Notable Quotables On Baptism

I’m throwing these quotes out here, not because I necessarily agree with everything they advocate, but only to provide a glimpse into the high view of baptism held by many of the first and second generation Reformers and the Puritans. The phrase “baptismal regeneration” has been much overused, misunderstood, confused, and used by low-church evangelicals as a condemnatory dismissal of those heretics who actually believe that baptism accomplishes something. As I’ve written before on this blog, I believe the majority of Reformed and Presbyterian churches to be rigidly low-church in their understanding of baptism and its efficacy. I find this particularly ironic in light of the very high view of baptism advocated by Reformed scholars in times past. These quotes by no means set the record straight. They are only a glimpse into a much neglected reality, namely that integral to a Reformed understanding of baptism is the idea that the divinely appointed sacrament accomplishes profound covenantal realities for both regenerate and unregenerate alike.  I’ve taken these statements from my notable quotable section on the top of my blog.  Other quotes on the subject can be found there.  I’d also strongly recommend Joel Garver’s wonderful article entitled Baptismal Regeneration and the Westminster Confession of Faith located under the Covenantal Paedobaptism section in my links.  Also consult Rob Rayburn’s great article on Christian nurture, also included among my links.  

“Has the Church been wrong in believing, that such change of state, such transplantation from the kingdom of the Devil over into the kingdom of Christ, must in the nature of the case be a Divine act; and that as such a Divine act, it must be something more than any human thought or volition simply, stimulated into action by God’s Spirit? Has the Church been wrong in believing, finally, that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, the sacrament of initiation into the Church, was instituted, not only to signify this truth in a general way, but to seal it as a present actuality for all who are willing to accept the boon thus offered to them in the transaction?Baptismal regeneration! our evangelical spiritualists are at once ready to exclaim. But we will not allow ourselves to be put out of course in so solemn an argument, by any catchword of this sort addressed to popular prejudice. The Liturgy avoids the ambiguous phrase; and we will do so too; for the word regeneration is made to mean, sometimes one thing, and sometimes another, and it does not come in our way at all at present to discuss these meanings. We are only concerned, that no miserable logomachy of this sort shall be allowed to cheat us out of what the sacrament has been held to be in past ages; God’s act, setting apart those who are the subjects of it to His service, and bringing them within the sphere of His grace in order that they may be saved.”

-John Williamson Nevin, A Defense of the Baptismal Liturgy

“If piety may commence at any age, how solicitous should parents be for their children, that God would bestow His grace upon them, even before they know their right hand from their left; and, when about to dedicate them to God in holy baptism, how earnestly should they pray that they might be baptized with the Holy Ghost- that while their bodies are washed in the emblematic laver of regeneration, their souls may experience the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.  If such sentiments expressed above be correct, then may there be such a thing as baptismal regeneration; not that the mere external application of water can have any effect to purify the soul; nor that internal grace uniformly or generally accompanies this external washing, but that God, who works when and by what means He pleases, may regenerate by His Spirit the soul of the infant, while in His sacred name, water is applied to the body.”  

-Archibald Alexander

“We confess and teach that holy baptism, when given and received according to the Lord’s command, is in the case of adults and of children truly a baptism of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, whereby those who are baptized have all their sins washed away, are buried into the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, are incorporated into him and put him on for the death of their sins, for a new and godly life and the blessed resurrection, and through him become children and heirs of God.”

-Martin Bucer

“We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine”.

-John Calvin, Reply to the First Decree of the Fifth Session of the Council of Trent

“Seed rests for a time in the earth, and takes root before one sees from its fruit that it has germinated … The root of understanding and of reason has been poured into all children, as soon as they receive life … God has planted a seed and a root of regeneration in the children of the covenant … In time, the fruits of the Spirit germinate from it. For he who has been baptized with Christ in His death, also grows from Him, like a tender shoot on a vine …”

-Caspar Van Der Heyden, Short and Clear Proofs of Holy Baptism

“The principal point … is that all elect infant do ordinarily receive from Christ ]the Spirit of regeneration as the first principle of spiritual life. This they receive, or their solemn initiation into Christ, and for their future actual renovation in God’s good time—if they live to years of discretion”

-Cornelius Burgess (Westminster Divine), The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants

“The sacramental view [of baptism] most accords with the idea of God’s initiating a covenant by his sovereign decree in election–effecting this through effectual calling. This is because, instead of God “watching/witnessing” the transaction represented by baptism, He is present as mediated through the sacrament to initiate and effect the covenant. He is God the covenant Actor, not merely God the covenant witness, and this is related to the whole order of salvation held by the Reformed tradition. Therefore, we don’t think of baptism as something we do, but rather as something God does–at least in the ultimate sense. While the recipient physically gets wet, God washes the elect to with the Holy Spirit unto regeneration in effectual calling.”

-Preston Graham (PCA Minister)

“Here certainly appears the extraordinary love of our God, in thatas soon as we are born, and just as we come from our mother, he hath commanded us to be solemnly brought from her bosom as it were into his own arms, that he should bestow upon us, in the very cradle, the tokens of our dignity and future kingdom; that he should put that song into our mouth, ‘Thou didst make me hope, when I was upon my mother’s breast: I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly,’ Ps. xxii. 9, 10, that, in a word, he should join us to himself in the most solemn covenant from our most tender years: the remembrance of which, as it is glorious and full of consolation to us, so in like manner it tends to promote Christian virtues, and the strictest holiness, through the whole course of our lives.  Nothing ought to be dearer to us than to keep sacred and inviolable that covenant of our youth, that first and most solemn engagement, that was made to God in our name.”

-Herman Witsius

 

 

 

 

 

 

Listening or Talking

“On a daily basis we’re faced with two simple choices. We can either listen to ourselves and our constantly changing feelings about our circumstances, or we can talk to ourselves about the unchanging truth of who God is and what He’s accomplished for us through His Son Jesus.”

-C.J. Mahaney, Living the Cross Centered life

My Blogging Continues…

Wow! So it has been quite a while since I’ve last posted. Our family now resides in Rochester MN while we save money for seminary and take some much needed time off from school. I’m currently working at a Starbucks directly across from the Mayo Clinic, we are members of a wonderful PCA church (Trinity Presbyterian), and I’ve pretty much devoted most of my time to reading books I’ve been unable to read throughout the past few years due to the intensity of school work. All this to say that our family has been greatly blessed by our good Lord.

Earlier this morning, our family had the incredible privilege of visiting our former church in Dickson City, PA (Faith Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.) Pastor Bell’s sermon was an exposition of 2 Tim 1:1-18 and was centered around the idea of the centrality of the family in Christian discipleship. One comment was particularly engaging and I’ve been meditating on it ever since.

“We believe in infant baptism because we reject the premise that the Christian life begins when a personal decision for Christ is made. The Christian life of a covenant child begins with the faith of Christian parents, and the administration of the covenant sign and seal.”

Now this is a very succinct statement concerning the historic Reformed formulation of paedobaptism and Christian nurture. While this truth remains a very basic tenet of Reformed thought and practice, its profundity addresses the radical individualism running rampant in both Baptist and Reformed circles. It’s become standard evangelical dogma in most circles that the most fundamental of spiritual realities is a “personal relationship with Jesus” mediated through personal reading of Scripture, personal prayer, individual acts of service, and individual encounters with God. The thoroughgoing ecclesial faith of our confessions has been all but lost on a generation fueled by enlightenment ideals of individuality and spiritual self-ownership. If there is one area of theology the church needs desperately to recover, it’s a robust ecclesiology informed by the Reformed confessions and regulated by the holy Scriptures. Christian discipleship begins not with revivalistic conversion experiences or personal professions of faith. Reformed ecclesiology demands that genuine Christian discipleship for a covenant child begins with the faith of Christian parents and the administration of the sign and seal of the covenant in baptism.

Larger Catechism and the Law of God

I’ve recently begun a study of the Larger Catechism, and have been deeply encouraged by its wisdom.  Particularly edifying are questions and answers 98-148 which deal with the moral law in pretty exhaustive detail.  What I love about the Standards is the unapologetic concern for a proper understanding of the third use of the moral law and its necessary implications for everyday living.  Such rigorous scholarship, yet such unwavering concern for the Lordship of Christ over all of life.  

Question 98: Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?

Answer: The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.

Question 99: What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?

Answer: For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed: That the law is perfect, and binds everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. That it is spiritual, and so reaches the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. That: What God forbids, is at no time to be done;: What he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. That: What is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places. That in: What is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in: What is forbidden them.

Question 100: What special things are we to consider in the ten commandments?

Answer: We are to consider, in the ten commandments, the preface, the substance of the commandments themselves, and several reasons annexed to some of them, the more to enforce them.

Question 101: What is the preface to the ten commandments?

Answer: The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifests his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivers us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.

Question 102: What is the sum of the four commandments which contain our duty to God?

Answer: The sum of the four commandments containing our duty to God is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind.

Zacharias Ursinus on Christian Baptism

This is a wonderful introduction to the basics of Christian baptism as defined by the Reformed churches.  Note particularly points 7 and 12. Ursinus attributes a profound efficacy to the instrument of baptism, going so far as to say that remission of sins is ordinarily granted through the proper use of the sacrament.  Point 12 is particularly significant as Ursinus argues against re-baptism.  Here is just another instance of how the 16th century Reformers regarded the practice of re-baptism as abominable, sinful, and a visible testimony to a lack of faith in the promises of the gospel.  

THESES ON BAPTISM

BY ZACHARIAS URSINUS

The following is excerpted from the English Translation of Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Ursinus was the second-generation Reformer who authored the most famous and influential of sixteenth-century Reformed catechisms, so his commentary has special authority. 

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament,by which Christ testifies to the faithful who are baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the forgiveness of all their sins, the giving of the Holy Spirit, and ingrafting into the church and into his o,,-rn body; whilst they, on the other hand, profess to receive these bepefits from God, and will and ought, therefore, henceforth, to live unto him and to serve him. This same baptism was begun by John the Baptist, and carried forward by the Apostles. John baptized in the name of Christ, who was to suffer and rise again; the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ, as having suffered and risen from the dead.
2. The first end of baptism instituted by God is, that he might thereby declare and testify to us, that he cleanses those who are baptized by his blood and Spirit from all their sins, and therefore engrafts them into the body of Christ and makes them partakers of all his benefits. Second: That baptism might be a solemn reception or initiation of everyone into the visible church, and a mark by which the church might be known from all other religions. Third: That it might be a public and solemn profession of our faith in Christ, and of our obligation to faith and obedience to him. Fourth: That it might be an admonition of our burial in afflictions, and of our rising out of them and deliverance from them.
3. Baptism has the power to declare or seal according to the command of God, and the promise which Christ has joined to it in its lawful use; for Christ baptizes us by the hand of his ministers, just as he speaks through them.
4. There is, therefore, in baptism a double water; the one external and visible, which is elementary; the other internal, invisible and heavenly, which is the blood and Spirit of Christ. There is, also, a double washing in baptism; the one external, visible, and signifying, viz : the sprinkling and pouring of water, which is perceptible by the members and senses of the body; the other is internal, invisible, and signified, viz: the remission of sins on account of the blood of Christ shed for us, and our regeneration by the Holy Spirit and engrafting into his body, which is spiritual, and perceived only by faith and the Spirit. Lastly, there is a double dispenser of baptism: the one; an external dispenser of the external, which is the minister of the church, baptizing us by his hand with water; the other an internal dispenser of the internal, which is Christ himself, baptizing us with his blood and Spirit.
5. Yet the water is not changed into the blood or Spirit of Christ, nor is the blood of Christ present in the water, or in the same place with the water. Nor are the bodies of those who are baptized washed with this visibly; nor is the Holy Spirit, by his substance or virtue, more in this water than elsewhere; but he works in the hearts of those who are baptized in the lawful use of baptism, and sprinkles and washes them spirituually by the blood of Christ, whilst he uses this external symbol as a means, and as a visible word or promise to stir up and confirm the faith of those who are baptized.
6. When baptism is, therefore, said to be the laver or washing of regeneration, to save us, or to wash away sins, it is meant that the external baptism is a sign of the internal, that is, of regeneration, salvation and of spiritual absolution; and this internal baptism is said to be joined with that which is external, in the right and proper use of it.
7. Yet sin is so washed away in baptism, that we are delivered from exposure to divine wrath and from the condemnation of everlasting punishment, whilst the Holy Ghost commences in us the work of regeneration and conformity with God. Remissions of sins, however, continue to the end of life.
8. All, and only those who are renewed or being renewed, receive baptism lawfully, being baptized for those ends for which Christ instituted this sacrament.
9. The church administers baptism lawfully to all, and only to those whom she ought to regard among the number of the regenerate, or as members of Christ.
10. Since the infant children of Christians are also included in the church, into which Christ will have all those who belong to him to be received and enrolled by baptism; and as baptism has been substituted in the place of circumcision, by which (as well to the infants as to the adults belonging to the seed of Abraham,) justification, regeneration and reception into the church were sealed by and for the sake of Christ; and as no one can forbid water that those should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit purifying their hearts, it follows that those infants should be baptized, who are either born in the church, or come into it from the world with their parents.
11. As the promise of the gospel, so baptism being unworthily received, that is, before conversion, is ratified and tends to salvation to those who repent, so that the use of it which was before unlawful is now lawful.
12. The impiety of the minister does not make baptism void, if only it be performed in the promise and faith of Christ. It is for this reason that the true church does not re-baptize those who have been baptized by heretics, but instructs them in the true doctrine respecting Christ and baptism.
13. And as the covenant once made with God, is also after sins have been committed, perpetually ratified in the case of such as believe, so baptism also being once received, confirms all those who repent in relation to the forgiveness of sins during their whole lives; and, therefore, neither ought to be repeated, nor deferred to the close of life, as if it then only cleansed from sin, when no more sins are committed after it is received.
14. All those who are baptized with water, whether adults or infants, are not made partakers of the grace of Christ, for the eternal election of God and his calling to the kingdom of Christ, is free.
15. Nor are all those who are not baptized excluded from the grace of Christ, for not the want, but the contempt of baptism excludes men from the covenant of God made with the faithful and their children.
16. Since the administration of the sacraments forms a part of the ecclesiastical ministry, those who are not called to this, and especially women, ought not to take upon themselves the right and authority to baptize.

Such rites as have been added to baptism by men, as the consecration of the water, tapers, exorcisms, anointing with oil, salt, crosses, spittle, and things of a similar character, are justly condemned in the church of Christ, as corruptions of the sacraments.

Jonathan Edwards Meet Brian McLaren

I know, I know.  I’m not the biggest fan of Jonathan Edwards. Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone can argue against the reality that Edwards was one of the most brilliant thinkers in American history.  And I think that Edwards can be very useful when confronting dubious forms of “Christianity” presenting themselves in our day and age.  This is a paper I wrote a while back.  I hope it proves helpful.

Emergent Church Meet Jonathan Edwards: A Philosophical Comparison of Jonathan Edwards with Emergent Theology

Imagine Jonathan Edwards sitting down to coffee with Brian McLaren.  How would Edwards respond to McLaren’s concerns?  How would McLaren respond to Edwards’ theology?  Would McLaren conclude that Edwards is the prototypical modernist, entrenched in the suffocating epistemological certitude that his movement finds so repulsive?  Would Edwards find McLaren’s assumptions familiar, maybe even similar to the radical skepticism of 18^th century enlightenment thinking?  Within the past few decades, the Emergent Church movement has arisen from the ghettos of modern evangelicalism with a spirit of protest against the perceived ecclesiastical modernism characterizing most churches in the 20^th century.  Behind the protests of Emergent Church leaders, there stands an identifiable worldview, functioning as philosophical catalyst through which their epistemological proposals find significance.  How does Jonathan Edwards fit into this discussion?  Edwards embodies a particular form of Protestant orthodoxy that substantially differs from the pre-suppositions of Emergent Church leaders.  A careful examination of primary texts reveals that the philosophical assumptions of Jonathan Edwards and Emergent Church leaders reflect decidedly different approaches to epistemology.

 To substantiate this proposal, we will examine the central concerns of emergent theology with a particular emphasis upon their proposed method of knowing truth, and their basic view of truth itself.  The second part of the essay compares the epistemology of Jonathan Edwards with the thinking of Emergent Church leaders.  The conclusion of the essay will examine some of the more general implications of comparing Edwards with Emergent thinking.

The 20^th century witnessed the rise of liberal Christianity, an intellectual and social project centered on accommodating the gospel to a thoroughly modern culture. Threatened by the radical skepticism of this new religion, Christians fought back, attempting to reclaim the historic orthodoxy trampled upon by the liberal Christians.  As it was then, so it is now.  A new cultural expression of Christianity has arisen which seeks to accommodate the gospel to what the movement perceives to be a uniquely post-modern context.  This movement has proposed a number of challenges to established forms of Protestant epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics.  The starting point for Emergent reform lies in their epistemological skepticism, which mirrors the cultural push towards doubt, uncertainty, and the celebration of mystery.   What exactly does this epistemological reform entail? What does epistemology look like in a post-modern context? In order to answer this question, it is necessary that the emergent method of knowing be examined.                          

In a fictional dialogue between a post-modern high-school teacher and a frustrated pastor, Brian McLaren, through the voice of the post-modern Neo, claims that “Postmodern theology has to reincarnate; we have to get back into the flesh and blood and sweat and dirt of the setting, because as I said, all truth is contextual (McLaren 106).”  This emphasis upon the contextualization of truth can be traced throughout emergent literature.  Emerging Church leaders place a high priority upon culture as an epistemological medium through which truth is formed.  Universal constants, uniform laws of logic, the validity and possibility of objective truth claims; all of these ideas are scorned by Emergent leaders.  According to the Emergent Church, all truth is contextual and will vary from culture to culture.  Sounding very much like Brian McLaren, Pastor Doug Pagitt of Solomon’s Porch writes:

“All expressions of Christianity are culturally affected, and that is a good thing.  Therefore, we must resist any temptation to say that one understanding of Christianity is more pure or closer to that of Jesus’.  Post-evangelicals are not expressing better Christianity, only a more fitting one for their setting. (Tomlinson, 47).”

For Pagitt, Christian truth is culturally affected and individually relative.  It is clear from their literature that Emergent epistemology is not so much concerned about truth and falsehood so much as it is about cultural appropriateness and inappropriateness.  Ultimately, culture is the first and primary proposed method of determining which “truth” is most appropriate.

            Another emphasis found in emergent literature is radical skepticism.  Skepticism has always played a prominent role within the philosophical world, coming to its fruition in the epistemology of 18^th century philosopher David Hume.  While certainly sharing entirely different worldviews, Emergent proponents and Hume share a fundamentally skeptical philosophy of knowing.  Hume reduces all knowledge to sensory experience or perceptions, while Emergent leaders contextualize all knowledge of truth to different cultural contexts.  Both approaches are philosophically skeptical while differing on the precise medium of receiving knowledge.   Elements of Kantian epistemology can also be observed in the views of Emergent leaders.  Kant restricts all human knowing to the phenomenal world, refusing to concede that the intellect can grasp the realities of the noumenal.  Like Kant, emergent leaders reflect this epistemology and Christianize it into a convoluted form of mysticism.  If we cannot know, then we must embrace the mysteries of the noumenal world, and ground ethics in exclusively phenomenal categories. McLaren writes that:

“You cross the threshold into postmodernity the moment you turn your critical scrutiny from others to yourself, when you relativize your own modern viewpoint…You begin to see that what seemed like pure objective certainty really depends heavily on a subjective preference for your personal viewpoint

(McLaren 35).”

Not only should institutions, establishments, or churches be questioned, but individuals as well.  McLaren manifests a profound spirit of uncertainty and skepticism as he undermines personal belief by relegating it into the realm of subjectivity.  In a similar vein, Dave Tomlinson writes that Christians should move “from propositional expressions of faith to relational stories about faith journeys.  From the authority of Scripture alone to a harmony between the authority of Scripture and other personal ways God mysteriously and graciously speaks to Christians (Tomlinson 42).”  Tomlinson specifically targets propositional truth and the authority of Scripture as objects worthy of epistemic suspicion.  The Emergent Church isn’t interested in any kind of truth claims grounded in a higher metaphysical referent.  The movement seems intent upon asking questions and raising suspicions, while denying the possibility of ever really knowing truth in objective categories. 

It would be reductionistic to say that Protestant orthodoxy is incompatible with the questions raised by the Emergent Church.  Many of the concerns raised by Emergent Church leaders are a legitimate reaction to dubious forms of Christianity, which have deviated from historic orthodoxy.  Nevertheless, Protestant orthodoxy and Emergent epistemology represent two strikingly different approaches to truth.  Jonathan Edwards is one particular 18^th century theologian whose ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology present an alternative to the Christianized post-modernism of the Emergent Church. 

First, Jonathan Edwards manifests a weighty philosophical optimism in his epistemic approach.  In contrast to the skepticism of the Emergent Church, Edwards defends the project of knowing objective truth grounded in a stable metaphysical reality.  In his Dissertation Concerning the Nature of True Virtue, Edwards grounds his metaphysics in what he labels “Being in General.”  Edwards later explains that Being in General is God himself, the fountain and foundation of all being and beauty, and the objective referent to which all moral agents are accountable.  In one part of the Dissertation, Edwards defends the possibility of knowing God objectively.  Edwards writes, “God has sufficiently exhibited himself, both in his being, and in his infinite greatness and excellency: and has given us faculties, whereby we are capable of plainly discovering his immense superiority to all other beings (Nature, 23).”  Unlike McLaren

who scoffs at the very idea of resolving difficult truth claims, Edwards states that man’s natural faculties and God’s revelation are sufficient to ascertain particular objective truths about God. 

 Second, Edwards is concerned to defend the project of knowing by appealing to its centrality in the Christian life.  Unlike the Emergent worldview, which excludes objective knowledge from a prominent place within the life of a Christian in favor of cultural expression and subjective experience, Edwards demands its prominence.  In a sermon entitled Christian Knowledge, a lengthy exposition on Heb. 5:12, Edwards defends the apostles reproof to the Hebrews by appealing to the nature and centrality of truth.

“As they were Christians, their business was to learn and gain Christian knowledge.  They were scholars in the schools of Christ; and if they had improved their time in learning, as they ought to have done, they might, by the time the apostle wrote, have been fit to be teachers in this school (Christian Knowledge, 9).”

Three important observations can be discerned.  First, Edwards claims that learning and gaining knowledge ought to occupy a prominent place in the Christian life.  Second, Edwards claims that all Christians are scholars in the school of Christ.  This runs contrary to the Emergent push for less scholarship and more relationship.  For Edwards, this dichotomy is unnecessary.  Rigorous scholarship serves as the foundation upon which genuine relationships are built.  Third, the difference in emphasis between Emergent leaders and Edwards can’t be missed.  The philosophical posture of Emergent Leaders is skeptical, uncertain, and mystical.  Edwards’ approach reflects optimism, certainty, metaphysical precision, and necessity of reason. 

            The Emergent Church is a unique cultural and religious phenomenon. The movement embodies a particular paradigm shift in philosophical perspective that has attempted to change the face of Christianity for a new generation.  This shift includes a radical deviation from traditional forms of epistemology and includes the most basic of concerns.  The very concept of truth, its nature, shape, and place in culture; all of these concerns find themselves addressed by the Emergent Church within a post-Protestant, post-Evangelical, and post-Fundamental system of thinking.  Jonathan Edwards comes into the picture as the embodiment of traditional Protestant epistemology.  While some scholars in the Reformed community might debate his theological compatibility with earlier forms of Reformed thinking, it is generally agreed that the most basic of Edwards’ epistemological and metaphysical concerns are orthodox.  Edwards argues for epistemological optimism, the objectivity and universality of truth, the legitimacy of both questions and answers, the necessity of scholarship, the centrality of truth in the life of the Christian, the legitimate pursuit of the noumenal, and the unchanging nature of truth in every culture.  Friend and foe alike would be wise to consult Edwards before adapting their Christianity to the Emergent agenda.  

---

McLaren’s Bibliology reflects his suspicion of resolving difficult questions of truth.  For McLaren, Scripture is a story in which the readers are presented with questions. “I wonder what would happen if we approached the text less aggressively but even more energetically and passionately.  I wonder what would happen if we honestly listened to the story and put ourselves under its spell, so to speak, not using it to get all of our questions about God answered but instead trusting God to use it to pose questions to us about us. (McLaren 57).”  Edwards’ approach is entirely different.  For Edwards, questions can’t be separated from their corresponding answers.  His approach itself in the Dissertation assumes epistemological optimism. 

See Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice by R. Scott Clark for a critical analysis of Edwards’ theology.  For a more positive perspective, see Iain Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography.  

The Genius of Puritanism by Peter Lewis Reviewed

Here is my second book review for Reformation Heritage Books.  I really recommend getting your hands on this one.  

         Puritanism has long possessed a mixed legacy within both English and American culture.  On the one hand, the Puritans are known among Reformed Christians as some of the godliest men to grace this earth since the times of the apostles.  Their rigorous piety, unwavering devotion, sensitivity to troubled souls, and God-centered preaching has earned them a rightful place of honor among the many evangelical Christians and theologians since the time of the Reformation.  On the other hand, the Puritans are often despised, scorned as colorless prudes prone towards stifling legalism, hell-fire preaching, and murderous witch-hunts.  Events like The Salem Witchcraft Trials have compounded this misconception, with writers like Nathaniel Hawthorne taking advantage of the witch-burning Puritan stereotype by painting them as monsters and hypocrites.  In light of such confusion, it is truly refreshing to read a piece of literature in which the Puritans are examined for who they really were and what they actually believed and practiced.  Peter Lewis’s The Genius of Puritanism is one such historical study into the life, times, and writings of the Puritans which is thoroughly filled with primary source material.  If anyone wants to learn about who the Puritans really were, there is no better way than to read the Puritans themselves.  This is what Lewis accomplishes, offering sparse personal commentary, and allowing the Puritans to speak for themselves.

              The book is divided into three main sections: The Puritan in the Pulpit, The Puritan in the Pew, and the Puritan in Private.  The material begins with a helpful historical introduction to the cultural, political, and ecclesiastical climate in which Puritanism was born.  The first section offers short biographies of major Puritan figures, along with a basic description of their homiletic methods.  Such figures include the famous William Perkins, Thomas Goodwin, Jeremiah Burroughs, Thomas Manton, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Brooks, Christopher Love and others.  According to Lewis, Puritan preaching was characterized by a zealous appeal to the law of God, a proclamation of the good news of the gospel, and a very strenuous emphasis upon the practical implications of doctrine for everyday living.  Unlike the self-proclaimed post-modern Christians of the 21^st century with their popular mantra ”doctrine divides”, the Puritans refused to separate doctrine from life.  For the Puritans, true and genuine piety could not exist apart from its necessary doctrinal foundation. 

             The second section of the book covers the Puritan understanding of preparation for corporate worship.  This part of the book is fascinating because it completely nullifies one of the long-standing misconceptions of Puritanism as an exclusively pietistic movement with a low view of the means of grace.  In other words, the Puritans were and often are accused of being rigidly low church in their worship and piety.  Lewis explains that the ordained means of grace occupied a place of centrality in the ecclesiastical ethos of Puritan worship. The preaching of Holy Scripture and the administration of the holy sacraments were so significant to the Puritan mind, that a thorough preparation of mind and heart were deemed necessary in order benefit most fully from the means of grace.  If anything, the Puritans were high church in a very marked way.  Not high church with respect to ornaments, vestments, ceremonies, or liturgical calendars.  But simply high church in their estimation of the kingdom of God and its earthly manifestation in the church of Christ on earth through the means of grace.  The last section of the book examines the private life of the Puritan.  Within this section, Lewis spends much time discussing how exactly the Puritans dealt with the realities despondency, lack of assurance, affliction, and desertion.  Among the prescribed remedies for such harrowing experiences are flying to God, trusting in God’s covenant promises, believing in the accomplished redemption wrought by Christ, resting in God’s holy providence, and most importantly, attending upon the means of grace.  The Puritans were experts in dealing with the troubles, afflictions, and hardships of life, having from experience dealt with exile, persecution, slander, imprisonment, and martyrdom.

             My only quibble with the book is Lewis’s seemingly harsh characterization of 17^th century Presbyterianism in its connection with the English Civil War and the leadership of Oliver Cromwell.  Lewis seems to favor strongly on the side of the Independents, so much so as to glance over the horrific martyrdom of Christopher Love under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell.   Christopher Love, a devout Presbyterian, was somewhat of a royalist who visibly disagreed with the execution of Charles II.  In so doing, Love incurred the wrath of the Parliament, was imprisoned and then beheaded under the orders of Oliver Cromwell.  While historical context and political turmoil make it difficult to fully understand the complications of 17^th century English politics, I think that it is incumbent upon Puritan scholars to explain the tragedy of what happened in the case of Christopher Love and put an end to the myopic defense of Cromwell.  Apart from this minor bias in favor of Cromwell and the Independents, this little book of only 144 pages is, quite possibly, the best and most encouraging book I have read in a long time.  Lewis’s scholarship is unsurpassed, his knowledge of the Puritans extensive, his obvious concern for pastoral ministry deep, and his desire for a thoroughgoing revival of Puritanism in our day compelling and contagious.  Puritanism was not a short-lived movement characterized by fanaticism, legalism, or sterile living.  Much to the contrary, Puritanism was a vibrant movement, which embodied the spirit of the Reformation at its best.  

Revivalism vs. Sabbath Keeping

The chapter on the Sabbath in With Reverence and Awe is worth the price of the entire book.  While I certainly disagree with Hart and Muether’s obvious dislike of Kuyperian Calvinsim (considering myself a thoroughgoing Kuyperian), I can’t help but appreciate the concerns expressed in this chapter.  Here is a great section in which the authors discuss the difference between Sabbath keeping and revivalism.  

God’s intention was to bless his people through the constant and conscientious observation of the day, week after week and year after year.  Believers are sanctified through a lifetime of Sabbath observance.  In other words, the Sabbath is designed to work slowly, quietly, seemingly imperceptively in reorienting believers’ appetites heavenward.  It is not a quick fix, nor is it necessarily a spiritual high.  It is an “outward and ordinary” ordinance (WSC 88), part of the steady and healthy diet of the means of grace. North American Protestants, we have noted, are generally not in sync with this rhythm.  Attracted to the inward and extraordinary, they commonly suffer from spiritual bulimia, binging at big events, then purging, by absenting themselves from God’s prescribed diet.  The problem with the spirituality of  mountaintop experiences is that no one can live on the mountain.  We all have to return to our day jobs.  When people leave the retreat or Bible camp, or even the midweek small group, they discover their life is still the same: jobs are unpleasant, marriages are shaky, sickness and disease afflict.  In contrast, the Sabbath is supposed to be a discipline that provides an oasis in the desert for pilgrims, whose life is marked by suffering.  Unlike the church activities that clutter the rest of the week, the Sabbath is when believers spiritually assemble on Mount Zion to meet with their God, to hear him speak, and to partake spiritually of their Savior’s body and blood.

Darryl Hart and John Muether, With Reverence and Awe,

p. 65-66

The Form and Content of Worship

“We suggest that when churches undergo dramatic changes in what is often called worship style, they may actually be changing their theology as well.  Form and content cannot be separated.  So in congregations where worship has changed, something significant may have happened also to their theology.  Is it possible to preach the whole counsel of God in an up-tempo service?  Can the hard truths of Calvinism be taught in a setting geared toward attracting outsiders?  Can pointing out our sinfulness ever be made appealing?  Churches that depart from older patterns of worship may very well abandon the theological coherence assumed by the Reformed creeds and confessions.  When this coherence is lost, something must replace it.  In our day the solution comes either through evangelistic zeal that makes soul-winning the sole criterion for evaluating the ministry of the church, or through therapeutic forms of positive reinforcement that orient worship more toward self-fulfillment than to self-denial.”

-Darryl Hart and John Muether, With Reverence and Awe

Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant Reviewed

            R. Scott Clark has provided a historically lucid investigation into the life, theology, faith, and practice of Caspar Olevian, which is, but one example of orthodox Protestant scholarship and descriptive historical theology at its best.  Clark begins by placing Olevian within the theologically divisive context of the 16th century.  Attacked on both sides by gnesio-Lutherans and Tridentine Papists, the second-generation Reformed theologians endured persecution, slander, and accusations of heresy and schism. Both in Trier and Heidelberg, Olevian engaged in heated theological disputes with Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Roman Catholics.   This historical context provides Clark an opportunity in which to examine Olevian’s covenant theology and its relationship to the emerging Protestant identity in the 16th century. 

            Central to Olevian’s thought is the substance of the covenant (substantia foederis) as a kind of organizing principle in which his theology was systematized.  Building on Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ and the two-fold grace (duplex gratia), Olevian, remaining faithful to Calvin, cast his theological vocabulary in slightly different terms in order to best suit his immediate scholarly purposes.  Olevian used the phrase “double benefit” (duplex beneficium) to describe the substance of the covenant, this benefit being the twin, inseparable soteriological realities of justification and sanctification. Before examining Olevian’s understanding of justification and sanctification, Clark studies the influence of humanism and scholasticism in Olevian’s theological method, the underlying Trinitarian federalism that provided Olevian’s soteriology its ultimate significance, and the distinctive Calvinistic Christology and its connection to Calvinist and Lutheran Eucharistic controversies.

            First, Clark recognizes Olevian’s theological method as unashamedly Aristotelian in its approach.  For this very reason, Clark deems it necessary to label Olevian as a consciously Protestant Reformed scholastic.  The very word “substance” used to describe the nature of the covenant reveals Olevian’s commitment to Aristotelian categories.  Clark is quick to point out that Olevian’s Aristotelianism didn’t so much control his theology as much as it provided a needed framework in which to systematize biblical doctrine.  As such, Olevian’s scholasticism was subordinate to his primary allegiance to Holy Scripture.  Along similar lines, Clark classifies Olevian as a classical humanist in his approach to education and scholarship.

            Second, Clark examines Olevian’s Trinitarian theology and its underlying federalism.  Caspar Olevian was thoroughly Trinitarian in his theological commitments, writing three separate commentaries on the Apostles Creed during his life.  His doctrine of the Trinity was closely tied to his doctrine of the pre-temporal covenant of redemption wherein the Father unconditionally elects a people for himself and the Son covenants with the Father to accomplish redemption on behalf the elect.  Olevian’s Christology is important at this juncture in light of the necessary requirements for the accomplishment of redemption.  In order for Christ to fully satisfy the wrath of God on behalf of the church, Christ’s humanity must be consubstantial with that of mankind.  Caspar Olevian, faithfully defending orthodox Chalcedonian Christology, taught that Christ’s deity in no way poured its self over into his humanity so as to ontologically confuse the two natures.  Olevian’s doctrine of the hypostatic union infuriated the gnesio-Lutherans because they taught the very opposite.  Lutheran Eucharistic theology demanded an admixture of Christ’s two natures in order for his humanity to be omnipresent, local, and physically immanent.  According to Olevian, the Lutheran Christology dismantles the creator-creature distinction, contradicts the consensus of Chalcedon, fails to break from the errors of Rome, and ignores the absolutely crucial role of the Holy Spirit in mystical union and the reception of the holy Eucharist.

            After establishing Olevian’s broader theological context, Clark takes a detailed look into Olevian’s understanding of the double benefit.  The first and primary benefit of the covenant is justification, defined by Olevian as the “free remission of sins.” Justification, according to Olevian, is thoroughly legal, federal, objective, and alien.  Mankind’s fall in Adam’s necessitated both an active righteousness which met the terms of the covenant of works and a passive obedience which satisfied the wrath of God for the elect.  Christ’s accomplished these two stipulations, thus meritoriously earning the requisite righteousness for those given him in the covenant of redemption.  Faith alone in the Mediator is the only condition for justification, although faith itself, according to Olevian, is monergistic in its nature. 

            The second benefit of the covenant, which in Olevian’s mind is subordinate to the doctrine of justification, is the doctrine of Christian renewal or sanctification.  While justification is entirely objective and forensic, sanctification differs in that it is subjective, progressive, and incomplete in this age.  For Olevian, the doctrine of sanctification cannot be rightly understood apart from understanding the means of grace and their role within the individual life of a Christian.  The primary means of grace is the preaching of the Word, which begets faith through the monergistic agency of the Holy Spirit in effectual calling.  God himself speaks through the voice of the minister, remits sins, and assures his people with the covenant promises of the gospel.  After establishing Olevian’s understanding of the preached word, Clark discusses Olevian’s doctrine of the holy sacraments and their role within the process of sanctification.  In typical Calvinist fashion, Olevian regarded baptism as the sign and seal of God’s covenant promises to be administered to the children of believers.  The Lord’s Supper or “Holy Eucharist” differed substantially from baptism.  While baptism extends to believers and their children, the Lord’s Supper was instituted for those with a conscious faith in Christ.  Olevian also regarded baptism as the means of initiation and the Lord’s Supper as the divinely appointed means of spiritual nourishment and faith’s confirmation.  

            Clark’s contribution to the study of 16^th century Protestantism is a welcome remedy to 21^st century Protestantism at risk of losing its identity.  His study of Olevian provides a much-needed portrait of orthodox Protestantism at its best.