradis CDROM.

[7] M. I. Gruber, “Ten Dance-Derived Expressions in the Hebrew Bible,” Bib 62, 1981, 320-346. The text in the NIDOTTE affirms that it owes its definition of the root חול to him.

[8] J. Morgenstern, “The Etymological History of the Three Hebrew Synonyms for ‘to Dance,’ HGG, HLL, KRR, and their Cultural Significance,” JAOS 36, 1916, 321.

[9] On his commentary on Psalm 150, Calvin seems very secure in understanding the Hebrew words on verses 3 to 5 as instruments used in the praise of the Lord. Yet he affirms “I do not insist upon the words in the Hebrew signifying the music instruments.”

[10] John Calvin, Commentary on the book of Psalms, Vol. 2, Ages Software.

[11] In spite of all my efforts, I could not find anywhere who is this person.

[12] John Calvin, Psalms, Vol. 2, Ages Software.

[13] John M’Clintock and James Strong, The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6 (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1894), 772.

[14] Ibid., 772.

[15] The Arabic equivalent for the Hebrew מחוֹל refers to a drum with either one or two faces, not to a flute or pipe.

[16] M’Clintock and Strong, The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, 773.

[17] Ibid., 773.

[18] The most literal translations of Psalm 149 and 150 in the Portuguese language render מחוֹל as flute and also favor this position.

[19] Ibid., 773.

[20] Ibid., 772.

Psalm 8 - The Majesty of the Lord's name.

2010-11-29T13:48:00.001-05:00

Sermon preached from the pulpit of Fellowship Presbyterian Church (PCA)

Psalm 2 - Foolish Rebellion

2010-11-29T12:28:00.000-05:00

Sermon preached at the chapel of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Psalm 2 - Breno Macedo from Breno Macedo on Vimeo.

Some thoughts on Psalm 1

2010-10-23T09:49:00.002-04:00

If you want to boost your skills in reading the Psalms don't hesitate to by the book "How to read the Psalms" by Tremper Longman. You can buy the book here.

There is a general agreement among scholar that Psalm 1is as wisdom psalm. It shares many similarities with the book of Proverbs. It is also agreed that it is a didactic psalm. The position of this particular psalm as the introduction (“the door”) to the Hebrew Psalter is very suggestive since it invites its readers (or singers) to communion with the covenantal God of Israel as well describes the disadvantages toward those who refuse him. There are many indications that Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 formed together a single text, but none of them are conclusive.

1. Is there a progression in verse 1? If so, explain; if not, explain.

There is a clear parallelism present in the very first verse of Psalm 1. The repetition of nouns and verbs characterize a case of syntactical parallelism. The parallel repetition of the verbs הָלַךְ֮, עָמָ֑ד, יָשָֽׁב, expresses a dynamic progression in abiding in the company of the wicked. The verbs to walk, to stand and to sit convey the common and progressive seductive effect sin exercises over sinners.[1] Little by little, they get entangled with it until they dwell in its presence always and without any problem with their conscience.

It seems that there is also a dynamic progression on the use of the nouns רְשָׁ֫עִ֥ים, חַ֭טָּאִים, and לֵ֝צִ֗ים. The book of proverbs has a lot to say about the לֵ֝צִ֗ים. VanGemeren explains that “the “mockers” have no regard for God and his commandments; the mocker is a fool in the language of wisdom (Prov. 9:8; 14:6). He does not respond to instruction (9:7; 15:12) but stirs up strife by his insults (22:10). He delights in mocking (1:22). Thus the way of folly is comprehensive as it entails a devotion to self and to the group in all areas of life.”[2] The wicked, then, grows deep in his sin and reaches the climax of their unrighteousness in the company of the scoffers. Kinder rightly affirms of them that they are “if not the most scandalous of sinners, are the furthest from repentance (Prov. 3:34).”[3]

That the idea of company is what the psalmist is trying to convey becomes clear in the strong adversative idea expressed in verse 2. כִּ֤י אִ֥ם expresses a strong disagreement with the practice previously described, and as a antithetic attitude, אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי־הָאִ֗ישׁ keeps company with the בְּתוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה. If the “Law of Yahweh” is only the Ten Commandments, the five book of Moses or the hole Old Testament is uncertain. But what is clear is that, whatever it is, the “blessed man” spends time with it and abides in its company יוֹמָ֥ם וָלָֽיְלָה, in other words, all the time, thus setting the parallel contrast with verse 1. This idea of keeping company also influences in the translation of the word בַּעֲצַ֪ת, which although conveying both ideas of “advice” and “assembly”, in the context it makes more sense to render it as the later definition.

2. What is the significance of “like a tree planted by springs of water”?

The psalmist engages here in the attempt to create a similitude between the righteous and a tree. Just as it is water what feeds the plants and trees and make them grow and fructify, it is the Law of Yahweh, and the perpetual meditation upon it, what solely feeds the soul and makes one to be blessed. A spring of water (פַּלְגֵ֫י מָ֥יִם), different from a wadi, is a constant and abundant source of life and although time does not stop and the different seasons of the year unavoidably come, the one who is like this tree will be “ever green”. Adversities will come but he is “well rooted” and “constantly feed”, therefore he will always prosper. The metaphor emphasizes the idea of keeping God’s company and avoiding those of the wicked established in the first two verses.

3. What is the relationship between blessing and doing/not doing in the psalm?

The Psalm communicates an expectation of blessing for the righteous. The blessing is conditional since the “happy man” is the subject of the verbs in the verses that describes his way of life. As the subject, he executes (or not) those actions and as a result he must be sure to prosper.

On the other hand, the prosperity of the righteous is not a reward for his good deeds but is a consequence of his wise decision to keep the company of Yahweh. This is expressed in the illustration of the tree, which is steadily planted by the constant stream of water. For any plant in that condition, the natural

The blessing of the righteous is not confined to the concept of material prosperity, for in other Psalms the wicked are also described as those who prosper. The presence of the Lord, the guarantee of his company in all that he does, this is the blessing. The wicked, on the contrary, do not stand before God. Even if they are circumcised Israelites, they do will not be part of the “congregation of the righteous.”

The Psalm also points to eternity. The words בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֑ט (v.5) and תֹּאבֵֽד (v.6) points the reader to that day when the holy assembly of the elect will be gathered in the company of their Savior to judge the wicked and enjoy the blessings of Yahweh forever.

[1] Contra Willem A Vangemeren, Psalms in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary – Vol. 5 (Michigan: Zondervan, 1990), 54.

[2] Ibid., 54.

[3] Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72, an Introduction and Commentary (London: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 64.

Getting to know our God - Proverbs 2:1-5

2010-09-21T08:58:00.000-04:00

Isn’t it curious how fast we can get acquainted with the things in which we have the strongest interest? If we are interested in an actor we watch all his movies, we want to dress like him and use the same language and gestures he does. If we are interested in a specific toy we quickly learn of all the different models that are available, we know the little differences between the various models and we always want to have the latest! Now, what about God? Is that also applicable to him? Is that true that the more we are interested in God, if we are at all, the more we seek him and the more we want to know about him?

Solomon answers this question positively. In the first two verses of chapter 2 he makes the case for the relation between willing and knowing. He first sets up some conditions that can be easily turned into questions. The first one is: if you are willing to receive the instruction of God. In other words: are you willing? Is that your desire? Are you interested in the knowledge of God, in his instruction? Solomon, with this condition, is pointing to the desire of your heart. As you are interested in so many other different things and know all about them, are you as well (or even more) interested to be acquainted with the teachings of your Lord?

The second question is about its value for you. Solomon explains that it is not enough that you are interested in the knowledge of God but that you also understand it value and that it must be precious for you. To express this idea he uses the word “treasure”. Just like you, my dear sister, treasure your make up set and does not want anyone to touch it; or you, my beloved brother, treasure your electronics and don’t want your siblings (specially your younger sister) using them; do you also treasure the teaching of God in such a way that you don’t want to lose any of it? Do you value and desire for the moments spent with his Word when you do it by yourself, or at Sunday school, or at the preaching during worship?

If, then, this desire is in you; there are some tips of what to do to make to most of the moments you spend receiving the teaching of God. The first one is that you must be attentive. You should be thinking on nothing else apart from the text that is being discussed. You must listen carefully the explanations given for it and seek to apply it to your life. In being attentive you also help others to be attentive and do not disturb them.

The second tip is that you must use your reason. You must “incline you heart to understanding.” Now, how can the heart understand anything? Isn’t it responsible for our feelings? Not in the Hebrew language! In the Hebrew culture, the equivalent to the mind in our culture is the heart. It is the one responsible to process information and, therefore, when you learn from God you are to use your brain. You must commit the teaching of God to memory, you must ask question so that you may understand it fully and be able to teach other. Both your attention and mind need to be engaged in this great purpose of know more and more of the Lord.

When you desire the teachings of God and when you dedicate you attention and mind to learning from him, guess what happens? You will know him! Guaranteed! And it is the Lord himself who guarantees it. Verse 5 expresses this great promise. God will instruct you, he will explain to you the content of his Word and you will know him. Through the aid of his Holy Spirit he will teach you all things and through his Son, your savior Jesus Christ, you can fully know him.

Therefore, my young brethren, your love for the Lord and your interested in him is demonstrated when you seek to you know of Him, in his Son, though he Holy Spirit. Those who engage in know God do not labor in vain.

The role of parents in the life of the young - Proverbs 1:8-9

2010-05-27T09:47:00.002-04:00

One of the characteristics of some TV shows and movies in our days is to depict parents as an unwelcome part of our lives. It is common to see kids trying to do things behind their parents back, telling them lies and challenging their authority. And in addition this is all done with tone of something normal, common, even expected. On the other hand, the Scriptures are filled with the idea of the authority and importance of our parents. Remember that there is a commandment exclusively dedicate to them and that our lord Jesus Christ himself demonstrated a particular interest and care for his earthly mother while at the cross.

My dear young reader, in these two verses of the book of Proverbs, Solomon gives you important principles to guide your relationship with your parents. The first one is the principle of equality. Observe that in verse 8, he used two words with the same meaning regarding what you are to do toward both your father and mother. Since these words are equal, no matter where the instruction or teaching is coming from (either from you father or mother), you are to consider them with the same authority and treat both of them with the same respect.

The second principle is that of the parents’ role. They are to instruct you and you are to hear their instruction and not forsaken them. In other words, expect your parents to correct you when they think you wrong. That is their role in your life. In our days, parental instruction is taken as an inconvenience, even as a lack of respect or invasion of space. All this ideas are contrary to the teaching of your God. It is because of His own design for a family that your parents take the time and make the great effort to instruct you in all areas. Your role, according to Solomon, is that of listening! Now, observe that he expands on that, you are to listen in such a way you will neither forget not neglect the instruction. That is the idea of the expression do not forsake.

The third principle is that of the value of your parent’s instruction. Solomon carries on his argument explaining why you should listen carefully to your parent’s teachings and not forsake them. He affirms that they are extremely valuable! They are compared to the golden crowns that are put on the heads of kings and queen. In a modern perspective, they are like the crown given to the prom queen, or like a football helmet made of gold! That is how important and valuable there are. Don’t you want to wear them?

Therefore, my young brother and sister, honor thy father and mother so that your days on earth may be long and prosperous. Give them the place of honor they deserve in your life, consider carefully their teachings and directions and never be ashamed of them. For if you do not honor you earthly parents who you can see, how are going to honor you heavenly Father who you do not see?

How much knowledge did you acquire this year?

2010-05-26T08:12:00.000-04:00

Now that summer is coming and that your term at school is coming to an end you should be asking yourself: what did I learn during this whole year? What knowledge did I acquire? Well, I am sure that you know now much more of math, science, grammar, history and other subjects than you knew last year (at least, I hope you do!). There is yet another kind of knowledge that should have increased in your mind and heart this year and that is the knowledge of your triune God. Did you learn more about Him this year?

Let me remind you that Christians should always be interested in learning about God, His will and His directions for our lives while we wait for the return of our savior Jesus. The best proof of this is that He has given you a complete library so that you would meditate upon it day and night: the Holy Bible. And that is not all! Among the 66 books of the Bible, your God gave you one which specific purpose is to give you wisdom and it is the book of Proverbs.

How do I know this book was written especially for you, my young brother and sister? Because it is written in the very first chapter! In verse 4 we read: “to give prudence to the naive, to the youth knowledge and discretion.” Therefore, young brethren, this book is of great importance for you. Yes, the Lord wants you to grow your wisdom in the most different subjects but most of all He wants you to be instructed in “righteousness, justice and equity.” You don’t learn that in your school (private, public or home). You need to come and learn from Him,

Now, why should you come and learn from God all this marvelous things? Because in doing so, you are being wise and not a fool. The book of Proverbs invites the wise to increase his learning by listening to its words of wisdom (1:5). It promises that through the understanding of its content the reader will receive guidance. On the other hand, the one who rejects its wise teachings and instructions is nothing but a fool (1:7). You don’t want to be a fool, do you?

Now, in order to understand and profit from the wisdom of the book of Proverbs, what should be your starting point? The book itself responds to you saying: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” When you approach your God seeking for guidance, do so in holy fear. Does this mean that you should be afraid of God? Absolutely not! The fear of the Lord is that profound respect, awe and recognition that you must demonstrate when you approach your creator, recognizing your infinite necessity of his instruction, guidance, love and mercy.

Let us, than, return to the initial question: how much did you increase you knowledge about God this year? Do you wish to be wise? Do you understand the Lord alone is your true source of wisdom? Seek this knowledge, young brethren. Do be a fool!

Tips to be godly sons from Ruth 4:15

2010-03-04T18:26:00.003-05:00

After reading this short article, check this great commentary in the book of Ruth: http://bit.ly/bbs8Tg.

It was a great day in Bethlehem. Boaz redeemed Ruth and a son was born from them. It was such a happening in the town that the whole neighborhood celebrated. The narrative gives the idea of Obed, the newly born baby, being carried through the streets of the city with dances and singing until they arrive at Noemi’s house and there the child is placed on her bosom. In addition to bringing to the boy to her grandmother, the women of the town also proclaim blessings upon Obed. Their words are not merely wishes, they are declarations of the boy will certainly be.

The first thing they said about Obed is that he would be for Naomi a “restorer of life.” This is said in contrast with the bitterness of the first chapter. Naomi’s husband and her two sons died and she is left alone with no way of supporting herself (1:3-5). Her sadness was so that she even changed her name (1:20-21 ). But now, the Lord had provided her a redeemer, the newly born lad, and he would become a source of life, joy and hope for Naomi.

Brother and sister, have you been a source of joy or of sadness and bitterness for your parents and for those around you? There are many ways in which we can achieve such a terrible thing. Tardiness to listen to instructions and counsel or even disobedience is some of the ways we can bring bitterness to our parent’s life. We can also do so by hanging around the wrong companies, those who leads us far from the standards of the Word of God for our lives, or even by not achieving the performance expected from us in our school assignments. On the other hand an obedient, hard working and bible-loving child a certainly one of the greatest sources of gladness to parents’ heart. Do you remember the expression of pleasure and joy you proportionate your parents when you do things right? Isn’t it great? Don’t you want to see that smile constantly on their faces?

The second thing they say about the baby is that he will be a sustainer of Naomi’s old age. The child would not only provide life and joy for her but also maintain it. It is very interesting to note this preoccupation in the Old Testament with elderly folks. The fourth commandment (Mt. 15:4) clearly obligate all of us to obey our parents (and those in authority) and one of its implications it to take care of them when old age come (as well as of those who are in authority).

Do you care for your folks now? Are you worried, for example, with your grandparents, always serving them when they are in need? What about your parents? Are you aware of your responsibility now to care for them, always helping them in their necessities or when they assign you to do some kind or work in your house (like to cut the grass, clean the yard, and take out the garbage)? What about the elderly folks in your church? Do you worry and care for them making out facilities a safe place for them? Do you avoid running inside the church when they are around or helping them to carry things, opening doors or moving around when they need? Be sure that these are all ways to be a godly child just as Obed.

Brother and sister, this is certainly the will of God for your life: that you would be a godly child. He gives you clear instructions and examples in his word not for you instruction alone but for you practice. On the other hand, without Christ, you can do nothing. Apart from the Holy Spirit of God, you certainly will have neither strength nor desire to be that godly Christian. Therefore, flee to him! Pray that he would daily change your heart, that he would by his mercy and power mortify day by day the sinfulness that abides in you and he would make you more and more like your Savior.

A Historical and Theological Appraisal of Calvin's response to Cardinal Sadolet

2010-02-19T20:44:00.003-05:00

INTRODUCTION

The year 1539 was a time of agony to the city council of Geneva. It was precisely in that moment, when the city was deprived of her best ministers and of her most brilliant theologian, John Calvin, that Cardinal Sadolet, bishop of Carpentras, sent a letter to the citizens and Council of Geneva “challenging them to restore obedience to the bishop of Rome.”[1]

Almost one year before the letter arrived in Geneva, 1538, the city council had asked her faithful reformed pastors, including Calvin and Farel, to leave the city because of nonconformity to the cultic practices of the city of Bern (defender of Geneva). Estep identifies these practices: “baptisms were to be performed at stone fonts; unleavened bread was to be used in observing the Lord’s Supper, and four special days in Christian year were to be observed – Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost.”[2] Reluctance to adopt the modifications and critical comments about the authorities of the city made the council speedily decide for expulsion. Calvin and Farel went to Bern to question that city about such happenings and to persuade the Bernese to review their practices and rules. The Bernese repented and tried the restoration of Calvin, Farel and others back to Geneva but without success. Some suggest that the problem was far beyond liturgical practices, and that it in fact was related to Calvin’s application of discipline in the city.[3]

With the promoters and maintainers of Protestantism far from Geneva, those in the city still in love with the Catholic Church and the pope, informed the former bishop of that city, Pierre de la Baume, of the latest news, hoping that this would bring him back. Merle d’Aubigne explains that la Baume contacted the pope, who made him cardinal and called the bishops of Besancon, Lausanne, Vienne, Turin Langres and Carpentras to meet with la Baume at Lyons along with the bishop of that city.[4] This meeting produced the idea of sending to Geneva a letter calling the city to repentance, persuading it to return the Roman church and, as a natural consequence, to accept la Baume back to his lost position.

Cardinal Sadolet was the one chosen to compose and send the letter. He was no common man. He “was one of the secretaries of Pope Leo X., bishop of Capentras in Dauphiny since 1517, secretary of Clement VII in 1523, a cardinal since 1536. He was frequently employed in diplomatic peace negotiations between the pope, the king of France, and the emperor of Germany. He had a high reputation as a scholar, a poet, and a gentleman of irreproachable character and devout piety.”[5] Added to this exalting description was the fact that he already had experience in writing such kind of letters for “once in 1537 he wrote to Philipp Melanchthon in Wittenberg, and again in 1538 to Jean Sturm in Strasbourg.”[6]

On March 26, 1539, the messenger Jean Durand, of Carpentras, arrived in Geneva with Sadolet’s letter. The council received the letter and promised to respond. Although the main reformers were not in the city anymore, there was no intention in the members of the council to return to Rome. They quickly sought someone who could ably respond the letter, but there was no one in the city. They asked their protector city, Bern, to take the task but no one there were apt to the task also. The Geneva city council, then, had to humble itself and ask the support of Calvin.

Calvin, after the expulsion from the city, found opportunity to minister to a large French congregation at Strasbourg with its more than five hundred members. There, “he preached or lectured twice on Sunday, and also once on every other day of the week.”[7] In August of 1539, Simon Sulzer, a minister of Bern, arrived at Strasbourg with a copy of Sadolet’s letter and a request of the council of Geneva to write a response to it. He wrote the response in six days and it was twice the size of the cardinal’s letter.

Two main reasons can be concluded for Calvin ready acceptance to write the response. First, Sadolet made serious moral accusations about the former reformers of Geneva. Certainly Calvin felt the duty of responding to such atrocious content, to restore his honor and that of those who served with him in that city. Schaff favored this point when he affirmed “though not mentioned by name, he was indirectly assailed by the cardinal as the chief among those who had been denounced as misleader and disturber of the peace of Geneva. He therefore felt in his duty to take up the pen in defense of the Reformation.”[8]

Secondly, Calvin was trying to preserve his own labors in Geneva as a reformer and also the protestant movement in the city. He perceived that to keep silent before that document would mean Geneva’s return to the Roman Catholic faith. Therefore, “apprehending the evil which the letter might bring on Geneva, ‘forgetting all the wrongs that he had received,’ and yielding to the entreaties of his Strasburg friend, he undertook the task”[9] of responding the letter.

SADOLET’S ARGUMENTS AND THE SOUNDNESS OF HIS POSITIONS

Sadolet’s letter to the people and senate of Geneva is not a strong theological document. It is certainly very well written; full of expressions that resemble the Pauline letters to the early churches; filled with flattering words about the people (expressing great love toward the Genevese) and about the city (about its arquitecture, form of government, and social services performed there).[10]

The main argument of the letter is the salvation of the readers’ souls. It is the main proposition which Sadolet used to develop his accusations against the reformers and to present Roman Catholic theology in a popular level. The readers’s place in haven was jeopardized since they had embraced the Protestant heresy and, being a good shepherd, Sadolet felt compelled to address this obnoxious threat. Right in the beginning of the letter he stated:

And that we may begin with that we deem most seasonable, I presume, dearest brethren, that both you and I, and all else beside who have put their faith and hope in Christ, do, and have done so, for this one reason, viz., that they may obtain salvation for themselves and their souls – not a salvation which is mortal, and will quickly perish, but one which is ever during and immortal, which is truly attainable only in heaven, and by no means on earth.[11]

And in the middle of the letter, in its most persuasive moment:

The point in dispute is, Whether is it more expedient for your salvation, and whether you think you will do that what is more pleasing to God, by believing and following what the Catholic Church throughout the whole world, now for more than fifteen hundred years, or (if we require clear and certain recorded notice of the facts) for more than thirteen hundred years, approves with general consent; or innovations introduced within these twenty-five years, by crafty, or, as they think themselves, acute men; but men certainly who are not themselves the Catholic Church?[12]

While explaining the importance of salvation and the peril of losing it, he did not spare negative words and expressions to unmask, in his opinion, the false teachers.

For, after It was brought to my ears that certain crafty men, enemies of Christian unity and peace, had in like manner, as they had previously done in some towns and villages of the brave Helvetii, cast among you, and in your city, the wicked seeds of discord, had turned the faithful people of Christ aside from the way of their fathers and ancestors, and from the perpetual sentiments of the Catholic Church, and filled all places with strife and sedition.[13]

Another element in the letter demonstrates Sadolet’s rhetorical genius. As a practical illustration of the salvation of the soul he had been developing, the cardinal created an imaginary scene in which two different souls (one who kept himself faithful to the Church of Rome and other who had been an author of the Protestant dissension) were “placed before the dread tribunal of the Sovereign Judge”[14] praying. The prayer of the faithful Catholic refers to obedience to the authority of the Church rooted in the tradition of the Fathers, even when witnessing the many errors practiced by her. On the other hand, the prayer of the reformer, as described by Sadolet, functioned as well as new accusations. Not satisfied with charging the Protestant leaders with innovation and schism, he depicted the reformer confessing other horrendous sins such as envy for the wealth of the clergy and anger because of the lack of intellectual recognition. These sins, declares the reformer in Sadolet’s illustration, were the incentive and the motive why he rebelled against the church, used the knowledge acquired in her schools to rob innocent sheep from its pasture, induced laymen to question the authority of the church and took advantage of the deceived people to became rich.[15] In addition to all this terrible things the reformer is also a liar (even before the holy judgment) for Sadolet’s affirms that during his prayer the rebel “kept back much concerning his ambition, avarice, love of popular applause, inward fraud and malice, of which he is perfectly conscious and which will appear inscribed in his forehead.”[16]

Sadolet did not employ strong theological arguments and biblical exegesis to combat the Protestant heresy. There are very few citations from the Bible throughout the letter, and the few of them which appear in the text are undocumented. It is impossible to check if Sadolet was quoting the Scriptures faithfully or not. On the other hand he made some statements concerning the Scriptures and the work of Christ that would resemble those of the reformers. Merle d’Aubigne affirmed that in such moments Sadolet was almost making an “evangelical profession” and he explained that the cardinal “belonged, as is known, to a small body of men feebly inclined towards the Gospel, who were at that time supported by the papacy in the hope that they would be the means of bringing back the Protestants.”[17] But even holding such admirable positions, he was always quick to defend the erroneous positions of the Catholic Church concerning the Eucharist (transubstantiation) and the worship of the body of Christ in it; the practice of auricular confession and prayers for the dead; and the mediation of the saints.[18]

The cardinal’s confidence in affirming all these beliefs as correct and above reproach seems to be due to his own belief in the supreme authority of the Church. In his mind, it is impossible for her to do anything wrong, and even if it were possible, those following her instruction would not be accounted as guilty because of the intention of their hearts. Concerning this thought, Sadolet presented no scriptural proof.

Is it not certain, that he who followed the Catholic Church will not be judged guilty of any error in this respect? First, Because the Church errs not, and even cannot err, since the Holy Spirit constantly guides her public and universal decrees and Councils. Secondly, Even if she did err, or could have erred, (this, however, it is impious to say or believe,) no such error would be condemned in him who should, with a mind sincere and humble towards God, have followed the faith and authority of his ancestors.[19]

Also worthy of notice is Sadolet’s explanation of what was for him (and for the Church of Rome) justification by faith. Although the cardinal repeatedly affirmed in the letter that his intention was not to make a theological debate, he dedicated significant part of the text to defend Catholic position and to attack the Reformed view. He affirmed that salvation is “by faith alone in God and in Jesus Christ” but he speedily definee faith as a mixture of credulity and obedience and concluded that one can be saved only by belief added to acts of love towards God.

For faith is a term of full and ample signification, and not only includes in it credulity and confidence, but also the hope and desire of obeying God, together with love, the head and mistress of all the virtues, as has been most clearly manifested to us in Christ, in which love the Holy Spirit, so also without love, nought of ours is pleasing and acceptable to God. When we say, then, that we can be saved by faith alone in God and Jesus Christ, we hold that in this very faith love is essentially comprehended as the chief and primary cause of our salvation.[20]

In such affirmation, Sadolet clearly set forth the soteriological difference brought by the reformers who preached, according to the Scriptures, that salvation is by faith alone, and that love for God and good works are necessary consequences of an already saved heart.

CALVIN’S ARGUMENTS AND SOUNDNESS OF HIS POSITIONS

The very first thing one can perceive in Calvin’s letter is his politeness and respect toward Sadolet. He gave the cardinal the tribute he deserved for his learning and for the eloquence and wit of the letter. This balanced behavior of the reformer was very important to the acceptance of the letter by the common people.

Calvin used some paragraphs to describe the reasons why he was responding to Sadolet. He explained that his intention was not to dispute in vain polemics and that, in fact, he was very reluctant in offering the cardinal opposition and did so “only under an imperative sense of duty.”[21] In Calvin’s own words: “Every person now sees that the stronguest obligations of duty – obligations which I cannot evade – constrain me to meet your accusation, if I would not with manifest perfidy desert and betray a cause with which the Lord has entrusted me.”[22]

A rhetorical observation on Calvin’s style worthy of observation is his intelligent use of irony and of his abilities as a lawyer. With much cleverness, the reformer was able to express the harshest ideas with softness and humor.

How heartless, I ask, would it be to wink in idleness, and, as it were, vacillating at the destruction of one whose life you are bound vigilantly to guard and preserve? But more on this point were superfluous, since you yourself relieve me of all difficulty. For if neighborhood, and that not very near, has weighed so much with you, that while wishing to profess your love towards the Genevese, you hesitate not so bitterly to assail me and my fame, it will, undoubtedly, by the law of humanity, be conceded to me, while desiring to consult for the public good of a city entrusted to me by a far stronger obligation than that of neighborhood, to oppose your counsels and endeavors, which I cannot doubt then to its destruction.[23]

Calvin’s first step in the letter was to defend his honor and that of his companions. He answered with much humility and modesty the accusations of seeking for applause, fame, recognition and richness. He did so by explaining his former education and the certain privileges he would have had if he had chose to stay with the Catholic Church. He mentioned Farel and the “distinguished family” he came from, demonstrating that his friend had no financial need whatsoever. He described to Sadolet the great difference between the wealth of the Reformers and that of the Catholic clergy. He explained to the cardinal that, among other warnings and instructions concerning pastoral reward in the reformed churches, it was the Reformers who defended that “as much should be distributed to ministers as might suffice for a frugality befitting their order, not superabound for luxury, and that the rest should be dispensed according to the practice of the ancient Church.” [24] Finally, he says, if what they were truly looking for fame, glory and money, they (Calvin and the other reformers) would have never engaged in the Protestant movement: “But not to go over a long catalogue, this I say, that of those who first engaged in this cause, there was none who with you might not have been in better place and fortune than require on such ground to look out to some new plan of life.”[25]

In the sequel, Calvin answered the allegations of schism. He did so using Sadolet’s strategy of scaring the Genevese concerning the salvation of their souls and the assertion that it could only be found in the Catholic Church. “When you uttered this voluntary confession, you laid the foundation of my defence”, wrote the reformer. He corrected the cardinal’s definition of “church” and attacked the notion of Church authority rooted only in the Spirit of Christ and not in the Word of the Lord. Calvin dismantled this idea by citing the words of the apostle Paul, and he said “that the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.”[26] He used the church fathers, in this occasion Chrysostom, affirming he warned the church against this kind of dichotomy and instructed the church “to reject all who, under the pretence of the Spirit, lead us away from the simple doctrine of the Gospel.”[27] Calvin’s final strike on this issue of the Spirit was his comparison between the Pope and the Anabaptists. “For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room to their own falsehoods.”[28] Also noteworthy is Calvin’s own definition of a true Church.

Now, if you can bear to receive a truer definition of the Church than your own, say, in future, that is the society of all the saints, a society which, spread over the whole world, and existing in all ages, yet bound together by the one doctrine, and the one Spirit of Christ, cultivates and observes unity of faith and brotherly concord. With this Church we deny that we have any disagreement. Nay, rather, as we revere her as our mother, so we desire to remain in her bosom.[29]

Calvin next step was to respond to the accusation of novelty. He reminded Sadolet of the cardinal’s own affirmation concerning the antiquity of the church (1500 years) just to prove that the Reformed churches “agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours.”[30] He challenged the cardinal to contemplate the Church as it was during the time of the great ancient Fathers and to compare it to the current state of Rome. The undeniable conclusion, according to Calvin, is that the Roman Church is just “the ruins of that Church, as now surviving among yourselves.”[31] Now, in what do the Reformed Churches resemble and imitate the ancient Fathers? Calvin identified four different areas: doctrine, discipline, sacraments and ceremonies.

Concerning doctrine, he affirmed that the Protestant Churches follow the oracles of God and these not only clearly expressed in the Scriptures but also “embodied in the writings of the holy Fathers and approved by ancient Councils.”[32] But about the Catholic Church he pointed out: “The truth of Prophetical and Evangelical doctrine, on which the church ought to be founded, has not only in a great measure perished in your Church, but is violently driven away by fire and sword.”[33]

On the issue of discipline, Calvin first remarked about its total absence among Catholics, and he attributed to it the terrible state of that church. Then, he remarked with all fairness and honesty that, in the Reformed Churches, it is “not such as the ancient Church professed”, but he quickly added: “with what fairness is a charge of subverting discipline brought against us by those who themselves have utterly abolished it, and in our attempts to re-instate it in its rights have hitherto opposed us?”[34]

Concerning the sacraments, the reformer declared he was only trying to bring them back to their former pure state, and of the ceremonies, which abounded in Catholic circles, he stated “we have in a great measure abolished…still we have retained those which seemed sufficient for the circumstances of the times.”[35]

Calvin responded to all other statements of the cardinal concerning doctrinal issues also. On the Lord’s Supper he affirmed the refusal of the Reformed theologians to circumscribe Christ’s divine power and his essence to the limits of any corporal nature (as taught in the doctrine of transubstantiation), and he claimed his thought not be a novelty at all “since it was always held by the Chuch as an acknowledged point.”[36] The doctrine of auricular confession he blamed on Pope Innocent III and called it as a “nefarious thing”. On the other hand he responded to it emphasizing the simplicity of the Reformed theology: “it was neither commanded by Christ, nor practiced by the ancient Church.”[37] On the intercession of the saints he explained that all that they do now is to “continually pray for the completion of Christ’s kingdom” and that the practice by the Catholics brought only “superstitions which had risen to such a height, that the intercession of Christ was utterly erased from men’s thoughts.”[38] Concerning the doctrines of purgatory and prayer for the dead, Calvin did not spare words to express his disapproval of them and to reveal their true use as a tool of avarice “in order to milk men of every class.”[39]. He admitted about the latter that it was, seldom, practiced by the ancient churches. Not in the way the contemporary clergy was doing, but only as a demonstration of affection for the deceased.

Calvin’s most elaborate answer to Sadolet is on the doctrine of justification by faith. He first emphasized the importance of the doctrine: “wherever the knowledge of it is take away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown.”[40] He then directed Sadolet to examine man himself and, referring to Rom. 4:7, he concluded: “For Scripture everywhere cries aloud, that all are lost; and every man’s own conscience bitterly accuses him.”[41] He, then, pointed the cardinal to Christ, to his righteousness and obedience which are the only thing which can “wipe off our transgressions” and he concluded: “We maintain that in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy.”[42] On the role of good works in the life of a Christian, Calvin said: “We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous.”[43] Craig Carpenter explains that Calvin’s position destroys the Roman dichotomy between Christ and his regenerative Spirit:

This passage articulates several significant points. For Calvin, but not for Rome, the presence of Christ cannot be separated from his Spirit. Because Rome gives the Spirit an assisting role in the regeneration/sanctification of the believer, which must occur prior to, and as a condition of, justification, the believer possesses the Holy Spirit and his benefits but may not possess Christ and his benefits. Trent, we have seen, agrees that “he who has obtained justification possesses Christ,” the first premise in Calvin’s argument. They balk, however, at the second premise, viz., that Christ and his righteousness are present where his indwelling and regenerating Spirit is. No point is more basic in Calvin’s conception of salvation than this.[44]

The end of Calvin’s reply is marked by his own illustration of the two prayers in the holy day of judgment. The first one is the prayer of a reformer in which, as affirmed Merle d’Aubigne, “Calvin narrates his own conversion.”[45] The second prayer is that of those who followed the reformers. It affirmed the necessity of believing in the pure truth of the Gospel and the crucial condition of the believer’s clean conscience before God, knowing by the due use of reason that what he believed is, in fact, the truth. Against Sadolet’s affirmation that, even believing in what is wrong, a Christian could appear before God without guilt, he stated in the prayer:

They told me, moreover, as a means of picking my conscience, that I could not safely connive at these things as if they concerned me not; that so far art thou from patronizing any voluntary error, that even he who is led astray by mere ignorance dos not err with impunity. This they proved by the testimony of thy Son, (Matth. xv.14) ‘If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch’.”[46]

The soundness of Calvin’s arguments is evident: Scripture and Church history support them. By his great acquaintance with the Fathers he was always able to point back and to show the discrepancies between the church of his time and the ancient church. As Schaff explained: “he answers his assertions with facts and arguments. He destroys, like a cobweb, his beautiful picture of an ideal Catholicism by a description of the actual papacy of those days, with its abuses and corruptions, which were the real cause of the Reformation.”[47] Through the knowledge of Scripture associated with the humanist method of scholarship, Calvin was able to achieve a hermeneutical practice which resounded that of the Fathers. As Calvin himself wrote to Sadolet: “Indeed, in attacking, breaking down and destroying your kingdom, we armed not only with the energy of the Divine Word, but with the aid of the holy Fathers also.”[48]

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT

The first consequence which Calvin’s response to Sadolet brought was the invitation to return to Geneva. It came on September 21, 1540, but was initially rejected by the reformed. Once again persuaded by Farel, “he agreed to return for a trial period of only six months – but providence ruled otherwise.”[49] Calvin would return to Geneva and live there until his death and the city itself would remain faithful to the cause of the Reformation.

In the Protestant world, the letter caused great joy. Merle d’Aubigne affirmed: “Luther greatly rejoiced in it, and soon after its publication sent a ‘respectful’ greeting to Calvin…He expressed his joy that God raised up men like Calvin, and, far from looking on him as an antagonist, he saw in him a doctor who would continue what he had himself begun against Antichrist, and with God’s help would complete it.”[50]

In recent years, George H. Tavard tried to trace the starting point of Calvin’s theology.[51] Richard Muller wrote an essay-review[52] of the book which sought to respond Tavard’s conclusion. Muller affirms Tavard to be an ecumenical theologian with strong bias toward Roman Catholicism and with serious problems in his method of historical analysis: “ When in Travard’s company, we are not, in short, in the presence of even a reasonably objective historiography. The purpose is apologetic and, albeit ecumenical in its declared intent, militantly Romanist in its fundamental intentions.”[53]

Travard’s proposition is that, through the analysis of Calvin’s Psychopannychia and other early documents it is possible to identify Calvin’s moment of conversion and the rise of his interest in theology. Travard’s conclusion, according to Muller, is this:

From this alternative understanding of Psychopannychia and an examination of the first three and half chapters of the 1536 Institutes, Tavard proceeds to argue two distinct stages in Calvin’s conversion, first, a conversion in 1533 or 1534 to reformist sympathies in accord with “the old church and the medieval papacy” and second, a further conversion as late as 1535 to the more radical, antipapal Reform, involving a break with the Roman church.[54]

According to Tavard’s theory, the Calvin of 1533 or 1534 embraced the patristic roots and also much of the Roman faith, including acceptance to the papacy, but the Calvin of 1535, the radical Calvin rejected both tradition and Catholicism and, thus, became an innovator.[55] Muller explains that Travard’s problem resides in the inappropriate association between tradition (theology of the early Father) and Catholicism in the time of Reformation. In that historical period, Catholics, not Protestants, were the innovators.

Muller finds support for his claims in Calvin’s reply to Sadolet particularly when Calvin provided a definition of Church to the cardinal. In it he affirmed the return of the Reformed churches to the patristic roots, and he portraied the Roman pontiff in direct antagonism with the Fathers. In order to Tavard’s theory of double conversion be correct, this couldn’t be so! Muller explains, “the exchange with the humanist bishop of Carpentras, Jacopo Sadoleto, is of exceptional importance here inasmuch as it clearly contains all of the elements what Tavard identified as Calvin’s early but also entirely Catholic leanings...as Calvin’s response to Sadoleto indicates, Calvin did not associate catholicity or, indeed, the ‘faith and obedience of church’ with what he identified as the ‘yoke.’ the ‘power’ or the ‘tyranny of the Roman pontiff’.”[56]

CONCLUSION

Calvin’s response to Sadolet continues to be as a memorial to the fight for Reform. It keeps resounding the great principles of historical Protestantism of Sola Sciptura and Sola-Fide and shows the great importance of the Church, and for the people of God scattered in the whole world the importance of apologetic endeavors. Calvin is a example to be followed in his writing strategy, in his use of Scripture, in his clear a straight style, in his passion for the kingdom of God and for his people.

On the other hand, Sadolet also teaches something. Despite his non biblical defense of Catholicism and attacks to the Reformation he made in his letter, there is a tiny part of it which still remains a valid criticism of Protestants. He said, “for already, since these men began, how many sects have torn the Church? Sects not agreeing with them, and yet disagreeing with each other – a manifest indication of falsehood, as all doctrines declares. Truth is always one, while falsehood is varied and multiform; that which is straight is simple, that which is crooked has many turns.”[57] May the theologians of our days be aware of such criticism and may they seek union, even when they disagree on non-essential matters.

[1]Wulfert De Greef, The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide (Lousville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 137.

[2] William R. Estep, Renaissance and Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eedermans, 1986), 237.

[3] Ibid., 238.

[4] J. H. Merle d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation vol.6 , Ages Software (Rio, WI: 2000), 383.

[5] Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church vol 6, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 206, 399-400.

[6] De Greef, The Writtings of John Calvin, 138.

[7] Estep, Renassance and Reformation, 238.

[8] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 402.

[9] D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation, 386.

[10] John Calvin, Tracts and Letters vol. 1, ed. and transl. Henry Beveridge (East Peoria, IL: Versa Press, 2009), 4.

[11] Ibid., 6.

[12] Ibid., 14.

[13] Ibid., 4-5.

[14] Ibid., 16.

[15] Ibid., 17-18.

[16] Ibid., 18.

[17] Merle d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation, 385.

[18] Calvin, Tracts and Letters, 14-15.

[19] Ibid., 18-19.

[20] Ibid., 9-10.

[21] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 402.

[22] Calvin, Tracts and Treatises, 26-27.

[23] Ibid., 27.

[24] Ibid., 32.

[25] Ibid., 31.

[26] Ephesians 2:20.

[27] Calvin, Tracts and Treatises, 36.

[28] Ibid., 36.

[29] Ibid., 37.

[30] Ibid., 37.

[31] Ibid., 38.

[32] Ibid., 38.

[33] Ibid., 38.

[34] Ibid., 39.

[35] Ibid., 39.

[36] Ibid., 45.

[37] Ibid., 46.

[38] Ibid., 47.

[39] Ibid., 48.

[40] Ibid., 41.

[41] Ibid., 42.

[42] Ibid., 42.

[43] Ibid., 43.

[44] Craig B. Carpenter. 2002. A Question of union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification. Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 2 (Fall), 373.

[45] D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation, 394.

[46] Calvin, Tracts and Treatises, 64.

[47] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 404.

[48] Calvin, Tracts and Treatises, 48.

[49] Estep, Renaissance and Reformation, 240.

[50] D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation, 397.

[51] George H. Tavard, The Starting Point of Calvin’s Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

[52] Richard A. Muller, 2001. “The Starting Point of Calvin’s Theology: an Essay-Review”. Calvin Theological Journal 36, 314-341.

[53] Muller, The Starting Point of Calvin’s Theology: An Essay-Review, 316.

[54] Ibid., 317.

[55] Ibid., 318.

[56] Ibid., 332.

[57] Calvin, Tracts and Treatises, 19.

“Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth”

2009-10-29T16:11:00.000-04:00

If there was a man on earth who probably knew what was to have fun this man was King Solomon. Let us make a quick review of his life. The Bible does not tell us much about his infancy but it does tell us that Solomon was David’s son. This information is enough to conclude that He was born and raised among the royalty of Israel. He probably had the best teachers possible. He had the best clothing a boy his age could have, the coolest cloaks available and the best shoes. He probably had the best toys and maybe even got the play with the sling David used to kill Goliath. Solomon grew and became the most wise king on earth, and even though all this excitement which was present in his life, his conclusion (especially for you young boy and girl) is that there old age will come and the most important thing to do now is to remember God.

Now, how are you to remember God? In the next verses, and in a very poetic way, Solomon will give you many hints. He first speaks of the day when the heavenly bodies will not give their lights anymore (verse 2). It seems that he is referring to the moment in our lives when our sight will not function so well. And mindful of that, you must be worried about the way you use your eyes today. What have you been looking at? What kind of websites are you visiting when you surf in the internet? Do you respect the age limits of T.V. programs and of video games? These are all ways of keeping your eyes from evil and of using this sense in a way mindful of your God.

He next speaks of the keepers of the house trembling and of a strong man being bent (verse 3). It seems that Solomon was worried about the way we use our bodies and even our strength. And what an important preoccupation is that in our days! When we employ the strength of our legs and arms for our own pleasure (to run around and play with our brother and friends) but we are lazy when it comes to help others, to do our chores at home, to help cleaning the church building we use to worship every Sunday. It is also important, particularly for you young ladies, when it comes to the use of your body. Among a society that worships sensuality are you being careful with the clothes you wear and looking for modes apparel to buy?

Another ability Solomon seems to consider very important in the youth is the hearing. He writes about “when the sound of the grinding is low” which leads us to think of what have been hearing while you are young. With so much contemporary Christian music being produced, are being careful with the content of the lyrics? And while exercising your Christian liberty and listening to non-Christian music, are you even more careful with the content of the songs? Or are too light and not worried about these things at all? Remember, you are called to remember your God even in the use of ears. This also involves the content of conversations that you have been listening among friends. Do they honor your commitment with your God to remember Him all moments of your life?

Therefore, my young brother and sister in Christ, you may not be as rich, powerful and important as was King Solomon in his youth. But the Lord of Heaven, your Father, did not call you to be all these different things, but he certainly calls you to remember Him now, in your youth, and to be faithful to Him while you are young.

The accusations of the church of Rome against John Wyclif, his positions and further influence in the western world

2009-07-03T10:56:00.006-04:00

John Wyclif, the Oxford theologian known as “the morning star of the reformation” and as “the evangelical doctor”, was a curious figure of the fourteenth century renown by his academic expertise, his involvements in political affairs and his opposition to many errors and doctrines of the medieval Roman Catholic church. Schaff is one of the few bold writers who risks affirming Wyclif’s year of birth[1], maybe believing in the testimony of an early writer on Wyclif, John Lewis[2], and both of them date Wyclif’s birth in the year 1324. Other writers are not so sure and declare the lack of information regarding this issue. Also curious and worthy of mention are the difficulties in knowing the accurate spelling of Wyclif’s name for, according to Schaff, there are more the twenty different renderings for it.[3]

Wyclif’s career was centered in Oxford. There were six colleges there and it seems that he spent time and exercised important duties in almost all of them. His academic career reached its peak in 1372, when he received the title of doctor of theology and it was exactly in this decade when Wyclif got involved with important political affairs and much profited from them. In 1374, the king of England sent him to a mission in Bruges to present Pope Gregory XI with England’s demands concerning the country’s relation with the church. He was previously involved with a similar situation, in 1366, when Pope Urban V requested from king Edward III the payment of papal taxation which England had been withholding since 1333[4] (in that very same year, Wyclif appeared as one of the King’s chaplains and was diametrically opposed to the payment). This time, according to Carrick, England’s demands were that “the Pontiff should desist in future from the reservation of benefices in the Anglican Church; that the clergy should henceforth freely enjoy their election to Episcopal dignities; and that in the case of electing a bishop, it should be enough that his appointment should be confirmed by his metropolitan, as was the ancient custom.”[5] The result of the mission was not all satisfactory. Evans remarks, “the outcome of the affair was not on the whole to the advantage of the English clergy” and “a second commission had better success.”[6] Whatever happened there, it was the reason which brought Wyclif two things: enmity with the Roman Church and, in 1376, the position of rector of Lutterworth. In this very same year his book on the civil dominion was published, and he participated actively in the Good Parliament, expressing his ideas of relationship between church and state. Since his return from Bruges, the Roman Church had its eye on him, and in 1377 the pope issued five bulls to England containing nineteen accusations against Wyclif which the pope considered heretical. Wyclif’s adversaries received the bulls with great joy, but the support of Oxford and of John of Gaunt (duke of Lancaster) kept the theologian safe. Gregory’s death in 1378 and the great papal schism were factors that contributed to diminish the authority of the bull.

In 1380, another protest appeared against Wyclif, this time brought by a fellow theologian, William Barton, Chancellor of Oxford, who appointed a commission to examine his doctrines of the Lord’s Supper. “The commission condemned two of Wyclif’s propositions on the Eucharist, but only by the slight majority of seven to five.”[7] His situation deteriorated more after the Peasant’s Revolt in 1381. The leader of the rebels, a priest named John Ball, affirmed that his thought had been shaped by Wyclif’s teachings for he had sat under the theologian for instruction. This terrible accusation added to the condemnation of his doctrine of the Eucharist and made Wyclif leave Oxford. The controversy on this specific issue was never resolved.

The final strike on Wyclif, and on those who still supported his ideas in Oxford, came in 1382. William Courtenay, who was Bishop of London and had been one of Wyclif’s adversaries since 1377, the time of Gregory’s bulls against the theologian. Courtenay had become Archbishop of Canterbury and would take advantage of his new position to take a last blow against Wyclif. He called a synod known as “the earthquake council”. The synod condemned twenty-four articles alleged to represent the reformer’s thought, and from these ten were regarded as heretical. Schaff lists the four principal issues condemned as heresy: Christ’s corporal absence in the Eucharist, a soul prepared to die does not need oral confession, the English church (after the death of Urban VI) should govern itself and acknowledge no pope, and that Scripture forbids temporal possessions to the clergy.[8] A few years later, in 1384, Wyclif would meet his creator when a massive stroke ended his life.

ANALYZING THE CHARGS OF 1377

The accusations brought against Wyclif in 1377, as related by Sergeant[9], were centered on church-state issues. They dealt with the papal power to excommunicate (8-13), the papal political dominion (1-3) and papal authority versus the king’s authority (remaining articles). These charges can be considered consistent with Wyclif’s thought for Carrick registers in his book Wyclif’s defense of them as being true biblical teaching.[10]

It seems clear why Wyclif was attacking the papal authority to excommunicate. The English refusal to pay papal taxes and to recognize the head of the church as the head of the Island would bring a ban from the church. Wyclif attacked the concept of “binding and loosing” and reduced it only to the spiritual realm (ministerial). The secondary sources consulted for this brief research do not cite the biblical basis for this argument but it seems in harmony with the content of Scripture. Neither Christ nor any of the apostles ever sought any kind of worldly dominion. The Gospel of Matthew, chapter sixteen, clearly shows Christ attributing the power of “bidding and losing” to his Church, but not to be cowardly used by its leaders to achieve their earthly desires. Christ always disconnected himself from the worldly power: he paid taxes to Rome[11] (and not the other way around), during his trial he denied any connection with the secular authority of the world[12], even in the glorious moment of his ascension (triggered by impertinent questions of his apostles) he denied any pretension to establishing a physical kingdom.[13] Wyclif seems to have been biblical in this assertion. On the other hand, still on matters of church censures, he introduced a confusing statement that is registered by Sergeant as charge number nine. It says: “it is not possible for any man to be excommunicated, unless he be first and principally excommunicated by himself.”[14] At first sight seems that the Oxford theologian was advocating self-discipline prior to the discipline of the church. Charges numbers ten and eleven sheds more light on the matter and identify the validity of the excommunication in two situations: only in the cause of God (spiritual realm) and only against the adversaries of Christ’s laws (not of earthly and human popes).[15] Therefore, so far, Wyclif’s doctrine of church discipline seems to be biblical. Christ gave the disciples control (power to bind or loose) over the Church concerning spiritual things, and this power posses efficacy and is rightly used only when the subject of the censure had truly committed a transgression according to what Christ himself classified as sin. Had Wyclif stopped there, he would have not erred. In his desperate attempt to secure a complete no-discipline-at-all situation he denied that Christ gave his disciples any power to excommunicate anyone, and he affirmed that the pope may bind or loose only when he himself obeys the law of Christ[16]. Wyclif made a clear distinction between excommunication and the act of “biding and loosing”, and he connected the power of a church leader to his personal sanctification and obedience. Concerning the authority to eject someone from the church, even if the text in Matthew is not clear enough, the apostle Paul gave good practical examples for he wrote to the church of Corinth complaining for her lethargy in removing from her midst those who where committing horrendous sins[17] and he wrote to Timothy declaring that he himself had exercised discipline against two blasphemers in the church.[18] Concerning the necessity of obedience before a leader may exercise authority in the church, one wonders if he meant absolute and complete obedience, since he gave no further explanation of what he meant. If that is the case, it is not only unbiblical (for the Scriptures clearly say that no one can fulfill perfectly the Law of God), but it gives support to some accusations that Wyclif “does not see the sharp distinction between justification by faith and justification by works which was to come into view with Luther”.[19]

In the realm of secular power and authority, Wyclif expressed an unbalanced and biased theology. While prohibiting any interference from the church into the state, Wyclif allowed the reverse. Clearly as a nationalistic reaction against the abuses of the Roman Church in his country, the evangelical doctor affirmed that the king, or civil rulers, has the power to control church properties (in his own terms, “temporalities”) even confiscating them when they see fit.[20] He even tried to diminish the absurdity of his statement by conditioning this act of management to a delinquent church, but even if the church is in a deplorable state such as this there is no biblical basis at all to support such teaching.

WYCLIF’S DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST

It was not the Bible, but philosophy (and specially Aristotelianism) which led the church to employ strenuous efforts to maintain Innocent’s III idea concerning the Eucharist, as decreed by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Aristotle’s distinction between substance and accident, proposed that the accident of a substance may suffer alterations without affecting the substance, led the way for an explanation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Wyclif, on the other hand, struggled with this doctrine for a long time. He was sure the Eucharist was a biblical doctrine, an ordinance of the Lord Jesus for his church.[21] Barton, in the commission he instituted in 1381, pointed out his disagreement and reproached Wyclif on two points: that the substance of the bread and wine remains unaltered during the administration of the sacrament and that the body and blood of Christ are present merely symbolically.[22]

Wyclif viewed the doctrine approved by the thirteenth century council as a novelty, a fruit of “the moderns and of the recent Church.”[23] Philosophically, he just could not accept the separation between substance and accident. For him, the bread and the wine, even being only accidents, should preserve their substance.[24] What a thing is or if it truly exists can be rationally detected only by the fact that both elements are intimately linked together, and, therefore, if a thing can afford its accidents existing independently from its substance, then it is impossible to tell what a thing is or whether it exists at all.[25] Wyclif’s book on the Eucharist raises the question if a mouse, eating of the sacramental elements after the “magic” which takes place during the mass, would be partaking of the body of Christ. The cleverness and absurdity of such argument is a demonstration of Wyclif’s rational approach to the matter. In fact, concerning the philosophical approach embraced by the Roman Church he said it is “grounded neither in holly writ ne reson ne wit but only taught by newe hypocritis and cursed heretikis that magnyfyen there own fantasies and dremes.”[26]

Thus, it is clear that for Wyclif bread remains bread and wine remains wine, but what about the presence of Christ in the administration of the sacrament and of the spiritual benefits it confers upon believers? Carrick exaggerated when he compared Wyclif’s position with that held by Calvin, Knox and the confessional churches of England and Scotland. In his words:

It must be carefully noticed that with the first Reformers the doctrine of a real presence was clearly and distinctly taught, not transubstantiation, nor Luther’s consubstantiation, but a real spiritual presence. The Zwinglian dogma of a simple memorial and symbol was in direct opposition to Calvin’s institutes and Knox’s confession of Faith and the doctrine of the two Reformed Churches of England and Scotland in the Thirty-nine Articles and the Confession of Faith is identical with that enunciated by Wycliffe with such distinctness and persistency.[27]

Schaff expressed the same understanding when expressed Wyclif’s views in the following way:

Christ is in the bread as a king is in all parts of his dominions and as the soul is in the body. In the breaking of the bread, the body is no more broken than the sunbeam is broken when a piece of glass is shattered: Christ is there sacramentally, spiritually, efficiently – sacramentaliter, spirittualiter et virtualiter. Transubstantiation is the greatest of all heresies and subversive of logic, grammar and all natural science.[28]

Taking into account Wyclif’s inclination to philosophy and his highly scholastic education at Oxford, it is more likely that the theologian was, although with sincerity in his heart, looking for a rational approach to the elements of the Eucharist that would satisfy his reason. It would certainly be unfair to remove spirituality and piety from Wyclif’s labors for a more biblically sound knowledge of the Lord’s Supper mysteries, but comparing his doctrine and definitions to the developments made by the great reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century is clearly a biased statement. Regarding this issue, Frassetto and Evans express a more balanced view. Both do not deny a certain degree of spirituality on Wyclif’s writings on the matter, but the former reminds their readers that Wyclif agreed with the official position of the church until somewhere in 1378 and that it was John’s contact with philosophical realism which led him to question the Catholic position[29]; Evans points out that the Oxford theologian found it outrageous that the church’s thought was supported not on reason nor on the Bible but on the opinion of a fallible pope.[30]

WYCLIF ON SCRIPTURE

The understanding of Wyclif’s doctrine of Scripture is crucial for the analysis of his position on further doctrines. All secondary sources describe the Oxford theologian embracing Scripture as inerrant (without errors or contradictions and, therefore, all its content is true), authoritative (the supreme rule to followed and obeyed) and divinely originated.

Carrick affirms that it was in the book Of the Truth of Holy Scripture that Wyclif explained his positions on the Bible. Carrick wrote:

By far, the most outstanding feature of Wycliffe’s life and work is the claim he makes for the absolute supremacy, sufficiency and infallibility of the Scripure; and his work, Of the truth of the Holy Scripture, in Latin, develops his views in the most clear and explicit manner. Christ is the author of the Scripture, as as the Word of God, it should be in the hands and heart of everyone, cleric and lay – a right denied by the Church of Rome.[31]

Carrick’s statement is shared by other writers. Frassetto says “Wyclif asserted the absolute truth of Scripture and the absolute centrality of the Bible to Christian life.”[32] In addition, he points to Wyclif’s passion for the Bible as a probable inspiration for the first English translations of the sacred text. Evans depicts Wyclif’s centrality on Scripture saying:

Wyclif opens his book with a bold challenge. In the Bible lies the safety of the faithful; there is the foundation of every orthodox opinion and the place to look for a refutation of every error. The lightest mistake in connection with Scripture is death to the church. On these assumptions he sets out to establish, but in a true scholastic fashion, with every subtlety at his command, the truth of Scripture (1-8), its authority (9-14), its divine origin (16-19) and three theses (20-31): that Scripture is superior to all human writings; that all Christians have a right to read it; that the Bible is the best foundation for the organization of human life, secular and ecclesiastical.[33]

Such opinions, on the other hand, do not express the very source of Wyclif’s beliefs concerning the Bible. Were they fruit of philosophical presuppositions or were they biblically rooted? Evidences point to the former option. While the majority of the writers on Wyclif only state his position on the Bible without pointing to its origin, Evans call them “assumptions” and sheds even more light on the matter by writing on John Cunningham’s (or Kenningham) opposition to Wyclif. Cunningham, who was a recent graduate in theology, described Wyclif’s position on the source of validity and truth of Scripture as its antiquity or its eternity. Wyclif’s response to the charge, far from being scripturally based, was more of a philosophical-logical treatise. In it, he appealed to three “nests” in which beginning theologians are reared and that are the roots of his thought: logic, natural philosophy and metaphysics.[34]

Therefore, for someone who stood for the absolute authority of the Holy Bible, Wyclif demonstrated a huge failure in not using the sacred text itself to prove all he said that it is. The apostle Paul affirmed a great testimony of the divine origin of the Bible and of its authority when he wrote to Timothy: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”[35] The use of this text alone could have supported Wyclif’s concept of Scripture and responded to his adversaries in a way consistent with his claims. He could have made use of the formula “Thus says the Lord”, which is so common in the Bible and that per se is a witness of its divine source. When it comes to its inerrancy and infallibility, the fulfillment of the many prophecies of the Bible is a scriptural argument consistent with Wyclif’s claims which he neglected. He should have reminded his adversaries of Peter’s use of Joel’s prophecy cited in Acts 2:16 as a clear example of prophetic accomplishment.

There is not much agreement among those who write about Wyclif’s idea of the harmony between biblical authority and the writings of the church fathers. Frassetto asserts “Wyclif did not adopt the notion of sola Scriptura, as did Luther and the Protestant Reformers, but he recognized the value of the writings of Augustine and other exegetes and theologians on the Bible.”[36] The problem with Frassetto’s statement is that it does not define accurately the principle of Scripture alone defended by the Reformers. Luther, Calvin and other theologians of the Reformation regarded as important the opinion of the church father in matters of doctrine and Bible interpretation while never considering them as infallible, for that is a characteristic of Scripture alone. Concerning this matter, Evans expresses a position diametrically opposite to Frassetto. She says:

Wyclif accepted the need for ‘interpretation’ and he had no real concerns about making use of the comments of earlier Christian authorities, although he insists that if the Bible contradicts human knowledge, one should not be ashamed to prefer what ‘the Bible says’…. Scripture should be followed rather than secular writing, with the great early Christian writers such Augustine having a certain accepted reliability. Wyclif point out that even an Augustine is not infallible….[37]

WYCLIF’S INFLUENCE

Although the controversy about the title of “morning star of the reformation” remains, it is undeniable that this great man caused substantial changes in the Western thought. Walker, for example, was reluctant to recognize both Wyclif and Hus as exponents of the great doctrines defended in the time of the Reformation. He wrote:

Wyclif and Hus have often been styled forerunners of the Reformation. The designation is true if regard is had to their protest against the corruption of the church, their exaltation of the Bible and their contribution to the sum total of agitation that ultimately resulted in reform. When their doctrines are examined, however, they appear to belong rather to the Middle Ages.[38]

Therefore, the fight against papal power so boldly fought by Wyclif had immediate and recognized effects on Hus and certainly on the Luther and the further reformers of the sixteenth century. There are some indications that Wyclif’s views influenced the Protestant party in England, which sought to promote more control of state on church.[39]

Wyclif’s view on Scripture and his desire to make a copy of the Bible available to each citizen in England was a great contribution both to the spread of the Gospel and to the development of the English language. Frassetto remembers that at the end of the fourteenth century the Island was blessed by a Wyclifite English Bible, many sermons, a commentary on the Book of Revelation, a gloss of the Gospels, a theological dictionary and all this for the use of preacher without access to a good library.

May the Lord of glory, who blessed His church with a mature faith and gave her a healthy and developed doctrine in the 21^st century, raise more men with the same spirit and disposition as Wyclif so that His kingdom may be expanded and the world recognize him as the only and true God.

[1] Philp Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 6 (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), 315.

[2] John Lewis, The History of the life and sufferings of the Reverend and learned John Wyclif (London, 1720), 1.

[3] Schaff, Christian Church, 315, N.2.

[4] G. R. Evans, John Wyclif: Myth and Reality (Downers Gove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 141.

[5] J. C. Carrick, Wyclif and the Lollards (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908), 97.

[6] Evans, John Wyclif, 144.

[7] Michael Frassetto, The Great Medieval Heretics, Five Centures of Religious Dissent (New York: BlueBridge, 2008), 162.

[8] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 321.

[9] Lewis Sergeant, John Wyclif: Last of the schoolman and first of the English Reformers (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1803), 177-79.

[10] Carrick, Wyclif and the Lollard, 110.

[11] Matthew 22:21.

[12] John 18:36.

[13] Acts 1:6-8.

[14] Sergeant, John Wyclif, 178.

[15] Ibid, 178.

[16] See charges 12 and 15, respectively, in Sergeant.

[17] I Corinthians 5:1-5.

[18] I Timothy 1:10.

[19] Evans, John Wyclif, 159.

[20] See charges 6, 7, 17 and 18 in Sergeant.

[21] Frassetto, Medieval Heretics, 171.

[22] Evans, John Wyclif, 186.

[23] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 336.

[24] Evans, John Wyclif , 170.

[25]Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 337.

[26] As quoted in Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 337.

[27] Carrick, Wycliffe and the Lollards, 189.

[28] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 336.

[29] Frassetto, Medieval Heretics, 170.

[30] Evans, John Wyclif, 188.

[31] Carrick, Wycliffe and the Lollards, 177.

[32] Frassetto, Medieval Heretics, 169.

[33] Evans, John Wyclif, 121.

[34] Ibid, 120.

[35] 2 Timothy 3:16.

[36] Frassetto, Medieval Heretics, 169.

[37] Evans, John Wyclif, 113.

[38] Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1953), 306.

[39] Ibid, 405.

W.G.T. Shedd on Creation

2009-02-22T22:53:00.005-05:00

William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Presbyterian minister, was born in 1820, initiated his studies in theology in 1840 and wrote his Dogmatic Theology between 1888 and 1894. It is important to keep in mind while reading his major work that the 19^th century was marked by a high scientific, philosophic and politic activity.[1]

Shedd presents himself primarily as a defender of a teleological origin of the universe. He supports the biblical idea of God creating the world out of nothing and devotes many pages to apologetic discourses in order to refute anti ex nehilo creation views. In all his discussions, Shedd will majestically use scientific, philosophical and logical arguments and he will always bring reliable and significant people to his “boat”, like Plato, Cicero, Newton and Locke. The first refuted is that of the eternity of matter by means of three main arguments: (1) if matter is eternal, than rational life was originated by matter but it has never been proved that non-entity can produce entity, in fact, incogitative beings cannot originate cogitative beings”[2]; (2) if matter is eternal it should be necessary, but matter does not have rational intelligence and, therefore, it is not perfect, if it is not perfect, it is not necessary, and thus the idea of matter does not convey eternality; (3) if matter is eternal, than it is the first cause of all things including movement , but matter is characterized by vis inertiae and therefore could not originate any kind of motion for there is nothing self-moving.

Concerning this last argument, Shedd spends a great deal of time refuting the idea of molecular motion as a support to the eternity of matter. This theory assumes that the atoms of matter do have self-motion and that it is extended to the matter’s molecule which, by applying its self-motion to the others molecules present in the matter’s structure, attributes movement to the whole body of matter. The idea is carried further by the concept of “natural selection” attributed to matter and through it some will support that, by the variation of the molecular motion, inorganic matter generated organic (Haeckel) and others will support this variation as the reason why organic matter was able to generate other kinds of organic matter (Darwin). Shedd again ably refutes these views using Newtonian physics and making the following counterarguments: (1) that, if in motion, matter left to itself is characterized by uniform motion (he uses gravity as illustration); (2) that material motion is not perpetual, and if there was not for an external force maintaining the universe, it would collapse (Shedd will argue that even in ether there is resistance to motion); (3) that mechanical forces do not present variety (the way crystals are organized in the mineral world) but that is not true about plants and humans; (4) that molecules are immutable (the hydrogen found on Earth is the same hydrogen found in Mars) while evolution implies the continual change in their structure.

The second position refuted by Shedd is what he calls pseudo-evolution. This theory postulates that “homogeneous substance transmutes itself into heterogeneous.”[3] In other words, rocks can become plants by a slow and intrinsic force. Shedd refutes such theory by the following arguments: (1) that it is in fact a presupposition brought into scientific discussion for it neither has ever been proved nor finds support in the whole system of physical knowledge so far acquired[4]; (2) that there is no proof whatsoever that new species develop from already existent species; (3) that no natural phenomena or facts in the observable world supports the pseudo-evolution theory to be true[5]; (4) that hybrid species constitute an evidence of the impossibility of the transmutation of species for they, being the result of a man-made attempt to manipulate nature, are not capable to reproduce, contrary to natural species which are capable to self-perpetuate; (5) that it is impossible to apply fixed laws to this theory, which directly conflicts with the invariability and certainty of natural science and the kingdoms of nature.

Shedd also deals with the argument of similarities between the embryos of other animals and that of man as a proof of their connection. He refutes this idea by the biblical argument of the imago Dei present in man and absent on the animals no matter their physical similarities in early stages of existence. He argues that while animal’s embryo are only matter, man’s embryo is mind and matter. In his own words: “…the babe possesses, along with the physical qualities, the “image of God,” namely, a rational soul; while the dog has only an animal soul…a human body with only an animal soul would look like a man, but would be as far from man as is an ox.”[6]

The later part of the chapter is dedicated to date man’s creation. Shedd defends an early creation for humanity and to support that he primarily upholds to the biblical genealogies. He affirms that humans has existed for a period of time between six and eight thousand years. The gap between the numbers aims to consider the difference of years registered by the Massoretic text, the Septuagint, the Samaritan text and other ancient texts. Against the idea of an antique existence of man he argues: (1) that the ancient civilizations do not support such thought in their books of history and even in their fables and traditions; (2) that ancient cities mentioned in the Bible are dated with an early age by modern archeology; (3) that if the age suggested by pseudo-evolutionist for the origin of man would be considered (20000 years) the population of the world should be “immensely greater than it is;” (4) that scientific zoologists prefers the idea of a recent origin of man according to the evidences found in nature.

Shedd deals ably with the arguments of language, of color and race, and of artifacts. Concerning color and race, he argues that long periods of years are not necessary for a change in human appearance. He supports this idea by mentioning the Portuguese occupation in India and that after only 300 years they have become “as black as Caffres.”[7] Concerning language, he supports the idea of a mother tongue from which all others are derived and points to the scientific evidence for it. The use of artifacts (what he calls of “rude stones implements”[8]) is refuted by the use of logic. One of the arguments is that: “There are tribes of men now on the globe who are using them. Should these tribes become extinct, and their implements be discovered on thousand years hence, it would be a false inference to assert that they belonged to a race that lived before Adam.”[9]

When dealing with the length of time spent in creation, Shedd is not so investigative, at least not linguistically and grammatically. He clearly tries to interpret the geological discoveries and thoughts of the 19^th century with the narrative of Genesis. He believes that Genesis 1:1 is a description of a first part of creation when God brought to existence angels, the souls of man, and chaotic matter.[10] He supports this position by stating that it “was a common view among the fathers and schoolmen.” He also appeals to Augustine “exegesis” of the biblical text which can be found in his Confessions.[11] Concerning the initial chaotic state of the earth, he will find support in Witsius.[12]

[1] Publication of the Origin of the species (1859), Maxwell’s treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (1873).

[2] Citation of Locke by Shedd, page 488.

[3] Shedd, page 499.

[4] He reminds the reader that Darwin himself never defended such an idea, that in fact he counted on a “Creator” to be source of the primitive forms of life which “originated” the actual world. He reminds as well that microscopists and naturalists in general never accepted the possibility of inorganic matter being the origin of organic.

[5] He argues here that if pseudo-evolution was a real law of nature (again, like gravity) it should be evident and abundant in such a way that it would be observable.

[6] Shedd, pages 514, 515.

[7] Citation of the Indian Journal.

[8] Ibid., 525.

[9] Ibid., 525.

[10] Ibid., 474.

[11] Reading Augustine’s text one will conclude that it does not intend to be an exegesis, but expresses the church father’s own understanding of the text.

[12] Creed, Dissertation VIII.

BOOKS SUGGESTIONS ON REFORMED EVANGELISM AND MISSIONS

2008-12-26T12:21:00.016-05:00

After checking these suggestions, I invite you to read my book report on the book Jonathan Edwards Evangelist right below this post.

1- The Art of Man Fishing

2- An Introduction to the Science of Missions

3- Salvation to the Ends of the Earth

4- Tell the Truth: the Whole Gospel to the Whole Person

5- Jesus, the Evangelist

6- Puritan Evangelism: a Biblical Approach

7-God Centered Evangelism

Jonathan Edwards Evangelist

2008-12-26T12:10:00.007-05:00

Gerstner’s book helps us to find where the deficiencies which the reformed churches recognize in modern evangelism are. Making an exhaustive analysis of Jonathan Edwards’ sermons, he recovers the content used by that great preacher when calling unbelievers to repentance and belief.
The introductory chapter is meant to inform the content of the book and gives a detailed outline of the whole treatise. It depicts the theology that must be present in the preaching of the so called “predestinerian evangelist”. From this great biblical doctrine, the preacher draws tranquility in his role as the deliverer of the gospel, glorifying and trusting God’s sovereignty in bringing to Him those whom He have chosen. The preacher may also draw boldness in the delivery of the message, not hindering any part of from his hearers for fear of rejection. On the contrary, in his preaching, like Edwards, the evangelist must “be consistent with the justice, mercy, majesty, and truth of God to save or to damn”.[1] He alone selected the content of the preaching, the nations that would hear it and when they would hear. The last paragraph is destined to inform the reader of what he will find in the subsequent chapters.
He precedes his argument on the sovereignty of God by emphasizing the mean by which the Lord has appointed to spread the gospel among the nations. He calls this mean of the “outward call” and since it is God’s appointed as well as the following inward call, it is part of the divine initiative to restore man to his original state. The outward call takes place by two different ways: natural (through creation and man’s conscience) and supernatural (by God’s revelation of His will, the Holy Scriptures). This call is universal; all must hear and should respond to it, although the same is not true to the effectiveness of the calling. Concerning the effectiveness of the ways, although “the Spirit sometimes strive with men apart from the Bible, he never strives so much, nor successfully, apart from it.”[2]
The content of the calling that was present in the preaching of Edwards comes completely from Scripture and aims to explain the anger of God against those who sin in rejecting His infinity love. He tried to bring up a “rational hell”, demonstrating by means of reason and Scripture that “there is just enough judgment in this world to indicate that there will be a greater one in the world to come.”[3] In other words, for his hearers, in the delivery of his sermon, hell became a real place and its reality could almost be felt. They could taste the torments and afflictions of the cursed place. Edwards understood this “frightening” method to be very reasonable; as reasonable as frightening someone out of an eminent accident.
He would also struggle to convince sinners of their actual state. He would fight to convict them of the truth of his preaching, of the truth of condemnation and hell and of the truth that they were those who deserved that punishment. In order to achieve that, he would appeal to their conscience as a natural resource in the soul of man. He certainly recognizes that the renewing and the sanctification of man was a prerogative of the Holy Spirit alone, but conviction he believed to be “a work of the Spirit in the unchanged nature of fallen man; it is not a change within man.”[4] Since conscience is a natural ability for man, man could resist it either by “giving way to lusts or by directly opposing the Spirit in his inward workings”[5] and to reduce the possibility of fabricated activations of the conscience, Edwards considered a genuine activation those which were a fruit of a profound, sincere and prolonged understanding of the content preached and of the sins revealed.
Though the emphasis in hell, condemnation and conviction, that was not the complete message of Edwards’ evangelistic preaching, and he would always encourage his hearers to repentance and to seek salvation. For him, it was not enough to wake man to damnation but it was also necessary to point the solution: the grace of God in Christ. Thus he would encourage them to seek salvation, to flee from the day of wrath. Because of his emphasis on the seeking ability of man he was sometimes accused of Arminianism but, on the other hand, Edwards never affirmed that man was able to believe in Christ by his own reason or that man was able to do good by his own efforts, he only affirmed that man have the ability to believe and to seek. Man is never willing to believe because of his fallen state, but can be stirred up to seek to be willing. Because he seeks what is bad and evil, he does have the ability to seek, than he must have this ability directed towards Christ and his sacrifice and that is the duty of the evangelist. While preaching on the means of salvation, Edwards would say: “the reason why they don’t use the means is not because they could not if they were disposed but because they are not disposed.”[6]
Edwards was always worried about false motives for seeking salvation. Although he defended self-interest as being a point of contact between sinners and the gospel and that the sense of auto-preservation that there are in sinners should be used to bring their attention to the redemptive message of the evangelistic preaching, they should be absolutely discouraged to seek salvation for their own interest. In fact he would affirm that “if men actually do become professing Christians from principles of fear and self-interest alone, they are no true Christians.”[7] In order to avoid such mistake, he would enforce Christians’ duty of self-denial and the desire to please God. To be a genuine seek for salvation, man should be motivated by the goal of glorifying God, of enjoying him and of imitating him.
This seek would have been achieved, according to Edwards, only if God, in his infinity mercy, had appointed before the foundation of the world the salvation of the one who seeks. That would be demonstrated with a change in the life and in the values of the, now, believer. The justification that had been applied to his heart should now be preserved and persist until the return of the Savior. In his own words: “ ’tis necessary for those that have religious affections and seem to have a love to Christ that they should endure to the end in order to their being saved.”[8]
One striking characteristic of his ministry was the attention given to young hearers in the evangelistic preaching. In the fourth chapter of the book, the author describes Edwards’ addressing to those in early age although not determining how old they exactly were. In those words, Edwards uses examples of the quotidian life like going to school together or playing together as an invitation to heaven. “How dreadful to be separated or to be damned together”[9], he would say. He would bring examples like that of Elisha’s cursing children to show the wickedness of their hearts and also their sins were hated by God just like the ones done by the adults. He would also use other sins typical of their age, and even the death of another child, to stir up their conscience.
The main reason for doing so, Edwards thought, was the great learning capacity of children as well as their susceptibility to be frightened of the coming wrath of God. He would also recognize that a sure way to revival was the education of the children in the truth and therefore it was the responsibility of the head of the house and of those who were involved in the care of children top provide such knowledge.
[1] Gerstner, John H., Jonathan Edwards Evangelist, (Pittsburg: Soli Deo Gloria Publications), 15.
[2] Ibid., 23.
[3] Ibid., 25.
[4] Ibid., 42.
[5] Ibid., 43, 44.
[6] Ibid., 89.
[7] Ibid., 64.
[8] Ibid., 164.
[9] Ibid., 39.

SUGGESTIONS ON HISTORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH

2008-12-16T20:47:00.006-05:00

I invite you to spend some minutes of your time checking my suggestions on early church history. Click on each book at the right column for more information.

Images depicting the first ecumenical council held in Nicaea. There the Arian controversies faced its first defeat!

The second icon portrays Constantine (the emperor who called the council) and the influential church fathers at the council.

Augustine's Confessions

2008-12-16T20:16:00.004-05:00

Reading Agustin is always a single experience. Reading his solid and matured defense of Trinity leaves us with an academic flavor in our mouths. Reading the confessions, was a practical experience. It was a journey into self, into who the entrance of sin made us be, creatures without hope and lost in their own desires.

Coming from a more sexual appealing background, in my country the word “desire” always convey the idea of physical satisfaction. Maybe it is also so because of the catholic background. On the other hand, Augustin brings the twofold side of the word. He certainly shows the physical satisfaction side. But it is also interesting how he felt about all the knowledge that he acquired, of the books he wrote during his time of perdition. Agustin was certainly a man o great intellect and it is beautiful to see his recognition of how academicism can turn out in a fair of vanity.

But “The Confessions” is also a theological tract. And in fact it proves that man is a religious creature and that all true knowledge is found in God alone. The description of his wicked past is just and explanation of total depravity. Reading him in those parts is like reading the Boston’s fourfold state of man. Then he also deals with the Trinity, with Christ centered salvation, with the divinity of Christ, with the work of the Holy Spirit and much more.

Another characteristic of his work that caught my attention was his thankful spirit. He is always thanking God for his glory, mercy, wisdom, power, etc. In fact, there is embedded in the whole book this feeling of gratitude and I have to confess that it embarrassed me. It made me think that I do not thank my Lord enough for his holy in my life. It also made me think on how rare this feeling of gratitude is emphasized in our pulpits. From this reading, though recognizing Augustin’s intellect which made him that great church father and theologian, the simplicity of his grateful spirit was what most struck me.

Books on the Westminster Simbols of Faith - 01

2008-12-10T09:57:00.010-05:00

As a good Presbyterian, it is impossible not to love and adopt the Westminster confession and catechisms as the faithful (maybe not complete) exposition of the doctrines found in Scripture. Maybe not complete because the aim of the symbols is not to exhaustively explain what are those things in what we must believe, but to briefly and consistently expose those basic statements of the Christian faith. For more details about each book, just click on it.

My first suggestion is to have on your hand the text of the confession. And it is event better if you can compare it with other faithful doctrinal documents produced by the reformed churches around the World. Reformed Confessions Harmonized will be for you a handfull tool to perform this job. Here you will find not only the Westminster simbols but, in harmony with each subject, there are other four confessions produced other strands among the European churches. From the Dutch-German reformers came the Belgic Confession of Faith (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Canons of Dort (1618-19) and the Swiss churches contributed the Second Helvetic Confession (1566).
The most precious thing, in my opinion, about this book is the additional bibliography it provides for individual study in each of the doctrinal topics. The only problem is that it does not follow the Westminster confession content, but I can live with that! :)

Broken tree, rotten spot.

2008-12-09T09:56:00.002-05:00

Last Tuesday a tree that is in front of my house broke in half. It was big surprise for me because it always seemed very healthy. And even with all the wind that is blowing during this fall, I never suspected that it would not resist to it. But when I looked closely it became clear why the accident happened: there was a rotten spot in a small part of the tree’s trunk. No one could have noticed it and it was a really small part of the trunk, but it was there and made it succumb.
Thinking about it later, it astonished me how similar what happened with this tree is with what happen with us when we are tolerant with sin. We are sometimes so satisfied with our general spiritual performance that we tend to ignore or to take for granted that little spot that still keeps our heart dirty, forgetting the main commandment of our Lord: “You shall be holy for I am holy.” (1Pet 1:16) And even if we look spiritually healthy, soon our public fall will come. Scripture is full of such examples (Achan, the rich young ruler, Simon the magician).
Now, more important than our similarities with this tree are our differences. Trees do not have feelings. They do not love. We do! How delightful it is to love Him who loved us first. Is not love revealed in obedience? Yes, it is. That is what teaches us our Savior Jesus Christ. “If you love me, you will keep my Commandments.” (John 14:15)
Trees do not grow in grace. We do! This marvelous God, who loves us, promised us that He would sanctify us and that with faith in Him and trusting in His power we would overcome the enemy of our souls and his temptations. “I have written to you, young man, because you are strong and the word of God abides in you and you have overcome the evil one.” (1John 2:14)
Trees do not repent. We do. In fact, that is the very nature of a true Christian. He is able to recognize what he really is. When examining his heart, he is confronted with those things his Savior hates, his conscience bothers him and until he bows down his knees and begs for forgiveness he finds no peace. “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.” (Psalm 51:2)
I suggested my landlord that the remaining of the tree should also be cut off. There is a great chance that it is also compromised, further and even greater damage can be caused. But as trees of the Lord, He is always ready to deal with us, to treat our sin, to bring us closer to him. “His mercy is everlasting and his truth endures to all generations.”

Suggestion of a commentary in the book of the prophet Jeremiah

2008-12-08T15:26:00.007-05:00

(Click in the image to visit bookstore)

The “Weeping Prophet,” the rabbis said, began wailing the moment he was born. Jeremiah had reason to weep–he witnessed the devastating consequences of life without God. Sadly, the relativism Jeremiah saw in ancient Israel predominates in America today. That’s why his words are so relevant for our lives. Better than anyone else, Jeremiah exemplifies through his courage, passion, even his sufferings, how believers can live for God in a society that has turned against Him. While the book of Jeremiah shared the last, desperate days of the Jerusalem he loved, Lamentations expresses the cries of his heart. Yet they reveal more than the prophet’s grief–they are an attempt to reflect on the meaning of human suffering. Lamentations gives voice to the deepest agonies, with the hope that some comfort may come from crying out to God for mercy. Together the two books illustrate the eternal principle that man reaps what he sows. It is a lesson the world–and the church–needs to hear. With the heart of a pastor and the knowledge of a scholar, Philip Graham Ryken applies these words of life to us today. His commentary will not only help you understand and teach from these spiritually relevant books, but inspire you with the courage and passion of God’s personal call for you to live in these times.

Identities - 1Pe 1.1 and 2 - Introduction

2008-06-17T11:20:00.001-04:00

When I and my wife arrived in this country we faced an extremely annoying situation: we had no identities. Of course we did have our passports and visas in it, but they are no good to drive after three months, or to make any kind of contract like cell phones services or even garbage collecting services. We had no records, no credit; in only one word we had no identification.
We, than, became the “riders of the lost I.D.”. And it was most like a mission impossible: standing on lines at the social security department, answering questions, handing declarations from the seminary. At the DMV we have our worse time when were asked to provide a English translations of our Brazilian driver’s license but no one told us were to get a official Portuguese translator since we ourselves were not allowed to translate it.
Thanks to our Lord everything turned out fine and today we have all the documents that we need. But this whole situation shows us how important it is to have an identity. How it is important to be known and to know ourselves.
But identity is something that goes beyond social life. In fact, the Christian life also cares for definitions, for detailed explanations, especially in times of doubt, suffering and persecution. This is what we find in the first epistle of the apostle Peter. He is here addressing, probably around 63 A.D., a group of churches who were not yet facing a official persecution (the one that would be established by Nero some years later), but a social persecution, possibly a pressure from society, and, because of that, they were also in need of guidance and care.
The whole letter can be divided in three big sections, having the Christian identity in view: (1) Identity of Christian Doctrine – 1.13 to 2.10; (2) Identity of Christian behavior among a wicked society – 2.11 to 4.11; (3) Identity of Christian behavior towards a hostile world.
The first two verses which will be further analyzed, generally regarded as greetings and salutations, curiously addresses to the issue of identity and can also be structured in a two point outline which we are going to follow during their exposition: (1) The identity of the writer in relations to the Church; (2) The identity of recipients in relation to God and the world.

Attributes of God

2008-05-20T00:37:00.003-04:00

The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all. Psa 103:19

In 1859 a young lad from Pennsylvania, after his graduation in Princeton under Professor Charles Hodge, was ordained and sent to Brazil as a missionary effort of the PCUSA to preach the gospel and the Presbyterian standards in that country. His name was Ashbel Green Simonton. In 1860, Rev. Simonton preached his first sermon in the Portuguese language and in 1862 founded the first Presbyterian Church in Brazil, located in Rio de Janeiro.
This just reminds me of God’s providence, His control over history, His absolute dominium. Anyone living in the catholic Brazil of the 19th Century would never believe that the Lord would bring a foreigner who would learn the local language in 2 years, enable him to preach His Gospel powerfully in such a way that,146 years later, that single church would become 2304, distributed in 236 presbyteries.
Since me and my wife arrived here, we have been learning a lot on that matter. We have found demonstrations from our Lord of his mercy and care not only in the Seminary but brothers and sisters individually have been used by Him to bless us with love, attention, prayers and gifts.
The knowledge of this biblical truth must find a special place in the hearts of faithful believers and must cause a great impact in the way they live and see the world. The Christian ought to exercise his dependence on God by struggling against the thought that he can solve problems or live his life by himself and by spending time in private prayer as advised by Lord Jesus.

STUCK IN MY OWN HOUSE

2008-01-17T11:06:00.000-05:00

When I was about to leave for the seminary this morning what a horrible surprise: our driveway was completely frozen.

Being an "expert" in snow as I am (considering that I came from one of the most hot cities in Brazil) I tried first to drive our car trough the snow and it obviously didn't work. Later we tried to water the snow out of the driveway, but it was too cold and it would take the whole Taylors water resource to remove the snow out of there. I finally used my vast hollywoodian knowledge (and all this with only one good leg) and concluded by remembering all American movies I’ve seen in the past that I should have a shovel to manually remove the snow out of the way and be able to drive to the seminary. When I realized that I just gave up. Entered home again and made myself some hot coffee.

Now I'm attending the History of Philosophy class using the seminary's internet conference system (thank's God it exists).

SNOW AT TAYLORS

2008-01-16T22:55:00.000-05:00

Although the alert of iced storm in the Greenville area, the night was blessed with a nice snow fall.

The streets are already white, my car is also covered in snow. My neighbor Emilio and his young brother-in law(on the picture) came some minutes ago here in our house, shooting snow balls.

It is all very exciting.