God = Father, according to Calvin [parts 3 &4 of 4]

So, up to this point we have seen that prior the Fall man stood in unbroken Father-son relationship to God. But Adam destroyed this relationship with his heavenly Father by transgressing the commandment. All of his offspring, then, are estranged from God, condemned in Adam. God’s fatherly love, however, extends by grace to those chosen in Christ, those, who by faith in him are united with him as brothers of the eternal Son. As adopted sons we possess the inheritance of our brother and therefore of our Father. This leads to what might be the most under-emphasized point in Calvin’s theology: that the God who works with all-sovereign providence loves and cares for his children because he is their Father.

The Relationship Trusted

The doctrine of fatherhood which pervades Calvin’s entire theology, is especially significant in his doctrine of providence. It’s everywhere, undermining that frequent caricature of Calvin’s God being a merciless potentate who happily dictates damnation, simply because he can. Bierma notes that there is indeed “a one-sided emphasis in the field of Calvin research.”[1] However, in the actual substance of Calvin’s theology it seems that terms such as fatherly “care,” “benevolence,” and “love” arise almost spontaneously, in a diverse array of contexts.

To say, however, that Calvin sees God’s fatherly love as unilaterally bestowed upon all people in all ways would be a gross misrepresentation. Those in Adam do receive some benefits of the loving fatherly character of God—Calvin explains that God “sustains, nourishes, and cares for everything he has made, even to the last sparrow.”[2] They are, however, ultimately the recipients of wrath and judgment.

But, as has been clearly demonstrated, those in Christ relate to God as Father and as such God relates to them as sons, with care and love, direction and discipline. Wilterdink notes, “Calvin shows repeatedly that he sees this all-pervasive providence in terms of God’s fatherly favor.”[3] Calvin brings both of these ideas together when he says that “either fatherly favor and beneficence or severity of judgment often shine forth in the whole course of providence.”[4]

Calvin understands this fatherly favor of God as that of “special care.” Calvin says of unbelievers, “Indeed, although they subscribe to Paul’s statement that we have our being and live in God, yet they are far from that earnest feeling of grace which he commends, because they do not at all taste God’s special care, by which alone his fatherly favor is known.”[5] Here Calvin is discussing the specific sovereign action of God, in which he acts as in fatherly provision toward his creation. This indeed is grace, even toward those who are not sons. However, this special, fatherly care of God manifests itself more fully and profoundly in his dealings with believers. Calvin explains:

There are very many and very clear promises that testify that God’s singular providence watches over the welfare of believers [Calvin here quotes a variety of biblical texts: Ps 55:22; 1 Peter 5:7; Ps 91:1; Zech 2:8; Jer 1:18; Is 49:25]. Indeed the purpose of Biblical history is to teach that the Lord watches over the ways of saints with such great diligence that they do not even stumble over a stone. Therefore, as we rightly rejected a little above the opinion of those who imagine a universal providence of God, which does not stoop to the especial care of any particular creature, yet first of all it is important that we recognize this special care toward us [….] we ought to realize that God watches over us with all the closer care [….] God has chosen the church to be his dwelling place, there is no doubt that he shows by singular proofs his fatherly care in ruling it.[6]

So, believers, in contrast to the condemned, know the “special care” of God’s fatherly favor, which God repeatedly promises and fulfills. God purposed the biblical witness to testify to this marvelous truth, that God cares ever so closely for his people, as a Father for a child. Proof of this fatherly care abounds. God bestows blessings received in Christ, on earth to some extent, but fully and ultimately in the heavenly kingdom: “For before he shows us openly the inheritance of eternal glory, God wills by lesser proofs to show himself to be our Father.”[7]

These “lesser proofs” Calvin sees in a multi-faceted way, one of which is in the mysterious difficulties of life, even (especially?) for those in Christ. God demonstrates his fatherly affection for his children in and by these circumstances. Calvin says: “In short, if all things flow unto us according to our wish, but we are uncertain of God’s love or hatred, our happiness will be accursed and therefore miserable. But if in Fatherly fashion God’s countenance beams upon us, even our miseries will be blessed. For they will be turned into aids to salvation.”[8] Calvin here overturns human wisdom, explaining that apart from the assurance of God’s beaming and fatherly countenance upon them, no one will experience true happiness. But sons of God may be assured; God is for them and love them because he is their Father, working all things out for their blessing and salvation. Important for Calvin is the fact that much of God’s fatherly care is veiled for his still earth-bound sons. Sons receive their inheritance on death’s other side, tasting only the down payment until that time.

Calvin maintains this position even more vigorously in his discussion of the Cross:

But it behooves the godly mind to climb still higher, to the height to which Christ calls his disciples: that each must bear his own cross. For whomever the Lord has adopted and deemed worthy of his fellowship ought to prepare themselves for a hard, toilsome, and unquiet life, crammed with very many and various kinds of evil. It is the Heavenly Father’s will thus to exercise them so as to put his own children to a definite test. Beginning with Christ, his first-born, he follows this plan with all his children.[9]

As a human father would discipline his human son, so a believer’s heavenly Father disciplines his adopted sons—because he loves them. On this idea, Calvin best interprets himself: “Now because that only is pleasing to us which we recognize to be for our salvation and good, our most merciful Father consoles us also in this respect when he asserts that in the very act of afflicting us with the cross he is providing for our salvation.”[10] This is not the merciless punishment of a tyrant, but the loving work of a Father for his children. Contrary to much theology, the God of Calvin is a Father who loves his children enough to chastise them, and bring them what they most need—a painful and heavy cross. A cross which brings salvation.

Perhaps the most poignant example in the Institutes of Calvin’s conception of God as Father is in his discussion on prayer. Astonishingly, as Calvin says, in Christ we may call God “Father;” in fact, God not only permits believers to address him as “Father,” but desires that they do so: “God both calls himself our Father and would have us so address him.”[11] In the next breath (or pen stroke), Calvin continues, “By the great sweetness of this name he frees us from all distrust, since no greater feeling of love can be found elsewhere than in the Father. Therefore he could not attest his own boundless love toward us with any surer proof than the fact that we are called ‘children of God.’”[12] Calvin’s logic flows seamlessly here: In Christ, God desires that we call him “Father.” Because “Father” denotes the greatest conceivable love, distrust flees. This, then, is the surest proof of God’s love toward us: our adoption, in which we are called “children of God.”

Similarly, in the next section, Calvin expounds the parable of the prodigal son which “depicts and represents for us […] this abundance of fatherly compassion,” whose archetype is God himself.[13] Calvin comments on this parable, saying:

In setting forth this example of great compassion to be seen in man, he willed to teach us how much more abundantly we ought to expect it of him. For he is not only a father but by far the best and kindest of all fathers, provided we still cast ourselves upon his mercy, although we are ungrateful, rebellious, and forward children. And to strengthen our assurance that he is this sort of father to us if we are Christians, he willed that we call him not only “Father” but explicitly “our Father.” It is as if we addressed him: “O Father, who dost abound with great devotion toward thy children, and with great readiness to forgive, we thy children call upon thee and make our prayer, assured and clearly persuaded that thou bearest toward us only the affection of a father, although we are unworthy of such a father.”[14]

He notes that the compassion of the father in the parable of the prodigal pails compared to the compassion of God who is “best and kindest of all fathers.” God’s fatherhood likewise stands in contrast to the unworthiness of his children, whom God calls to himself in a most intimate and loving relationship, desiring that they relate to him as such. In this way, it seems, Calvin explains the entirety of an adopted son’s response toward his all-loving and all-gracious Father in heaven: to acknowledge with full assurance that his heavenly Father feels only love, devotion, and affection for him—abundantly so—and is ready to forgive despite his wretched unworthiness.

Conclusion

The fatherhood of God is not an issue peripheral or incidental to Calvin’s theology. While the limits of this paper preclude a full discussion of this concept in Calvin’s understanding, it has traced a rough contour of his position on God as Father. This notion pervades the heart of some of the most central elements of Calvin’s theology: faith, salvation, and providence. We have seen that Adam was the son of God before the Fall, but severed that relationship because of sin. Though men then stand condemned, God, in his loving and fatherly character still manifests blessings upon them, especially and ultimately toward believers. God provided, in Christ, a way for Adam’s children to be once again adopted as sons of God. By faith in Christ, who is the natural, eternal, and true Son of God, believers are brought into Christ and united with him, adopted as brothers. As brothers of Christ, they may then be adopted as sons of God. And as sons, they may trust in the loving care of their all-gracious and merciful Father, whose inheritance they will receive in the heavenly kingdom.

The academy and the church alike suffer from a lack of balanced explanation of Calvin’s theology. We must not accept or draw a caricature of the theology of man who is so manifestly biblical in his understanding, desiring to faithfully expound the biblical categories and descriptions of the all-sovereign, all-loving, all-holy Father-God. A robust and proportional portrait of Calvinism must apprehend this foundational teaching which percolates through all of his thought: “The purpose of Biblical history is to teach that the Lord watches over the ways of saints with such great diligence that they do not even stumble over a stone.” As only a father is, Calvin, explains, such is our God, to infinite degree.

---

[1] Lyle D. Bierma, “Book Reviews: Calviana” of Garret A. Wilterdink, Tyrant or Father? A Study of Calvin’s Doctrine of God, 2 vols. (Bristol, IN: Wyndam Hall, 1985), in Calvin Theological Journal (Vol. 21, no. 2, November 1986, 239-41), 241.

[2] 1.16.1

[3] Wilterdink, 13.

[4] Inst., 1.17.1.

[5] Ibid., 1.16.1.

[6] Ibid., 1.17.6.

[7] Ibid., 3.9.3.

[8] Ibid., 3.2.28.

[9] Ibid., 3.8.1.

[10] Ibid., 3.8.11.

[11] Ibid., 3.20.36.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., 3.20.37.

[14] Ibid.

Read More......

Where are you going?

This is a response to the question -- "What's holding people back?"

Following Christ 100% is not as easy as just choosing to do it. Even if you didn't have all kinds of sins and temptations luring you away, the actual goal is kind of elusive. Let's be honest, what we call being sold out for Christ usually ends up looking more like an interest or even obsession with ministry or Christian topics, and a combination of blindness or leniency to our own pet sins and condemnation of the pet sins of others.

I love how Kierkegaard says it's an Either/Or, and that is true to a certain extent; however, the reality is that there is no way to escape moral ambiguity. The person who throws themselves into a life of sacrifice may find it easier to live a morally upstanding life, but this is not necessarily the true good that God desires. It can just as easily lead to pride and arrogance, insular "professional hobby-ism", or a self-loving martyr complex.

The problem is, the true good is difficult to divine, because it is not what you do, but who you are. It is not merely following a code (cleaning the outside of the cup, if you will), but where your heart is. Truthfully, I don't think it would be an improvement to have a bunch of "sold out Christians" if they did not actually have a heart change ... and a heart change must be personal, and must be forged in the fires of God by His person. It is also relative and individual -- "to whom much is given, much will be required."

For me, the key is in the personhood of God. First, without God's personhood, the question of "what's holding you back from a godly life" becomes only a more serious version of "what's holding you back from losing weight?". But if Christianity is not a quest for personal excellence and holiness, but rather the deepening of a relationship with a person without whose help you cannot succeed, the crux changes fundamentally. You cannot simply follow a series of steps to become holy, because it is only through following Christ's person that you become so.

If you want my answer to what's really holding Joe Christian back, it's that this kind of Christianity is not modeled in the church. The pulpit presents an impotent religion, a code of rules and regulations that promises grace and freedom but delivers nothing, expects outward conformity without providing the power to enact it, and expects a person already drawn towards evil by nature and nurture to simply drop everything and switch to a new set of cultural foibles, without the overwhelming transformational power that the true Christ brings. Impersonal and academic religion cannot hope to bring about true transformation.

In essence, however, the road is narrow and there are few who find it. It should not be a surprise to us that the true good is so hard to follow.

Read More......

God = Father, according to Calvin [part 2 of 4]

The Relationship Restored

God initiates this restoration of his relationship with sinful men, and still loves them as a Father. The instrument of this reconciling work is faith, the object of this faith is Christ (the true Son) and the goal is reconciliation, the restitution of God being to us a Father. Calvin explains, “Although the preaching of the cross does not agree with our human inclination, if we desire to return to God our Author and Maker, from whom we have been estranged, in order that he may again begin to be our Father, we ought nevertheless to embrace it humbly.”[1] Calvin here clearly denotes that God’s goal in salvation is to make himself again “to be our Father,” with all of the benefits that this entails.

The instrumental means of reconciliation is faith, which leads to this mending of disrupted Father-son relationship. As was stated above, the object of faith is Christ. Absolutely. But Calvin explains the object of faith more fully. Faith for Calvin has one object, with a general and a specific component. Specifically, one places faith in Christ and his atoning work. And more generally one places faith in the nature and character of God himself. This is perfectly consistent, for Christ is the most poignant manifestation of God’s fatherly character. Therefore the way one demonstrates faith in God’s loving and fatherly character is by having faith in Christ.

This faith itself is defined by Calvin as “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”[2] Calvin further elaborates on what this benevolence is, as well as the object of faith. He says:

Briefly, he alone is truly a believer who, convinced by a firm conviction that God is a kindly and well-disposed Father toward him, promises himself all things on the basis of his generosity; who, relying upon the promises of divine benevolence toward him, lays hold on an undoubted expectation of salvation.[3]

Faith, then, for Calvin, is trust in God’s (fatherly) benevolence, benevolence which is seen in Christ, the ultimate expression of God’s “kindly and well-disposed” Fatherhood. Clearly, the fatherhood of God is not a peripheral for Calvin. He here centers his entire doctrine of faith upon his understanding of God’s fatherhood. God as Father, in this way, is both the object and the goal of a believer’s faith.

Faith’s specific object, again, is Christ himself, into whom believers are engrafted and adopted as sons of God. In discussing the assurance of election, Calvin explains that believers seek such assurance only in Christ. This, similarly, has manifold implications for the understanding of God’s fatherhood as it relates to faith in Christ:

If we seek God’s fatherly mercy and kindly heart, we should turn our eyes to Christ, on whom alone God’s Spirit rests [….] Accordingly, those whom God has adopted as his sons are said to have been chosen not in themselves but in his Christ; for unless he could love them in him, he could not honor them with the inheritance of his Kingdom if they had not previously become partakers of him. But if we have been chosen in him, we shall not find assurance of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we conceive him as severed from his Son. Christ, then, is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election. For since it is into his body the Father destined those to be engrafted whom he has willed from eternity to be his own, that he may hold as sons all whom he acknowledges to be among his members, we have a sufficiently clear and firm testimony that we have been inscribed in the book of life if we are in communion with Christ [….] the Heavenly Father will count as his sons all those who have received him in faith.” [4]

Calvin begins this section by setting the entire context of faith in Christ as seeking “God’s fatherly mercy and kindly heart.” But believers seek to relate to God as Father, not in the Father himself, but “in his Christ.” Though God as Father is the goal, all is sought in Christ. This is not contradictory, because what Calvin postulates here, he does for the purpose of explanation. All is sought in Christ, he says, and is not sought even in the Father, “if we conceive him as severed from his Son.” This is key to what Calvin desires to do when discussing this issue: the Father and the Son are not severed from each other in actuality. This is related to the mystery of the Trinity: the Father and Son are un-severed, yet distinct, each having a discrete role in salvation.

Faith, then, again, is most specifically and properly placed in Christ. Calvin describes those who have faith in Christ as we who “turn our eyes to Christ,” who “receive him in faith,” who “are in communion with Christ,” having been “chosen” in Christ and “engrafted” into his body. The purpose of God’s action to save here is so “that he may hold as sons all whom he acknowledges to be among his members.” As Wilterdink explains, “Consistently, Calvin interprets revelation and redemption in Christ in terms of the fatherhood of God. God is our Father only in Jesus Christ. Christ is the object of faith as the Father is the object of its trust.”[5] Calvin himself again well explains the object and goal of faith. He says:

Let us sum these up. Christ was given to us by God’s generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life.[6]

So, we see here that the generous and loving Father-God gave Christ in order to reconcile us to himself (firstly), and (secondly) to sanctify us. On the first point, Wilterdink boldly asserts, “The very heart of the gospel is the annunciation of God’s fatherhood in Christ.” [7] In this way, then, relating to God as Father is in a sense both the object and the goal of faith. And, briefly, on the second point of blameless living, God’s fatherhood re-instated by Christ inspires holiness. Calvin explains that “he who ponders within himself what God the Father is like toward us has cause enough, even if there be no hell, to dread offending him more gravely than any death.”[8]

---

[1] Ibid.

[2] Ibid., 3.2.7.

[3] Ibid., 3.2.16.

[4] Ibid., 3.24.5.

[5] Wilterdink, “The Fatherhood of God,” 13.

[6] Inst., 3.11.1 (italics added).

[7] Wilterdink, 13.

[8] Inst., 3.2.26. Also, “He who would duly worship him will try to show himself both an obedient son to him and a dutiful servant. The Lord, through the prophet, calls ‘honor’ that obedience which is rendered to him as Father. He calls ‘fear’ the service that is done to him as Lord.”

Read More......

Response to Christ-Centered Preaching

Reading Chapell's Christ-Centered Preaching really provoked me to farther thought as to why I preach the way I preach, and why I say what I say when I preach. To be perfectly honest, many of these thoughts came into my mind because of questions I had in regards to the reasoning behind Chapell's goal of a “reclamation and rescue”[1] of the expository sermon and his seeming lack of Biblical backing to this “reclamation” and “rescue”.

Right off the bat, Chapell makes his views on preaching very clear, in regards to its relationship with God and man, “Ultimately, preaching accomplishes its spiritual purposes not because of the skills or the wisdom of a preacher but because of the power of the Scripture proclaimed (1 Cor. 2:4-5)”. And I would agree with him there, and I appreciate him putting this statement along with others at the beginning of the book. He goes on to say, “The text governs the preacher. Expository preachers do not expect others to honor their opinions. Such ministers adhere to Scripture's truths and expect their listeners to heed the same.” But as he continues to speak on preaching it seems he drifts away from these first strongly Biblical thoughts and begins to introduce principles for expository preaching that I feel do not come from a Biblical basis, but rather come from man's own ideas and opinions which caused me to evaluate how I preach, and the reasons behind the way I preach.

The downhill trend in Chapell's book seems to begin when he introduces Aristotle's classic rhetorical distinctions: logos, pathos, and ethos. I have no problem with this, but he seems to try to back up the Bible with Aristotle[2], or actually vice versa, in that he introduces Aristotle's thoughts before even going into what he feels the Bible has to say about speaking the word and the components therein. When Aristotle thoughts on a subject come before the Bible's in a person's argument, I quickly began to wonder as to the validity of that argument (Psa 94:11) “The LORD knows man's thoughts; they are meaningless” (HCSB).

Another interesting subject is the acronym that I assume Chapell coined, the “Fallen Condition Focus (FCF)”[3] is defined as, “the mutual human condition that contemporary believers share with those to or about whom the text was written that requires the grace of the passage for God's people to glorify and enjoy him.” He then goes on to say that God Himself has assured us that, “all Scripture has a Fallen Condition Focus”. In some ways I understand where Chapell is going here, because the thought is true (we are all fallen creatures and God wrote to us, as fallen creatures), but he puts this “FCF” of his too high in his own thoughts; almost as though he feels he has discovered the the key to preaching. The absence of Scriptural backing on this statement that God has told us that all Scripture uses this “FCF” principal is concerning. I really don't think anyone will ever find the acronym “FCF” in Scripture no matter how hard they try (therefore God did NOT say it). There was no reason for Chapell to pull a rabbit out of a hat on this one; he could have used Scripture to back his claim, but he wanted to use his cool acronym instead. A bad choice in my mind.

Chapell then goes on to give examples of how, “The more specific the statement of the FCF early in the sermon, the more powerful and poignant the message will be. An FCF of 'not being faithful to God' is not nearly as riveting as 'How can I maintain my integrity when my boss has none?”. He continues, “Specificity tends to breed interest and power by demonstrating that Scripture speaks to the real concerns of individual lives.”[4] I have a couple of problems with these statements. First of all, he is really going extra-Biblical here. These are his own opinions, and opinions that any Communications 101 professor could give you. He has strayed from the original principle that the Bible governs what the expository preacher says. The true expository preacher does not say what he wants and then make the text match his own preconceived ideas. To be honest, his example of a well formed FCF statement breeds man-centeredness. A focus on me, rather than trying to see myself as God sees me and being concerned about what God thinks rather than my own struggle to keep my integrity when other people make it difficult. It also breeds pride, in comparing myself with the world and making a statement that I am better than my boss, for he has no integrity whatsoever. When in fact, the Word of God would have us on our knees begging God for mercy and not comparing ourselves with those around us (or should we be like the Pharisee?). Also, while he says being specific breeds interest and power in our hearers, I would say that if these FCF statements are given as the point of a passage they will severely limit the scope of application in the hearts of our hearers. In many ways, I don't see a difference between these FCF statements and the “applications” many give in sermons – but while there is one intended meaning, I would argue that there are many applications – not limited to this one FCF statement that the supposed “expository preacher” is supposed to come up with. Chapell feels it essential to “determine” the FCF in order to properly understand a passage and correctly form a sermon – he even goes so far as to say, “If we do not determine an FCF of a text, we do not really know what the passage is about”, but I beg to differ. For why is it so often the case (not always, there are also instances where a general application was given to all, ex. “Repent!”) that the crowds preached to in the New Testament, or even individuals for that matter, asked the preachers, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (cf. Acts 2:37)? If the preacher had given them application already, there would be no reason to ask that question. No, first the crowds were, “cut to the heart” (cf. Acts 2:37) and then application was provided by the preacher – it's almost as though the preacher withheld the application, knowing that those who were called would seek out the needed application and pursue it on their own through the direction of the Spirit who was opening their eyes to see the truth. If Chapell wants to be Biblical in his writing, why does he feel it necessary to primarily use non-Biblical examples? Does he think Scripture insufficient?

In Chapell's “Application” section (while I still do not see a strong line between his idea of FCF and application) he states, “Paul refuses to leave biblical truth in the stratosphere of theological abstraction. He earths his message in the concerns of the people he addresses. Preaching that is true to the pattern of Scripture should do the same.”[5] I agree whole-heartedly with this statement, but, I would differ as to the the implications of it. Chapell uses this thought to prove that preachers need to create applications out of thin air, or at least, logically create them. But if it is true that Paul already made application, then should we really make new ones? If Paul already digested the truth for his people, then how should that cause us as preachers to to re-digest the truth? Why should a preacher make up an application if the application has already been made by Scripture? Chapell's train of thought here isn't really all that logical here in my mind and does not prove his point.

At the end of this chapter two Chapell makes a good point – something that I think should be taken to heart. When we preach we should be able to have an answer to this question: “why did you tell them that?”.[6] And this really has been the thrust of my thoughts in regards to Chapell's book, for while he makes many claims to things we should include in our sermons, it really seems that he lacks on getting his ideas from Scripture. When I ask myself why I said something, shouldn't I have an answer that finds its root in the Bible?

The next chapter is entitled, “The Priority of the Text” but pretty much at the very beginning Chapell continues in his “experiential” reasoning rather than taking lessons from “the Text”. He states, “Preachers will be regarded as out of touch and/or insensitive if they press forward with their sermon programs while ignoring a community's employment dilemma, the death of a pillar in the church, a local disaster, a building program...or a host of similar matters of significance in the life of the church.”[7] I am just amazed that Chapell dares to put such a paragraph in a chapter talking about the “Priority of the Text”. There is no “Priority of the Text” in the line of thought that he is condoning. Rather it is “The Priority of Your Situation and Condition”. Not to say that there is no wisdom in what Chapell says, but I just can't help but think about what Jesus had to say when confronted with this type of thinking in Luke 13:1-3.

Later in this chapter, in a section talking about tools that can be used to interpret a passage, Chapell states, “It is not wise habitually to run to commentaries as the first step of sermon preparation, lest your thoughts start running in a groove carved by one not in touch with what you need to address.”[8] Again, Chapell advocates a strange and seemingly man-centered doctrine here, that almost has the sound of some type of new age teaching. As one would say, “be in touch with yourself and with that which is around you”, he sounds as if a passage should mean different things to different people in different times and places and that by following the interpretation of someone not in your specific situation you would be misinterpreting the verse. Ironically he mixes his own advice with Spurgeon's reason for not habitually turning to commentaries, a reason which differs immensely from Chapell's own reasoning, “The commentators are good instructors but the author himself is far better”[9]. Spurgeon states a far better reason to not use commentaries as the first step in preparation for a sermon, one that truly does have the Text as its priority.

When Chapell speaks about the “Components of Exposition” it seems to me that he believes the main component is application, “In fact, the real meaning of a text remains hidden until we discern how its truths affect our lives. This means that full exposition cannot be limited to a presentation of biblical information. A preacher should frame every explanatory detail of a sermon so that its impact on the lives of listeners is evident.” He cites the first sentence I have quoted as coming from his own study of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Frame, and I will admit that I have not read either, but his take on the components of exposition seems neither Biblical nor logical. He goes on to say, “A true expository message...uses all its resources to move application.” This he states with a diagram in the same paragraph illustrating his thoughts about how these ideas of his form an “Exposition-Priority Message” But I would argue, that from the place he gives to application, his preaching module should in fact be called an “Application-Priority Message”! I understand his feeling that application is important, but I would question the level of importance that he gives it – over and above the revealed Word of God – to say that we must create application in order for the true meaning of the Text to be unveiled, to me, boarders on the heretical. What of God? And though I doubt that Chapell would disagree with me here (on page 26, “Ultimately, preaching accomplishes its spiritual purpose...because of the power of the Scripture proclaimed”), Scripture makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is our teacher and apart from His work, the Text will never be unveiled – it is only because of the work of the Spirit that I can understand the Truth (1Co 2:10a).

Overall, I appreciate Chapell's efforts in his book, and while I had trouble agreeing with much of what he had to say, it was a very helpful book because it caused me to really think about why I do what I do in regards to preaching. He has many interesting points, and knowing that he is much more experienced and wiser than I am I must strive to consider all his advice and seek out the Biblical mandate for how I am to preach and pursue those things, by the grace of God, with all my might

---

[1] Brian Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, (Baker Academic, 2005), page 19

[2] Page 34

[3] Page 50

[4] Page 51

[5] Page 54

[6] Page 56

[7] Page 63

[8] Page 74

[9] Page 75

Read More......

God = Father, according to Calvin [part 1 of 4]

A caricature, at its most fundamental level, either over-exaggerates or under-exaggerates distinctive elements of a person or thing, distorting its actual appearance. And so, like funny pictures drawn at an amusement park, portraits painted of John Calvin’s theology often render his doctrine with the equivalent of an inflated head and dwarfish body. Scholarship has neglected a pervasive concept in Calvin’s theology, an idea that saturates his thought on the character and work of God. This concept is the fatherhood of God.[1] And it is an idea which permeates Calvin’s theology comprehensively; and to formulate any interpretation of his thought without consideration of this notion inflates other elements of his thinking much like a caricature distorts the features of a person. Many have rightly explained that Calvin emphasizes God’s sovereignty absolutely. But Calvin’s God is not a monolithic sovereign. He is a Father. This paper, then, will seek to argue the following: the Fatherhood of God is an idea which is woven integrally and organically into the fabric of Calvin’s theology, interrelating, especially, his doctrines of faith, salvation and providence.

These posts will trace this theme of Fatherhood in Calvin’s theology in the following way:

1. The Relationship Severed [part 1]
   
1. At Creation, Adam stood in unaffected relationship to God, relating to him as a son
2. The Fall severed that relationship in a profound way, and men were then condemned
2. The Relationship Restored [parts 2 & 3]
   
1. God, in his fatherly character, initiated reconciliation
1. This reconciliation is enacted by faith in Christ
2. By faith we are adopted into Christ (the true Son) and again relate to God as Father

3. The Relationship Trusted [part 4]
   
1. Because believers relate to God as Father, they may trust him in his sovereign and providential work in their lives

The Relationship Severed

Calvin fairly clearly implies that at creation Adam related to God as Father. Though he does not elaborate upon this pre-Fall relationship, Calvin comments on the fatherly kindness of God toward humanity at creation. He explains that “we ought in the very order of things diligently to contemplate God’s fatherly love toward mankind, in that he did not create Adam until he had lavished upon the universe all manner of good things.”[2] From this we infer that Calvin sees between un-fallen man and God himself an unbroken and tender Father-son relationship. Both what God created and when he created it revealed perfectly his “fatherly love toward mankind.” Because he loved Adam, and thus all mankind, he created “all manner of good things” (what) before (when) he created Adam, lovingly purposing that Adam might be the beneficiary of all God’s good and creative work, receiving only and all good things from this ever- and all-loving Creator-Father.

But this relationship was then profoundly disrupted by the Fall. Calvin treats the effects of the Fall at length, and much of his discussion lies beyond the scope of this discussion. However, several points are relevant for our purpose here. Calvin defines man’s fall into sin as “the depravation of a nature previously good and pure.”[3] Similarly, in his treatment of Original Sin, Calvin explains, “Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and a corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath.”[4] We note here that Calvin explains that man is “liable to God’s wrath.” This means that God no longer interacts with man as a beneficent, loving Father, but as an angry and wrathful judge.

In a profound and foundational way God is no longer father to Adam, a point well summarized when Calvin says, “In this ruin of mankind no one now experiences God either as Father or as Author of salvation, or favorable in any way.”[5] So, again, for Calvin, the Fall’s most profoundly constituted a breach in the Father-son relationship between God and man because the Father could not righteously relate as Father with a son perverted and depraved by sin. Just as sin brought judgment upon Adam and all of his natural offspring (the rest of humanity), so too did it corrupt the created order, especially in its testimony of God’s character.

Because the Fall subverted creation’s perfect testimony to the fatherly goodness of its Creator, Calvin explains that “even if God wills to manifest his fatherly favor to us in many ways […] we cannot by contemplating the universe infer that he is Father.”[6] Here we note that the Fall not only breached the relationship between God and man, but also had massive epistemological ramifications. It distorted our ability to discern that God, out of his gracious character alone, would still manifest his fatherly love toward wretched humanity. Calvin still sees God as acting in some way toward humanity in fatherly love (very much related to Calvin’s doctrine of common grace). This leads to the provision of reconciliation in Christ, the true Son, as will be seen. This implies what we will below see Calvin explicitly illustrate: that God still operates out of fatherly love toward condemned men, desiring and initiating the restoration of his relationship to them.

---

[1] As far as I can tell, only Garret A. Wilterdink has written explicitly on this topic. Wilterdink first explores this notion in “The Fatherhood of God in Calvin’s Thought,” in Reformed Review (Vol. 30, no. 1, Autumn 1976, 9-22), then in his book, Tyrant or Father? A Study of Calvin’s Doctrine of God, 2 vols. (Bristol, IN: Wyndam Hall, 1985).

[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [Inst.], ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battle, 2 vols (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Know, 2006),1.14.2.

[3] Ibid., 2.1.5.

[4] Ibid., 2.1.8.

[5] Ibid., 1.2.1.

[6] Ibid., 2.6.1.

Read More......

What are we waiting for?

What do you feel Joe "Christian" is waiting for? What holds Christians back from living a life sold out for Christ?

Read More......

Impressions on Leonard Verduin's The Reformers and Their Stepchildren

If someone has ever thought that history should be re-written it was Leonard Verduin. In his book, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren he drives hard at the historically accepted Reformers and paints a picture that is not very pretty. Verduin makes the Reformers out to be no better than their Catholic counterparts and almost gives the impression that all that occurred during the Reformation was a switch in political power. But as we look at history we must accept the fact that although the Reformers did return to Biblical thought, and, from a human perspective, saved true Christianity, there were some things that they did that were not right, and are hard to even imagine as something that a Christian would do. Lessons can be learned from looking into the dark side of the Reformation, even though they are unpleasant.

Verduin's main argument in his crusade to condemn the Reformers as the true “heretics” of the Reformation is that they had a sacral understanding of Christianity, simply stated, that the Reformers believed true and strong Christianity to be, “a society held together by a religion to which all the members of that society are committed” (p. 23). The sacral understanding of Christianity has its roots in Constantine – the first “Christian” ruler of the ancient world and was held as the correct philosophy by the Roman Catholic church since that time. Arguments for a sacral Christianity stem from the Old Testament and the Theocracy of Israel - “Every member of the Old Testament society was considered to be in the same religious category as was every other member of it. This makes Old Testament society sacral and pre-Christian. It was a monolithic society rather than a composite one. It had no room for diversity, for for and against” (p. 23). Other societies outside of the example of Israel were sacral as well, while they had many gods, many times there was a local god that everyone was expected to worship. Verduin claims, “there would in all probability never have been a Second Front if the Reformers had been aware of the pre-Christian quality of the Old Testament in this matter...It was their refusal to grant that the one had outmoded the other at this point, that caused the exodus of the Stepchildren” (p. 23). Verduin pounds this point multiple times during the course of his book, almost to the point that he kills his argument by stating it too many times making this reader feel that he is not quite convinced of the argument himself and therefore overcompensates.

Throughout the book, Verduin cites specific stories and records of the Radical Reformers beliefs in contrast to the Reformers – many times the quotes are taken from court cases that ended in the execution of the Radical. The scope of this paper does not allow to look at multiple cases, but one should serve to be enough to direct our minds to some unanswered questions. Really I do not think this reader can do anything beyond ask questions without first doing extensive research into the historical facts, but the questions that Verduin leaves unanswered are interesting nonetheless. The topic we will look into is that of the Radical reformers being accused of being perfectionists and to this effect Justus Menius, an associate of Martin Luther said, “Like the Donatists of long ago, they [the Radical Reformers] seek to rend the Church because we allow evil men in the Church. They seek to assemble a pure Church and wherever that is undertaken the public order is sure to be overthrown, for a pure Church is not possible, as Christ cautioned often enough – we must therefore put up with them” (p. 104). But on the other side, Michael Sattler, one of the first Radical Reformers to die for his beliefs said that the Reformers, “throw works without faith so far to one side that they erect a faith without works” (p. 105). Both sides had interesting views of the other – and views that are such that they are hard to reconcile with each other. Who has the correct view of the other? What had the Radical Reformers done to make the Reformers think them to hold to a type of Christian perfectionism? What had the Reformers done to make the Radical Reformers think them to believe in a faith that does not have works as its fruit? These questions and more rage inside this readers mind but Verduin did not provide a convincing answer or really even attempt to convince his readers of anything in this regard.

Another interesting bent of Verduin is at the end of the book in the “Post Script”. Throughout the whole book Verduin accuses the Reformers of believing in a sacral Christianity, and rightly so, for I believe Verduin proved this in quoting the Reformers themselves. He blames the Reformers sacral understanding for the creation of the Radical Reformers and for their deaths as “heretics” and leads this reader to believe that if the Reformers had just kept their hands out of politics and focused on being Christians that everything would have been alright. But to close his book, Verduin himself makes a strong political statement and begins to dabble himself in the things he had forbade the Reformers to do, “the First Amendment...intended to preclude the rise of sacralism in the United States, is being quoted in support of a new sacralism, the sacralism of secularism. The upshot of all this is that, in the classroom, he who believes that the universe is 'running' talks at the top of his voice while he who believes that the universe is 'run' must prudently lower his voice. This handicap for the person of the latter conviction is an intolerable violation of the First Amendment, which forbids the highest law of the land to prevent the free exercise of religion no less than it forbids the 'establishment' thereof” (pp. 279-80). Verduin has argued for the length of a book that because of the Reformers sacralism, “the 'world' is no longer something that lies around the Church but has become identical with the Church” (p. 95) and therefore the Church has no reason to care of persecution but rather persecution is the test of the true Church, for the world is not the Church and the world hates the Church. But why does Verduin think it important that America provide an environment where no one is looked down upon for his or her beliefs? The Reformers looked down on you (even killed you) if you did not believe what they did – but isn't it ironic that Verduin complains of the very thing he asked for? He wished that the Reformers didn't force the “world” to believe what the Reformers believed and he wished that they did not use government backing to enforce their Reformed beliefs on others – and we now have a society here in America that has neither of those things. The Church does not impose their beliefs on others, and the Church therefore does not use the government to impose their beliefs on anyone. So what is Verduin complaining about – this “violation of the First Amendment”? That the “world” thinks Christians are dumb? And what is Verduin insinuating that we as Christians do about this problem? He does not elaborate, but only confuses his argument for a his definition of a Biblical Church.

Overall this reader was confronted with the fact that the Reformers made huge mistakes in their dealings with the Radical Reformers, but that said, something smells fishy in parts of Verduin's argument against the Reformers, and it is a smell whose source can really only be found through farther, independent research.

Read More......

What is meant in Matthew 16:18, “upon this rock I will build my church . . .”?

Statement of the Problem. What is meant in Matthew 16:18, “upon this rock I will build my church . . .”?

Proposed Solutions. Throughout history this passage has been “among the most controversial in all of Scripture” (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew", The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, eds. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton (1991), II, 623) and so there are many different views that have been held by scholars on what this passage means. But the three three predominate views on the meaning of this passage are as follows:


A) The view that Christ will build his church on Peter (CP) is the traditional Roman Catholic view being that seeks to prove the total “primacy” of Peter (Steinmueller and Sullivan, Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia – New Testament, pp. 503-504) but this view has also been held by Protestants without a view to Peter being commissioned by Christ as the first pope (John A. Broadus, "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew", An American Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Alvah Hovey (1886), I, 358).

B) The view that Christ will build his church on the confession of Peter (CC) is the traditional Protestant belief that seems to have been largely motivated by an attempt to counter the Catholic usage of this passage in proving the legitimacy of the papacy (Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28", Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (1995), 33b, 470) but there were some early church fathers who held to this view as well (Broadus, p. 356).

C) The view that Christ will build his church on himself (CJ) has been held by many prominent theologians including, Origen, Augustine, and Luther (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew", The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, eds. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton (1991), II, 627). This view relies heavily on various passages in the Bible that call Christ the rock and the foundation of the church (Dallas Seminary faculty, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (1984), p. 57).

Preferred View. Solution A, CP, is the preferred view of this student. This view is believed to be correct based on the following hermeneutical principles:

A) The Principle of Word Study

The arguments used in all the proposed solutions depend heavily on the meanings of two Greek words in this passage. The first word is πετρος which is translated “Peter” and the second word is πετρα which is translated “rock”. Πετρος means a piece of rock or a rock and πετρα means a mass of rock or a rock (James Strong, “Greek Dictionary of the New Testament”, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, p. 57). Proponents of CC and CJ use the difference of the two words to say that Jesus could not have been referring to Peter when he stated that he would build his church “on this rock” because Peter is a little rock and the rock the church is built on is a big one (John Calvin, “A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels”, Calvin's Commentaries, IX, 339). Those aligned with CC then draw the conclusion that Jesus must have been referring to the confession that Peter had made about Jesus for, “All who confess the same as Peter are joined to the church – therefore, the church is built on the confession” (Alfred Kuen, I Will Build My Church, p. 111). But there are some problems in making this jump based only on dictionary definitions and ignoring the Biblical usage of the words. To show this we must look at the meaning of another Greek word, λιθος, which translated into English means a “stone” (Strong, p. 45). In 1 Peter 2:8 the words πετρα and λιθος are used interchangeably to refer to Christ and being that λιθος refers to a rock smaller than πετρος (Strong, p. 57) it is not required to conclude that Jesus was not referring to Peter in this passage because of the change in words. Even if it is true that the Greek allows for a strong distinction between πετρα and πετρος as defenders of CC and CJ believe, it must be noted that such a “distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos” (John A. Broadus, "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew", An American Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Alvah Hovey (1886), I, 355).
To take this argument farther it is helpful to look at another Greek word that is used to refer to Peter throughout the New Testament, κηφας which is a rendering of the Aramaic word, כֵּיפָא meaning rock (Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Christian Literature, p. 544). And if it is said that this is mere speculation, we must remember that the Apostle John supports that the word πετρος has its root in the Aramaic when he translates the Greek rendering of the Aramaic word (κηφας) into Greek (πετρος) for his readers in John 1:42. So a likely reason for the two different words in this passage is not that Jesus was trying to refer to two different types of rocks but that when the words that Jesus spoke, most likely in Aramaic, were “translated into Greek, the masculine form petros would lend itself as a more likely designation of a person (Simon), and a literary variant, the feminine petra, for an aspect of him that was to be played upon” (Joseph Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel, p. 119). In fact, Christ only directly refers to Simon as “πετρος” once (not including Matthew 16:18 for Jesus addresses himself to Simon first) in all the Gospels (Luke 22:34) while he directly refers to him as Simon eight times (Matt. 16:1, Matt 17:25, Mk. 14:37, Lk. 22:31, Jn. 1:42, Jn. 21:15, 16, 17). From this we can gather that Jesus specifically chose this time in Matthew 16:18 to call Simon “πετρος” for the sake of word-play in relating his nickname to the “πετρα” on which Christ would build his church.
Another aspect of word study that supports CP is that πετρος was not used as a proper name prior to its usage as a name for Simon by Christ (Fitzmyer, p. 119) and so when Christ uses it in this passage to refer to Simon the literal meaning of the word would have been what was on the minds of his hearers. The translation of κηφας into Greek as was cited before (Jn. 1:42) also “supports the view that Kephas is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names.” (O. Cullmann, "Petros [Peter], Kephas [Cephas]", Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged in One Volume, eds. G. Kittel and G. Bromiley (1985), pp. 835-836).

B) The Principle of Literal Interpretation

Even though Jesus was speaking in a figurative sense (the Church is not built on a real literal “rock”) it does not mean that this passage cannot be literally interpreted based on the normal and customary usage of language (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 147-148). The natural understanding of what Jesus states in this passage brings us to see a clear word-play with the name “πετρος” and the word “πετρα”. There is no reason for Christ to bring up the fact that Simon's nickname is “πετρος” other than Christ's desire to relate Simon's nickname to the word πετρα.
In addition, when Jesus says, “this rock” which rock is he referring to? Proponents of CC and CJ say that the word “this” proves their respective views, but that “the word THIS makes reference to anything else than the immediately preceding petros is very unnatural. In the sentence, 'You are Margaret [meaning pearl] and on this pearl I am about to bestow a favor,' it would be very difficult to interpret 'this pearl' in any other sense than as referring to Margaret.” (William Hendriksen, New Testament commentary : exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew, p. 647). Those who defend CC and CJ have to force their view on the text and “depend on bringing in another 'rock' and ignoring the 'rock' that is already there” (T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, p. 204). This parallelism between the two words cannot be ignored – the text must be literally interpreted (Cullmann , p. 836). We must not conjure up words that are not there but rather use the words provided in the inspired text in order understand the natural meaning.
Defenders of CJ additionally fail in their interpretation in that they make Christ both the rock and the builder, and this is a very confusing image that goes against the grain of normal literal interpretation (Broadus, p. 356). “As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted, but for the fact that the obvious meaning has been abused by Papists to the support of their theory. But we must not allow the abuse of truth to turn us away from its use” (Broadus, p. 355).

C) The Principle of Cross-Reference (Scripture Interprets Scripture)

One of the main reasons defenders of CC and CJ believe that Peter could not be the rock that Christ referred to is because of other scriptures that state that Christ is the rock (1 Pet. 2:8) or that he is the foundation that the church is built on (1 Cor. 3:11) and therefore this verse could only be referring to Peter's confession about Christ or about Christ himself. But this can be countered by the fact that the apostles and the prophets are said to be the foundation of the church in Ephesians 2:20 and in Revelation 21:14 they are the “foundation stones”. Christ is called “a living stone” as are believers in 1 Peter 2:4-5 and therefore we see that it is possible for there to be multiple meanings behind these words in that they do not all refer to one specific person or one specific meaning at all times throughout Scripture. Also in regards the argument that the word “rock” other places in Scripture is normally applied only to God and never to a mere man, it is clear that this name was given to a man by our Lord and so all complaints must be ignored (Broadus, p. 355).
Another verse that is commonly used by commentators of CC bent is 1 Peter 2:5 which refers to all Christians as “living stones” to prove that Peter is not the rock on which the church is built (Calvin, p. 337). But we must notice the difficulty in using this passage to interpret the passage in Matthew because the word “stones” referred to here by Peter is translated from the Greek word λιθος not πετρος. Peter could have easily related all believers to the name that Christ gave to him but he did not. “The apostles are the foundation (Eph. 1:20; Rev. 21:14) because they bear witness to Christ's death and resurrection. Among the apostles Peter is the first and chief eyewitness.” (Cullmann, p. 836). Peter's name is unique throughout Scripture and along with it, the special place given to him by Christ as the rock on which he would build his church.

D) The Principle of Context

One of the arguments against CP is that if this view were true, Peter must have exercised an authoritative role over the church but that in Scripture no such role is seen and even the reverse is true in passages like Acts 2:2ff and Galatians 2:11 (Manson, p. 203). But in reality, this argument only does away with the traditional Roman Catholic view in which Catholics add meaning to the Biblical text, giving Peter sovereign authority over all Christians and supposing this authority to be transmissible to their many popes (Broadus, p. 357). Scripture does not back the Catholic view of Peter's primacy but Scripture does tell us that Peter was of great influence and had a special place among the other apostles and in the church. Peter is always listed first in lists given of the apostles in the New Testament (Matt. 10:2, Lk. 6:14, Acts 1:14), he was the leader of Jesus's disciples and was spokesman for the apostles (Matt. 18:21; 19:27; Mk. 8:27ff; Lk. 12:41; 18:28), he was one of the three closest disciples to Jesus (Mk. 9:5), he was seen as a leader even by those on the outside (Matt. 17:24), he was specifically prayed for by Christ so that his faith would not fail (Lk. 22:32), Christ gives him special care as he restored him into service after having denied Christ and is called to shepherd Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17), he preached the sermon on Pentecost and about three-thousand believed (Acts 2:14ff), Peter took a leading role in the choosing of Matthias to take the place of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-22), and again, mainly through the testimony of Peter two thousand more believed after Peter performed a miracle near the temple (Acts 3-4), he was considered one of the pillars of the early church (Gal 2:9), and the Apostle Paul went to Jerusalem to “become acquainted” with Peter (Gal 1:18).
Many of the CC and CJ persuasion cite two passages after Matthew 16:18 where the disciples asked a question about who would be greatest in the kingdom (Matt. 18:1) and where James and John's mother asked that her two sons might have the seats on the right and left of Christ in his kingdom (Matt. 20:21) as proof that Christ had not given any type of primacy to Peter (John MacArthur Jr., "Matthew 16-23", The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, ed. (1988), 29). But the position that the disciples wanted, was not the position that Christ gave to Peter, for they wanted to lord their position over others as is seen in the response that Christ gives after the request made by James and John's mother (Matt. 20:25). The position that Christ gave to Peter in Matthew 16:18 is not such that he could lord it over others, for that is against Christ's explicit teaching (Matt. 20:25). But rather, Peter is “the first among equals” (Broadus, p. 358). Christ's words about Peter do not mean that Peter was made sovereign over his fellows, but rather that, “because of his significant name, appropriate character, spokemanship on this occasion, and recognized leadership in general” (Broadus, p. 358), the church was built on him by Christ.

E) The Checking Principle

While it is true that throughout history there have been many godly men on all three sides of this issue, checking Biblical scholarly resources confirm that many of these men have held and do hold to the CP solution as does this student. Included in the many who hold to the CP solution are: Broadus (pp. 355-360), France (pp. 254-256), Hendriksen (pp. 645-650), Davies-Allison (pp. 623-634), Manson (pp. 204-205), Cullmann (pp. 835-836), and Hagner (pp. 469-472).

Read More......

Impressions on The Confessions

The opening sentence of The Confessions, written around A.D. 397 by Saint Augustine, reads, “Great are you, O Lord, and exceedingly worthy of praise” (p. 39). And so it is that right from the beginning of the book Augustine makes it clear that he is writing, not to boast about his colorful past or about his unlikely conversion, but rather to give praise and honor to God.

The Confessions is not, as most books, written solely for the sake of man. The uniqueness of this work is that it allowed me to listen in on the prayerful confessions of a man as he confessed directly to God. In fact, many times it felt as though Augustine did not care if anyone else ever read his confessions but rather he wrote it to God and to God alone. This allows for an extraordinary opportunity to peer into the soul of this great man of old and his precious relationship with God. Augustine's writing is as the Psalms, honest, deep, and wholly existing to give glory to his God, the one true God and Lord of all. It is because of its uniqueness that I was drawn into its pages as a story unfolded of a man, as of all men, void of good, who was found and sought out by the Source of all good and brought to salvation.

Throughout the book as Augustine reflects on the grace of God in his own life, one cannot help but be entranced with a God-centered view of salvation – truly, “we were weak and unable to find the truth by pure reason” (p. 142). No room is left for man's empty boasting, for if there was once a man who could have discovered the truth on his own, it was Augustine, considered by many to be the greatest thinker of all the early church fathers. But even he, of the world's intellectually elite, failed to find truth on his own apart from God's graceful intervention. What a testimony, that this man, whose thoughts were and still are far above the common man, would confess his own inability and despair in his pursuit of the truth apart from the Source of truth. And what a great warning it is, lest we, of much lesser mental caliber, should try to go our own way and exchange the wisdom of the Creator for the wisdom of man.

While it is true that Augustine does delve into some of the greatest mysteries of the universe such as the origin of evil, the existence of absolute truth, the multiplicity of the will, along with many other troubling questions, he always uses these mysteries as an opportunity to return to exalting and praising his Maker. Seeking answers to mysteries apart from Christ leads one to meet only with darkness. Augustine recalls some of these attempts he and his friends made to discover the answers to the most difficult questions: “we made no attempt to change our ways, because we had no light to see what we should grasp instead, if we were to let go of them” (p. 150). And so a constant thread is seen in this book — even the pursuits of a man able to philosophize and produce hypotheses on the deepest thoughts men have ever had are to be considered foolishness and a worthless thing apart from Christ. As Augustine himself states, “Unhappy is anyone who knows it all but does not know you [Christ], whereas one who knows you is blessed, even if ignorant of all these” (p. 117).

Aside from the more deep discussions on the mysteries that have plagued mankind's thoughts for ages, there are some interesting Catholic traditions that are scattered throughout the book. Even more interesting is that there is virtually no explanation by Augustine of where these traditions came from, only a somewhat disturbing acceptance that they exist and are essential in the life of a believer. Various traditions are introduced such as, the various stages of the catechumenate, rebirth in baptism, and the saving sacraments. I found it interesting, that a man who so profoundly thought and dealt with so many other matters in regards to the truth, did not question the Scriptural validity of some of these traditions but rather accepted them without so much as an inquiry. But these troublesome traditions aside, it is clear that Augustine was not confused as to the church's role in the believer's life – for not once does he ever claim that he was saved by the church or by good works, but rightly acclaims salvation wholly to the Lord. Shortly after relating the time of his conversion, Augustine states, “He who begot me is also he who keeps me safe; you yourself are all the good I have, you are almighty and you are with me before ever I am with you” (p. 241).

Of all the lessons one could glean from such a precious work this, for me no lesson was more apparent than that of praising God in and through all things. As I read Augustine’s confession to God, I could not ignore how he constantly breaks out in praise, giving glory to God for his gracious works — for bringing sinful men to salvation, orchestrating life's circumstances according to His good pleasure, foiling the best intentions of man, and bringing them to their knees as they come to behold His glory. Augustine was so aware of his own depravity that at every opportunity he burst out, declaring the holiness of God, giving Him the praise and honor due His name for bringing Augustine to see the truth. How often in my own life, though I too see my own weakness and my own inability, how often I fail to declare the holy name of my Lord and Savior and give Him praise for all that He has brought about. What praises I should offer to God that I, such a worm as I, am saved from sin and death, that God cared to orchestrate history so that I would come to see Him as the one true God, and that He would grant me the privilege to call Him my God, the freedom to worship and serve Him, and partake in the joy that He so freely gives. How can His praise not constantly be on my lips? My only limitation is that I do not know Him as I ought and am still far from Him, though He has opened His arms wide to embrace me. May God grant that I too would praise Him as Augustine, that I too would tell the world of my own depravity so the world might turn to God and glorify His holy name.

What a glorious privilege it is to look through the windows of people's lives and be able to see all that God has accomplished in them, to see the many amazing wonders that He has done in the midst of His people, that we might give Him glory and grow closer in our love and affections towards Him. The Confessions is one such window we can look through and see the wondrous grace of God in the life of one of His humble servants.

*All quotations taken from: Augustine, “The Confessions”, THE WORKS OF SAINT AUGUSTINE A Translation for the 21^st Century, ed. J. Rotelle (1997), Volume I.*

* This "book review" was done for my Historical Theology class with Dr. Vlach webmaster of http://www.theologicalstudies.org *

Read More......