reformed blogging.

Just finished reading Daniel Hyde’s exposition of the Belgic Confession. Despite it’s intimidating size (500 pages!) the book made for a quick and extremely enjoyable read. Despite the books clarity and simplicity, as it is directed towards a wider group of readers, this in no way detracts from the theological depth of the book.

Anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the historic roots of Reformed Protestantism, as well as a deeper understanding of Reformed theology, read this book! Hyde is clear in his exposition of the confession, and also goes on to explain theological terms as well as names of important characters in Church history. In addition to providing a historical context, Hyde also shows how relevant the Belgic Confession is for Reformed Christians today. Above all, he is faithful to the confession as well as to Scripture and seeks to affect more than the intellect. As the title suggests, and as the confession says in its first article, these are things that men of the Protestant Reformation believed with their hearts and confessed with their mouths. During the Reformation many men, including the confession’s main author, Guido de Bräs, lived and died for the confession of the the Reformed Church. Tolle legge!

A few nights ago I had a difficult time falling asleep, I don’t know why but Harry Emerson Fosdick’s sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” was on my mind. I had only heard mention of it through various biographies and in relation to Old Princeton and especially J. Gresham Machen, but never actually read it so I decided to do just that.

In reading Fosdick’s message I was surprised to find how pertinent it is to today. One would not be surprised to hear the main thrust of his message echoed in many of today’s emerging churches. Some have even commented on this movement saying that it is the old Liberalism in new clothes. The connection between today’s emerging Church and yesterday’s Liberalism quickly becomes apparent in reading through Fodick’s message. Though Fosdick denies a good number of Fundamental doctrines (included in this is the historicity of certain miracles, the virgin birth, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, a “special theory” of the atonement) the main point of his message is built on a supposed tension between doctrine and unity within the Church. To him, of course, Christianity is not about doctrines but about furthering the “cause of Jesus Christ” (how one can distinguish the two is beyond me) and any controversy over “uncertain” doctrines will be no help to such a cause. The problem, however, is that once you do away with all these supposedly “uncertain” doctrines, you have no Christianity left.

Rather than point out Fosdick’s error regarding each of these fundamental doctrines, I think we will find some value in considering Fosdick’s assertion of what we ought to do instead since his exhortation is not uncommon today. Quickly, here is the context of the Fundemenalist controvery: the Fundamentalists wanted Liberal or Modernists within the Church who were denying what all of what Christianity consists of, namely doctrines to stop calling themselves Christians. The presupposition of the Liberals was that Christianity is more about following an example, showing “Christian love” to one another rather than a religion based on doctrines (hence they had no difficulty doing away with the historicity of events described in Scripture). While it is certainly true that we ought to follow Christ’s example, this is not the core of Christianity. To reduce Christianity to mere doing, to an imperative while neglecting the great indicative is to revert back to works based righteousness, or to become like every other religion. Christianity is a religion that is founded upon belief in historical events. This is because it is not about what we did or what we do, but about what God did, namely sending His Son. All our obedience, then, is based on this indicative. Any obedience that is not from faith in what Christ has done is disobedience. That is why mere moralism will never get anyone into heaven, because it is not from faith, but is still based on man motivated works.]

Fosdick’s passage was based on Acts 5 (which shows that one can preach from the Bible without actually preaching its message). He appealed to Gamaliel’s counsel to the Sanhedrin, namely, to leave the Christians alone since God would get rid of them if they were not truly from Him. The problem with such an application of this passage is manifold:

1. The rest of Scripture is ignored. I’m thinking mainly of the Epistles wherein constant warning is given to purge the Church of false teachers and to beware of unorthodox doctrine. (See Romans - Revelation).
2. Gameliel was not a Christian, he was a Jew, the Sanhedrin was not the Church, they were Jewish religious leaders.
3. On one side there were the non-Christian Jews and the other side were the Christians. Gamaliel is advising the Sanhedrin to allow the Christians to exist and to do what they’re doing. This has nothing to do with the Church. The Fundamentalists weren’t persecuting the Liberals (as the Jews were doing to the early Church), they just wanted them to have integrity. Christians are not to persecute others for their beliefs, yet when such beliefs enter the Church it is to be done away with in order to protect the Church. A better example would probably be Paul’s relation to the Christian Judaizers. They were within the Church but preached no true gospel and thus Paul desired to expel them from the Church. However, Christians never went out of their way to the Jews to kick them out of the world. Likewise, Fundamentalists simply wanted a Church free from soul-destroying moralism. They wanted to keep the gospel pure and unadulterated.

Fosdick sets up the intolerant Fundamentalists up against the “tolerant” Liberals. We see a similar antithesis between those in the Church today who would maintain historic Christian doctrines and those who would rather “be like Christ.” The problem with the latter group is that to be like Christ on any foundation other than the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, ends up being sheer legalism. In seeking the “weightier matters of the Law” Fosdick forgets the gospel of Christ entirely and Liberalism becomes just another type of Pharisaic legalism.

Fosdick concludes:

If, during the war, when the nations were wrestling upon the very brink of hell and at times all seemed lost, you chanced to hear two men in an altercation about some minor matter of sectarian denominationalism, could you restrain your indignation? You said, “What can you do with folks like this who, in the face of colossal issues, play with the tiddledywinks and peccadillos of religion?” So, now, when from the terrific questions of this generation one is called away by the noise of this Fundamentalist controversy, he thinks it almost unforgivable that men should tithe mint and anise and cummin, and quarrel over them, when the world is perishing for the lack of the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith. . . .

Where is salvation for man but in the gospel of Christ? And what is the gospel but a historical account of what God has done, a proposition that needs to be believed. In the great battle for the doctrines of Christianity the Fundamentalists did not strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, rather they sought to maintain the very foundation of that which is necessary if anyone is to be saved. Such a battle continues to be waged today and we must lose no ground to those who argue for a “Christ-like” love while seeking to sneak in a false gospel through the back door.

“Since the expounder of the Bible should be well acquainted with the very ‘words by which the Holy Ghost teacheth,” knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages, he said, is a necessary prerequisite.

“… He stressed that the student of the Bible must:

be possessed of sincere and ardent piety. He should be a man ‘taught of God,’ conscious of his own insufficiency, but confident of the help of the Almighty…. He, who would understand the Scriptures, therefore, ought not to ‘lean to his own understanding,’ but continual and earnest prayer should look unto the ‘Father of lights,’ from whom proceedeth every good and every perfect gift; and who hath promised to give wisdom to those who lack it, and ask for it.

“…’There is no person who needs more to be in the constant exercise of prayer than the Theological student: not only at stated periods, but continually in the midst of his studies, his heart should be raised to heaven for help and direction.’”
- Archibald Alexander, taken from David B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary (Volume 1): Faith and Learning, 34-5.

Finished Oberman’s biography of Luther today and I’m wondering why I had never heard of it until recently. The book was first published in English back in 1982, but Bainton’s older biography seems to get far more light. This biography has been well worth the read. Oberman does a wonderful job showing Luther as a man in his time. For those who are worried that a more “scholarly” approach to the life of Luther would lack in spirituality, this is not the case at all. Throughout the book Oberman constantly refers back to Martin Luther’s great perception of the spiritual realm, namely the battle between God and the Devil, and how this reality, rather than psychology, political context, etc. (though these things are accounted for) is what shaped the Reformer as we know him. Yet Luther is portrayed as a human, not a self-confident, independent Reformer as is often thought, but one who approaches the battle for the reformation with fear and trembling, one who finds boldness not in himself but in the authoritative word of God.

This is a biography that Martin Luther would have approved of. In it he is not put on a pedestal, nor is he unfairly criticized. Rather, he is viewed as a man who, like the rest, had many flaws, was aware of his great sinfulness as well as the temptations and trials of daily life, yet knew of a greater, more merciful Savior. This is what makes this biography worth reading. Glory is given where it is due, the reformation was a result ultimately, not of one man’s determination, but God’s sovereign plan to make His gospel known.

Here’s a quote from the last chapter of the book, speaking of the end of Luther’s life where one can catch a glimpse of the heart of the great reformer:

“…he regretted that he had not been found deserving enough to shed his blood for Christ, ‘as so many brothers have testified to their beliefs with their lives. But that honor was also withheld from Jesus’ favorite apostle, John the Evangelist, although he wrote far more harshly against the pope than I was ever capable of doing.’”
- Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, 322.

“Life is as evil among us as among the papists, thus we do not argue about life but about doctrine. Whereas Wyclif and Hus attacked the immoral lifestyle of the papacy, I challenge primarily its doctrine.”…The heart of the Reformation is the recovery of sound doctrine–only true faith will lead to renewal of life. Here Luther reveals his own vision of “reformation”–as unusual in his own day as it is troublesome for modern times.

Luther can be seen as a follower of Bernard of Clairvaux–but then a radical follower, because the situation since the days of St. Bernard had so deteriorated that the crusade now to be launched is no longer aimed at the liberation of the Holy Land but of the Holy People, the Church itself. Because of the advanced time of world history, these crusades can no longer be waged by armies. Only one weapon is left: the preaching of a powerless Christ, and Him crucified.
- Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, 55,7; 80.

So for the upcoming months I decided I would spent a little more time with one particular theologian. There are so many men worth getting acquainted with: the reformers, the puritans, the Princetonians, the Scottish divines, all those great Dutch theologians, the early church Fathers, etc. it’s an impossible task to know them all without compromising some depth with any particular one. John Piper recommends choosing one dead theologian and spending your life getting to him and his theology. While I’m far from making any life commitments I thought it might be worth my time to try to read up on at least the basic works of some theologian, a major biography or two, and more contemporary things pertaining to the man. And as you may have guessed by the title of this post, I decided on Martin Luther.

This decision was made for several reasons: (1) because I read Bainton’s biography on Luther and still feel like the Luther is a complete stranger. (2) Luther’s Bondage of the Will about a year ago was an invigorating read, his style of writing is so straightforward and bold that it would get any Christian’s blood rushing. It’s not hard to see why Luther was regarded as a “bull in a china shop.” He was unbounded in his zeal for the true gospel, particularly the doctrine of justification by faith alone. (3) Carl Trueman’s recommendation of The Genius of Luther’s Theology as well as his mention of the impact Luther’s theology has had on him moved me towards this direction. (4) Carl Trueman’s lectures on Martin Luther a couple months ago also did much to generate interest. (5) John Piper’s biographical sketch on Martin Luther (with an emphasis on Martin Luther’s time spent in the study). (6) Lastly, God used this man to develop the theology of the reformation! This is enough in itself to get anyone to invest some time in getting to know him.

So here are the books I’m planning on reading:

1. Biography: Luther: Man Between God and the Devil - Heiko A. Oberman
2. Works: Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (1st edition) - Timothy F. Lull
3. Contemporary: The Genius of Luther’s Theology: A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church - Robert Kolb, Charles P. Arand

Peter Van Mastricht’s Theoretico-Practica Theologia was considered by Jonathan Edwards to be “much better than Turretin or any other book in the world, excepting the Bible.” Currently, however,  A Treatise on Regeneration is the only section translated into English. Here’s an excerpt from the work of one of Edwards’ favorite divines:

We may hence determine that regeneration is irresistible, and in what sense this is to be understood. For if you consider what the person who is to be regenerated is–a child of wrath who is dead in sin–he certainly has depravity enough to resist (Acts7:51). But if you consider that it is God who regenerates and quickens, the subject of regeneration can no more resist God than Lazarus of old could have resisted Christ when He raised him to a natural life (John 11:43-44). Nor does he have a will to resist, for, by the spiritual life instantaneously produced, all inclinations or desire of resisting are suppressed or taken away (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Jeremiah 32:39-40; cf. Galatians 1:13; Acts 9:2-6; 22:5, 10; 26:9-10, 14, 19).
- Peter Van Mastricht, A Treatise on Regeneration, 29.

Ryle wrote the following to an audience of Englishmen, but I think it fair to take “Englishmen” and apply to all who call themselves Christian. Though Ryle speaks specifically of the English Reformation, if there were no Reformation (whether in England or in Europe) there is no sign that anyone but the Pope would have had access to Scripture. It would be wise, therefore, for any Bible believing Christian to go back to the Reformation and resist what Ryle calls the “unprotestantizing” of our Churches.

“To the Reformation Englishmen owe an English Bible, and liberty for every man to read it. To the Reformation they owe the knowledge of the way of peace with God, and of the right of every sinner to go standing in his way. To the Reformation they owe a Scriptural standard of morality and holiness, such as our ancestors never dreamed of. For ever let us be thankful for these inestimable mercies! For ever let us grasp them firmly, and refuse to let them go! For my part, I hold that he who would rob us of these privileges, and draw us back to Pre-Reformation ignorance, superstition, and unholiness, is an enemy to England, and ought to be firmly opposed.” - J.C. Ryle, Five English Reformers, 43-44.

Here is what Ryle strives against:

“Let us not go back to ignorance, superstition, priestcraft, and immorality. Our forefathers tried Popery long ago, and threw it off with disgust and indignation. Let us not put the clock back and return to Egypt. Let us have no peace with Rome, till Rome abjures her errors and is at peace with Christ.
“Let us read our Bibles, and be armed with Scriptural arguments. A Bible-reading laity is a nation’s surest defence against error. I have no fear for English Protestantism, if the laity will only do their duty.
“Let us read history, and see what Rome did in days gone by. Read how she trampled on your country’s liberties, plundered your forefather’s pockets, and kept the whole nation ignorant and immoral. Read Foxe, Strype, and Burnet, and Soames, and Blunt. And do not forget that Rome never changes. It is her boast and glory that she is always the same. Only give her absolute power in England, and she would soon put out the eyes of our country, and make her like Samson, a degraded slave.” - 67-68.