HOW FAR IS IT CORRECT TO DESCRIBE THE THEOLOGY OF MARTIN BUCER AND JOHN CALVIN AS A MEDIATING THEOLOGY? Part 1

Alistair McGrath writes that the European Reformation is often interpreted as a homogeneous phenomenon. In other words, it is presented as being consistent in terms of its underlying ideas and emphasis. In fact, this is an inaccurate view. [1] The reason for this is primarily laid at the door of two reformers, Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli. The issue was not that they disagreed; it was how they disagreed. The heart of their disagreement lay at the interpretation of the Lord’s Supper [2].  Cameron writes that by the mid 1520’s the issue aroused a violent pamphlet dispute between Luther and Zwingli and their respective partisans [3] . The consequence of this dispute caused both theological and political problems. McGrath comments that at a theological level it raised the gravest doubts concerning the principle of the clarity of scripture that appeared far from easy to interpret [4], while at a political level, there was a permanent division between two evangelical factions of the reformation. It is within this context that our question is relevant. Did John Calvin or Martin Bucer develop a theology that was deliberately aimed at bringing Luther and Zwingli together? Was the unity of the reformers and the reformation their main priority which had to be achieved at any price? One thing was certain. Unless Luther and Zwingli attempted some sort of reconciliation, then the reformation would be damaged, possibly even losing some gains it had made. There was most certainly a good motive for a unifying theology. We shall look at each of the reformers positions on the Eucharist, and see if indeed either one, or both men used a mediating theology, or were they simply expressing their personal belief in what the scriptures said.

---

[1] Alistair McGrath Reformation Thought – An introduction (Blackwell 1993) pg109

 

[2] Other disagreements include baptism and justification by faith although this paper will concentrate only on the eucharist, which was the nucleus of their disagreement.

[3] Euan Cameron The European Reformation (Oxford University Press 1991) pg164

[4] McGrath pg 180

New Books I Will Review Shortly

FedEx delivered a package from IVP today – two books for me to review. Watch out for these reviews which will come soon:

A Recent Sermon Of Mine

Sermon Sunday 4 October 2009

Bible Study – Acts 5:12-42

REACP:

Last week Paul took us through the wonderful prayer that the apostles prayed. There prayer begins with worship, and then they do not pray for God to STOP the persecution or threats but that they may have courage to speak the gospel despite the threats. And God’s immediate answer was to fill them with the spirit.

We then have a glimpse into the function of the very early church – united in mind and possessions. Not that everyone sold everything immediately but they were WILLING to sell land and possessions for those in need and for the work of the gospel. A good example was Joseph, a Levite, known as Barnabas, who we will encounter again. He sells some land and places the money at the apostle’s feet. But the contrast to Barnabas is Ananias and Sapphias, who sell land but then keep some of the money.

John Stott writes: Ananias and Sapphias were not so much misers as thieves and above all liars. They wanted the credit and the prestige for sacrificial generosity without the convenience of it. So in order to gain a reputation to which they had no right they told a brazen lie. [1]

ANYTHING FURTHER ON ANANIAS AND SAPPHIAS BEFORE WE MOVE ON?

READ 5:12-16

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE FLEDGLING CHURCH’S REPUTATION?

WHAT EFFECT ARE THEY HAVING?

The prayer that the disciples prayed is already being fulfilled – signs and wonders are happening.

They are doing very public ministry and it is having two types of effect. As one writer has said On the one hand awestruck reserve on the other great missionary success.

The presence of the living God, manifested through either preaching or miracles or both is alarming to some and appealing to others. Some are frightened away and others are drawn to faith.

2 Corinthians 2:15-16 shows us this – Paul says: For we are a sweet aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing– to the latter an odor from death to death, but to the former a fragrance from life to life.

The presence of God is so present that even Peter’s shadow may have brought healing. Although the word used for overshadow, Luke uses in Luke 1:35 and 9:34 to denote the overshadowing of God’s presence.

READ 5:17-33

The disciple’s actions cause the Sanhedrin to be filled with jealousy. The word Zelos is religiously motivated rage. The Sanhedrin is in a rage, and they arrest them. But the disciples are brought out of the jail by an angel and instructed to go back to the temple to preach.

BY GOING BACK INTO THE TEMPLE TO PREACH AT DAYBREAK WHAT ARE THE APOSTLES EXHIBITING?

On one level immense bravery. Everything within the human nature would say RUN AWAY FROM HERE!!

But in reality it shows the immediate fulfillment of their prayer for courage in the midst of threats. They were normal human beings so I think they had some fear in them – but God’s peace and power is stronger than their fear. They are determined to obey God’s commands (go back and preach) rather than man’s command (stop preaching).

If you pray for courage God may put you in a place where you might have to exercise some courage. Just as if you pray for patience, God is likely to put situations before you that will allow you to exercise patience.

Also, their actions are going to inflame the religious rage of the Sanhedrin.

WHAT DOES V26 IMPLY ABOUT THE APOSTLES?

They went voluntarily. The apostles could have used the situation to inflame the crowd or to cause some trouble but instead when the temple guard came for them they went quietly, without any resistance. They knew they were going back to be punished.

WHAT DOES V28 SAY ABOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE SANHEDRIN?

They have none when it comes to the living God. They had condemned and killed Jesus – they had forbidden the apostles to speak – they have jailed the apostles – and yet Jerusalem had been filled with the gospel.

Despite seemingly having all the power and authority they are in fact powerless in the face of the gospel proclamation of the living God. [2]

Peter now sees another opportunity to preach – WHEN DID HE GET TIME TO WRITE ALL THESE SERMONS!!!!!!

WHAT PRINCIPLE DOES PETER LAY DOWN IN V29

If authority, civil or ecclesiastical, disobey or misuses God given power, to command what he forbids or to forbid what he commands then the Christian must disobey the authority in order to obey GOD.

WHAT DOES PETER’S SERMON RESULT IN?

Would we speak in such a way knowing that our life may be endangered by what we say? We read this, I think, without fully understanding the INTENSE pressure Peter must have been faced with – a Sanhedrin filled with hateful faces – possibly hearing insults and threats as he spoke. And yet Peter does not hold back or water down his words. He says what he knows is truth regardless of what may come.

TRUTH ALWAYS HAS OPPOSITION.

Are we people who will speak the truth of the living God?

READ 5:34-42

Gamaliel then speaks out. Gamaliel is a legendary Rabbi in Jewish tradition – the one whom Saul of Tarsus was mentored by. A wise and respected teacher.

IS GAMALIEL’S ADVICE GOOD OR BAD?

There is an element of truth to Gamaliel’s thinking but that is the danger that can come by wisdom which is not based in Christ.

Ultimately his position is a laissez-Faire attitude – to the point of saying “We will ignore the truth until the truth proves itself.” It gives license to ignore the work of God now!! It also says we will wait until the winning side is declared and then we will decide whom to join – which is faith.

Yes, ultimately God’s purposes will triumph – but Gamaliel’s position does not take into account that in the shorter term evil plans sometimes succeed while good plans, conceived in accordance with the will of God sometimes fail.

Gamaliel’s position means Jesus lost and his work was not of God.

Gamaliel wins the day and the apostles are beaten and released.

WHY DO THE APOSTLES REJOICE? WHY DO THEY CONSIDER IT AN HONOR TO SUFFER?

Because they had obeyed God. They had overcame any fear – they knew they had been guided by the spirit – they knew their prayer had been answered – they had not backed away, or compromised. The issue is not the suffering, the issue is that they had obeyed God  for the sake of the name – Jesus Christ.

They had obeyed, to the point of willing to die, for their Lord – Jesus Christ.

Do we rejoice for this same reason?

---

[1] Kept back: nosphizomai = misappropriate. Same word LXX uses of Achan in Jos 7. Used in Titus 2:10 = meaning to steal

[2] Guilt of this man’s blood – Matthew 27:25

Is Topical Preaching Good?

Topical preaching is definitely in style today within most American churches. The word lectionary is considered an anachronism and most pastors cannot elucidate the term expositional preaching. The consequences of this are sermons that tend to expound the pastor’s opinion as opposed to God’s revealed truth. This is not to say, however, that there is no place for topical preaching.

“I do not approve of the method whereby you take a subject like ‘spiritual depression’ and then think and work it out for yourself, and then look for texts which will be convenient pegs on which to hang these thoughts of yours on the subject. That is what I am opposing. The matter should always be derived from the Scriptures, it should always be expository.”(D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972), 196)

The Search For God And Guinness by Stephen Mansfield

I confess that the package from Thomas Nelson sat on my desk for a few days. I had a tinge of regret in agreeing to review this book, which is why it remained unopened. However, once I opened up the book I was hooked.

Now, I knew Stephen Mansfield is a good writer. I have read his short biography of Winston Churchill, which was good. Also, I have met Stephen. I was on the management team at Derek Prince Ministries when we hired Stephen to write Derek’s biography.

And his writing skills are clear in this book. His style draws you into this story of the amazing Guinness family; the faith of Arthur Guinness, his legacy and how their faith translated into action. There are hardships; family struggles, disappointments and tragedy but you see God’s grace a work in this story, a story which is not that well known outside of Ireland.

Even the chapter on how beer was ‘discovered’ is so well told that you are fascinated. If only some of the major corporations in our day would take a fraction of the approach of Arthur Guinness and the example he left behind, the business world would be turned upside down and inside out.

A fun, informative, well written and enjoyable read.

Doctrine of Election

“The Lord, when he means to save sinners, does not stop to ask them whether they mean to be saved, but like a rushing mighty wind the divine influence sweeps away every obstacle; the unwilling heart bends before the potent gale of grace, and sinners that would not yield are made to yield to God. I know this, if the Lord willed it, there is no man so desperately wicked here this morning that he would not be made now to seek for mercy, however infidel he might be; however rooted in his prejudices against the gospel, Jehovah hath but to will it, and it is done. Into thy dark heart, O thou who hast never seen the light, would the light stream; if he did but say, ‘Let there be light,’ there would be light. Thou mayest bend thy fist and lift up thy mouth against Jehovah; but he is thy master yet – thy master to destroy thee, if thou goest on in thy wickedness; but thy master to save thee now, to change thy heart and turn thy will, as he turneth the rivers of water.” (Charles Spurgeon in Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon

Bishop Lawrence’s Address At The Special Convention

Doctrine of Assurance – Part 1

I am going to be looking at the topic of Assurance. Before we go any further, it is imperative for us to define exactly what we mean by this term. There are two ways in which this term may be used. Berkhof explains this two fold use:

1. The objective assurance of faith, which is the “certain and undoubting conviction that Christ is all he professes to be, and will do all he promises.” It is generally agreed that this assurance is the essence of faith.
2. The subjective assurance of faith, or the assurance of grace and salvation, which consists in a sense  of security and safety, rising in many instances to the height of an “assured conviction that the individual believer has had his sins pardoned and his soul saved.[1]

Therefore one definition of assurance places it at the time a person exercises faith in Christ, the other as a process into which a Christian grows and matures. One of the biggest problems in the understanding of assurance has been the confusion between these definitions. It is the second definition which the puritans used when discussing the Assurance of Faith.

The puritan tradition saw assurance as a fruit of faith which pointed to true election in Christ. This in itself was part of a much larger question which was often asked; “”How do I know that I am saved and one of the elect?” It was not an easy question to answer. The doctrine of limited atonement was dominant as was the doctrine of temporary faith. Temporary faith came from Calvin and was developed through Theodore Beza and William Perkins.[2] It claimed that an unelect reprobate may have all the outward signs of a true Christian, he may even have the desire to believe, but he will always be one of the unelect.

Eventually, maybe after five, ten or twenty years living as a Christian such a man will fall away and thus show he was a reprobate, never truly converted in the first place. This approach does cause a problem. The question, “How Do I Know I am Elect” is almost unanswerable in these circumstances. For this reason, Practical and Mystical Syllogism and the Reflex Act were developed. The Practical Syllogism  worked as follows:

Major premise: According to scripture, only those who possess saving faith will receive the Spirit’s testimony that their lives manifest fruits of sanctification and good works. Minor premise: I cannot deny that by the grace of God I have received the Spirit’s testimony that I may manifest fruits of sanctification and good works. Conclusion: Consequently, I may be assured that I am a partaker of saving faith.

The Mystical Syllogism, on the other hand, worked along the following lines:

Major premise: According to scripture only those who possess saving faith will experience the spirit’s testimony confirming inward grace and godliness, such that self will decrease and Christ will increase. Minor premise: I cannot deny that by the grace of God I may experience the spirit’s testimony confirming inward grace and godliness such that self-decreases and Christ increases. Conclusion: Consequently, I may be assured that I am a partaker of saving faith.[1]

As Beeke explains, the Practical Syllogism was largely based on the believers sanctification and good works as evidenced in practical and daily life while the Mystical Syllogism was based largely on the believers internal exercises and progress in the steps of grace[2].

The role of the Reflex Act was to enable a person to look at their faith to see if such evidences were there [3]. Hence, to know if you are one of the elect, a puritan would tell you to i) believe the promises of God, that is the Gospel and ii) to look at your life and see if the evidences of God’s grace through faith are there.

---

[1] J Beeke Assurance of Faith (Peter Lang 1991) pg160

[2] Ibid pg160

[3] Ibid pg161

---

[1] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth Trust 1988) pg507

[2] R.T Kendall Calvin And English Calvinism to 1649 (OUP 1979) pg2-9

Diocese of South Carolina Special Convention Resolution 5

The fifth resolution at the Special convention yesterday did not pass. It was tabled so that the diocese could issue a fuller, better prepared statement at our next Convention in March 2010. While I agreed that a fuller statement was necessary I think it was a mistake to table it – and I voted that way yesterday.

It was a mistake, I think, because of THIS. Of course, people like this will always be attacking the Diocese ignorantly and from a  distance , without being informed or even seeking to be informed. Also, his agenda is not a Christian one in the biblical, orthodox, historic way. But still, by NOT passing resolution 5, in the form of the 2nd proposed amendment, it left the diocese open to even more accusations of unfounded bigotry. The resolution (not in its amended form) is below.

Whereas the Diocese of South Carolina recognizes we have all been created in God‟s image and

are precious in his sight, and

Whereas we acknowledge we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and stand

equally in need of his mercy and grace, we thankfully and humbly,

Resolve that this Diocese will not condone prejudice or deny the dignity of any person, including

but not limited to, those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or

transgendered.   Nevertheless, we will speak the truth in love as Holy Scripture

commends for the amendment of life required of disciples of Christ.  It is love of

neighbor and the abiding concern for their spiritual well being that compels such honesty

and will never allow us to remain silent.

PREACHERS – READ THIS!!

To expect preaching to be effective irrespective of the spiritual condition of the one who speaks, is to fly in the face of scripture. It is patently clear in the book of Acts that there is something distinctive about the disciples which compelled attention to their message…As James Stalker has written “The effect of a sermon depends, first of all, on what is said, and next, on how it is said; but hardly less on who says it.” On the same point, Spurgeon says, “Extremely pointed addresses may be delivered by men whose hearts are out of order with the Lord, but their results are small…” While maintaining the unpredictability that attends preaching, Lloyd-Jones knew it is what happens in the preachers life and thought before he ever enters the pulpit that most commonly affects the outcome.

Iain Murray

Diocese of South Carolina Special Convention

I was at the Special Convention today. The Bishop gave an AWESOME address. You can read it HERE at Titusonenine. By the way, it was fun sitting in front of Kendall Harmon during the convention!!!!

Preaching – Iain Murray On Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Murray, expressing ML-J’s thoughts writes:

True Preaching does not belong to the sphere of natural gifts. It is not a thing to be obtained through teaching or training. It is the result of the presence of the Spirit of God, and that is exactly where the mystery enters… There is an obvious reason why preaching too often lacks the ability to hold the interest of those who listen (including Children). It is because the word spoken has no more than a fleeting access to the hearers mind. A statement is briefly heard only to be crowded out by the individual’s own thoughts, which he may find more pleasant and interesting…..The danger can be that the delivery and reception of the sermon is more important to us than the content….

And finally:

For Lloyd-Jones no small part of the problem in the 20th century church was that there were too many preachers without God given authority…It is the absence of this element that tempts preachers and churches to employ all kinds of expedients to fill the void.

Jesus, Son of David Have Mercy On Me…

Mark 10:46-52; Hebrews 5:12-6:1, 9-12

Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me. This is the call of sinners. It is where we all must begin. This is the gateway into a relationship with the holy God – have mercy on me. It is a recognition of the fact that we need mercy, that we know our condition before God. It is a cry of hopelessness – we know there is nothing we can do to fix the problem of sin; and it is a cry of hope, we can throw ourselves on the mercy of God.

Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me.

This is what the blind man does. Notice that he does not cry out only once and then stop. He is persistent. He cries out again and again, even when people are rebuking him and telling him to keep quiet. The blind man has somehow seen that Jesus is his only hope. Jesus is his only answer. And he cries out until Jesus responds.

This cry, Jesus, son of David have mercy on me, or Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me, is a foundational cry for each one of us. It is the cry which begins all our relationships with the living God – anyone who wants to know and discover who God is must start with this cry – Lord, have mercy on me. It is the basis of our relationship with Him. And it is not a cry that we shout once, or twice. It is a persistent cry. It forms the basis of our walk with God.

But while this cry is the gateway to our relationship with Jesus,  it is also the foundation of our continue relationship with Him. We are not to remain at the gate,  as if we are constantly beginning our relationship with God. We are meant to grow and mature as believers, and this is the point of our passage in Hebrews this morning. The Hebrew Christians were not growing in their faith – they were not developing their relationship with God – when they cried out Jesus Have Mercy on Us they were in the same place as the day they were converted. The author to the Hebrews puts it this way – you are still on milk when you should be on solid food.

Why must we move from milk to solid food?

For two reasons:

1. That we may be able to distinguish between good and evil. In other words, as we mature, as our cry to Jesus to have mercy on us is based in our growing relationship with Jesus we will be able to see what decisions we should make as Christians in our every day life – we will have understanding and confidence to know God’s will for us and to make godly decisions.
2. That we should realize the full assurance of hope. Part of our growth in faith is that we have more and more assurance. Assurance that we are indeed a child of God. Assurance that we know without doubt that God is working his purposes in our lives; assurance that we know we are saved; assurance that we know God has our lives in his safe hands and that we need not be anxious; assurance that we KNOW that we have a future, physically and spiritually, here on earth and in heaven – and that this future is secure in Jesus Christ.

Do we have this assurance? Do we have the assurance that as we pray to Jesus this morning he WILL hear; he WILL act, according to his timing and his will for us.

Beware Of Your Seminary Professor – From 9 Marks Ministries

A very interesting post – and much to consider and chew on:

HERE

Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Theological Training – Part 2

Another thing which I agree totally with ML-J is his belief that a minister cannot be created – he can only be called.

We have an idea today that we can take anyone and through a selection process and by sending them to seminary you can train a person to be a minister. No. A minister of the gospel is never created – he is called. There are too many ministers in charge of churches who are not called. They are believers – faithful believers, who are doing their best in ministry, but often the struggles they encounter are not because ministry is tough, but because they are doing something which they are not fundamentally called to – but that they passed through a selection process, went to seminary and are then deemed qualified to lead a church.

Again, quoting from Philip Eveson’s article:

Lloyd-Jones considered it a fallacy that any educational institution could produce a preacher. He believed that preachers and pastors were born but that did not mean they needed no helps. In order to become effective preachers and pastors he saw the importance of a place where those gifts could be developed….Lloyd-Jones was emphatic that ‘no college, or any other institution, could ever produce preachers and pastors’. To think that they could, he said, ‘has been another of the fallacies of  the past hundred years’. What is needed is that future ministers are ‘helped in the development of the gifts they have in order that they may become effective preachers and pastors’.

ML-J himself, in his great book Preaching and Preachers said:

“But we must go on to something yet deeper [to answer the question of whether I am called to preaching]; there should also be a sense of constraint. This is surely the most crucial test. It means that you have the feeling that you can do nothing else. It was Mr Spurgeon, I believe, who used to say to young men—‘If you can do anything else do it. If you can stay out of the ministry, stay out of the ministry.’ I would certainly say that without any hesitation whatsoever. I would say that the only man who is called to preach is the man who cannot do anything else, in the sense that he is not satisfied with anything else. This call to preach is so put upon him, and such pressure comes to beat upon him that he says, ‘I can do nothing else, I must preach.’”

“The man who is called by God is a man who realizes what he is called to do, and he so realizes the awfulness of the task that he shrinks from it. Nothing but this overwhelming sense of being called, and of compulsion, should ever lead anyone to preach.”

Are we such people – unable to be constrained to preach and teach the word of God – thatw e really are unable to do anything else.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Theological Training

I have been re-reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones, listening to some of his sermons and re- reading books about him (Iain Murray’s classic biography). I have also read Philip Eveson’s (principle of London Theological Seminary) good essay on Lloyd-Jones. One of the things I have been really interested in is Lloyd-Jones approach to theological education. While Lloyd-Jones (ML-J) was well educated – he was a medical doctor and one of the brightest young doctors in London, giving up a Harley Street practice to enter the ministry – ML-J had no formal theological training. Indeed, he turned down the opportunity to attend seminary. His education came through reading the classics – the Puritans, the Reformers, the great Christian evangelists of the 17th & 18th centuries. He later developed a suspicion of theological training centers in how they developed their curriculum. A snipet from Eveson’s essay shows this:

On the occasion of the opening of the London Bible College’s new premises in May 1958, Lloyd-Jones urged staff and students to keep to the revealed truth and seek to know God better.

‘You may have more BDs than any college in the country but only if the result is that your people know God better!’7 E. J. Young of Westminster Theological Seminary was present and found the preaching a memorable experience but the college faculty received the sermon coolly and refused to have it published for they were very aware of the implications of what he was saying.

For ML-J the issue was that theological education should never be about BA’s, MDiv’s, DPhil’s, but about preparing people for the ministry of preaching the word of God, being ministers of the Word – and theological education should revolve and be centered on that one goal. He was more in line with Charles Spurgeon’s vision through the Pastors college. The Pastors College trained men for the ministry of the gospel. Entry requirements revolved around whether you were already bringing people to faith and were preaching the gospel, not on how well educated you were.

London Theological Seminary was founded in that vain. Established in 1977 with ML-J as one of the key visionaries, it offers a two year course (not accredited by any university). Its course is a:

two-year intensive course in:

• evangelical in its theology
• intellectually rigorous and challenging
• contemporary in outlook
• practically-orientated
• tailored specifically to the needs of those training for the pastorate.

ML-J gave the inaugural address at the opening of LTS. In it he spoke about theological education. Again, here is a section from Eveson’s essay:

[ML-J was emphasizing that ]scholarship does not make a preacher and he indicates how the theological training that had been on offer either hid the gospel or had been a complete waste of time. He gives the example of how the learning of classical Greek became to some extent a hindrance to those studying the Koine Greek of the New Testament and how the assured results of biblical criticism in one generation become out of date and useless with the advance of knowledge. What he is criticising is the emphasis on this kind of scholarship for interpreting and appreciating the Word of God.

It is for this reason that I strongly advocated church based training / interships / apprentice programs for new and growing leaders. Such internship’s should be rigorous and challenging including much reading, biblically based, but also practical and steeped in the every day life of the local church.

It also means you need biblically faithful and theologically astute ministers to do the training. Some theological training and the people that are being turned out by such institutions may have M-Div’s and D-Phil’s, good academic backgrounds, but many are ignorant of the key gospel truths and do not have the skill to preach and teach God’s word. Our goal in training should NEVER be “You must get an M-Div in theology” – but – “You need to be trained biblically – whether that results in an M-Div or not!”

This is how the church will be strong – biblically trained men and women who are steeped in scripture, in biblical theology, who have experience in ministry and are passionate to preach the gospel.

What Is Theology Part 2

What is the relationship between faith and reason? Can God’s existence be proved – and can such proofs bring someone to God?

Two major theologians have provided the foundation of some form of rational argument that is still used today is some form or another.

Anselm’s Ontological argument (which actually not an argument but a meditation) or Proslogian, says that if we can conceive the idea of a God, then the reality of God must be far greater than the idea.

Thomas Aquinas used his five ways for proof of the existence of God. For Aquinas, the world mirrors God, as its creator. God has stamped a divine signature within the very essence of creation.

1. Things in the world are in motion or change (i.e. rain, sun, moon). The world is not static. Something causes this movement. For Aquinas, unless there is an infinite number of causes, there must be an unmoved mover – one from whom all movement comes = God.
2. Similarly, cause and effect in the world. There must be one cause = God.
3. Existence of contingent beings (that is beings who are not a matter of necessity.) So human beings are NOT necessary for the creation to exist. But there must be a NECESSARY being = God
4. Where does values come from such as truth, goodness, nobility and love. There must be something which truth, noble, and good = God
5. The world shows traces of intelligent design. Creation has seasons, flowers know when to flower, birds know when to migrate. There must be a designer = God (This is also known as the Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design.)

Of course, as with all suggestions, there are criticisms of Aquinas’ thoughts:

1. Arguments from motion only work if you can prove that the cause and effects actually stop somewhere. Why not have infinite causes and effects
2. These arguments do not point to the Christian God – it could prove many gods exist
3. It does not prove that God continues to exist. God may have created the world and no longer exists now.

For both Anselm and Aquinas, they began their arguments with the foundation that God already exists.

Also, trying to describe God, the incomprehensible and indescribable shows the limitation of human language. We use analogies and metaphors to describe him i.e. father, shepherd, son, king, judge, wise, good strong. All these analogies could have negative connotations for some people. Jesus gave his life as a ransom. What does this mean? To whom was the ransomed paid? The Devil, God?

Also John Calvin came up with the idea of Accommodation. That is, God spoke to us as an adult would to a little child, appreciating that we would have limited intellectual resources. He adapted his language to our capabilities. So for Calvin, the creation story is God adapting to us and giving us something we could understand.

However, at the last resort, arguments and reason do not work. There is no argument to prove the existence of God. So how do we know if God exists?

An Eastern Orthodox Monk from Cyprus says that:

Christ himself revealed to us the method. He told us that not only are we capable of exploring God but we can also live with him. And the organ by which we can achieve that is neither our senses nor our logic but our hearts.

Those who wish to investigate whether God exists must employ the appropriate methodology which is none other than the purification of the heart from egotistical passions and impurities.

Most believers are blind believers or religious ideologists. To know God exists is to fully experience him in our hearts.

But to finish with, I think that an Australian theologian, Ludwig Wittenstien, says it all. Can we use reason to bring people to faith?

A proof of God’s existence ought really to be something by means of which one could convince oneself that God exists. But I think that what believers who have furnished such proofs have wanted to do is to give their belief an intellectual analysis and foundation, although they themselves would never have  come to believe as a result of such proof.

A brilliant and I think most relevant point. A rational argument for God’s existence is a personal thing. It effects you and you only. Reason is for the individual not for mass polemic.

After all how can you reason the moment that God, through Christ and the Holy Spirit met you?

What Is Theology – Part 1

Question: can someone who is not a Christian teach Christian Theology truthfully and accurately?

This is a question that began in the 12^th century when the first University was set up – the university of Paris. Some said no, you need to be committed to God while others said that Theology was an academic discipline that required detachment and impartiality.

Both have good points to back up their arguments. Those who say you must be detached argue that in order to find truth scholars need to be totally detached and free from presuppositions so that they will not be prejudiced in their evaluation.

Also, Theology must be prepared to ask the hard questions about it’s intellectual credibility, it’s methods and it’s ideas.

The argument for commitment is equally compelling. If something is true, then detachment should, indeed must, be impossible. If it is true, you should be committed to it.

Academic study is not neutral and nobody comes to a topic free from presuppositions. And lastly, Christian Theology is also connected to faith, prayer, worship and proclamation of a message to the world – Christ crucified and the forgiveness of sins.

Of course Theology can be studied and studied well by non-Christian’s. It can be an academic discipline. But true Theology should never be made into an academic discipline. It would be like studying Shakespeare without ever watching a play.

Theology should demand discipline, and it should ask the hard questions of itself. But the discipline must be in a context of faith and worship as well as a living relationship with God. For only in this context can the study of Theology produce results that no book or lecture or teacher can produce. Only the through the Holy Spirit can our meditation on Theology reach a place that is beyond words, or systems, or ideas. It touches that place where knowledge becomes reality within our very beings.

Orthodoxy And Heresy

What exactly is orthodox theology and what constitutes heresy? Both orthodoxy and heresy have been greatly misused over the centuries, where now orthodoxy means simply dogma imposed upon people by a coercive authority.

The meaning of Orthodoxy is simply RIGHT OPINION.

Similarly, heresy has been seen as suppression by an intolerant church or state. It has often been used to marginalize smaller groups such as the Anabaptists.

F Schleiermacher has an excellent understanding of orthodoxy and heresy. He argues that orthodoxy evolved around the foundational events which took place in Jerusalem: the death, resurrection, accession of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost.

Schleiermacher says that heresy preserves the appearance of Christianity, yet contradicts it’s essence. So what is Christianity’s essence?

The distinctive essence of Christianity is that God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ. It follows that the Christian understanding of God, Jesus Christ and human nature should be consistent with this understanding of redemption.

Hence, for Schleiermacher, rejection of this principle is the rejection of Christianity itself. Also, the distinction between what is orthodox and what is heretical, lies in how this principle, once conceded and accepted, is understood

Heresy is not a form of unbelief. For heresy to be heresy it arises within the context of faith itself. For Schleiermacher heresy is a misunderstanding or a re-reading of the essence of the faith. Therefore someone may accept that God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ, but re-interprets this to mean that Jesus was totally God and only appeared to be human (a heresy known as Docetism.)

For Schleiermacher there are four major heresies. Docetism, which over emphasises Jesus’ divinity, Eboionitism which over emphasises Jesus’ humanity at the expense of his divinity; Pelagianism which says that humanity can redeem itself and the Manichaen heresy which says that humanity has lost the chance of redemption because they would not accept it when it was offered to them.

These are the four natural heresies of the Christian faith which arises through an inadequate interpretation of the doctrine of Justification by faith. It is no accident that these were by far the most important heresies to be debated in the early church.

The Episcopal Majority and Jeremiah

Our church has been doing the 90 day bible challenge – read the scriptures in 90 days – cover to cover – around 12 pages a day. Each week we meet in groups to discuss what we have read and how we can respond. We have five groups meeting – three on Sunday mornings during our Adult Education time and two during the week. We had around 85 people sign up for this.

This past week we have read Isaiah and most of Jeremiah. During my groups discussion we talked about the national Episcopal church. Those whop adhere tot he national church claim that because the majority of the church is in favor of the liberal agenda then it must be OK.

Jeremiah blows such thinking out of the water.

Jeremiah stands against the entire religious structure of his day – declaring that their ways are not only wrong but dishonoring to God – that judgment is coming and that the priests and religious leaders were in error in declaring all is well. Jeremiah is attacked physically and verbally for his message. But the point is clear….

The majority are not always right…. and in fact, they can be in danger of severe judgment from God if they do not listen to the words of God through his scriptures.

Majority DOES NOT = RIGHT THINKING. That is a warning for us all.

Roadside Crosses by Jeffery Deaver

Another fictional book. Jeffery Deaver (as I understand it) is a well know author and has many successful novels. Roadside Crosses, on one level is a good crime thriller. A series of attempted murders are linked to crosses which are left on the roadside. Unlike memorial crosses which indicate an anniversary of a road death, these roadside crosses have the current date on them – indicating that a killing will happen.

The agent in-charge of the investigation, Kathryn Dance, stumbles into the world of blogging and internet gaming. This forms a fascinating and very interesting sub-plot.

The prime suspect soon becomes a teenager who had been viciously attacked on a blog thread. Travis had been involved in a fatal car accident. His character is systematically attacked on the blog by other students from Travis’ school. It is these students who are now being attacked. The blog is hosted by a guy who takes pleasure in outing ‘injustice’ ‘hypocrisy’ and revealing ‘truth’ about people.

Deaver examines a ton of issues in this novel, including the ethical implications of blogging and how people regard what is posted on a blog as ‘truth’ without any thought that it might not be true; the intense speed at which rumors spread through blogging and the damage such rumors can cause.

Add the good writing and the wonderful twists, especially towards the end, then you have the ingredients of a great read.

Bible Study – Acts

Our continued Tuesday morning study in Acts. We have reached chp 3. My notes are below.

–––––––––––––––––––

Acts 3:11-4:22

RECAP:

Last week we settled into our regular routine, spending most of the time together on 2:42-47, and then on 3:1-11. Paul showed us how the early church began to function – devoted to the apostles teaching – fellowship, breaking of bread. Also, that many signs and wonders were done through the apostles, communal living, selling property and seeing their numbers increase.

We had a wonderful discussion on how we as a church today measure up to the fledging church of the first century.

Then we had an example of the signs and wonders that the apostles were doing – the healing of the crippled man at the Beautiful Gate. Begging for some money Peter and John looked at him and Peter sees something – or feels something which makes him go to the man and tell to stand up in the name of Jesus Christ – without fear of failure. And the man does.

At this point things begin to change rapidly for the Church. As John Stott has written, the good ship Christ-Church was ready to catch the wind of the spirit and to set sail on her voyage of spiritual conquest. But almost immediately a perilous storm blew up, a storm of such ferocity that the church’s very existence was threatened.

Let’s begin to examine what this storm was.

READ ACTS 3:11-26

What effect has this healing had on those in and around the temple?

Pandemonium! Imagine the scene – a crippled man who was as part of the landscape as the gate itself – so familiar to everyone, is all of a sudden standing on his own two feet! People must have been straining to see this sight – a crowd quickly gathering around this man and the two disciples. Notice Luke’s pastoral side here – he says that the man CLUNG to Peter and John – having never walked before; he may have felt a little unsteady despite being completely healed.

The crowd gives Peter an opportunity to preach. As Paul pointed out last week, this mirrors chapter 2 – a miracle and then a sermon.

Who does Peter say healed This Man!

OK, an obvious question but why is Peter quick to point this out? Peter IMMEDIATELY assigns the credit to Jesus Christ. It is easy to add 2 + 2 and reach 5. Peter and John take a crippled man’s hand and he walks – too easily could the miracle be attributed to Peter and John. How often do we, or have in the past, kept some of the credit for a work of God.
What is Ironic about v15 “and you killed the author of life whom God raised form the dead.”

A striking oxymoron from Luke – the author of life is himself subjected to death – and yet death could not hold him.

Does v17 excuse the actions of the people? What is Peter’s purpose in saying they acted ignorantly?

One of the things you learn when you study exegesis – the study of studying scripture, is that the Bible holds together – it never introduces a new topic without it having been spoken about before – Peter here is referring back to the Old Testament – and the difference between sins of ignorance – where forgiveness was available and sins of presumption, where forgiveness was not available – Numbers 15:27 .

What progression does the sermon take?

He tells them the bad news – they killed Jesus – despite the fact the OT foretold about Jesus coming – but the good news is that they can now repent! In order to appreciate the immense good news, you need to understand the depth of the bad news.

What three blessings would happen to those who repent?

Total forgiveness – v19b
Spiritual refreshment – v19c
Universal restoration – v20

How does Peter Present Christ in this sermon, as well as the Pentecost sermon?

Peter incredibly weaves a biblical tapestry which forms a thorough portrait of Christ – rejected by men but vindicated by God, as the fulfillment of all OT prophecy, as demanding repentance and promising blessing, and as the author and giver of life, physically to the healed cripple and spiritually to those who believe.

READ ACTS 4:1-22

The Pandemonium attracts some attention.

Who shows up to see what is going on?

All the important people – the Sadducees, and the captain of the temple guard, who actually had a priestly status second only to the high priest.

Why are the Sadducee’s Greatly Annoyed?

That the two disciples were preaching about the resurrection. Again and again the resurrection comes up – as Paul said a number of weeks ago, the resurrection is the key doctrine – Jesus was raised form the dead and the Sadducees rejected the resurrection as a doctrine. The Sadducees believed that the Messianic period had begun in the Maccabean period that was just before Jesus’ time. They were not looking for the Messiah. Therefore they see John and Peter as agitators and heretics.

Does Peter and John’s Arrest have any effect on suppressing the gospel?

Luke’s answer is of course not! 5000 men become believers despite Peter and John’s arrest. Luke emphasizes that the oppression of men does not hinder the word of God – some encouragement for us in our present situation.

Does the question that the elders as Peter and john in v7 sound familiar?

They had asked Jesus by what authority had he cleansed the temple. It all came down to authority. The ruling elders believed they had the monopoly on authority and unless they sanctioned it there was no other authority – or so they thought.

Do you see any irony in Peters opening remarks to the Ruling Elders?

Peter begins by saying how ludicrous it would be for such a court to have been gathered because of an act of kindness to a cripple. Peter is calling them out on the real reason for this court – preaching the resurrection in Jesus’ name.

Can you see a familiar formula he uses in his address to them?

For the third time he says “you killed him but God raised him up.” Rub it in peter!! It’s ALL about the resurrection.

What Do the Sadducees Notice About the Disciples?

They were unschooled. Does not mean stupid – but they had not been to rabbinic school – they were not ones taught in the law and yet – they speak authoritively about the law.

What dilemma do the Sadducees find themselves in?

Many witnesses have publicly attested to the miracle. The Sadducees are unable to reject the miracle – although they would have no problems rejecting it (even if they knew it to be true) if they could. This they have an impossible dilemma – they refuse to recognize truth – and that is a bad place to be. They can do nothing but let the disciples go.

See anything ironic or sad in v17?

They are unable to even say the name of Jesus.

What are these unschooled men who were with Jesus doing in v19?

They are teaching the ruling elders – it is better to obey God than man!!

Dr Carl Trueman on J I Packer – Interesting!

Carl Trueman is a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary.

Sermon From Last week

Sermon Sunday 4 October 2009

One Nation Under God – What Is Wrong With This?

Check out THIS

and then…

READ THIS

Maybe a better picture of Jesus would be THIS:

Acts 2:1-47

Another study from our Men’s Breakfast Bible Study group – we meet from 7-8am on Tuesday’s. Remember, I am team teaching with my boss so my studies are not concurrent!

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Acts 2:1-47

RECAP:

We are already into chapter 2!! Last week Paul took us through Chapter one. Chapter One answers some fundamental questions – 1. Jesus is alive, and here is some proof, 2. What is the mission and purpose of the followers of Jesus – the continuation of his ministry, which now expands to the world, 3. If Jesus is alive, where is he now – ascended back into heaven, 4. Is Jesus gone forever? No, he is returning. 5. We see Peter taking the lead and initiating the replacement of Judas.

We now turn to chapter two.

READ ACTS 2:1-13

WHAT IS PENTECOST? Notice the text says, when the day of Pentecost arrived…

Pentecost has both an agricultural and historical meaning. Agriculturally it celebrated the completion of the grain harvest, which took place some 50 days after Passover (Pentecost means fiftieth). Farmers were to bring the first sheaf of wheat from the gathered crop and offer it to the Lord. Towards the end of the inter-testamental period it began to be observed as the anniversary of the giving of the law at Mount Sinai – which was fifty days after the Exodus.

One commentator has said that Luke may be expecting his readers to see the filling of the spirit like the sheaf which is offered to God as the sign of the great harvest to come. (Also, he says, Jesus has gone up to heaven and now is coming down, not with a written law but with the law which is written on the heart.)

THE SPIRIT COMES – WIND, FIRE AND SPEECH – ANY BIBLICAL SIGNIFICANCE?

Wind is often used as a sign of power – wind and spirit are words interchangeable – Genesis 1:1 – the Spirit / wind of the Lord hovered over the waters – God speaks to Job out of the wind – the whirlwind; Fire is often a sign of God’s presence and his purity – God appears to Moses out of the fire of the burning bush and declares the ground holy – the pillar of fire which is called the angel of the Lord leads Israel OUT of Egypt –  while speech is a sign of universality – a reverse of babel in genesis 11.

They receive the promise of the Father – the Holy Spirit and the effect is instantaneous – they began to speak in other tongues – languages – almost certainly praising, worshipping, prophecying. This is completely consistent with how people react when the spirit come son them throughout the Bible – the disciples are doing what the 0 elders did in the camp in the desert, what Saul did when we encountered the prophets and so on.

WHY DO THE CROWD COMMENT THAT THESE ARE GALILEANS IN V7

There a bunch of what would be seen as uneducated, culturally backward rednecks sounding intelligent. The crowd is astonished – so astonished that some tried to say that they were simply drunk.

WHY DOES LUKE TAKE THE CARE TO LIST THE VARIOUS PLACES THAT THESE JEWS WERE FROM?

Note: Jew – comes from the word meaning  one sprung from the tribe of Judah, or subject to the Kingdom of Judah, or a descendant of Jacob.

It illustrates the universality of the Gospel and is a further illustration of the reversal of Babel. The nations listed covers most of the first century Roman world, especially were Jewish communities existed. It provides one of the most comprehensive ancient catalogues of the Jewish Dispersion.

The world wide witness has begun.

God’s revelation is not bound to one particular language but transcends all variations of human speech. The spirit removes the barrier that hinders effective communication.

READ ACTS 2:14-21

HOW DOES PETER BEGIN HIS SERMON

By quoting scripture – Peter starts with scripture and then applies it – a good model.

Here we have a sample of  one of the Themes of Acts – sermons / speeches. The sermon is abbreviated and obviously Luke has gotten he gist of it probably from Peter himself.

DO YOU NOTICE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT IS LUKE’S REPORTING OF PETER’S SERMON?

No interpretation – he simply reports the abridged version – he makes no comment or interpretative suggestions. He lets Peter’s words speak for themselves.

WHAT IS PETER SAYING BY QUOTING FROM THE PROPHET JOEL

That the last days have been inaugurated. This is something which I think theologian N.T.Wright is correct about – the Jewish Messianic expectation was that the Messiah would come at the end of the age – this when they expected the out pouring of the spirit – but Jesus appears not at the end of the age but at the beginning of the end of the age – and that was something the Jewish leadership had a hardtime understanding. The OT prophecy of the messiah has now been fulfilled – the last days have begun because the Spirit has been poured out and here are the believers speaking languages and showing proof that this has happened – but there is work to be done by the people of God – and the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel is still in the future.

As one theologian has written – Between the day of Pentecost, when the spirit came, inaugurating the last days) and the day of the Lord (when Jesus will come concluding them) there stretches a long day of opportunity, during which the gospel of salvation will be preached throughout the world.

READ ACTS 22-41

WHAT DOES PETER PRESENT IN THESE VERSES?

Quite simply the Gospel. Peter has a defined concise gospel message here.

WHAT IS PETER’S KEY EVIDENCE OF WHO JESUS IS

The resurrection. I love v24 – God raised him up loosing the pangs of death because it was not possible for him to be held by it (death).

WHY MIGHT V38 SHOCKING FOR THE LISTENERS

Peter calls on this group of Jewish people to completely change their mind about Jesus and then submit to the humiliation of baptism – which the Jews regarded as necessary only for gentile converts because gentiles were unclean – in the very name of the person they had previously rejected and some may ven have been in the crowd screaming crucify him.

That they did this shows their belief – v44

WHAT TWO PROMISES DOES PETER SAY THOSE WHO BELIEVE WILL RECEIVE

Forgiveness and the HS

READ ACTS 2:42-47

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EARLY CHURCH?

1. It was a learning church
2. It was a loving church
3. It was a worshipping church
4. It was an evangelistic church

The NET Bible

I have been a big fan of the NET Bible since I got hold of the Beta edition in 2005. I rate it better than the ESV as a translation although I like the ESV. While no translation is perfect, and the NET Bible’s translations of the Psalms, while very accurate, are NOT poetically beautiful as in some more traditional translations, the NET Bible is a MUST use for serious Bible students.

Rick Mansfield has written a great review of this Bible. Rick’s reviews are thorough and not just opinionated – he uses the Bible he is reviewing for a period of time before reviewing it. Not only that he knows Hebrew and Greek.

His conclusion is:

Ultimately, I recommend the NET Bible–especially the standard edition with 60,932 notes–to all believers. The detailed notes are clearly one of the best first stops (and in many cases will be final answer) in asking questions of the biblical text. The more I’ve used the NET Bible, both personally and publicly, the more I both like and respect it. My original “top ten” list of Bible translations is now dated. At the time, I didn’t know the NET Bible well enough to include it, but if I were making the list over today, I’d easily place the NET Bible in the top five.

Read the WHOLE review HERE

Find Your Strongest Life Yet by Marcus Buckingham (Reviewed By Lauren Winslow)

When I first started reading Find Your Strongest Life I wondered how a man could write a book for women and be able to really get at our issues.  Well, he did and I think too that a lot of the suggestions, ideas, and advice in this book can be for men also- they can at least understand the woman side of things by reading it.  Find Your Strongest Life also appealed to most genre of women- single, married, those with children and without, old, young etc.  Marcus is a visionary writer, the book was easy and fun to read.  It left me with a sense of betterment for myself and knowledgement about myself.  I know that I do contribute to my world and now I know more of how I do that.  I am able to develop this contribution more fully and peaceably.

I did however, felt like God should hold a bigger place in this book.  The book focused very much on individuals doing things for themselves, that we hold the power.  In some ways we do hold that “power” but I think we have it because of our spiritual beliefs.  I believe that God is someone we can turn to for help with our problems, getting insight, and more.  Spirituality gives peace and happiness and fulfillment to our lives.  God is our biggest stronghold and supporter.

I disagree with Marcus in that women are more unhappy these days because we are not supposed to be career women.  Marcus leans towards thinking that women need to be successful in their career and explains how to that.  Most women in our society are working mothers and it is just too much to handle.  Women were created by God to raise children, the next generation and be helpers for their husbands.  Children should not be raised in daycare’s or by anyone other than their parents.  Children are very much influenced by their environment and need to be nurtured as they grow up.  When women accept their responsibilities as a whole, our society and culture will flourish- children will be better off, marriages will be better off, because the woman’s will not be distracted by a career.

The Way Home by George Pelecanos

I am reading more fiction – recommended fiction. This was recommended to me a while back. I have never read George Pelecanos before but I hear he is a well known writer.

This was an interesting book.  The story revolves around Chris Flynn. A boy who came from a good, middle class family, made choices – the wrong ones – and ends up in a prison for teenagers. His father, Thomas Flynn – a man who had worked to create his successful business without a college education also made choices – bad ones. Choices about how he spoke to and dealt with Chris; how he coped with the situation with his son personally and internally. After Chris is released from prison he works for his father laying carpets. He finds a bag stuffed with money. Another choice. And the novel hinges on this choice and the consequences which follow. Interestingly, Pelecanos also shows the consequences of making the right choices.

The novel raises interesting questions about the father / son dynamic. There is an interesting line which says:

It was true what some folks said: When your kid is a failure, your life has been a failure (pg 62)

Thomas Flynn struggles with the fact that his son’s failure is his failure; that regardless of what else he achieves in life, his son’s failure means his life HAS been a failure – his desire to see his son do BETTER than him and yet in fact, his son seems to do worse. And Chris Flynn, who has tried to live up to his fathers expectation but realizes he can’t and gives up trying.

Where do you look to and in what do you base your criteria for success. Of course Pelecanos is not a christian but his underlying answer is not to base it in or find it in your children, or in your parents. We fail. We disappoint. And this is another area this book touches.

There is also a strong statement on friendship. Chris’ closest relationships are with some of those he did time with – his best friend is murdered, and even the one boy whom he hated in prison turns out to be his savior.

Cryptic? I am not going to give spoilers for this book – it is a good read – well written, interesting topics which are deftly dealt with – even to the last paragraph which took the wind out of me as I came to the end of the book. Not all good endings remain good endings, and Pelecanos brings this out wonderfully in his final paragraph.