In Pursuit of Purity is a book on the history of Fundamentalism in the United States. David O. Beale spends 37 chapters laying out this history from a scholarly view point. This paper will give an overview of the chapter content of the book, followed by a summation of the book’s strengths and weakness.
Overview of the Book
This book is divided into five parts. Part one is “The Fountainheads of Fundamentalism.” In seven chapters, Beal attempts to define Fundamentalism, and then to describe the early stages of the movement, including the controversy of the day and the need for such a movement. Beal is content to define the ideal Fundamentalist as one who “desires to reach out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness” (3). He further elaborates by stating that the essence of Fundamentalism as “the unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures.” These are the definitions that will govern the entire rest of the book.
The remainder of the first section is spent in tracing the roots of Fundamentalism. Beal goes into great detail mentioning the people and events that elicited a need for this movement. Chapter seven is titled, “Transdenominational Responses to Liberalism”, which sums the purpose and aim of early fundamentalism in forming conferences that brought together those who wished to respond to liberalism. These conferences and the subsequent cooperation of those wishing to identify liberalism within the denominations resulted in the formulations of works such as The Fundamentals and The Scofield Reference Bible.
The second section titled “Presbyterian Fundamentalism to 1930” gives a history of Presbyterianism in America. Starting with theological controversies in the first chapter of this section, the second chapter moves through the establishment of schools of theology such as Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, McCormick Theological Seminary, Lane Theological Seminary, and Union Theological Seminary. An entire chapter is given to a discussion of the rise of Princeton and its champion, B.B Warfield. Another chapter is dedicated to the fall of Princeton and the subsequent establishment of Westminster Theological Seminary. This section also covers heresy trials within the denomination over liberalism and the controversy the tolerance of modernists such as Harry Emerson Fosdick brought to the table.
The third section is devoted to the rise of fundamentalism among the Baptists in America. Much of the controversy revolved around liberalism within the Northern Baptist Convention which seemed to be doomed from its inception. Some of the Baptists withdrew from the convention, while others stayed in an attempt to purge the convention. Beale points out how eschatological views were not an issue of separation in early Baptist fundamentalism.
Some of the results of Baptist fundamentalism were several fellowships and conferences that were organized to bring unity to the Fundamentalists. It seems that the Baptists considered fellowships and conferences their primary weapon in contending with Modernism. These had their start in the National Federation of Fundamentalists of the Northern Baptists which was started in Buffalo, New York. In these meetings, men attempted to identify modernism and combat it. Subsequent to these meetings were many other gatherings intent on girding the commitment to the movement. This section does take the time to mention the controversial actions of J. Frank Norris, and the poor eye from the public that Fundamentalism received subsequently.
The fourth section is dedicated to a shift in the Fundamentalist movement that began in the 1930’s. Separation was the key doctrine that governed this time period. Apparently, up to this point, Fundamentalist were considered to be non-conformists who remained within their denominations. But after this, they felt the need to make a clear and definitive separation from all they considered to be unholy. Beale does point out that many of the Bible conferences of this time were transdenominational. These moves resulted in associations such as the National Association of Evangelicals. Beale also mentions the rise of New Evangelicalism, a response to the separatism of Fundamentalism. Beale states that there are factions of this that are essentially identical to the historical expression of fundamentalism in theology, but who “refuse to regard the militant defense of the faith and the full doctrine and practice of holiness as intrinsically fundamental” (268). Some of these at the time were Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, John MacArthur, Jay Adams, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, and others.
Beale also uses this section to describe the rise of the General Association of Regular Baptists and the part that Robert Ketcham played in its founding. This section also covers the life of W.B. Riley and his contribution in founding the Minnesota Baptist Convention which led to the establishment of schools such as Pillsbury Bible College and Central Baptist Theological Seminary. This section also covers the founding of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, considered still the major Fundamentalist voice, and Methodist Fundamentalism.
The last section is titled “Fundamentalism Today.” This section goes into some detail in describing the Christian School movement, which is considered to be one of the most effective tools for continued Fundamentalist discipleship. This section clearly reveals Beales sympathies and devotion. In this section he also makes an appeal to the fundamentalist of the future to continue to pursue purity and holiness, which is the holy ideal and light of Fundamentalism (359).
Strengths of the Book
This book finds its strength in three areas. First it is historically thorough. Beale goes to great lengths to show the different sections of Fundamentalism’s part in the battles that were fought. He goes into the not just the fundamentalist history, but the American history of the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists to show their roots. He speaks of the impact the awakenings had on the controversy from the revival era of Finney and its watered down Calvinism that gave way to the entrance of Liberalism. Beale approaches the early historicity of the movement in a very scholarly fashion that shows the depth of study he has put into this subject.
Along with the book’s historical thoroughness comes a second strength; Beale documents his work very well. The reader is inundated with a flood of resources that provide pathways for future study. These resources may prove to be the value of the book.
Finally, Beale’s historical thoroughness sets up the fact that there was a need for the movement in its early stages. He presents the material in such a way as to show the danger of the rise of liberalism and the consequences it would have held for Christianity. In this way, the reader is able to come to a true and better appreciation for the work and tenacity of the early fundamentalists.
Weakness of the Book
While the scholarly strength of this book represents itself easily in the thoroughness and accuracy of the research, the weakness comes more from the inherent writing presuppositions that Beale very clearly communicates as his book unfolds. The first weakness that can be observed is that Beale gives Fundamentalism a faulty premise. He reveals this in his very first chapter in which he attempts to define fundamentalism and gives a pathway for his book to follow. Regarding his theme, Beale states, “The second and central theme of this study is that, while Fundamentalism has always embraced and defended the cardinal doctrines of traditional Christianity, the movement has been characterized by an emphasis on the doctrine and practice of holiness.” He goes on to state, “In both the Hebrew and Greek languages, the word holiness, or sanctification, carries the basic idea of separation” (6). Apparently, Beale feels that these statements validate his presupposition of holiness without the need for a textual argument. From here, Beale equates holiness, sanctification, and separation without regard to the context of the passages that would give a biblical theology of holiness and sanctification. This is the attitude that governs the rest of the unsavory light in which Fundamentalism is cast. A biblical theology of holiness throughout Scripture would reveal that holiness is more about a relationship with God that produces an image of Christ, which will be very distinct. But it is not about placing the “sword into the enemies’ bosoms” (357).
Flowing out of this first weakness is a second, Beale is very one-sided. He does not present the issues and problems of infighting over petty issues with the later generations of Fundamentalism. He does not even mention these. A book such as this needs to give an accurate representation of these. Rather, much of his language sounds rather like a fundamentalist propaganda presenting the movement as perfect. This is particularly true in chapter 36. The whole movement, warts and all, needs to be presented for proper evaluation.
A third weakness is that this book is dated. It is twenty years old, and the face of fundamentalism has changed much in the last twenty years. It may be helpful for someone to do a scholarly updating of this book with a chapter evaluating the last twenty years of fundamentalism with the new problems the current generation is facing.
Conclusion
This book is a good read for any who need to know about the early roots of Fundamentalism. It is thorough and mentions many of the men who were instrumental in standing up for the truth of orthodox Christianity. However, the reader must be cautioned that the presuppositions that Beal reveals in his first chapter are to govern the rest of the book. With this in mind, the reader can benefit from this book and come to a greater appreciate of the work that was done in the struggle against a liberal ideal.
Friday, September 29, 2006
montanus: case study in church history: part 1
A Time of Tension
The mid to end of the second century was a time ripe for a schismatic such as Montanism to come on the scene. The events in church history leading up to this time period had created a tension that would cause a person with radical ideas such as Montanus to be welcome to those who may be have been confused about the mixed messages that were pervasive during this time period. The locus of these mixed messages centers around the work of the Holy Spirit, and specifically His gift of prophecy; the way this issue had been dealt with up to the time of Montanus, although with good intentions, had not addressed the topic in a systematic manner that, while addressing the problems, would clearly emphasize the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit.
Church writers during this time period were reactionaries. They addressed a need as it came up; Tillich observes that the theologians of the time period developed their systems in opposition to heresies, “The greatness of theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian is that they saw this danger, and used the Logos doctrine to develop constructive theological ideas in relation to the religious movements of their own period.”[1] While Tillich is noting the strength in this, there is an inherent weakness as well in that the tendency is to only address the wrong and not to clearly lay out what is right. In the midst of the confusion, Montanus finds his place in during this time in church history.
The confusion of this time period can be demonstrated through observing several facets of the church up to the time Montanus came around. Hopefully, these will clearly illustrate the tensions of ideas. First, there was an awareness of problems with abuse of the gift of prophecy. Evidence from early on shows that there were false prophets going around attempting to promote themselves and deceive the people among whom they “ministered.” The Didache demonstrates this problem in XI:2, “But if the teacher himself being perverted teaches another teaching to the destruction [of this], hear him not, but if [he teach] to the increase of righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.”[2] In this section the writer is attempting to provide an objective way of determining whether or not someone was a false prophet.
While at the point of the writing of the Didache (somewhere between 70 and 110 A.D.)[3], they could not declare that there was no longer a gift of prophecy because all of the apostles had not yet passed off the scene, they felt that they had to do something to combat the abuses of those who would deceive people with their “prophetic” messages.
The Didache places us into the situation between the church polity of the Pastoral Epistles and the establishment of Episcopacy, or between St. Paul and Ignatius of Antioch. The Apostolic government was about to cease, and the Episcopal government had not yet taken its place. A secondary order of Apostles and Prophets were moving about and continued the missionary work of the primitive Apostles.[4]
A second demonstration that helps to build the tension is the heresy of Gnosticism. Flourishing between the first and third centuries, Gnosticism made its assertions based on secret traditions that were in opposition to biblical writings.[5] Some believe that Paul himself was combating early forms of Gnosticism as early as the writing of Colossians.[6] While it is not the purpose of this paper to outline the beliefs of this heresy, it is interesting to observe as does Tillich that, “The problem which the Gnostics posed for the church was in the realm of authority, the question whether the Holy Scriptures were decisive over against the secret teachings of the Gnostics.”[7] Tillich goes on to observe that the Gnosticism of the day was reacted against so strongly that the church was pushed into a more rigid expression and the work of the Holy Spirit was thereby minimized. Anything that smelled like a special work in an individual, (the gnosis) was looked at with suspicion. Thus, this set the scene up for a suspicion and depression of any work of the Holy Spirit that would be considered special. The heresy of Gnosticism was prior to and contemporary with Montanism, and Tillich concludes that Montanism was a reaction against the rigid development of the spirit of order.[8]
Third, the Apostle John had passed off the scene less than one hundred years before this. His words freshly written in his gospel and Revelation were still ringing in the ears of the early church. While modern theologians would view John’s promise of the Paraclete as having been fulfilled after Pentecost in Acts 2, it may be that the believers, not having access to all Scriptural documents of the first century, were looking for the promised Paraclete with which John laces his gospel. Not only that, but the eschaton would have been on their minds as well as they read about Christ from John’s book of Revelation. Groh notes, “Christianity in Asia Minor had long treasured the Gospel of John with its promise of the Paraclete, and was the setting for the eschatological prophecy of the Book of Revelation.”[9] With the expectation of the coming of the Lord having been disappointed, the apostolic fathers began to establish this order mentioned above, thus a tension is acknowledged in the second century, and Montanus comes on the scene to answer the questions.
The Beginning of Montanism
Montanus came from the village of Ardabau in Phrygia, an area in Asia Minor. Frend suggests that he was possibly a priest of Cybele, a goddess of nature and fertility.[10] While there is no clear testimony to Montanus’ prior involvement in the religion of Cybele, it is of note that Phrygia was known for its frenzy and fanaticism in worship of Cybele,[11] because similar practices are found in Montanus’ teachings later on. In fact, Boer asserts that Montanus, “expressed his new religion in the old religious manner. It was thus natural for him to emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit.”[12]
The writings of Eusebius state that Montanus was converted to Christianity, and shortly after his conversion he began to babble and prophesy in a manner contrary to what had been accepted in the church thus far.[13] Burgess observes that Montanus claimed to be the inspired organ of the Holy Spirit, and describes Epiphanius as accusing Montanus of claiming to have a fuller revelation of the Spirit than the church possessed.[14] There is a controversy over the exact dating of these events. Some would place it at 155,[15] while others would place it around 170.[16] With either date, the movement is seen to have begun in the mid to late second century A.D.. Montanus' form of religion was to take over the area of Phrygia and dominate it.[17]
Before long, Montanus was joined by two women who had abandoned their husbands to follow Montanus and prophesy with him. Their names were Priscilla and Maximilla. They took up the same ecstatic behavior that Montanus had manifested, and all three continued their work together under the umbrella of a claim to the Paraclete, Montanus even in his ecstasy denying his humanity and claiming to be God.[18] Montanus taught that through him the age of the Paraclete had come. He taught that this was the beginning of the New Prophecy that would accompany the eschaton,[19] which would culminate in the Parousia coming down in the village of Pepuzza near Philadelphia.[20]
Montanist Teachings
The Montanists believed their prophecy was exclusive and was the final revelation to man.[21] Additional Montanist teachings alongside the claim to new revelation from the Paraclete and the coming down of the Parousia in Pepuzza include the teaching that Christians should not avoid persecution, the teaching that any type of remarriage is sinful, the teaching of strict asceticism, including dietary rules, and the teaching that certain sins could not be forgiven after baptism.[22]
While these teachings appear to be very legalistic, Montanism still was attractive for two reasons. First, it offered a vibrant work of the Holy Spirit in contrast to the perceived deadness that an anti-Gnostic orthodoxy was spawning; second, the rules combated the perceived sinful excesses that that this anti-Gnostic orthodoxy was spawning. This was so influential, that around the year 207, Tertullian converted to Montanism. Much of what is known about the teachings of the Montanists comes from the writings of Tertullian.[23]
Some of those who opposed Montanism were Irenaeus, and Eusebius. While these men came from a tradition that did not deny the existence of prophecy or its exercise in the church, they reacted strongly against the way it was exercised by Montanus and the authority Montanus placed upon his prophecy as superseding that of the apostles and even Christ.[24] Another who opposed Montanus from a standpoint of an end of prophecy with the death of the last apostle was Hippolytus of Rome.[25] These men and their views will be discussed in a later chapter in this paper.
The Decline of Montanism
The Montanist movement continued on with force in Phrygia. However, as time progressed, the promised Parousia did not come. The Montanists organized a church to rival their opponents, but found themselves guilty of the same orthodoxy with which they would accuse their opponents.[26] They continued on in weakness until the sixth century when they were exterminated by the church under Justinian.[27] The rise and fall of this movement can be seen to be prescriptive of a cycle of action and reaction in the church. The best way one can learn from this event is to study the ensuing reactions and observe how to remain in a state of delicate balance on a firm foundation when excesses reveal themselves.
[1]Paul Tillich, A Complete History of Christian Thought (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), 37.
[2]Philip Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: The Didache and Kindred Documents in the Original (London: Pendleburys Church House, 2001 [reprint of the 1885 edition]), 64.
[3]Ibid. 62.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984), 35.
[6]J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1879),74.
[7]Tillich, A Complete History of Christian Thought, 38.
[8]Ibid. 40.
[9]Dennis E. Groh, “Montanism,” The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity 2nd ed. vol. 2, 778.
[10]W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 253.
[11]W. Le Saint, “Montanism,” New Catholic Encyclopedia vol. IX, 1078-1079.
[12]Harry R. Boer, A Short History of the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 63.
[13]A New Eusebius, ed. by F. Stevenson (London: SPCK, 1965), 108.
[14]Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions, 49.
[15]S. M. Burgess, “The Holy Spirit, Doctrine of: The Ancient Church Fathers,” Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 419.
[16]Groh, “Montanism,” 778.
[17]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 254.
[18]A History of Christianity vol. 1, ed. by Ray C. Petry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 90.
[19]Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, 63.
[20]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 254.
[21]Ibid.
[22]“Montanists,” A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 461.
[23]Ibid.
[24]Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions, 51.
[25]Ibid. 52.
[26]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 256.
[27]Burgess, “The Holy Spirit, Doctrine of: The Ancient Church Fathers,” 420.
The mid to end of the second century was a time ripe for a schismatic such as Montanism to come on the scene. The events in church history leading up to this time period had created a tension that would cause a person with radical ideas such as Montanus to be welcome to those who may be have been confused about the mixed messages that were pervasive during this time period. The locus of these mixed messages centers around the work of the Holy Spirit, and specifically His gift of prophecy; the way this issue had been dealt with up to the time of Montanus, although with good intentions, had not addressed the topic in a systematic manner that, while addressing the problems, would clearly emphasize the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit.
Church writers during this time period were reactionaries. They addressed a need as it came up; Tillich observes that the theologians of the time period developed their systems in opposition to heresies, “The greatness of theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian is that they saw this danger, and used the Logos doctrine to develop constructive theological ideas in relation to the religious movements of their own period.”[1] While Tillich is noting the strength in this, there is an inherent weakness as well in that the tendency is to only address the wrong and not to clearly lay out what is right. In the midst of the confusion, Montanus finds his place in during this time in church history.
The confusion of this time period can be demonstrated through observing several facets of the church up to the time Montanus came around. Hopefully, these will clearly illustrate the tensions of ideas. First, there was an awareness of problems with abuse of the gift of prophecy. Evidence from early on shows that there were false prophets going around attempting to promote themselves and deceive the people among whom they “ministered.” The Didache demonstrates this problem in XI:2, “But if the teacher himself being perverted teaches another teaching to the destruction [of this], hear him not, but if [he teach] to the increase of righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.”[2] In this section the writer is attempting to provide an objective way of determining whether or not someone was a false prophet.
While at the point of the writing of the Didache (somewhere between 70 and 110 A.D.)[3], they could not declare that there was no longer a gift of prophecy because all of the apostles had not yet passed off the scene, they felt that they had to do something to combat the abuses of those who would deceive people with their “prophetic” messages.
The Didache places us into the situation between the church polity of the Pastoral Epistles and the establishment of Episcopacy, or between St. Paul and Ignatius of Antioch. The Apostolic government was about to cease, and the Episcopal government had not yet taken its place. A secondary order of Apostles and Prophets were moving about and continued the missionary work of the primitive Apostles.[4]
A second demonstration that helps to build the tension is the heresy of Gnosticism. Flourishing between the first and third centuries, Gnosticism made its assertions based on secret traditions that were in opposition to biblical writings.[5] Some believe that Paul himself was combating early forms of Gnosticism as early as the writing of Colossians.[6] While it is not the purpose of this paper to outline the beliefs of this heresy, it is interesting to observe as does Tillich that, “The problem which the Gnostics posed for the church was in the realm of authority, the question whether the Holy Scriptures were decisive over against the secret teachings of the Gnostics.”[7] Tillich goes on to observe that the Gnosticism of the day was reacted against so strongly that the church was pushed into a more rigid expression and the work of the Holy Spirit was thereby minimized. Anything that smelled like a special work in an individual, (the gnosis) was looked at with suspicion. Thus, this set the scene up for a suspicion and depression of any work of the Holy Spirit that would be considered special. The heresy of Gnosticism was prior to and contemporary with Montanism, and Tillich concludes that Montanism was a reaction against the rigid development of the spirit of order.[8]
Third, the Apostle John had passed off the scene less than one hundred years before this. His words freshly written in his gospel and Revelation were still ringing in the ears of the early church. While modern theologians would view John’s promise of the Paraclete as having been fulfilled after Pentecost in Acts 2, it may be that the believers, not having access to all Scriptural documents of the first century, were looking for the promised Paraclete with which John laces his gospel. Not only that, but the eschaton would have been on their minds as well as they read about Christ from John’s book of Revelation. Groh notes, “Christianity in Asia Minor had long treasured the Gospel of John with its promise of the Paraclete, and was the setting for the eschatological prophecy of the Book of Revelation.”[9] With the expectation of the coming of the Lord having been disappointed, the apostolic fathers began to establish this order mentioned above, thus a tension is acknowledged in the second century, and Montanus comes on the scene to answer the questions.
The Beginning of Montanism
Montanus came from the village of Ardabau in Phrygia, an area in Asia Minor. Frend suggests that he was possibly a priest of Cybele, a goddess of nature and fertility.[10] While there is no clear testimony to Montanus’ prior involvement in the religion of Cybele, it is of note that Phrygia was known for its frenzy and fanaticism in worship of Cybele,[11] because similar practices are found in Montanus’ teachings later on. In fact, Boer asserts that Montanus, “expressed his new religion in the old religious manner. It was thus natural for him to emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit.”[12]
The writings of Eusebius state that Montanus was converted to Christianity, and shortly after his conversion he began to babble and prophesy in a manner contrary to what had been accepted in the church thus far.[13] Burgess observes that Montanus claimed to be the inspired organ of the Holy Spirit, and describes Epiphanius as accusing Montanus of claiming to have a fuller revelation of the Spirit than the church possessed.[14] There is a controversy over the exact dating of these events. Some would place it at 155,[15] while others would place it around 170.[16] With either date, the movement is seen to have begun in the mid to late second century A.D.. Montanus' form of religion was to take over the area of Phrygia and dominate it.[17]
Before long, Montanus was joined by two women who had abandoned their husbands to follow Montanus and prophesy with him. Their names were Priscilla and Maximilla. They took up the same ecstatic behavior that Montanus had manifested, and all three continued their work together under the umbrella of a claim to the Paraclete, Montanus even in his ecstasy denying his humanity and claiming to be God.[18] Montanus taught that through him the age of the Paraclete had come. He taught that this was the beginning of the New Prophecy that would accompany the eschaton,[19] which would culminate in the Parousia coming down in the village of Pepuzza near Philadelphia.[20]
Montanist Teachings
The Montanists believed their prophecy was exclusive and was the final revelation to man.[21] Additional Montanist teachings alongside the claim to new revelation from the Paraclete and the coming down of the Parousia in Pepuzza include the teaching that Christians should not avoid persecution, the teaching that any type of remarriage is sinful, the teaching of strict asceticism, including dietary rules, and the teaching that certain sins could not be forgiven after baptism.[22]
While these teachings appear to be very legalistic, Montanism still was attractive for two reasons. First, it offered a vibrant work of the Holy Spirit in contrast to the perceived deadness that an anti-Gnostic orthodoxy was spawning; second, the rules combated the perceived sinful excesses that that this anti-Gnostic orthodoxy was spawning. This was so influential, that around the year 207, Tertullian converted to Montanism. Much of what is known about the teachings of the Montanists comes from the writings of Tertullian.[23]
Some of those who opposed Montanism were Irenaeus, and Eusebius. While these men came from a tradition that did not deny the existence of prophecy or its exercise in the church, they reacted strongly against the way it was exercised by Montanus and the authority Montanus placed upon his prophecy as superseding that of the apostles and even Christ.[24] Another who opposed Montanus from a standpoint of an end of prophecy with the death of the last apostle was Hippolytus of Rome.[25] These men and their views will be discussed in a later chapter in this paper.
The Decline of Montanism
The Montanist movement continued on with force in Phrygia. However, as time progressed, the promised Parousia did not come. The Montanists organized a church to rival their opponents, but found themselves guilty of the same orthodoxy with which they would accuse their opponents.[26] They continued on in weakness until the sixth century when they were exterminated by the church under Justinian.[27] The rise and fall of this movement can be seen to be prescriptive of a cycle of action and reaction in the church. The best way one can learn from this event is to study the ensuing reactions and observe how to remain in a state of delicate balance on a firm foundation when excesses reveal themselves.
[1]Paul Tillich, A Complete History of Christian Thought (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), 37.
[2]Philip Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: The Didache and Kindred Documents in the Original (London: Pendleburys Church House, 2001 [reprint of the 1885 edition]), 64.
[3]Ibid. 62.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984), 35.
[6]J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1879),74.
[7]Tillich, A Complete History of Christian Thought, 38.
[8]Ibid. 40.
[9]Dennis E. Groh, “Montanism,” The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity 2nd ed. vol. 2, 778.
[10]W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 253.
[11]W. Le Saint, “Montanism,” New Catholic Encyclopedia vol. IX, 1078-1079.
[12]Harry R. Boer, A Short History of the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 63.
[13]A New Eusebius, ed. by F. Stevenson (London: SPCK, 1965), 108.
[14]Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions, 49.
[15]S. M. Burgess, “The Holy Spirit, Doctrine of: The Ancient Church Fathers,” Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 419.
[16]Groh, “Montanism,” 778.
[17]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 254.
[18]A History of Christianity vol. 1, ed. by Ray C. Petry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 90.
[19]Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, 63.
[20]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 254.
[21]Ibid.
[22]“Montanists,” A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 461.
[23]Ibid.
[24]Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions, 51.
[25]Ibid. 52.
[26]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 256.
[27]Burgess, “The Holy Spirit, Doctrine of: The Ancient Church Fathers,” 420.
studying hard
Sorry for the very few updates on the blog lately. Julie and I have been very busy in getting started with the new semester. We love all of our family and friends who have heard little from us lately.
I plan to post some pictures of our post renovation dwelling soon, but until then, I thought I might share some of my research lately. Please don't feel like you have to read the entire text (as if anyone every felt that way). But please do feel that I want interaction and contstructive criticism.
Enjoy
I plan to post some pictures of our post renovation dwelling soon, but until then, I thought I might share some of my research lately. Please don't feel like you have to read the entire text (as if anyone every felt that way). But please do feel that I want interaction and contstructive criticism.
Enjoy
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
resourceful help
For any of my friends who are willing to contribute:
I am doing research on early church pneumatology in light of modern cessationism/continuationism controversies for a seminary class I am taking on early church history. This has been a topic I have wanted to research for several years now, and I now have a good excuse to do so. I would be open to suggestions as to books, journal articles, and magazines that would shed light on how either side would use church fathers to support their view.
Warfield, Lloyd-Jones, Grudem, Fee, and Williams are on my list of writers to explore. To be honest, at this point in my research I am not running across any continuationists that address church fathers or issues of a closed canon early in church history. I know there must be some, but I need help finding them so that the paper is well rounded and not ignorant.
I welcome any suggestions that would help my research to be the most informed it can be. I do not want to neglect any writers coming from either side.
I am doing research on early church pneumatology in light of modern cessationism/continuationism controversies for a seminary class I am taking on early church history. This has been a topic I have wanted to research for several years now, and I now have a good excuse to do so. I would be open to suggestions as to books, journal articles, and magazines that would shed light on how either side would use church fathers to support their view.
Warfield, Lloyd-Jones, Grudem, Fee, and Williams are on my list of writers to explore. To be honest, at this point in my research I am not running across any continuationists that address church fathers or issues of a closed canon early in church history. I know there must be some, but I need help finding them so that the paper is well rounded and not ignorant.
I welcome any suggestions that would help my research to be the most informed it can be. I do not want to neglect any writers coming from either side.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
I've been tagged
Tim Baylor tagged me to answer these questions. I am normally repulsed by chain emails and things like them, but this one seems profitable. By the way, this one disclaimer - just because I list it here as a book that I like does not mean I am in full agreement with everything in the book :)
1. One book that changed your life
Life Change is something that is happening every day, so some of these I have read a long time ago, and others just recently. Besides the Bible, I think I would have to say Transforming Grace by Jerry Bridges. I would add to that Future Grace by John Piper, and The Passion of Christ, by John Piper.
I would also add God's Empowering Presence by Gordon Fee. I was doing some study on the work of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8 at the time I read the book, and boy, what an encouragement and support to the grace of God and gospel for everyday life!
2. One book you’ve read more than once
Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan.
3. One book you’d want on a desert island
I think I'd want my Reformation Study Bible.
4. One book that made you laugh
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain.
5. One book that made you cry
Can't think of any off the top of my head, although I'm with Baylor on D J Kennedy's Why I Believe. That part about proof for the existence of hell based on near death experiences really got to me. Also, I would add Criswell's Guidbook for Pastors.
6. One book you wish had been written
A Theology of The Church as the Unified Body of Christ from a First Century Perspective. I think in many ways we have come far from what the church is supposed to be both in form and function. I pray that individually I can study this topic and apply it to my life, and then represent it accurately and biblically to whatever local assembly God may be pleased to allow me to grow with in the future.
7. One book you wish had never been written
Dave Hunt's What Love is This?
8. One book you’re currently reading
Brothers We are Not Professionals by John Piper. I am very challenged by the call to non-secular, Christ centered ministry.
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read
The Works of Jonathan Edwards, and anything by John Owen. He did some foundational works in Christology and Pneumatology. Also A Call to Spiritual Reformation by D.A. Carson.
10. Tag 5 others
Julie Hall, Phil Hall, Stephen Branine, Kit Johnson, (if he had a blog), Jordan Heijermans (if he had a blog), Brian Morgan.
11. I am adding my own 11th question - a book you started, put down, never finished, but wished you had
Calvin's Institutes. I will finish them some day.
1. One book that changed your life
Life Change is something that is happening every day, so some of these I have read a long time ago, and others just recently. Besides the Bible, I think I would have to say Transforming Grace by Jerry Bridges. I would add to that Future Grace by John Piper, and The Passion of Christ, by John Piper.
I would also add God's Empowering Presence by Gordon Fee. I was doing some study on the work of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8 at the time I read the book, and boy, what an encouragement and support to the grace of God and gospel for everyday life!
2. One book you’ve read more than once
Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan.
3. One book you’d want on a desert island
I think I'd want my Reformation Study Bible.
4. One book that made you laugh
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain.
5. One book that made you cry
Can't think of any off the top of my head, although I'm with Baylor on D J Kennedy's Why I Believe. That part about proof for the existence of hell based on near death experiences really got to me. Also, I would add Criswell's Guidbook for Pastors.
6. One book you wish had been written
A Theology of The Church as the Unified Body of Christ from a First Century Perspective. I think in many ways we have come far from what the church is supposed to be both in form and function. I pray that individually I can study this topic and apply it to my life, and then represent it accurately and biblically to whatever local assembly God may be pleased to allow me to grow with in the future.
7. One book you wish had never been written
Dave Hunt's What Love is This?
8. One book you’re currently reading
Brothers We are Not Professionals by John Piper. I am very challenged by the call to non-secular, Christ centered ministry.
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read
The Works of Jonathan Edwards, and anything by John Owen. He did some foundational works in Christology and Pneumatology. Also A Call to Spiritual Reformation by D.A. Carson.
10. Tag 5 others
Julie Hall, Phil Hall, Stephen Branine, Kit Johnson, (if he had a blog), Jordan Heijermans (if he had a blog), Brian Morgan.
11. I am adding my own 11th question - a book you started, put down, never finished, but wished you had
Calvin's Institutes. I will finish them some day.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
virtual tour of the new Hall house: part 2
continued from a previous post....Entering the sun room from the back door, and turning around you can see out into the back yard. I think this sun room is one of our favorite features of the house. Unfortunately, it is taken up with most of our furniture and kitchen items right now while we are working on prinside. Hopefully that will change soon...
From the same spot I can turn around and see Jules in the laundry area... We'd like to eventually have a stack washer and dryer here to free up some space.
Here is the oven--in a very inconvenient location. Our plan is to get rid of the wall behind it, opening up the kitchen and laundry area a little more. Then we'll move the oven to the other side of the kitchen. If you look up in the corner, you can see some exposed lumber. There was actually a piece of wall here that looked like inverted stair steps. Really wierd...so I got rid of it.
This is the existing sink and counter with the diswasher on the left. The window looks into the back yard. Someone gave us a cast iron sink we are going to put in, along with new cabinets and countertops.
If I back out from the sink into the living room, you can see where we removed the wall that separated the kitchen from the living room. It still looks like a construction area right now, but we are going to put a counter top there on the half wall, making a kind of breakfast nook area with high stools. The layout for the new kitchen has the oven about where the fridge is now, and the fridge will go directly to the left of the dishwasher.Blogger has a limit on the number of pics I can put up, so more to come later...
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
virtual tour of the new Hall house: part 1
For our friends and family: Julie and I would like to take you on a virtual tour of our new house in Portsmouth.This is a rough diagram of the layout of the house. Pictures of the inside will come later :)
This picture is taken from accross the street. You can see where we have cleared out a lot of the jungle already. Part of the "selling" point of this house was that it boast over a thousand bulbs in the garden. We did not see a mess of dead plants as a value however. We are keeping some of it, but we want to thin it out.
Looking down the driveway you can see the garage in the back. Now we are going to walk into the backyard from the gate to the right of the car.
This picture is looking from the gate into the backyard...
Going into the backyard you can look back and see the sun room off the back of our house. This picture is taken from next to the shed you saw in the previous pic.
We are thankful for what God has provided, and we look forward to many visits from our family and friends.
Monday, July 03, 2006
live in His presence
I felt the conviction of Holy Spirit today. After reading a portion of Genesis and being reminded of God's first act of creation that declares His sovereignty, I spent the day modifying the bit of creation that He has entrusted me with by cleaning up my yard - a task I did with joy for two reasons: first because this is the spot of ground God has given to Julie and me to keep as a stewarship for him, and second because I take pride in putting my fingerprints on our new property. God is good in all of His gifts; this is one that is easy for me to understand.
Clouds rolled in as I was cleaning up for the day and it began to rain. It was refreshing because I had been sweating all day, and I was reminded of the words written by William Cowper
"Fearful saints do courage take,
The clouds which you now dread
are bid with mercy and will break
in blessings on your head."
I pondered the thought that in this rain I had an illustration of the fact that often in dark times we cannot see how God is using our circumstances to accomplish His glory through forming the image of Christ in us. But sometimes when we step away from those dark times, we can see how those dark clouds rained down God's blessings on us in ways that never would have been so potent had we not experienced the darkness. I was praising God for this fact as it rained, because I have found this to be true so many times in my own life.
I went inside, showered and got in my vehicle to go see my wife at work and then go to the library to study. On the way I stopped at 7-11 to fill my extreme gulp (if you don't have one of these you need one) because I was parched.
As I left 7-11, an extremely thin man approached me. He opened his mouth and prefaced his story with the statement "I'm not a bum." I believed him. He went on to explain that he had cancer and needed medicine from the drugstore. He had everything he needed except that he was $3.86 short. I told him that I had no cash and I got in my vehicle and left. As I neared my wife's place of employment the thought struck me (or maybe I should say Holy Spirit confronted me); I had an opportunity to show this man Christ by speaking His name and I passed it by because I was busy. I had the opportunity to be the blessings showered on this man be introducing him to the grace of Christ when all he could see was darkness.
Please don't get me wrong. I believe with all my heart that God draws His elect to Himself and will accomplish their regeneration and perserverance. But part of my perserverance is to testify of the grace of Christ to those who do not have it in redemption. Peter exhorts us to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have.
With this I challenge myself and my brothers and sisters in Christ; do not be weak. Live your theology and speak the Name. Walk in the presence of God, and let it be known by your life and your words. Share redemption.
Clouds rolled in as I was cleaning up for the day and it began to rain. It was refreshing because I had been sweating all day, and I was reminded of the words written by William Cowper
"Fearful saints do courage take,
The clouds which you now dread
are bid with mercy and will break
in blessings on your head."
I pondered the thought that in this rain I had an illustration of the fact that often in dark times we cannot see how God is using our circumstances to accomplish His glory through forming the image of Christ in us. But sometimes when we step away from those dark times, we can see how those dark clouds rained down God's blessings on us in ways that never would have been so potent had we not experienced the darkness. I was praising God for this fact as it rained, because I have found this to be true so many times in my own life.
I went inside, showered and got in my vehicle to go see my wife at work and then go to the library to study. On the way I stopped at 7-11 to fill my extreme gulp (if you don't have one of these you need one) because I was parched.
As I left 7-11, an extremely thin man approached me. He opened his mouth and prefaced his story with the statement "I'm not a bum." I believed him. He went on to explain that he had cancer and needed medicine from the drugstore. He had everything he needed except that he was $3.86 short. I told him that I had no cash and I got in my vehicle and left. As I neared my wife's place of employment the thought struck me (or maybe I should say Holy Spirit confronted me); I had an opportunity to show this man Christ by speaking His name and I passed it by because I was busy. I had the opportunity to be the blessings showered on this man be introducing him to the grace of Christ when all he could see was darkness.
Please don't get me wrong. I believe with all my heart that God draws His elect to Himself and will accomplish their regeneration and perserverance. But part of my perserverance is to testify of the grace of Christ to those who do not have it in redemption. Peter exhorts us to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have.
With this I challenge myself and my brothers and sisters in Christ; do not be weak. Live your theology and speak the Name. Walk in the presence of God, and let it be known by your life and your words. Share redemption.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
arguments from the character of God
I have been going through Old Testament Introduction at the seminary. In light of a recent question regarding the defense of the doctrine of preservation of Scriptures, I just wanted to throw this topic out for discussion, if anyone is still reading this blog. The question is:
To what extent can we use the character of God (or what we assume the character of God to be) as an answer for difficult questions?
If the phraseology of this question seems unclear, let me set it in its context and then provide some other examples of arguments where this answer is undeniably misused.
The Context of the Question
In OTI, we have been discussing the preservation of Scriptures. The argument has been postulated that we appeal to the character of God by saying that the Word must be preserved, because God would not withold anything from us that we need to live and walk with Him. I would agree with this, but only on the basis of what the text actually says about application of God's character. Namely, II Peter 1:3 "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,"
The way I would interpret this is that God has actually said in His Word that He has supplied us with everything we need to be godly, from which you can infer that He has not witheld anything that we need to be godly. Thus, if we need Scripture to be godly (which Scripture says) then everything we need to be godly must be preserved.
Let me point out that I am not arguing this way, "since God is loving, He must preserve Scripture." Rather, I am saying, "Since God said He gave us what we need, He must preserve what we need."
Some Wrong Uses of the Argument from the Character of God
To what extent can we use the character of God (or what we assume the character of God to be) as an answer for difficult questions?
If the phraseology of this question seems unclear, let me set it in its context and then provide some other examples of arguments where this answer is undeniably misused.
The Context of the Question
In OTI, we have been discussing the preservation of Scriptures. The argument has been postulated that we appeal to the character of God by saying that the Word must be preserved, because God would not withold anything from us that we need to live and walk with Him. I would agree with this, but only on the basis of what the text actually says about application of God's character. Namely, II Peter 1:3 "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,"
The way I would interpret this is that God has actually said in His Word that He has supplied us with everything we need to be godly, from which you can infer that He has not witheld anything that we need to be godly. Thus, if we need Scripture to be godly (which Scripture says) then everything we need to be godly must be preserved.
Let me point out that I am not arguing this way, "since God is loving, He must preserve Scripture." Rather, I am saying, "Since God said He gave us what we need, He must preserve what we need."
Some Wrong Uses of the Argument from the Character of God
- God is loving, so He would not allow people to go to hell.
- God is loving, so He would not allow 9/11.
- God is loving, so He would not allow the holocaust.
- God would not assign a sinful nature to human beings without them having the opportunity to choose sin for themselves.
- God would not choose some to eternal life and leave others to eternal punishment.
Please respond with your comments and insights. What regulates when we can and cannot say "God's character is ____ so he wouldn't _____ " (you fill in the blanks)?
Sunday, June 11, 2006
is there grace in james?
I just thought I would throw this question out there. Our reformation friend Martin L. would have said no. This is understandable coming from someone who came out of the works-based, Roman Catholic Church through the study of Paul's theology of justification in Romans. Luther firmly believed salvation was by faith alone. He believed the book of James was a straw epistle that should not be included in the canon, mainly because James says that faith without works is dead.
This question comes mostly from my personal study of James as Nate Mihelis and I have been teaching through the book in Sunday School at CBC. Although I am a firm believer that we hold the full canon in our sixty-six books of the Bible, I will have to admit that previously I did not have much appreciation for James because I did not see it as a gracious book.
My view of James has changed somewhat. The readers of this blog can tell me if this is a stretch or not. The book is undoubtedly a practical book describing perseverance in the life of the believer. But I have come to find it full of grace...what I mean is that I don't do these works to persevere, God accomplishes these works in me as I seek His grace in a right relationship with Him.
I find grace in James 1:5, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him." This wisdom parallels the works that faith produces found in James 2:14-26. I find this grace further described when James says in 3:17, "The wisdom from above is first pure, then peacable, etc..." This is wisdom that must come from above. Sourced in myself, this wisdom/faith-produced works does not exist. But James further comments in a section of the book calling the reader to repentance, "but he gives more grace..." (4:6).
A song says:
Grace paid for my sins and brought me to life
Grace robes me with power to do what is right.
I desire for others to see the grace of God that produces perseverance as is taught by James.
This question comes mostly from my personal study of James as Nate Mihelis and I have been teaching through the book in Sunday School at CBC. Although I am a firm believer that we hold the full canon in our sixty-six books of the Bible, I will have to admit that previously I did not have much appreciation for James because I did not see it as a gracious book.
My view of James has changed somewhat. The readers of this blog can tell me if this is a stretch or not. The book is undoubtedly a practical book describing perseverance in the life of the believer. But I have come to find it full of grace...what I mean is that I don't do these works to persevere, God accomplishes these works in me as I seek His grace in a right relationship with Him.
I find grace in James 1:5, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him." This wisdom parallels the works that faith produces found in James 2:14-26. I find this grace further described when James says in 3:17, "The wisdom from above is first pure, then peacable, etc..." This is wisdom that must come from above. Sourced in myself, this wisdom/faith-produced works does not exist. But James further comments in a section of the book calling the reader to repentance, "but he gives more grace..." (4:6).
A song says:
Grace paid for my sins and brought me to life
Grace robes me with power to do what is right.
I desire for others to see the grace of God that produces perseverance as is taught by James.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
worship, addictions, and preaching
I was sitting in church this Sunday morning enjoying the worship when the time of corporate singing came to an end and Pastor Daniel said something along the lines of “To cap our time of worship, I want to direct our attention to the Scriptures.” This was the introduction to the message. Pastor Daniel has been preaching out of the book of Revelation lately; his first message remained mostly in Revelation 1 where John sees the glory of Christ. Something that I can’t help but appreciate about Pastor Daniel’s preaching, no matter what passage he is in, is the fact that he tends to attempt to exalt the glory of God and not to harp on issues or trends.
As I was thinking about Pastor Daniel’s introduction, I thought about the fact that I have often heard and have generally believed myself that corporate church worship should emphasize the preaching of Scripture. Everything should be streamlined to point to the time when the Scriptures are opened and the Word is preached. Pastor Daniel’s introductory comments this Sunday portrayed the sermon as the capstone of the corporate church worship experience, which, I believe, it should be. But why? I don’t think I have often asked why. I think the answer to this will come from several observations having to do with the definition of worship, and the role that corporate assembly and specifically preaching plays in the definition of worship.
I have found my definition of worship to have changed over the last seven years. In our compartmentalizing evangelical society, many Christians have tended to leave worship as the activity that takes place on Sunday and maybe for 30 minutes or so in personal devotions every day. It is primarily an activity, but nothing more. I propose that worship is not primarily an activity; it is to be an addiction.
Let me illustrate my point. Since Ephesians 5 uses this illustration, it seems appropriate. There can be two types of drinkers. On the one hand, there is the social drinker who occasionally indulges at a party or at a romantic evening meal with his wife. The consumption of an alcoholic beverage is an activity that takes place occasionally for this person. On the other hand, there is the alcoholic. From early in the morning, this person craves drink. He drinks as soon as possible and spends the rest of his day doing so. Even if he can put off the activity, he is constantly aware of his “need” for a drink. Society tells him he has a disease because every part of his being is affected by this drive. It is a consuming passion that controls his every activity. He is addicted to drink. Worship is to be an addiction, not an activity—a lifestyle, not a social event on the weekends.
What I mean is what is urged by Paul in Romans 12:1-2: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer you bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Paul is saying, "be addicted to worship." Paul has spent this book talking about salvation and sanctification. The life that is sanctified by the power of Spirit control as outlined in Romans 8 is the life that is spent offered as a living sacrifice to God. This is worship.
So my definition of worship is, living every moment of your life, in the grip of the grace of God and controlled by the Spirit. Worship is no longer an activity, it is an addiction—a consuming passion. Worship is no longer a once a week happening, or even a once a day event in my devotions, but it is the essence of sanctification…living life being changed into the image of God through the power of God. Worship is grace—living my life in obedience to God not by my ability but by God’s ability. I am changed into the image of God by God’s power in this; this is sanctification. Worship is sanctification.
So how does this play into the emphasis of preaching in the corporate assembly? Let me explain. For this I must turn to II Corinthians 3:18, “And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” We find the glory of God in the unveiled Scriptures, and we are changed into the image of Christ (sanctification/worship) by this exposure to the glory of God. Note that we are not changed by doing a bunch of ‘good’ things, or by getting our all-important ‘issues’ straight, we are changed by exposure to the glory of God. These other things detract from the glory of God and therefore detract from true worship. They give us reason to boast in our own ‘glory.’
The corporate assembly functions as the time when believers can come together and worship by encouraging each other to worship every day of their lives. II Corinthians 3:18 states that through beholding the glory of God, one is changed into the image of God (sanctification/worship). Thus, when we spend time exalting God’s glory together in song and then someone enters the pulpit and exalts God’s glory through examination of His Word, we are encouraged to spend all of our time, every minute of our day, fostering our worship-addiction. This is an addiction that overcomes any sin-addictions one may have, but it does so by focusing on what is right, the glory of God and a right relationship with Him, not on what is wrong.
I must conclude from this that the corporate worship assembly must be organized to center around exposing Christians to the glory of God. God gave Scripture to reveal His glory, so expositional preaching must be central to the corporate worship assembly. I must further conclude that preaching must only be designed to expose the listeners to the glory of God. Preaching with any man-centered motivation is contrary to worship.
Gracious Father, I love the glory of the cross of Christ which has been the means of my relationship with You. Please help me to constantly seek to be exposed to your glory through every minute of the day. May it become to me as necessary as breathing. May I be addicted to worship and not to sin; may I be addicted to a relationship with You and to nothing of this world that I would idolize. In my striving to expose others to Your glory, may I never exalt myself or anything of man, and may I be true to Your Word.
As I was thinking about Pastor Daniel’s introduction, I thought about the fact that I have often heard and have generally believed myself that corporate church worship should emphasize the preaching of Scripture. Everything should be streamlined to point to the time when the Scriptures are opened and the Word is preached. Pastor Daniel’s introductory comments this Sunday portrayed the sermon as the capstone of the corporate church worship experience, which, I believe, it should be. But why? I don’t think I have often asked why. I think the answer to this will come from several observations having to do with the definition of worship, and the role that corporate assembly and specifically preaching plays in the definition of worship.
I have found my definition of worship to have changed over the last seven years. In our compartmentalizing evangelical society, many Christians have tended to leave worship as the activity that takes place on Sunday and maybe for 30 minutes or so in personal devotions every day. It is primarily an activity, but nothing more. I propose that worship is not primarily an activity; it is to be an addiction.
Let me illustrate my point. Since Ephesians 5 uses this illustration, it seems appropriate. There can be two types of drinkers. On the one hand, there is the social drinker who occasionally indulges at a party or at a romantic evening meal with his wife. The consumption of an alcoholic beverage is an activity that takes place occasionally for this person. On the other hand, there is the alcoholic. From early in the morning, this person craves drink. He drinks as soon as possible and spends the rest of his day doing so. Even if he can put off the activity, he is constantly aware of his “need” for a drink. Society tells him he has a disease because every part of his being is affected by this drive. It is a consuming passion that controls his every activity. He is addicted to drink. Worship is to be an addiction, not an activity—a lifestyle, not a social event on the weekends.
What I mean is what is urged by Paul in Romans 12:1-2: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer you bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Paul is saying, "be addicted to worship." Paul has spent this book talking about salvation and sanctification. The life that is sanctified by the power of Spirit control as outlined in Romans 8 is the life that is spent offered as a living sacrifice to God. This is worship.
So my definition of worship is, living every moment of your life, in the grip of the grace of God and controlled by the Spirit. Worship is no longer an activity, it is an addiction—a consuming passion. Worship is no longer a once a week happening, or even a once a day event in my devotions, but it is the essence of sanctification…living life being changed into the image of God through the power of God. Worship is grace—living my life in obedience to God not by my ability but by God’s ability. I am changed into the image of God by God’s power in this; this is sanctification. Worship is sanctification.
So how does this play into the emphasis of preaching in the corporate assembly? Let me explain. For this I must turn to II Corinthians 3:18, “And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” We find the glory of God in the unveiled Scriptures, and we are changed into the image of Christ (sanctification/worship) by this exposure to the glory of God. Note that we are not changed by doing a bunch of ‘good’ things, or by getting our all-important ‘issues’ straight, we are changed by exposure to the glory of God. These other things detract from the glory of God and therefore detract from true worship. They give us reason to boast in our own ‘glory.’
The corporate assembly functions as the time when believers can come together and worship by encouraging each other to worship every day of their lives. II Corinthians 3:18 states that through beholding the glory of God, one is changed into the image of God (sanctification/worship). Thus, when we spend time exalting God’s glory together in song and then someone enters the pulpit and exalts God’s glory through examination of His Word, we are encouraged to spend all of our time, every minute of our day, fostering our worship-addiction. This is an addiction that overcomes any sin-addictions one may have, but it does so by focusing on what is right, the glory of God and a right relationship with Him, not on what is wrong.
I must conclude from this that the corporate worship assembly must be organized to center around exposing Christians to the glory of God. God gave Scripture to reveal His glory, so expositional preaching must be central to the corporate worship assembly. I must further conclude that preaching must only be designed to expose the listeners to the glory of God. Preaching with any man-centered motivation is contrary to worship.
Gracious Father, I love the glory of the cross of Christ which has been the means of my relationship with You. Please help me to constantly seek to be exposed to your glory through every minute of the day. May it become to me as necessary as breathing. May I be addicted to worship and not to sin; may I be addicted to a relationship with You and to nothing of this world that I would idolize. In my striving to expose others to Your glory, may I never exalt myself or anything of man, and may I be true to Your Word.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
unless the Lord builds a house...
Here it is. Julie and I have bought a house in Portsmouth. The home inspector took this picture as we were doing the walk-through. We are thankful for the confirmation of the sovereignty of God once again in this matter. This is our first time buying, so naturally, we were nervous about the purchase. But the Lord has orchestrated every step and it has gone smoothly the whole way.Our true desire in this purchase is to be good stewards of the time and resources God has given us. We would like to put some "sweat equity" into the place and sell it when God moves us following seminary. We trust Him to provide between now and then. God is so good. There is nothing greater or more satisfying than living every minute of your life as an active worshipper. May every step we take, whether it be involvement with a local church, going to seminary, or buying a house be done as we give control to Holy Spirit.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
For Women Only
I am by nature a very skeptical person, so when I walk into Barnes and Noble there are a lot of books I will spend little time considering reading. For Women Only is just one of those books. It's another one of those "I have the answer about your husband. It doesn't matter who he is; I'm sure I have the corner on all men in the world" kind of books. Or so I thought. I never would have read it, but one of my friends suggested it so I agreed to give it a try.
It turns out that the author, Shaunti Feldhahn, is making some generalizations, but she is good to express her reasons and share the outcome of her surveys so the reader can be the judge. Basically what she did was survey hundreds of men from all walks of life and tried to ask pertinent questions. This left her with a few interesting discoveries about the way men think and feel.
I felt like the book did have a lot of challenging ideas. And even though every guy is different, there are some things that are in common with most. I guess after reading the book, I thought even if there are just a few ways that I can be a better help to Rob, it is worth it. And I would challenge any wife to consider at least looking over the book and considering a few things Shaunti says. She comes from a Christian mindset and really has a heart to love her husband and help other wives to do so as well.
Maybe in the future I won't be quite so hasty as I take my walk through Barnes and Noble.
It turns out that the author, Shaunti Feldhahn, is making some generalizations, but she is good to express her reasons and share the outcome of her surveys so the reader can be the judge. Basically what she did was survey hundreds of men from all walks of life and tried to ask pertinent questions. This left her with a few interesting discoveries about the way men think and feel.
I felt like the book did have a lot of challenging ideas. And even though every guy is different, there are some things that are in common with most. I guess after reading the book, I thought even if there are just a few ways that I can be a better help to Rob, it is worth it. And I would challenge any wife to consider at least looking over the book and considering a few things Shaunti says. She comes from a Christian mindset and really has a heart to love her husband and help other wives to do so as well.
Maybe in the future I won't be quite so hasty as I take my walk through Barnes and Noble.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
john owen: a man for the times
I've noticed that some of the 'friends I have never met' (as Thomas calls them) who I look up to the most increasingly have the first name of John --Calvin, Bunyan, Edwards, Piper, MacArthur. I have added John Owen to the list
.
John Owen was a man for his times. I recently picked up a book by five professors from (mostly from England) who wrote for the conference of the Jown Owen Centre for Theological Study: Sinclair Ferguson, Graham S. Harrison, Michael A. G. Haykin, Robert W. Oliver, and Carl R. Trueman. The book is called, John Owen: The Man and His Theology. This book is a valuable read for anyone who loves the doctrine of sovereignty, Pneumatology, Christology, or even Ecclesiology.
Particularly challenging was John Owen's view of theology. Trueman states, "My contention is that Owen's theology was overwhelmingly shaped by his doctrine of God, and its counterpoint in his understanding of humanity" (44). I find in Owen a man who was concerned foremost that people have a correct view of God. as a result of this, he fiercly combatted the Pelagianism, Arminianism, Socinianism, and Quakerism that was present in his day through the use of tongue and pen. What's more, he desired that this view of God play itself out in his own day to day holiness. Hence his writings on the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Ferguson explains it well: "One of the axioms that Owen returns to again and again as a preacher of the gospel is that there is a difference between the knowledge of the truth and the knowledge of the power of the truth...it is the presence of the Spirit of God that transforms our bare knowledge of truth into our experience of the power of the truth" (106-107). For Owen, theology must be applied. Application of theology results in a closeness to God that produces holiness.
I must end with two things. First, I am resolved to read more John Owen. Second, with Piper I have to say, "Brothers read Christian biographies!" There is a wealth of godly example that can be learned from the lives of those who thought our thoughts before us.
.John Owen was a man for his times. I recently picked up a book by five professors from (mostly from England) who wrote for the conference of the Jown Owen Centre for Theological Study: Sinclair Ferguson, Graham S. Harrison, Michael A. G. Haykin, Robert W. Oliver, and Carl R. Trueman. The book is called, John Owen: The Man and His Theology. This book is a valuable read for anyone who loves the doctrine of sovereignty, Pneumatology, Christology, or even Ecclesiology.
Particularly challenging was John Owen's view of theology. Trueman states, "My contention is that Owen's theology was overwhelmingly shaped by his doctrine of God, and its counterpoint in his understanding of humanity" (44). I find in Owen a man who was concerned foremost that people have a correct view of God. as a result of this, he fiercly combatted the Pelagianism, Arminianism, Socinianism, and Quakerism that was present in his day through the use of tongue and pen. What's more, he desired that this view of God play itself out in his own day to day holiness. Hence his writings on the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Ferguson explains it well: "One of the axioms that Owen returns to again and again as a preacher of the gospel is that there is a difference between the knowledge of the truth and the knowledge of the power of the truth...it is the presence of the Spirit of God that transforms our bare knowledge of truth into our experience of the power of the truth" (106-107). For Owen, theology must be applied. Application of theology results in a closeness to God that produces holiness.
I must end with two things. First, I am resolved to read more John Owen. Second, with Piper I have to say, "Brothers read Christian biographies!" There is a wealth of godly example that can be learned from the lives of those who thought our thoughts before us.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
the girl of my dreams
This is my wife. I can say I am truly blessed by God with the most wonderful woman alive. This picture was taken the day of our wedding (easy to guess); and all I have to say is, MARRIAGE IS GREAT (that was for G who is getting married soon himself). Julie and I are coming up soon on our one year aniversary, and I hope to spend many, many, many more years with her. I resonate Proverbs 18:22 which says, "He who finds a wife finds a good thing." She is a faithful support in my pursuits of ministry and study and a constant source of sanctification in my life. Praise the Lord for her patience. I hope I can faithfully learn to love her as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25).
Thursday, April 20, 2006
reflections on the grace of God
Today was the last chapel of the semester for CBTS. Pastor Daniel put all the graduating seniors on the spot by asking them to give a testimony last-minute. Talk about the sovereignty of God...although none of them had time to prepare a response, their exposure to God's glory shown forth through their personal testimonies of their struggle to walk with God. Each and every one of them testified of the grace of God, God's faithfulness, their lack of worthiness to be in His service, and their humble hopes to be used by Him in the future. It moves me to ponder what is meant when we say we are thankful for God's grace in our lives? I think often I have used the phrase "by God's grace," flippantly in the past without really thinking about what that means.
God's grace first of all is what brings the believer, the elect sinner, to salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 is the classic passage that addresses this. "by grace you have been saved through faith; this is not of yourselves; it is God's gift--not of works so that no one may boast." We have read the glorious truth of the first part of this chapter, "You were dead in your trespasses and sins...but God made us alive with Christ." God's grace gives life to the dead body that up to that point had cursed His name. God's grace gives the believer this standing in Christ. So first of all, God's grace abounds where our sin held us in a state of death and alienation so that we can be saved into a relationship with Him.
For most people who understand the gospel, this first part is not hard to grasp. But what about after salvation? The same grace that brings us into relationship with God keeps us in that relationship. Some have not understood this, thinking that good works cause a believer to grow; but how would that bring glory to God? If I cannot gain His favor initially through my works, why would I think that I can keep His favor through my works? For this kind of thinking Paul chides the Galatians in 3:3, "You are so senseless! Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being perfected in the flesh?" NO is the answer to the rhetorical question. Those who by God's grace, walk in the Spirit, will put to death the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:16). The grace that God gave us to justify us is also the grace we need for sanctification, because we cannot grow through our works. Yes, through our own works we may be able to fool a lot of people into thinking we are spiritual; we may be able to put on a great exterior, but that is worthless, and it does not satisfy. When the facade is stripped away, what is left? Nothing, because only God truly satisfies. His presence and His glory sanctifies us by His grace. So what does that leave us to "do," what are we left to pursue for sanctification? God alone.
What is the conclusion to all this? Merely that when all of those guys got up there today and testified of the grace of God, what they were saying is this: "Even though I have finished an M.Div, I am nothing without God; He has worked in me. He saved me and He is sanctifying me. I am bewildered that He would want to use me. But He will get the glory for anything that I do for Him, because He is accomplishing it. I am now pursuing His glory as I leave this place knowing that He will accomplish His work in me." I sat there challenged by the evidence of God's grace in their lives and craving a close dependence on Him that forces me to rely on His grace alone.
For God's work we must praise Him and continue to pursue His glory. As I go through seminary, my goal is the same as when I leave. Nothing will change except the environment I may be in. That goal is to, by God's grace, walk with God so I may behold His glory. Nothing more, and nothing less.
"Now we all with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord are being changed ino the same image from one degree of glory to another, even as from the Lord who is the Spirit."
II Cor. 3:18.
God's grace first of all is what brings the believer, the elect sinner, to salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 is the classic passage that addresses this. "by grace you have been saved through faith; this is not of yourselves; it is God's gift--not of works so that no one may boast." We have read the glorious truth of the first part of this chapter, "You were dead in your trespasses and sins...but God made us alive with Christ." God's grace gives life to the dead body that up to that point had cursed His name. God's grace gives the believer this standing in Christ. So first of all, God's grace abounds where our sin held us in a state of death and alienation so that we can be saved into a relationship with Him.
For most people who understand the gospel, this first part is not hard to grasp. But what about after salvation? The same grace that brings us into relationship with God keeps us in that relationship. Some have not understood this, thinking that good works cause a believer to grow; but how would that bring glory to God? If I cannot gain His favor initially through my works, why would I think that I can keep His favor through my works? For this kind of thinking Paul chides the Galatians in 3:3, "You are so senseless! Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being perfected in the flesh?" NO is the answer to the rhetorical question. Those who by God's grace, walk in the Spirit, will put to death the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:16). The grace that God gave us to justify us is also the grace we need for sanctification, because we cannot grow through our works. Yes, through our own works we may be able to fool a lot of people into thinking we are spiritual; we may be able to put on a great exterior, but that is worthless, and it does not satisfy. When the facade is stripped away, what is left? Nothing, because only God truly satisfies. His presence and His glory sanctifies us by His grace. So what does that leave us to "do," what are we left to pursue for sanctification? God alone.
What is the conclusion to all this? Merely that when all of those guys got up there today and testified of the grace of God, what they were saying is this: "Even though I have finished an M.Div, I am nothing without God; He has worked in me. He saved me and He is sanctifying me. I am bewildered that He would want to use me. But He will get the glory for anything that I do for Him, because He is accomplishing it. I am now pursuing His glory as I leave this place knowing that He will accomplish His work in me." I sat there challenged by the evidence of God's grace in their lives and craving a close dependence on Him that forces me to rely on His grace alone.
For God's work we must praise Him and continue to pursue His glory. As I go through seminary, my goal is the same as when I leave. Nothing will change except the environment I may be in. That goal is to, by God's grace, walk with God so I may behold His glory. Nothing more, and nothing less.
"Now we all with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord are being changed ino the same image from one degree of glory to another, even as from the Lord who is the Spirit."
II Cor. 3:18.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Thursday, March 09, 2006
dispensational and covenantal theology compared
I was doing some research for a paper I am writing for a new class at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. The class is "grace theology seminar." This is the first time Central has offered this class, so we are kind of the lab rats. Anyway, my topic involves comparing dispensational and covenantal ideas of grace. This may well be described as a vague topice, because there really is a great deal of overlap in the concepts of grace between the two systems. However, I was told that it may be helpful to look for areas of non-overlap.
Naturally I began doing some reading on the covenant of grace (the primary of the two or three covenants recognized by covenantal theologians), and found that covenantal theology defines the covenant of grace as "That gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience." Not too much difficulty there. It seems straightforward and biblical (although some may wonder what "faith in Christ" means, especially as it relates to OT saints).
My difficulty came when I read a little further. As Berkof sees it, the covenant of grace allows for the non-elect to be included. On page 276 of his Systematic Theology, He states, "In both the Old and New Testament, the covenant as a historical phenomenon is perpetuated in successive gernerations and includes many in whom the covenant life is never realized." I have yet to understand exactly what this means, but it seems that he is saying that the kids of the elect (who can very well be non-elect) somehow participate in the covenant of grace. The answer may be in the phrase "historical phenomenon." But initially, it would seem that the non elect share the covenant of grace with the elect.
I do not know all the ramifications of this. Upon further reading in Berkoff I may find that it does not make a large difference at all. My real question is, does the literature of covenant theologians since 1941 (when Berkoff's Systematic was written) fall into line with this? And if so, to what extent, and with what interpretation?
I guess I still have a lot of reading to do.
Naturally I began doing some reading on the covenant of grace (the primary of the two or three covenants recognized by covenantal theologians), and found that covenantal theology defines the covenant of grace as "That gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience." Not too much difficulty there. It seems straightforward and biblical (although some may wonder what "faith in Christ" means, especially as it relates to OT saints).
My difficulty came when I read a little further. As Berkof sees it, the covenant of grace allows for the non-elect to be included. On page 276 of his Systematic Theology, He states, "In both the Old and New Testament, the covenant as a historical phenomenon is perpetuated in successive gernerations and includes many in whom the covenant life is never realized." I have yet to understand exactly what this means, but it seems that he is saying that the kids of the elect (who can very well be non-elect) somehow participate in the covenant of grace. The answer may be in the phrase "historical phenomenon." But initially, it would seem that the non elect share the covenant of grace with the elect.
I do not know all the ramifications of this. Upon further reading in Berkoff I may find that it does not make a large difference at all. My real question is, does the literature of covenant theologians since 1941 (when Berkoff's Systematic was written) fall into line with this? And if so, to what extent, and with what interpretation?
I guess I still have a lot of reading to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
