Jean flipped one page back and realized he had contradicted himself once again. This was tricky stuff, working out salvation, but at least he was showing his workings. “Oh well,” he thought. “One day they will invent word processors.”

In a post called Baptism Is Not Faith, Shane Lems points out where the Federal Vision guys depart from the “historic Reformed/Presbyterian confessions.” He writes:

Unlike the Federal Vision, the Reformed position doesn’t attribute this type of efficacy or instrumentality to baptism. Instead, the Reformed talk about faith alone (sola fide) as an instrument: the Heidelberg Catechism says we are grafted into Christ and receive all his benefits and our inheritance by faith alone (Q/A 20, 21, 60, 61; cf. Calvin’s Institutes, IV.15.6). The catechism is unambiguous: the only way we can make Christ’s benefits ours is by faith alone (Q/A 61). Baptism signifies the truth that Jesus’ blood washes away sins, but baptism’s water does not do that (Q/A 65-66, 72).

Steve Wilkins counters with some quotes from John Knox, the 1559 French Confession, Martin Bucer, John Calvin and finally a summary from the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) on the efficacy of baptism. He concludes:

…many, many more quotes could be lined up to confirm what those who stood in the historic Reformed tradition have believed about baptismal efficacy.

In spite of this our author concludes, apparently, without even the slightest twinge of uneasiness, that the “Reformed position” doesn’t hold these views. Well, ok boss, if you say so. The problem is the only way I can agree with you is if I ignore what the vast majority of the Reformers actually believed. You’ll forgive me if I conclude that your assertion is a tad weak.

But since the “Aquila Report” (to some, the official arbiter of what being “Reformed” means nowadays) has endorsed this position, I’ll just say that being called “unReformed” is a small price to pray for the privilege of standing with Knox, Calvin, and Bucer.

So, is the catechism (which summarizes the Reformers’ doctrine) correct, or are the Reformers themselves correct? Without resorting to sophistry and redefinitions, they quite obviously don’t agree with each other. For the Reformers, baptism was efficacious. But Wilkins doesn’t deal with Lems’ objection. He just grabs more doctrinal statements from the same guys and hurls them back. Is faith the instrument, or is baptism? Are we faced with a choice between an efficacious baptism or one that is secondary to faith?

The subject of the dispute is the position of the Reformers, who apparently can be used to prove both sides. But step back a little. The real problem is that both sides are arguing over documents that are helpful but at the end of the day not authoritative. (Calvin sometimes contradicts himself at the turn of a page!) Now, both sides also hurl Bible verses at each other concerning faith and efficacy. To maintain the Gospel, we either have to meddle with the faith side of the seesaw, or fiddle with the efficacy.

The Bible says that baptism is efficacious, but also that faith is instrumental. This means that the “Covenant identity only” disempowered baptism is out of the question. There are only two possible solutions that remain, and only one squares with the Bible:

a) Christians somehow have supernatural babies who are conceived as believers (in the way Jesus was conceived, I guess), or

b) a Christian is someone who heard the Gospel, repented, believed, and desired to be baptized into the Body of Christ because he or she was drawn by the Spirit of God.

Hmmm. Which one looks like what we see in the New Testament? It amazes me how many brilliant people guffaw at it and are yet entirely unaware that their argument is defenseless against not only proof texts but also against the implicit pattern of maturity found in every aspect of the Bible.

Yes, the instrument is faith. And yes, baptism is efficacious. What do we get when put faith and efficacious baptism together? Credo-baptism. Wanna see me do that again? This is elementary school level logic. The Bible puts Lems, Wilkins, Knox, Bucer, Calvin and every paedobaptistic Talmud on the receiving end of a very big stick, and Jesus is holding the stick. The Reformed doctrine on this subject is as much a perversion of Christ as the Oral Law was a perversion of Moses. At its heart it is carnal, elitist and against the true Gospel, whatever spin gets put on it to hide those facts.

As I’ve written before, if paedobaptism is removed from the equation, the problem dematerializes. And even better, nothing is lost! You can still tell your children the Gospel. You can still tell them that Jesus loves them and died for them! You can still raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And when they ask what’s stopping them from being baptized, you can tell them it’s the pastor’s fault, and baptists need to change.

The Reformers cast long shadows, and we can be thankful for that. But we can also be thankful that they are dead and the Word of God is alive. As in other matters, if we are to understand God’s will, we must first submit to His Word. If we believe and obey, then we will understand.

Here’s a simple experiment: Invite a non-Christian to attend a paedobaptism and a credobaptism, then ask them these questions:

Which sort of baptism convicts them of sin, righteousness and judgment, and which one looks like an elitist cultural artifact?

Which practice, credo- or paedo-, invites them to come to Jesus to be cleansed from sin, and which one makes them feel like an outsider at a tribal fertility rite?

Which definition of “Christian” or “saint” promises an immediate change of heart, an ethical transformation by the Spirit, and which indicates a life of ethical training?

Which practice communicates membership in a sub-culture, and which makes Christianity more obviously super-cultural?

If baptism is an efficacious and therefore crucial rite for the Christian (and it is), and also heart-cutting testimony to the non-Christian, then paedobaptism is a deep, culturally-based sin, and an idolatry that ought to be repented of. If paedobaptism is wrong, it is very, very wrong. Claiming that paedobaptism is efficacious (based on actual Scriptures concerning credobaptism) just makes it even worse. Paedobaptist, if your baptism was “the will of a man,” not the result of a supernatural birth, repent and be baptized, and you will receive a new grace from God.

Reformation is a good thing, but it is simply placing the pieces of the sacrifice back together on the altar. If we really want the fire of God, we must obey the Reviver, not the Reformer: the words of God, not the words of men.

It’s hard to admit one is wrong. It’s harder to admit one has been wrong for at least five hundred years.

Knox reluctantly began his preaching ministry when he was pressed int service as a chaplain during the siege of the Castle of St. Andrews. By popular demand, the private tutorials he prepared for his “bairns” developed into public exhortations from the Word of God. As we have seen, he was, in his flesh, a timid, fearing man; “I quake, I fear, I tremble,” he said. But when he opened his mouth to preach, all timidity vanished.

The year before Knox died, James Melville, a student at St. Andrews, described what happened when the feeble old man began to preach. Knox, he wrote, was “lifted up to the pulpit, where he behovit to lean at his first entry, but ere he had done with his sermon, he was so active and vigorous, that he was likely to ding the pulpit in pieces and fly out of it.” Melville admitted that Knox’s preaching made him “so to quake and tremble that I could not hold pen to write.”

Knox knew that many took offense at his preaching and that they attributed his vigor to hatred of his enemies instead of zeal for the gospel. In one of his sermons before Mary, Queen of Scots, he offered an explanation: “Without the preaching place, I think few would have occasion to be offended at me; and there I am not master of myself, but must obey him who commands me to speak plain and to flatter no flesh on the face of the earth.” Still, there is a sense in which Knox’s preaching was motivated by hatred. As Iain Murray has it: “He passionately hated that which destroys souls. He hated the system which had blinded people to the necessity of faith and salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ.”

An ardent man, Knox was on fire when he preached, and it seemed never to occur to him to alter his message or tone when he stood before the rich and powerful in the realm:

My words are sharp, but consider, my Lords, that they are not mine but they are the threatening of the Omnipotent … The sword of God’s wrath is already drawn, which of necessity must needs strike when grace offered is obstinately refused. You have been long in bondage to the Devil, blindness, error and idolatry prevailing against the simple truth of God in your realm, in which God has made you princes and rulers. But now doth God, of His great mercy, call you to repentance before he pour forth the uttermost of His vengeance.

As sheep heed the voice of their shepherd, people from all walks of life flocked to hear this message. After his release from the French galleys, Knox was called on to preach almost daily, “if the wicked carcass would permit.” This was no small feat for a man whose health was nearly destroyed. “The pain of my head and stomach troubles me greatly; daily I find my body decay,” he wrote. “Unless my pain cease, I will become unprofitable. Your messenger found me in bed, after a sore trouble[d] and dolorous night.” In this condition, as minister of St. Giles Edinburgh, he preached sermons three or four times a week, each of which lasted up to three hours.

There was nothing shallow or therapeutic in these sermons. There was nothing manipulative to evoke an emotional response. Knox understood the condition of his hearers because he understood the condition of his own heart: “For we are so dead, so blind, and so perverse, that neither can be feel when we are pricked, see the light when it shines, nor assent to the will of God when it is revealed.” Hence, for Knox no gimmicks were needed. For his hearers to respond to the gospel in faith, they needed the transforming power of God’s sovereign grace alone. And since the Spirit of God had chosen preaching as the means for the conversion of sinners, Knox preached.

“Rivers of water run down from my eyes,
because men do not keep Your law.” Psalm 119:136

I might bag out [1] the Biblical Horizons crowd for their views on baptism, but otherwise they are giants. They have a hold on Scripture and history that enables them to understand the times.

Rich Blesdsoe recently made the observation that the unbelief which constantly confronts us Western Christians is quite a different animal to the demonism found in other cultures. We don’t suffer the full-scale “possessions” seen in pagan cultures. The rebellion is just as self-destructive, as crazed and zealous, and just as much a “nothing” as the idols of the pagans, but it is a different kind of nothing. What’s going on in our culture?

[This post has been refined and included in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.]

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

———————————————————————————

“The unity of Rome is the unity of unbroken Adam and unbroken Saul.
It is a unity that will not go to the cross to be broken and resurrected.
It is a unity that would not confess when confronted by Nathan.”

———————————————————————————

Have been having some debate with Bryan at “Called to Communion” blog on the nature of the church. Was the Reformation a rebellious schism or did the true church outgrow Rome? No guarantees on my scholarship but here’s some large excerpts that might be helpful or at least thought-provoking. Mike in roman type, Bryan in italic.

*   *   *   *   *

I agree with you that the Church that Christ founded is not “limited to any human institution”; we believe that it is a divine-human institution, because its founder is both divine and human. But its being a divine-human institution does not mean that it is a “merely human” institution, nor does it mean that it is not a human institution. To deny that it is a human institution is, in that respect, to deny Christ’s humanity. It is to assume (mistakenly) that the only kind of human institution there can be is a merely human institution. That’s like claiming that the only kind of human there can be is a mere human, not a divine human.

Before Jesus ascended, He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter. Christ still governs the Church, of course, but He does so through those whom He gave authority. That is why it is right for us to “Obey [our] leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over [our] souls, as those who will give an account.” (Heb 13:17) That would not make any sense if only Christ governed His Church from heaven.

The church that Christ founded was not limited to any human institution as far as a centralised government goes. With the ascension of Christ, the government of worship by men moved from earth to heaven. It is now out of Satan’s reach and thus incorruptible. Local churches, as in Rev 2-3, are frequently assessed by Christ, and either nursed back to health, or, if consistently rebellious, he “snuffs” them out. Whether or not they remain as institutions, they are no longer part of the body – just as the cicada shell of Judaism is today.

*   *   *   *   *

Your presupposition that the Catholic Church needs to be radically “reformed” reflects the deistic error explained in this article. Eccleisal deism assumes that the Holy Spirit has not been guiding and protecting the Church in her growth and development, and that therefore the task of the one who wants to follow Christ is to scrape away all the foul accretions and corruptions of 2000 years, and find the pristine apostolic message in the Bible. You will find only a dead letter, not the Church that Christ founded 2000 years ago, and which continues to exist to this day, according to the words of St. Augustine in his Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed (1:6) where he writes:

“The same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can; be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they all went out of it, like unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity.”

But the Reformation was part of that guiding. The Roman church was crucial in those early days but made herself irrelevant through false teaching. God’s judgment upon her was plain. It followed exactly the same pattern as the first century destruction of Judah under Rome, the destruction of Judah under Babylon, and even the destruction of the sons of Korah and those who worshipped the golden calf. God follows the same patterns over and over. He plants seed, so does Satan, then God sends rain on both the just and the unjust so they grow to maturity. However, he also comes at the right time to harvest. When he does, there is a “Day of Atonement”. The world is divided. Just as Moses did, and the prophets did, and Christ and the Apostles did, the Reformers called “Who is on the Lord’s side?” How was this decided? It was the Scriptures versus Papal traditions. By no means were the Reformers perfect, but they stood and died for the Bible. This was not a false dichotomy. I, too, would burn at the stake if your church were in control today simply because I abhor her many self-serving, coercive doctrines.

I believe Revelation chapters 1-19 are about the fall of the curses of the Covenant upon first century Judah and her rulers (the kings of the Land), so the Reformers were wrong to interpret the “harlot” as Holy Rome. However, I believe they were totally correct in application. The Roman church at the time was guilty of exactly the same sins, and came under the curses of the New Covenant. Read the letter to Sardis.

*   *   *   *   *

If you want to return to the Scripture so as to understand what it means, you can only do so in and with the Church, to whom the Scriptures were entrusted by the Apostles, and to whom the task of giving the authentic interpretation of the Scriptures was entrusted.

Once again, I agree wholeheartedly, but disagree with your definition of “the church”. God has moved on, and so should you. Are Chinese Christians outside of “the church.” Are the many, many South Americans (who have turned from perverse Catholic traditions that offer no hope to the true gospel of Christ) outside the church? This work is bigger than the Pope’s paddock, or the Protestant paddock for that matter. Many Protestant churches are falling under similar condemnation. Same goes for all. We are all subject to the same assessment under the sanctions of the Covenant. God is consistent throughout the Bible. The church is always being renewed by the Spirit through the Word.

True reformation is always a call BACK TO SCRIPTURE. That is how the Holy Spirit of Christ works. Thus any call to stay true to any church tradition that is not easily deductible from the Holy Scriptures, or is a call to “new” Scriptures like the book of Mormon, the Watchtower, or to a lesser extent, the odd doctrines of Seventh-day Adventism, Darbyism and Pentecostalism, is not a true reformation. The Scriptures alone are the rule of faith for the church, whose ultimate authority is centred in Christ, not in any central human governing entity.

My point about it being a heavenly institution makes it impossible to be outside of the “true church.” Wherever believers meet together, and live and teach according to the Scriptures, they are the true church. Your view sees the true church as being under the authority of Roman Catholics. Those wine skins were burst long ago. And even at that time, there were the eastern churches. The Roman claim to a central divine authority is false, as demonstrated by history.

The Roman church has authority only as long as it obeys the Scriptures. But it set itself above them. Just like the first century Jews who added their own traditions and basically ignored mercy and justice, the power of the Papal kingdom was taken and given to others who would bring forth the fruits of the kingdom. That is how God works. He is not in a Roman, or human, box.

John 3:8 “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Regarding authority, the great synods of history, though not infallible, are exactly the kind of maturity expected of the saints in this Spirit-filled era. Old Covenant priests just had to do what they were told. The saints are now not only priests but kings, allowed to drink the cup, and therefore to make governmental decisions on earth. This also includes a willingness to die as a witness. This includes all the saints, not just Peter, though he was definitely a leader. That is what my post “Upon This Rock” was about. The New Covenant throne, this side of the grave, is a cross, not a throne. How did Jesus receive the keys of death and the grave? By passing through them in “obedience unto death.” As in Eden, as in the wilderness (for both Israel and Christ), there is no true kingdom without obedience first. The Roman church ended up “seizing” the kingdom without submission to the Word. The same could be said of many modern Protestants as well.

*   *   *   *   *

“The Reformation was part of that guiding.”

How do you know that? In other words, how do you know that the Reformation was not a schism from the Church Christ founded and which had avoided all heresies for 1500 years? To what “judgment” are you referring? And how does this ‘judgment’ show that the Catholic Church ceased to remain the Church Christ founded, the “pillar and bulwark of truth” and standard of orthodoxy? The reason I am asking you to clarify, is because you are making many accusations without clarifying or specifying the nature of the alleged error. What authority did the Reformers have, to say what is the true canon of Scripture and what is the authentic interpretation of Scripture? Which bishop of the Church authorized and sent them?

 

How do you know that God has “moved on” from the Catholic Church? If God has remained in the Catholic Church, and instead it is the Protestants who have departed from the Church, and are in schism from the Church, how would you know?

Because the Reformation was the church that Christ founded calling the corrupted Roman bishop to task for his failure to avoid heresy. Then, just like the first century Jews concerning the first century prophets, they started to slay them to silence them, hardening their hearts like Pharaoh. (That is Paul’s context by the way.) By shedding innocent blood, they filled up their sins and the kingdom was taken away.

If the Roman church’s teachings are aberrant, it is actually the Roman church that is in schism from the true kingdom. This will be no different when the Anglican communion splits and the Bible haters are left behind. It is God’s way.

It is very clear that your arguments are based on a view that the church has all authority, whereas I believe that the Scriptures do and that the church gets her authority and identity (from Christ) through the Scriptures.

Firstly, in the day of St Ignatius, I don’t believe the church authority was corrupt. If it were, believers meeting “in schism” would have been full justified in doing so. In the days of the Reformers, the bishops of Rome had abandoned their post as shepherds and become wolves.

Secondly, the true apostolic succession is made quite clear in history. It is not a succession of men but the succession of the gospel through the Spirit. My big point was that government is from heaven, not from Rome. Sure, we must have human government within churches, but this centralised Roman government is in direct contradiction of the events until AD70. The whole purpose of Christ’s ascension was that the central authority was out of reach of Satan. The earthly temple was destroyed, so building another one in Rome (in practice if not in doctrine) rides against the authority of Christ. Earthly temples do become corrupted. Satan always begins his temptation in the house/garden of God. And Rome eventually succumbed to it, hook, line and sinker.

To be in the Church, it was not enough to believe in Jesus and meet with other people who believed in Jesus. All the various heretical sects ‘believed in Jesus’. But they did not subject themselves to the successors of the Apostles. Instead they met in what St. Irenaeus calls “unauthorized meetings.” To be in the Church was to be in communion with the Catholic bishop of one’s city.

I do not believe Irenaeus was inspired. Didn’t the apostles themselves come up with an argument like this? Someone preaching outside of their authority? Christ is the authority. For sure, we must obey those in authority in our church, and over our church. But that has nothing to do with Rome. And it applies only until they disqualify themselves.

It is even more than that. The Catholic position is that the true Church is the Catholic Church, all those in full communion with the successor of St. Peter. Every other group or institution or denomination or sect is something that split off from the Church that Christ founded, and is thus in schism from the Church Christ founded.

The true church is the catholic church, but that is not the Roman Catholic church. It is all those in full communion with a body of Bible believers under Christ. Wherever two or three are gathered in His name.

*   *   *   *   *

You simply assert that “those wineskins were burst long ago”. How do you know that the Catholic Church does not remain what it has always been since Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter? The Eastern Churches are in schism from the Church that Christ founded. History does not demonstrate that they are not schism. If you disagree, I’d like to see what evidence you have that demonstrates that the Eastern Churches are not in schism from the Church Christ founded.

The Scriptures, and the life of Christ contained therein (both typologically and historically), are our rule of faith. To judge whether a person or an institution is in schism with the true catholic church, one simply holds them against the rule. When this is done with the foundational doctrines of Rome, the Bible remains straight and they are shown to be crooked. Quite simply, there is very little correspondence. Technically, this makes it, in its current form, a cult. Please understand I am not name calling. There are many true believers within the Roman church, and the church’s revived interest in the Scriptures is a promising sign (I just wish they’d drop the footnotes!)

*   *   *   *   *

“The Roman church has authority only as long as it obeys the Scriptures.”

Says who? If ‘you’, then who are you to set the conditions under which the Church Christ founded has and retains authority? My point is that you are begging the question in stipulating the conditions under which the Church retains its authority.

“Says who?” is exactly the response I would expect! As above, we have the Bible. If bishops start selling indulgences, or teaching false doctrine (read the apostles on this!) or lobbying for homosexual bishops to be ordained (as Anglicans are doing), schism is the way forward. God always divides the old to make something new, as in AD70, as at the Reformation, as at the last judgment. I am not an authority, but I can read the Bible. The Bible is the authority and it is very clear concerning false teachers.

*   *   *   *   *

“But it set itself above them.”

The Church does not “set itself above the Scriptures”. That is a common misunderstanding. The Church is the authorized interpreter and teacher of Scripture, but it is not superior to Scripture, but is its servant.”

But the Roman church replaced Bible teaching with the traditions of men.

In practice, the Roman church did set itself above the Scriptures. It was like the first century Jews, and indeed the Jews in Josiah’s day, who hid it in a box and, literally, sat on the lid, withholding the truth in unrighteousness. Like the Jews, it claimed to be a faithful steward of this “single deposit of faith” but in reality was withholding bread from God’s children and giving them serpents and scorpions instead. Some Holy “Father.” It was abominable and Jesus brought it to an end, in both the first century and the sixteenth.

*   *   *   *   *

“Just like the first century Jews who added their own traditions and basically ignored mercy and justice, the power of the Papal kingdom was taken and given to others who would bring forth the fruits of the kingdom.”

How do you know this? (Keep in mind that you better have a way of being absolute certainty about this, because if you are wrong, then you have rejected God’s rightfully appointed authority, just as many of the Jews during Jesus’s ministry rejected Him.

I know this because the kingdom was taken away and it allowed the spread of the true gospel – and the Holy Scriptures – once again.

It is being taken away from liberal Protestant churches in our own day. The writing on the wall is the Bible. That is where the sanctions of the Covenant are found, for all to read. Well, all can read them now, thank God.

I know this because the Roman church butchered holy men who stood for the truth of the Scriptures, just as the Jews murdered their own prophets. Remember, many of these men wanted Rome to reform, but like Jezebel she refused. Jesus came in His chariot, just like in AD70, and Rome was thrown down.

*   *   *   *   *

“He is not in a Roman, or human, box.”

But keep in mind that the gifts and calling are irrevocable. (Rom 11:29)

This verse has nothing to do with the Roman church, but can be applied certainly. Paul’s context is the Jews who were provoked to jealousy by the salvation of Gentiles and their inclusion in the Covenant. The Gentiles were to understand that the Jews were being made jealous precisely because God loved them. God did exactly the same thing with the prophets before the exile. When Israel wouldn’t listen, He sent them to the Gentiles – who listened! This is why Jonah refused to go to Nineveh. It meant the doom of Israel was at hand. Jonah had read Deuteronomy, where God promised to speak to His hard-hearted people through people of another lip.

So, instead of being jealous of churches that are “in schism”, the Roman church should rejoice in the spread of the true gospel.

*   *   *   *   *

Christ gave the keys to Peter’s line. For that reason, God has bound Himself to Peter’s line, that is carried on where St. Peter spilled his blood: Rome.

I am sorry but I think Peter’s “line” is a fabrication. To clarify my earlier statement, the key to the kingdom is obedience unto death. It is not a kingdom of this world, although it will be by the end I believe. The whole lump will be leavened. The Land is always bought with blood.

We have no evidence Peter ever went to Rome, and if he could see the Pope’s palace today he would grieve. I think the painting there of Mary enthroned over the Father and Son would sadden him the most. He would probably plait a whip.

The godly, rightful role of bishop of Rome eventually became a re-enactment of the Herodian line, the man of sin proclaiming himself as Solomon, but controlling all things like a spider in a web. That is not the line of Peter, plain as day. It is anti-Christ.

Christ is the rock, not Peter. Peter was a small stone, part of the foundation, as were the other apostles, as Revelation makes clear. He is one of twelve gates, not the only gate. And those gates are currently in heaven not in Rome.

What was the reason for Jesus ascension? So He could be everywhere at once in us by His Spirit. He needs no vicar other than His Holy Spirit. This is plain and simple.

*   *   *   *   *

“The Roman church ended up “seizing” the kingdom without submission to the Word.”

When exactly do you think this happened, and what event indicates for sure that it happened? In other words, how do you know that the “Roman church” seized the kingdom, rather than that Christ gave the keys to Peter, and that he passed them on to his successor in Rome, and that the present successor of St. Peter remains the steward of those keys, and that those who rejected the authority and doctrine of the Catholic Church thereby showed themselves to be heretical, just as the Arians who rejected the Council of Nicaea thereby showed themselves to be, and the Pneumatomachians who rejected the Council of Constantinople in 381 showed themselves to be heretical?

All history flows from Genesis 1-3. God calls a man to obedience, priestly bread. “Just follow the rules, by faith”. If he refuses Satan’s offer of counterfeit kingdom – easy, early kingdom, kingdom with death – the Lord gives Him the kingdom on a platter. We see this in Abel, Abraham, Joseph and Jesus. We see the opposite in Cain, Nimrod, Judah and Judas/Herod. Men are impatient for power and build their kingdoms quickly through robbery and slavery and oppression. But the kingdom of God takes time to build, to grow to maturity. Very often, the kingdom of God is given the “quick” kingdom of men as plunder, just as the Hebrews plundered the Egyptians.

The Roman church, like the Herods, became more concerned with political power and wealth. It turned stones into bread, jumped off the temple pinnacle and bowed to Satan for power over the kingdoms of the world. It called fire down from heaven like the prophets of Baal. It sold its soul. Same old, same old. What does God do with unfaithful stewards? He casts them out and there is gnashing of teeth. This is not rocket science. It is life. The shepherds became hirelings and were fired. That was the Reformation. It was a work of God. It has all his hallmarks: saints martyred and ascending to God as the first goat sacrifice, and the “prophets of Baal” cast into outer darkness as the second. It was a day of reckoning for Rome.

*   *   *   *   *

“The Roman church at the time was guilty of exactly the same sins, and came under the curses of the New Covenant.”

Certainly many persons in the Catholic Church during the sixteenth century, even members of the clergy, were guilty of egregious sins. So, how does that demonstrate that schism from the Church is justifiable? The Church at Sardis was a “particular Church”; it was not the Catholic Church, which is universal.

The church at Sardis, the church at Rome, the church at Ephesus, the church at London. This is exactly my point. The Roman church is not the universal church, just another see but with delusions of grandeur. That is not how the New Covenant era works. Her central government is in heaven.

*   *   *   *   *

Let me say, with all charity and sincerity, that from the point of view of the Catholic Church which Christ founded and which retains the keys entrusted to St. Peter, you are presently in heresy and schism, and have been deceived into believing a false gospel that teaches that people can never lose their justification no matter how grave their sin, and so deceives them into not repenting for mortal sin, because they are told that it has already been taken care of in the finished work of Christ. In other words, the stakes are very high here, not only for ourselves (i.e. you and me), but for all those hear our words and are influenced by us. It is of the utmost importance therefore, that we get to the bottom of our disagreement, and help each other find the truth (you helping me see the truth, if I am wrong, and I helping you see the truth, if you are wrong). So, first, I hope you read the “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority” article, and perhaps we can find some common ground there, and work forward from there.

 

The issue here is church traditions that either blatantly or subtly contradict the clear teachings of Scripture, not whether church tradition is wrong per se. That must be clarified. I am not alone in condemning the heresies of the Catholic church. This is not my private interpretation. My point in my last post was that, as always, God raised up “prophets” to speak the truth to power. These reformers were not motivated by power or greed but by a love for the Word of God. The bishops of Rome had disqualified themselves from office, and from interpreting the Scriptures. You see this as impossible, but this is because your definition of “the church” is errant. The church is a work of God much wider in scope than the church of Rome.

The church moved on, and this is the church whose interpretation of Scripture I trust, “re-founded” by the blood of godly men motivated by the Spirit of God, who risked their lives to oppose a church that had become, in its leadership, a synagogue of Satan. Like you, I do not use these terms lightly. From how many millions has the Roman church withheld the gospel of free grace and instead fed them a hopeless diet of fear and condemnation. Luther himself was a victim of the constant accusations of the devil under this system. Which made his discovery of the true gospel all the more sweet: “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”

Concerning a “false gospel”, if salvation cannot be gained by works, it cannot be lost by works. However, a tree is known by its fruit. If there are no works, then there was no true faith. After all, the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, are they not? The Father calls and disciplines those who are His. This idea of a gospel that allows us to sin that grace may abound is dealt with by Paul. But he does not deal with it the way Rome does. The exact opposite in fact. Works are a sign of faith, as James describes, not the basis of justification. Salvation by works Paul describes as witchcraft, related to the sorceries of Jezebel described in Revelation. This is serious stuff, but it is not hard to understand.

When Christ said, “It is finished” there was no Papal asterisk directing us to read the fine print. There were no penances, no indulgences, no prayers-by-rote. That is exactly the evil the cross destroyed.

Questioning bishops is not the same as questioning God, particularly when, like Luther, we can stand united with a Bible that contradicts the Bishop of Rome. Who is the serpent then? Not the Bible. Rome.

Private interpretation is not the issue here. I am part of the holy catholic church, and I trust her interpretation of the Scriptures. It was the faithful of this church whom God called out of Rome. This truly catholic church is not the church of Rome. She is unified by the Spirit of God, not the written words of an Italian or a Pole. She is above, the mother of us all. Like first century Jerusalem, Rome and her children are in bondage to a law that cannot give life, but can only kill, and the traditions of deceived or conniving men. The Roman church might offer unity, but it is unity in error. I pray the Spirit of God will open your eyes to this.

Yes, there is bad schism. There are churches who split over whether or not women should wear open-toed shoes. But the split with Rome was a work of Christ. It was a split over the very nature of the grace of God demonstrated in the cross.

*   *   *   *   *

“I am not alone in condemning the heresies of the Catholic church. This is not my private interpretation.”

Apparently, in your opinion, when two or more private interpretations agree, the interpretation is sufficiently authoritatively to rebel against the divinely appointed interpretive authority. You’ve simply redefined ‘private interpretation’ to mean that only one person in the world holds that interpretation. The problem with private interpretation is not that only one person in the world holds a unique interpretation; the problem with private interpretation is that it ignores the divinely established interpretive authority. When two or more people commit the same sin, that doesn’t make it right; sin loves company.

“My point in my last post was that, as always, God raised up “prophets” to speak the truth to power.”

Please name one “prophet” among the Protestants, and list the supernatural miracles he did demonstrating himself to be a genuine prophet of God.

“These reformers were not motivated by power or greed but by a love for the Word of God.”

And that good motivation was sufficient to guarantee that they were not in error when rejecting the divinely established authority in the Church, just as Saul’s good motivation of love for God’s Word protected him from persecuting Christ by imprisoning and killing Christians. Good motivation does not right action make, nor does it demonstrate that the action taken was right. Many great evils are done with good motivations.

“The bishops of Rome had disqualified themselves from office, and from interpreting the Scriptures.”

That claim begs the question, i.e. assumes precisely what is in question between us. Your merely asserting that the bishops of Rome had disqualified themselves does not demonstrate your assertion to be true. It assumes it.

“You see this as impossible, but this is because your definition of “the church” is errant. The church is a work of God much wider in scope than the church of Rome.”

Once again, you are begging the question, by merely asserting your position to be true, without demonstrating or substantiating the truth of your claim. There is no point in table-pounding assertions. If you want to reason with me, I’m willing to do so. But if you just want to pound the table and assert your position, it doesn’t move us any closer to agreement. That’s not what CTC is for.

“The church moved on, and this is the church whose interpretation of Scripture I trust”

Again, your claim that the “church moved on” begs the question. (You do know that begging the question is a fallacy, do you not?) You claim that you trust the interpretation of the church. Which ‘church’ is this? Who are its leaders? How did you pick out this group of people as the Church, except by selecting those who share your interpretation of Scripture? In that case, how is your claim to be “trusting the interpretation of the church” anything other than trusting the interpretation of those who share your interpretation, i.e. trusting your own interpretation?

Concerning a “false gospel”, if salvation cannot be gained by works, it cannot be lost by works.

First, that’s a non sequitur. But second, was it not by a work (i.e. their disobedience) that Adam and Eve lost their salvation? If so, then salvation can be lost by disobedience.

“Questioning bishops is not the same as questioning God, particularly when, like Luther, we can stand united with a Bible that contradicts the Bishop of Rome. Who is the serpent then? Not the Bible. Rome.”

All heretics quote Scripture. All heretics stand “united with a Bible.” All heretics (e.g. Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Pelagians, Sabellians, etc.) think Rome is the serpent. By asserting that Rome is the serpent, you’ve just placed yourself in their company. You are standing on your own interpretation of Scripture (along with those who agree with your own interpretation of Scripture). The problem is that no one authorized you (or any other Protestant) to give the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. That authority belongs to those whom the Apostles authorized, and to those whom they in turn authorized, down to the present day. You have merely asserted that they lost this authority, but you have not demonstrated that they lost this authority. Before one rebels against a divinely established authority, it behooves one first to establish (not merely assert or assume) that this authority no longer has authority. This was the error of Korah and all his followers, when they rebelled against Moses.

*   *   *   *   *

Apologies if I appear to be pounding the table. I am not. To me, it seems all you have is a claim to authority for the Pope based on one verse, which can be interpreted in other ways. If Jesus gave this authority to Peter, why was there a dispute among the disciples later on, one which Jesus does not sort out by pointing to Peter? The burden of proof actually falls upon the Roman church, which is why they resorted to “discovering” the bones of Peter in Rome in 1939. This, like the assumption of Mary, would be laughable if it were not such a misuse of power.

In mentioning “prophets”, I meant men who bring the Covenant lawsuit to the leaders, like Nathan to David, like Jeremiah to Zedekiah. Not all the prophets did miracles (typical Roman view of things!)

The New Covenant is no different. This “authority” that Rome claims could only work if this church were, in fact, infallible. It would not then need prophets. It only answers to itself. This is not how God works, which brings me to my next point:

God works in surprising ways, but in hindsight we can see that He is terribly consistent. We can only understand history in the light of the Word of God. Rome’s narcissism makes it unable to discern the true meaning of the Reformation. After all, Rome can’t possibly be at fault! Your loyalty is to a fallible institution, instead of to the Word of God and to institutions plainly founded upon it.

You claim that those who oppose Rome’s interpretations are heretics. But Rome’s interpretations disagree with the plain meaning of the Scriptures. You have the rebellion of Korah around the wrong way. It was Korah who disobeyed the Word of God. So, when reformers stand up to any church and call it back to the Bible, it is the reformers who stand with Moses and Aaron. This is how it was in the first century. Whom did Jesus challenge? The religious authority who thought they could do no wrong.

I am sorry, but your repeated assertion of Rome’s authority to my ears is also just so much table-pounding. I have responded to your arguments with a reasonable understanding of the repeated patterns of Bible history. You have replied with claims written by Rome itself and one out-of-context Bible verse. I stand with Moses and Aaron. You stand with some self-interested, power hungry Italians who believed their own press releases.

You are standing on your own interpretation of Scripture (along with those who agree with your own interpretation of Scripture).

Then I am not alone.

Rome’s “interpretations” are actually not interpretations but negations of plain statements of Scripture. That is the problem. That is why Rome disqualified itself. God’s ways are consistent.

*   *   *   *   *

I read your article on sola and solo Scriptura [here]. I agree with much of it, but once again it boils down to Rome’s errant definition of the church.

Interpretation has moved beyond Catholic teachings in many beneficial ways, despite the sad divisions.

I agree with Stevens that the Creeds are interpretations and only have authority derived from their correspondence with the Scriptures. But that does not give any individual the right to question them without presenting a Scriptural case. I wrote a book to demonstrate that preterist postmillennialism flows naturally out of the repeated structures in the Old Testament (it also shows hyperpreterism does not!). Should I consult Roman bishops on this, who promote many unscriptural doctrines and practices?

I agree that making any individual the final authority is unscriptural but this also applies to the Bishop of Rome. The church is bigger than that.

The Reformers would certainly reject solo scriptura. As I have repeated a few times, they were calling the church authorities to obey the higher authority of Scripture and to amend their doctrines accordingly. Why is this so hard to understand?

Concerning advances in biblical theology, we live in a very exciting time. Great progress is being made in understanding the structure of the Scriptures and their inspired types. Some Presbyterians, Anglicans and Baptists are against any new developments, especially when they contradict, even minutely, their confessions, such as the Westminster Confession. In this, they, like the Roman church, are holding their “creed”, which is a human interpretation, above the Scriptures. Such attitudes actually retard the maturity of the church. Yes, there are divisions, but learning to feed yourself is always messy.

This is the New Covenant and we are asked to think. I am a big fan of Peter Leithart and James Jordan because they wield the Scriptures with incredible dexterity and cause me to think in biblical terms. I don’t agree with all of their theology, being a baptist, but they and men like them have been attacked for daring to think and move forward within the bounds of Scripture. If that means we modify a creed, so be it. But this creedal update is not something individuals do.

So, yes, the saints must respect the interpretive authority of the church. But, binding the saints by human creeds and traditions makes our theology retarded. Under the church’s authority we all potentially have something to contribute and are also called to tear down false doctrine, which is what the Reformers did when Rome fumbled and dropped the ball. The Reformation was not the sound of one hand clapping. It was a resurrection.

I googled the Greek Orthodox arguments against Peter being the “first pope” and they are wonderfully logical and Scriptural. Rome isn’t big on logic or Scripture.

A dubious claim to apostolic succession does not a good interpreter make. Biblically, the apostolic church finished in AD70 at the foundation of the New Jerusalem. The events of the first century follow a structure repeated throughout the Old (particularly the Restoration era). Rome’s self-serving traditions once again defy both logic and the Bible.

So this “Call to Communion” under the errors of Rome is not a solution to Protestant division at all. Unity always comes through death, through laying down petty divisions and uniting around the true gospel, and many Protestants are doing this. But the Reformation was not a petty division. God called holy men to stand against Rome but she refused to “die” and submit to the Word. The unity of Rome is the unity of unbroken Adam and unbroken Saul. It is a unity that will not go to the cross to be broken and resurrected. It is a unity that would not confess when confronted by Nathan.

___________________________________________

(There was also some discussion about the Canon which I have left out, and my editing might be a bit suspect. You can real the full comments here.) Thanks to Bryan for taking the time to respond to my pointed assertions.

Roman Catholics like to remind us Protestants that the Reformation’s sola scriptura has caused unmitigated doctrinal division. Interpretation must be done in community by people who know what they are talking about.

In his talk this week (see previous post Heliocentric Preaching), Doug Wilson humourously described the “just me and my Bible” people who fail to realise that the Bible itself calls us to theology in community. We all need teachers, and the Bible is written the way it is so we are forced into some sort of discipleship. Left alone with our Bibles, we are all Ethiopian eunuchs.

So regarding sola scriptura and interpretive authority, I kind of agree with the Catholics! It has always been something done by the church community.[1]

H O W E V E R . . .

…the Roman church dropped the ball, so God called men out of her to move history forward. It was a Day of Atonement. History makes God’s decisions clear, just like AD70 did concerning corrupted Judaism. The “Day” declared it. At the Reformation, new wine burst the old wineskin once again. Saints died as the first goat, and the Roman harlot was exiled from her (falsely assumed) position as mediator. The corrupt contrivances and fabulous fables were left behind.

When God brings about reformation of the church, it is not just about corrupt behaviour, as some Catholics would have us believe. It is also a call back to the Scriptures, hence Luther’s insistence on sola scriptura. Luther was fighting against the ridiculous fabrications of the Roman church.[2]

Only as the Roman churches repent of their unbiblical inventions and tragic grace-works alloy-gospel can they be nursed back to health. The same goes for any church claiming the name of Christ. We have seen part of Armstrong’s “Worldwide Church of God” repent of some of their screwy doctrines. If they can do it, so can Rome. Incredible but not impossible. Imagine!

The Bible is to be interpreted for us by the church, but this does not mean the Roman church (although the Roman church does have brilliant theologians, despite continued Protestant protests). 

Falling off the other side of the horse, we Protestants think sola scriptura means alone with the Scriptures.[3]

___________________________________________________________
[1] See World Without End? for a comment on hyperpreterism as it relates to church history.
[2] A return to the Bible is a sign of true reformation. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism (and to a small extent Seventh-day Adventism, dispensationalism and Pentecostalism) were false reformations brought about by adding to the Scriptures.
[2] See Tim Nichols’ fantastic post, Endeavoring to Guard the Unity of the Spirit, for an error we sola scriptura Protestants are prone to.

Eric Rauch describes one of the greatest theological discoveries of our time, one which hardly anyone has heard of yet after 20 years.

Always Reformed, Always Reforming

by Eric Rauch

One of the enduring Latin phrases of the Protestant Reformation is the impressive sounding ecclesia semper reformans, semper reformanda. In plain English, this means “the church is always reformed and always reforming.” This simple principle is one that is most often forgotten in modern discussions about theology, where a surefire way to end a disagreement is to pull out something written by Luther, Calvin, or even Spurgeon and show that they said much the same thing. Although the Reformers themselves were quite emphatic that they were not the final word (hence the “always reforming”), contemporary Christianity seems to be convinced that dead theologians should be the authoritative standard of interpretation.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I am grateful for and rely heavily upon the theological writings and expositions of Scripture by these and countless other men who lived and died hundreds of years ago. On the rare occasions that I find myself in disagreement with them, I tend to count myself as the one who doesn’t get it, not them. Differences in theological interpretation will always be an issue for the Church, but when groundbreaking discoveries in the biblical text are dismissed or ignored because they were not found at least 200 years ago, we must question whether theologians have any real interest in “reforming.” If 21st century biblical scholarship remains enslaved to writings of the 16th and 17th century, how can any progress ever be made?

——————————————————————-

“Everyone talks about the covenant,
but nobody does anything about it.”

——————————————————————-

One such recent “discovery” is Ray Sutton’s five-point model of the covenant, which is extensively detailed in his book, That You May Prosper. If you spend any amount of time in the Church, you will certainly hear the word “covenant” thrown around quite a bit. Covenant is central to a proper understanding of the biblical text. God makes covenants all throughout the Old Testament and in the New Testament, the book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus is the “mediator of a new covenant” (Heb. 9:15). Jesus himself tells his disciples at the Last Supper, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20b). If covenant is so important to the Christian faith, then why is it so difficult to get a clear answer from theologians about just what a covenant is or isn’t? The back-cover copy of That You May Prosper puts it this way: “To borrow from Will Roger’s comment on the weather, ‘Everyone talks about the covenant, but nobody does anything about it.’”

In 1987, Ray Sutton did do something about it, he wrote That You May Prosper, a jaw-dropping book that finally defines the covenant as no book has, before or since. Sutton’s book is brilliant in its simplicity, yet remarkable for its depth. A seasoned pastor, Sutton knows how to present his material in such a way that everyone can understand it. He then builds upon this basic knowledge brick-by-brick so that by the time the reader completes the book, he has taken an intermediate course in biblical theology without even realizing it. Understanding Sutton’s five-point covenantal model will revolutionize your Bible study and comprehension, and the perplexing and downright confusing parts of the Bible will finally begin to make sense.

But what exactly is the five point covenant model, you ask? It is nothing more than a biblical framework that provides a hermeneutical method for understanding the Bible on its own terms. Huh? Not a good enough answer for you? Try this one instead:

Pick up your Bible and ask, “How do I get hold of the message of this Book? How do I apply it to life — not just my life, but to all life in this complex world in which we live?” Many approaches to “dividing the word of truth” have been proposed. Both complex and simple systems have been developed, propagated, and tried out. Tried, but found wanting.That You May Prosper is not just one more experimental system for organizing Bible content. It clearly expounds and applies the Bible’s own structure in a way that demonstrates its intent. (From the Foreword by Milton C. Fisher, retired Professor of Old Testament, Philadelphia Theological Seminary)

In simple terms, every relationship is a form of covenant. God makes covenant with his people, just as his people make covenants with each other. Covenants make living in God’s world reasonable and predictable. Covenants are similar to contracts, but what makes them unique is that they include a self-maledictory oath before God. Without covenants, any man could do what was right in his own eyes, and be justified in doing so. Because of this, covenants will be found in each of the four realms of human government: self, family, church, and civil. Every form of government makes a covenant with God — either for or against Him — and stakes its own life on its decision (the self-maledictory part). The five points that are found in every covenant are: transcendence, hierarchy, ethics, sanctions, and continuity. These five points will be a part of every covenant, i.e. every dealing between God and man and between man and man. Sutton explains each of these five points in enough detail to make his point in the first 100 pages or so, and then spends the better part of the book providing example after example of how the five points can be found all throughout Scripture, in both Old and New Testaments. 

It is not my intention in this short review to provide an in-depth example of how the five points work, but I can give a bit more meaning to each of the five points by restating them as questions. Remembering that the five points apply to all dealings between God and man, as well as man and man, think of a relationship and ask these simple questions: 1) Who’s in charge? (transcendence); 2) To whom do I report (or answer to)? (hierarchy); 3) What are the rules? (ethics); 4) What happens if I obey (or disobey) the rules? (sanctions); and 5) Does this relationship have a future? (continuity). Every covenant will have an answer for each of these five questions and the answers should be carefully considered before entering into a covenant. Jesus warns us to “count the cost” (Luke 14:25-35) before making a decision and seeking the answers to these five questions is certainly a large part of the “counting” process.

That You May Prosper was written more than 20 years ago, but its contents are as timeless as the Bible itself. The leaders of the Protestant Reformation were insistent on following what Augustine called the “analogy of faith.” This phrase means that the clear portions of the Bible should help to interpret the unclear portions, or, put simply, Scripture interprets Scripture. The Reformers believed that the Bible itself held every interpretive key that was needed to understand it. That You May Prosper follows this same method, deriving its five points from the Bible, not from outside of it. Sutton’s simple key, extracted from the pages of Scripture itself, will open the Bible to generation after generation, aiding the Church in its mission of being always reformed, yet always reforming.

“Then there is Blomberg’s misunderstanding of the relationship of the Reformers and culture.

‘Fixate on the Reformers’ (understandable) preoccupation with how an individual becomes right with God (crucial in its day against medieval Catholicism) and one may miss the bigger picture, in which the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham through the children of Israel as progenitor of the Messiah looms even larger.’

Notice what is being juxtaposed here. The Reformers had an individualistic fixation on getting individuals into heaven when they die. But we, upon whom the new perspective has shone, now understand that there is a “bigger picture.” I see. And what did the Reformers do with their narrow vision? Well, they toppled kings, transformed laws, overhauled cultures, settled a continent, built nations, founded schools and colleges, inspired musicians and painters, and we could continue in this vein for quite a while. And what do we do, entranced as we are by the new perspective? We write academic papers, download podcasts of academic lectures that we can listen to in the privacy of our ear buds, and we go white in the face if conservative Christians suggest that Jesus might have an opinion about the ongoing slaughter of the unborn. John Piper, with his preaching on the pro-life issue, challenges the principalities and powers. The soft statism that goes with trendy theology these days does nothing of the kind — it simply suggests (but not too loudly) that we need kinder, gentler principalities and powers.”