I came across the follow excerpt while teaching a few weeks ago and it was striking that the self-made man and pursuer of virtue, Ben Franklin, was no fan of doctrinal preaching. I suspect that his objections to the preaching of Jedediah Andrews, the pastor at First Presbyterian in Philadelphia, would have also applied to redemptive historical sermons. Here is what Franklin observed:
Tho’ I seldom attended any public worship, I had still an opinion of its propriety, and of its utility when rightly conducted, and I regularly paid my annual subscription for the support of the only Presbyterian minister or meeting we had in Philadelphia. He us’d to visit me sometimes as a friend, and admonish me to attend his administrations, and I was now and then prevail’d on to do so, once for five Sundays successively. Had he been in my opinion a good preacher, perhaps I might have continued, notwithstanding the occasion I had for the Sunday’s leisure in my course of study; but his discourses were chiefly either polemic arguments, or explications of the peculiar doctrines of our sect, and were all to me very dry, uninteresting, and unedifying, since not a single moral principle was inculcated or enforc’d, their aim seeming to be rather to make us Presbyterians than good citizens.
At length he took for his text that verse of the fourth chapter of Philippians, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, or of good report, if there be any virtue, or any praise, think on these things.” And I imagin’d, in a sermon on such a text, we could not miss of having some morality. But he confin’d himself to five points only, as meant by the apostle, viz.: 1. Keeping holy the Sabbath day. 2. Being diligent in reading the holy Scriptures. 3. Attending duly the publick worship. 4. Partaking of the Sacrament. 5. Paying a due respect to God’s ministers. These might be all good things; but, as they were not the kind of good things that I expected from that text, I despaired of ever meeting with them from any other, was disgusted, and attended his preaching no more. I had some years before compos’d a little Liturgy, or form of prayer, for my own private use (viz., in 1728), entitled, Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion. I return’d to the use of this, and went no more to the public assemblies. My conduct might be blameable, but I leave it, without attempting further to excuse it; my present purpose being to relate facts, and not to make apologies for them.
This is not meant to be an expression of guilt by association, as if those who want application in preaching share Franklin’s views about religion more generally. I personally continue to be impressed by Franklin in a host of ways — his industry, his humor and style, his remarkable literary interests, and his statesmanship. But he wasn’t right about everything. People are complicated. That likely includes preaching and revivals (he was a fan, after all, of Whitefield).
Old Life 
On the other hand, Franklin praised Samuel Hemphill’s sermons because they were “little of the dogmatical kind, but inculcated strongly the practice of virtue, or what in the religious style are called good works.” (from his autobiography, quoted in Le Beau’s biography of Jonathan Dickinson.)
LikeLike
Can we get this Presbyterian minister to come fill the pulpit at our church when the need arises? He sounds like a godly man.. Any historians our there know who this pastor was?
LikeLike
I haven’t read many Whitefield sermons. Did he do a lot of application?
LikeLike
Wow! What an amazing quote of first hand experience by such a distinguished citizen as Franklin. Fascinating how much more concerned he is to make good citizens than to see disciples made. Thanks for sharing this.
LikeLike
Our government schools were misleading our young people for a long time! As a HS boy in NJ (1942-1946) I was taught that Ben Franklin was an atheist, or possibly a deist. My later studies and looking through an iron cemetary fence in Philadelphia, cried “NOOOO!” There I saw his grave. I believe that Ben wrote the epitaph, still very clear. Not an exact quote, but close: “Here lies the body of Old Ben, like an old book, eaten by worms, but he hopes to come back some day as a bigger and better edition!” Not necessarily words of one whose name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, but certainly not the words of a deist!
LikeLike
Ben, in his critical history “The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism,” Harry Stout writes:
Before Whitefield, everybody knew the difference between preaching and acting. With Whitefield’s preaching it was no longer clear what was church and what was theater. More than any of his peers or predecessors, he turned his back on the academy and traditional homiletical manuals and adopted the assumptions of the actor. Passion would be key to his preaching, and his body would be enlisted in raising passions in his audience to embrace traditional Protestant truths.
Contained in this theater-driven preaching was an implicit model of human psychology and homiletics that saw humankind less as rational and intellectual than as emotive and impassioned. In eighteenth century actors’ manuals, the individual psyche was divided into a triad of feelings, intellect, and will in which feelings reigned supreme. An unfeeling person is a nonperson, a mere machine with highly sophisticated mental functions. It is the passions that harmonize and coordinate intellect and will. In fact, they control and direct all the faculties.
So brilliant was Whitefield at acting instead of preaching, later Stout writes about the close relationship between Whitefield and Franklin. He describes Whitefield as so absolutely masterful at his itinerant tasks and theatrics that Franklin paid good money in order, as Tina Fey might say, to meet the felt need “to want to go to there.” What is remarkable is that Franklin did not believe one word of what the otherwise Calvinist Whitefield preached.
LikeLike
Well that explains it then, application or no. Thanks.
LikeLike
But, Ben, dramatists seem to do a lot more applying than preachers, don’t they?
LikeLike
Zrim: Ben, in his critical history “The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism,” Harry Stout writes:
RS: Critical history. Hmmm
Zrim: Before Whitefield, everybody knew the difference between preaching and acting. With Whitefield’s preaching it was no longer clear what was church and what was theater. More than any of his peers or predecessors, he turned his back on the academy and traditional homiletical manuals and adopted the assumptions of the actor. Passion would be key to his preaching, and his body would be enlisted in raising passions in his audience to embrace traditional Protestant truths.
RS: In other words, Whitefield meant what he preached and so his “passion” was surely nothing more than acting.
Zrim: Contained in this theater-driven preaching was an implicit model of human psychology and homiletics that saw humankind less as rational and intellectual than as emotive and impassioned. In eighteenth century actors’ manuals, the individual psyche was divided into a triad of feelings, intellect, and will in which feelings reigned supreme. An unfeeling person is a nonperson, a mere machine with highly sophisticated mental functions. It is the passions that harmonize and coordinate intellect and will. In fact, they control and direct all the faculties.
RS: Perhaps this is how the theatre saw individuals, but Whitefield was a preacher. It might also be noted that men were people of deep feelings in the Bible.
Zrim: So brilliant was Whitefield at acting instead of preaching, later Stout writes about the close relationship between Whitefield and Franklin. He describes Whitefield as so absolutely masterful at his itinerant tasks and theatrics that Franklin paid good money in order, as Tina Fey might say, to meet the felt need “to want to go to there.” What is remarkable is that Franklin did not believe one word of what the otherwise Calvinist Whitefield preached.
RS: Why should one believe Stout when there is a chorus of Church history that Whitefield was a godly man and a great preacher? The natural man does not and cannot understand the things of God. It is no wonder that the natural man will interpret spiritual things as natural.
LikeLike
Can I just ask an innocent question? What is wrong with applicatory sermons?
LikeLike
Probably so, but regardless, it’s unsurprising that an unregenerate man would be attracted to both moralism and drama, whether or not both are present.
LikeLike
Jon,
You asked: “What is wrong with applicatory sermons?”
Applicatory sermons are all about you. Your works and your sanctification. It often has the desultory effect of cherry-picking scripture. Worst of all is the way it often mutes or omits the gospel because even though they may mention Jesus name, he is not the actor of the verbs, you are.
LikeLike
Lily,
But isn’t ALL preaching applicatory in some manner? Jesus did die for US, right? (Of course, the ultimate reason was for the glory of God as well as obedience to the Father, but you can’t divorce it from the sheep for whom he died).
I don’t see how you can preach the good news that Christ is Lord and came to die for sinners without applying it to us in some way.
LikeLike
Richard, maybe Stout got right what the praise choruses missed? But maybe that’s impossible since the regenerate can’t possibly get things wrong? But I’m not convinced that redemption swallows up sin quite so entirely.
Ben, if sin abides as closely as HC 114 suggests, then aren’t regenerates pretty prone to dramatic moralism, even if just a tad less than unregenerates?
LikeLike
We have many Franklin’s on steroids up here in Montana, which makes it hard on the Jedediah’s. However, with loose gun laws its easy to be a J. Frank Norris and we have many of them too.
LikeLike
Jon,
It’s not a divorce, it rightly dividing the word into law/gospel sermons. The application of scripture (law) should be always be understood and practiced in light of Christ and His redemptive work (gospel). We need to hear the gospel and receive forgiveness and strength for the daily battle with sin. There is a difference between Christ being the actor of the verbs and our being the actor of the verbs. Most applicatory sermons mention Jesus and all the action in the verbs comes from us.
Those who adhere to applicatory sermons normally reduce faith to a system of do’s and don’t’s. It’s often called “rules for living,” and “how-to” sermons. They are trying to make the law user-friendly and remove the accusatory factor of the law that demands perfect obedience. The Pharisees did the same thing with the law and put it into over 600 “doable” laws. A steady diet of watered-down law often leads the hearer to begin to think salvation is the result of God’s mercy plus man’s obedience – thus semi-pelagian. Compromised law means a compromised gospel. It’s all about you and not about Christ. In fact, it dulls the truth that daily we sin (need to repent) and turn to our Savior with confession of our sin and faith in his sacrifice for us.
Under a steady diet of applicatory sermons, there seems to be a fork in the road at some point with one set of hearers thinking they are pretty good at keeping the law (self-righteous) and the other set of hearers become more and more discouraged because they see they don’t and can’t keep the law (despair). One set walks into self-righteousness (focusing on their moral progress) and the other walks into despair (burn-out). The burned out Christian often ends up dropping out of church. A lot of the un-churched are part of the burned out district who were given revivalism and applicatory sermons (the marriage series, the parenting series, and now the gawd-awful sex series). The cure is law/gospel sermons and sound doctrine.
LikeLike
Andrews “application” seems tangential to the point at hand in Philippians 4. Certainly the list Andrews provides are the means to “think on such things” but they are not the thing in themselves. I would rather agree with Franklin. Thinking about attending attending public worship is one thing, what you are told in public worship is another. No one goes to church simply to be told to go to church.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, maybe Stout got right what the praise choruses missed? But maybe that’s impossible since the regenerate can’t possibly get things wrong? But I’m not convinced that redemption swallows up sin quite so entirely.
RS: Nevertheless, maybe Stout was simply trying to interpret spiritual things by natural means. Some people cannot understand how people can have fire in their souls for spiritual things, so they can only turn to natural things like mental illness or passions. Let me see, now what do unbelievers say about jesus? Are we to believe what unbelievers say about Jesus? Then why are we to believe what they say about Edwards and Whitefield?
LikeLike
Richard, Mornons could say the same thing about your negative assessment of their burning bosoms. How do you not see the problem here of saying your subjective experience is orthodox but the other guy’s is heterodox? But your reasoning here seems to end up simply saying that those who claim Christ are the best ones to evaluate others who preach Christ. Well, some who claim and preach Christ, like Billy Graham, think Finney was great. You don’t, so I’m guessing you’d take an unbeliever’s critical assesment of Finney if it aligns with yours. So why can you enlist someone to criticize Finney but when old lifer’s enlist one to poke holes in Whitefield you blow impious whistles?
LikeLike
Richard, but if you interpreted Old Life by spiritual lens, then you’d be critical of Edwards. Everyone can play the spiritual card.
LikeLike
Richard, I think Harry Stout would object to the label of natural man. He’s an evangelical Christian.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, Mornons could say the same thing about your negative assessment of their burning bosoms.
RS: Maybe not exactly the same thing.
Zrim: How do you not see the problem here of saying your subjective experience is orthodox but the other guy’s is heterodox?
RS: But remember I don’t argue subjective experience in the same way you do.
Zrim: But your reasoning here seems to end up simply saying that those who claim Christ are the best ones to evaluate others who preach Christ.
RS: But that is (with some major caveats) what the Bible teaches.
I Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
Zrim: Well, some who claim and preach Christ, like Billy Graham, think Finney was great. You don’t, so I’m guessing you’d take an unbeliever’s critical assesment of Finney if it aligns with yours. So why can you enlist someone to criticize Finney but when old lifer’s enlist one to poke holes in Whitefield you blow impious whistles?
RS: But Graham was not exactly an orthodox preacher and he also used the methods of Finney to some degree. Whitefield was orthodox and he did not use the same methods that Finney did. I have that book (Divine Dramatist) on my shelf and have tried to read it a few different times. A man can stand in front of people with tears and with flowing feelings and one will say that the man is acting, but what real evidence will that man be able to produce? One will say that no man can have such feelings for spiritual things and the souls of others, so surely the man is acting. It is that deduction that is made with no real evidence that I take issue with. On the other hand, Finney wrote a fair amount of material and he is clearly a Pelagian. The difference is huge.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, but if you interpreted Old Life by spiritual lens, then you’d be critical of Edwards. Everyone can play the spiritual card.
RS: Yes, but I am not playing with a card. If I interpreted Old Life by spiritual lens, I might be critical of Old LIfe.
I Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
LikeLike
Jon,
If you are still following the comments, I found two articles that may be helpful. I will place them in two different comments because if I insert more than one link, it seems to throw my comment into moderation.
The first article is by Michael Horton on the White Horse Inn blog: The Law of Modern Man http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/02/29/the-law-of-the-modern-man One of the commenters explains it well:
The “elementary principles of the world” kind of legalism of which Mike speaks is why I left church after many years. Interestingly, the first church I attended used the term “grace” constantly. However, the “grace” I was taught was something that had to be earned by me by doing such things as, “accepting Jesus into my heart,” “being on fire for the Lord,” et al. After experiencing “the elementary principles of the world” legalism outside church as well (in a different form) I decided to attend church again, after many years, since my guilt was still too much to bear. This time, however, I attended a church that taught the good news of the gospel based on a covenant of grace merited by Christ which God makes with sinners. For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1)
P.S. A steady diet listening to the White Horse Inn’s weekly radio program (available online) has been invaluable to many to begin to understand the differences in sermons.
LikeLike
The second article by Tullian Tchividjian: Reading the Stories and Missing the Story: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian There is a difference in focus. One is upon Christ and one is upon ourselves.
Snippet:
As I’ve said before, the overwhelming focus of the Bible is not the work of the redeemed but the work of the Redeemer. The Bible is not first a recipe book for Christian living, but a revelation book of Christ who is the answer to our unchristian living. Scripture, in other words, is the portrait of Jesus. It’s a picture of who he is and what he’s done. The Bible tells one story and points to one figure: it tells the story of how God rescues a broken world and points to Christ who accomplishes this. The OT predicts God’s rescuer; the NT presents God’s rescuer. In all of its pages and throughout all of its stories, the Word of the Lord reveals the Lord of the Word. The plot line of the Bible, in other words, is Jesus-centered. He is the Hero of the Story.
LikeLike
danborvan: Richard, I think Harry Stout would object to the label of natural man. He’s an evangelical Christian.
RS: Well, I think I could join ranks with OldLifers and argue that “evangelical” in the modern sense is perhaps antithetical to historical Christianity. In reading his book (The Divine Dramatist) I did not get the sense that he was sympathetic to spiritual things. However, he even quoted Sarah Edwards in the book as saying this about Whitefield: “It is wonderful to see what a spell he casts over and audience by proclaiming the simplest truths of the Bible…A prejudiced person, I know, would say that this is all theatrical artifice and display; but not so will anyone think who has seen and known him.”
1 Thessalonians 1:5 “for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.”
LikeLike
Richard, so I don’t have the mind of Christ and you do? Or is the mind of Edwards different from the mind of Christ?
LikeLike
Richard, you seem to be making a point about orthodoxy, as in Whitefield-the-Calvinist was but Finney-the-Pelagian wasn’t. But the point here is about faith and practice, which is to say that there is a necessary correlation between orthodoxy and orthopraxis. An old life assessment is critical that tears and flowing feelings correlate to Augustinian-Calvinist doctrine. And anyone who agrees, whether believer or not, is happily enlisted in that critique, including Mrs. Edwards had she taken a more skeptical and conservative interpretation of Whitefield’s antics.
Old life Calvinism thinks that passion is way over-rated and has down sides the new schoolers seldom consider and that simply pointing to Calvinist doctrine is no free ticket to behaving like a revivalist.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, so I don’t have the mind of Christ and you do? Or is the mind of Edwards different from the mind of Christ?
RS: Didn’t make the argument that you don’t in some cases. You are so sensitive. Maybe you operate on feelings more than you think.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you seem to be making a point about orthodoxy, as in Whitefield-the-Calvinist was but Finney-the-Pelagian wasn’t.
RS: Whitefield was a Calvinist and Finney was Pelagian. Whitefield preached that a person must be born again by the act of God, Finney did not.
Zrim: But the point here is about faith and practice, which is to say that there is a necessary correlation between orthodoxy and orthopraxis. An old life assessment is critical that tears and flowing feelings correlate to Augustinian-Calvinist doctrine.
RS: John 11:35 “Jesus wept”. Hebrews 12:2 “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” The least that we can say is that feelings are not opposite to Jesus Himself.
Zrim: And anyone who agrees, whether believer or not, is happily enlisted in that critique, including Mrs. Edwards had she taken a more skeptical and conservative interpretation of Whitefield’s antics.
RS: So Mrs. Edwards who was a strong Calvinist listened to Whitefield preach and conversed with him for a good amount of time needs to be more skeptical and conservative. In other words, she needs to be more like you so she can have your same beliefs.
Zrim: Old life Calvinism thinks that passion is way over-rated and has down sides the new schoolers seldom consider and that simply pointing to Calvinist doctrine is no free ticket to behaving like a revivalist.
RS: I say (along with Scripture) that passion is sinful. But how people to obey the command to rejoice with having joy? How are people to obey the command to love God with all of their heart without having some degree of joy or pleasure in Him? How are people to obey the command to delight themselves in the Lord without some delight? Again, there is a huge difference between revivalism and a true revival.
LikeLike
No, Richard, Mrs. E needs to share my views in order for me to enlist her to promote them. Speaking of huge differences, there’s one between saying someone has to be like me and saying someone has to agree with me before I say she’s right. As far as revival and revivalism, I think that is what’s known as a disticntion without much difference. And as far as affect goes, there is a huge difference between having emotions and managing them; those who manage them well are not devoid of them, despite what some of those who mismanage them choose to believe.
LikeLike
Richard, you didn’t make an argument at all, in fact. You quoted the Bible. So how I am I to take your quotes when it comes to spiritual discernment, the mind of Christ, and Old Life?
LikeLike
Sounds like old Ben Frankin got an applicatory sermon after all. He just didn’t like it. I mean, how do you get
“1. Keeping holy the Sabbath day. 2. Being diligent in reading the holy Scriptures. 3. Attending duly the publick worship. 4. Partaking of the Sacrament. 5. Paying a due respect to God’s ministers”
from Phil. 4:8 anyway,
unless you be reformed?
LikeLike
Zrim: No, Richard, Mrs. E needs to share my views in order for me to enlist her to promote them. Speaking of huge differences, there’s one between saying someone has to be like me and saying someone has to agree with me before I say she’s right. As far as revival and revivalism, I think that is what’s known as a disticntion without much difference.
RS: I can only say that there is a huge distinction between the two (revival and revivalism). I doubt I can convince you, so perhaps Augustine’s advice would be best. “Take up and read.”
Zrim: And as far as affect goes, there is a huge difference between having emotions and managing them; those who manage them well are not devoid of them, despite what some of those who mismanage them choose to believe.
RS: 1) “Emotions” is not the best choice of a word to use when speaking of Edwards’ Religious Affections and of those who believe that his writing on the subject is essentially biblical. 2) Managing “affections” is not the point of Edwards nor mine at all. 3) God does not mismanage true affections. In other words, true affections are spiritual and are given by the sovereign hand of God. Once the affections stop and humans are driven by passions, they are then sinful.
LikeLike
Please keep it up Richard Smith. I appreciate your quoting a contested view just ahead of your response. Have you read Frame’s The Escondido Theology? Dr. Hart, would you consider posting your photo on your Wikipedia entry? (Before someone else does).
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you didn’t make an argument at all, in fact. You quoted the Bible.
RS: The Bible, in context, is its own argument.
D.G. Hart: So how I am I to take your quotes when it comes to spiritual discernment, the mind of Christ, and Old Life?
RS: I suppose this could cover a lot of ground, depending on which comment you are responding to. The oldest life would mean that we would have to go back to Scripture which is what the WCF teaches. The next oldest ground would take us back to the Church Fathers. I just don’t think the life you claim is old enough. The Reformation, while old in a modern sense, is really quite young. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit still speaks in His Word (WCF). I suppose one question would be are we listening to God speak or just to the confessions which, while very valuable, are not living words and must be judged by the living words which Jesus said (John 6:63): “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
LikeLike
2866oa: Please keep it up Richard Smith. I appreciate your quoting a contested view just ahead of your response. Have you read Frame’s The Escondido Theology?
RS: I have not read it, though I tried to purchase it once. I was told it was not available about a month ago. I should try again.
LikeLike
“And as far as affect goes, there is a huge difference between having emotions and managing them; those who manage them well are not devoid of them, despite what some of those who mismanage them choose to believe.”
Zrim, I find this well-pleasing in a well-managed sort of way.
On an unrelated matter, “2866oa” ?
LikeLike
2866oa
What is your solution for Richard Smith failing to meet the Religious Affections criteria from A to Z?
LikeLike
Richard, “managing affections” is another way of saying that all things should be done in a good and decent order. And while, as you say, that may not be the point of Edwards (or Whitefield, I presume), it is the point of ecclesiastical religion which takes its cue from 1 Cor. 14. So you help make the point that the two are at relative odds. And while perhaps good for manipulating people, tears and flowing feelings (your phrase…hey, why can you say “feelings” but I can’t say “emotions”?) are not good, decent and orderly ways of managing inward affections/emotions/feelings. I understand that frustrates most in the age of self-expression, but the point here is about self-control (as in a fruit of the Spirit).
LikeLike
MM, it is pleasing to please you. See, Richard, management.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, “managing affections” is another way of saying that all things should be done in a good and decent order. And while, as you say, that may not be the point of Edwards (or Whitefield, I presume), it is the point of ecclesiastical religion which takes its cue from 1 Cor. 14. So you help make the point that the two are at relative odds.
RS: Actually, that is not the case. Acts 2 and other conversion examples in Acts would not fall in line with ecclesiastical religion.
Zrim: And while perhaps good for manipulating people, tears and flowing feelings (your phrase…hey, why can you say “feelings” but I can’t say “emotions”?) are not good, decent and orderly ways of managing inward affections/emotions/feelings.
RS: My point is that true religious affections are the fruit of the Spirit and are not as such something so simple as human beings able to manage them. “Emotions” is a word that is so broad that it takes in both the affections and the passions. Thus, there is little communication that can take place when that word is used. You tend to think of religious affections as wild passions, while I think of them as under the control of the Spirit and follow the channel of understanding. This is also a very important distinction that gets at the difference between revival and revivalism. Those who hold to revivalism look to man’s methods to work on the “emotions” and so they get the passions flowing which do not follow the channel of right thinking. Those who seek revival (the life of God in power in the soul) seek God Himself to come and reign in the soul with power and joy.
Zrim: I understand that frustrates most in the age of self-expression, but the point here is about self-control (as in a fruit of the Spirit).
RS: To the degree that the self controls, the self has not been died to. The fruit and work of the Spirit is for self (as a center and focus of our pride and sin) to be died to and brought under the power of the Spirit. It is then self-control by the Spirit, or control of the self by the Spirit.
LikeLike
Zrim: MM, it is pleasing to please you. See, Richard, management.
RS: Ah, yes, you managed your words. Did you manage what pleased you or were you being polite? By the way, that is no attack, just trying to get at something. But I am glad to see you are pleased with things, which of course refers to the affections. The desire is that we would grow in our being pleased with God. Such is how the Spirit manages our affections.
LikeLike
Richard, you dodged it. You quoted Paul on having the mind of Christ and discerning the Spirit. You certainly weren’t quoting that in approval of my questions about Phebe, Jonny, and revivals. So why not come clean with your application from Scripture. Surely you’re not bashful about application.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you dodged it. You quoted Paul on having the mind of Christ and discerning the Spirit. You certainly weren’t quoting that in approval of my questions about Phebe, Jonny, and revivals. So why not come clean with your application from Scripture. Surely you’re not bashful about application.
RS: No dodge, but I am not always clear what you are talking about. I know, I know, that is what you say about those who believe in Religious Affections. But short and to the point is not always the way of clarity.
Old RS comment: Yes, but I am not playing with a card. If I interpreted Old Life by spiritual lens, I might be critical of Old LIfe.
I Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
RS: The comment, to my way of understanding and flow of thought, was in the context of Stout’s book on Whitefield. Indeed when you came in and interjected (not complaining, just noting) you might have had a different train of thought, but my train was still on that track. A natural man or, for the sake of argument, a believing man operating in something less than a spiritual way, will interpret spiritual things in a natural way. Stout was making judgments of Whitefield’s preaching and motives by what he was saying. While it has been a few years, I have read a fair amount of Whitefield (biog, letters, journal) and the man that Stout was talking about was not the man that I have read about and read of. So, to get to the point of my application, I don’t think that Stout’s book was based on a spiritual appraisal but rather a natural one.
LikeLike
Richard, you were the one who used the term “feelings” first. I was following your lead. Then you ding me for using its synonym and proceed to claim that “emotion” is the broader category for affections and passions. But so far as I have always understood it, the traditional triad of intellect, will, and affection doesn’t further break down affection into more tortured meanings. Is there a similar way to further complicate the term “intellect”? I hope not. But the tick that makes you parse affect must be the same one that tells you there’s a principled difference between revival and revivalism. Like Calvin said of discerning the secret will of God, this is all a labyrinth out of there is no hope of return.
Why is it that when you read Stout and you don’t recognize the Whitefield of his assessment it must be that Stout isn’t being as spiritual as you? Why can’t it be that you simply disagree with his assessment? When you speak the way you do about which assessment is more spiritual than another, I hear the Tenants saying the critics of revival were unconverted.
LikeLike
But Richard, as Dan pointed out, Stout claimed to be an evangelical when he wrote that biography. You seem to disallow that someone with spiritual insight could criticize Whitefield. The same goes in spades for Edwards and you. But Edwards, Whitefield, and co. were controversial and folks with spiritual insights opposed at least aspects of what they did. Simply saying or implying that critics of revival are looking at it from a natural man’s perspective may be reassuring. But it hardly does justice to theological and biblical objections. On the other hand, your unwillingness to grant distance between biblical standards and revival comes close to elevating revival to divine status. In which case, your position is infallible. And that’s not a good thing. No human of ordinary generation should have that kind of authority.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you were the one who used the term “feelings” first. I was following your lead.
RS: Using feelings in a general way is not the same concept as “emotion” is today.
Zrim: Then you ding me for using its synonym and proceed to claim that “emotion” is the broader category for affections and passions.
RS: I would not say that I dinged you, but I do think there needs to be some clarity on the issue. If anyone argues against the revival because people have excessive emotions, they are not longer arguing against true revival in most instances. They are arguing against people being led by their passions.
Zrim: But so far as I have always understood it, the traditional triad of intellect, will, and affection doesn’t further break down affection into more tortured meanings. Is there a similar way to further complicate the term “intellect”? I hope not. But the tick that makes you parse affect must be the same one that tells you there’s a principled difference between revival and revivalism. Like Calvin said of discerning the secret will of God, this is all a labyrinth out of there is no hope of return.
RS: It is not a tick at all, but is rather a very important and even vital point. An affection follows the truth, while the passion is a powerful feeling in the soul that drives the person to obey the feeling. Those are two very different things. Biblical revival is when God moves in the souls of His people and they are given a greater sight of Him and greater affections for Him. Revivalism is when people are driven by their passions.
Zrim: Why is it that when you read Stout and you don’t recognize the Whitefield of his assessment it must be that Stout isn’t being as spiritual as you?
RS: Perhaps it is not that he isn’t being spiritual at all, but he was just did show spiritual discernment at all in his assessment of Whitefield.
Zrim: Why can’t it be that you simply disagree with his assessment? When you speak the way you do about which assessment is more spiritual than another, I hear the Tenants saying the critics of revival were unconverted.
RS: Fine, judge it as you will, but the Scriptures are quite clear. The natural man cannot understand spiritual things. When a person says that Whitefield can basically be understood as an actor and his results came because he was an actor, that is explaining spiritual things with natural explanations. It is not quite the same, but an analogous as to when the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons with demonic power. They could not admit that what He was doing was of God.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: But Richard, as Dan pointed out, Stout claimed to be an evangelical when he wrote that biography.
RS: There is a difference between a claim and the reality. As far as what it means in our day to be willing to claim to be an evangelical, that is another story. I thought that you were also not convinced that to be an evangelical was to be a Christian.
D.G. Hart: You seem to disallow that someone with spiritual insight could criticize Whitefield.
RS: Not at all. One with spiritual insight could criticize Whitefield and there are places he could be rightly criticized. As I wrote earlier, though perhaps in a different thread, Edwards criticized Whitefield. But Stout did more than criticize Whitefield. He thought that the results of Whitefield could be explained by his theory that Whitefield could act and was an actor. That is more than a mere criticism.
D.G. Hart: The same goes in spades for Edwards and you.
RS: I have never said that anyone could not or even should not criticize Edwards or myself. Feel free and have at it. But the things that people are criticizing Edwards for is the issue.
D.G. Hart: But Edwards, Whitefield, and co. were controversial and folks with spiritual insights opposed at least aspects of what they did. Simply saying or implying that critics of revival are looking at it from a natural man’s perspective may be reassuring. But it hardly does justice to theological and biblical objections.
RS: It is hardly responsible or spiritual to try to explain the results that God used Whitefield to produce as acting ability. So far I have not really seen anyone offer any real theological or biblical objections.
D.G. Hart: On the other hand, your unwillingness to grant distance between biblical standards and revival comes close to elevating revival to divine status. In which case, your position is infallible. And that’s not a good thing. No human of ordinary generation should have that kind of authority.
RS: Revival does have Divine status in the sense that God sent revival in the Bible and has at His own pleasure done so in human history. The fact that there were many false revivals does not deny the true. I am not arguing that I have any kind of authority, but I am arguing that it is a huge mistake to go after Edwards, Whitefield, and revival on the grounds that have been presented here so far. It appears to me that some people here have assumed almost a divine status and argued that revival is not good and has no place in Christianity. It does seem to me that you are arguing that God does not do what God does in fact do and that you are arguing that what the Spirit of God does in the souls of His people is nothing but sinful human passions.
LikeLike
Richard, whatever I am doing, what you are doing is refusing to look at the human and natural phenomena that accompany religious activities — hence your neat and arbitrary distinction between revival and revivalism, Edwards and Finney, as if Edwards or Whitefield did not use (whether self-consciously or not) their own creativity to figure out how to bring revival. The terrors of the law would be one example of a human effort (that’s not to say the law should not be preached, only to indicate that you may not want to scare the hell out of believers). It was manipulative to threaten saints that way. No one preaches that way in Reformed churches today, not even Edwardseans. Open air preaching without invitations from local clergy was another instance of human effort and failing to follow the ordained means of preaching and church life. I also contend that Edwards’ use of Phebe was also highly manipulative, and for that matter unwise because it showed how much enthusiasm was part of the revivals.
So the theme that unites Finney and Edwards is using human ingenuity to try to further God’s cause, rather than trusting the means (which involve natural and human matters like words, bread, water, wine, seats, walls) God has established to establish his kingdom. Edwards would have clearly disagreed with Finney’s crude definition of revival. But Edwards (and you?) could not see that he may have also been using human and natural means (not ordained) to gin up revival. And it is the naivete combined with Edwards’ brilliance that continues to confound me, as well as why those who revere and study Edwards don’t seem to notice the disparity between Edwards’ genius and his lack of discernment.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, whatever I am doing, what you are doing is refusing to look at the human and natural phenomena that accompany religious activities —
RS: No, I don’t think I am. It seems that your side wants to limit the Spirit of God (in conception) in His activity and deny that certain things are biblical. This is why you will not allow a distinction between revival and revivalism. A revival is when God brings spiritual life to His people in greater power and that spills out to an awakening in the surrounding community. But revivalism is when men try to usurp the work of the Spirit and do it themselves. When the Spirit of God is working and spiritual things occur, that is not human and natural phenomena.
D.G. Hart: hence your neat and arbitrary distinction between revival and revivalism,
RS: It may be rather neat, but it is not arbitrary. The word “revive” is a biblical word and is used in line with biblical practices in using the means of grace in seeking God. Revivalism refers to human activity that uses human means to seek results. Yes, I more or less repeated myself. But this is not arbitrary.
D.G. Hart: Edwards and Finney, as if Edwards or Whitefield did not use (whether self-consciously or not) their own creativity to figure out how to bring revival. The terrors of the law would be one example of a human effort (that’s not to say the law should not be preached, only to indicate that you may not want to scare the hell out of believers).
RS: Hell cannot be scared out of anyone, but instead should be used to show people what will happen if God does not change their hearts. After all, Jesus did teach that people should seek to enter at the narrow gate. Jesus also preached hell and surely that means there are good purposes to preaching hell.
D.G. Hart: It was manipulative to threaten saints that way.
RS: Edwards and Whitefield were not manipulating saints when they preached hell, but rather preaching the Word of God to awaken the damned to their lost condition.
D.G, Hart: No one preaches that way in Reformed churches today, not even Edwardseans.
RS: Well, maybe we need to repent. Since Edwards and Whitefield preached the Bible, maybe that means we are not preaching the Bible as if it really is true. Maybe we don’t really believe that the wrath of God is truly upon the lost.
D.G. Hart: Open air preaching without invitations from local clergy was another instance of human effort and failing to follow the ordained means of preaching and church life.
RS: Did Jesus and Paul preach in the open air? Did Peter preach in the open air? Did they wait around for invitations from the local clergy? This is what the apostles did as well. Jesus sent them out two by two to go and preach, but I don’t recall the texts that deal with that saying that after receiving invitations He sent them out. The clergy were so rotten and are so rotten in places that they would not want the Gospel preached as they are opposed to it. They would never invite anyone who preaches the Gospel to their areas, but God still commands the Gospel to be preached. It is a lot like the early days of the apostles. Were they going to follow the practices and orders of the religious elite or were they going to obey God?
Acts 5:27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
D.G. Hart: I also contend that Edwards’ use of Phebe was also highly manipulative, and for that matter unwise because it showed how much enthusiasm was part of the revivals.
RS: Well, we should be enthusiastic about revivals. The little girl (Phebe) was converted while she was being instructed and directed by her parents. Edwards reported on it. I am still not sure what they did that was so wrong. The Spirit brought a deep conviction on her and she sought the Lord. He brought life into her soul and her heart was changed. Edwards reported this. When God convicts sinners of sin and shows them that they deserve hell and nothing they can do can deliver them from it, they may have some strong feelings that do not fit with a nice calm Sunday afternoon. When God delivers sinners from the chains of darkness and the bondage of sin and translates them into the kingdom of His Beloved Son and gives them new hearts, the sight of His glory in this may indeed raise their heartbeat above normal. Amen!!
D.G. Hart: So the theme that unites Finney and Edwards is using human ingenuity to try to further God’s cause, rather than trusting the means (which involve natural and human matters like words, bread, water, wine, seats, walls) God has established to establish his kingdom.
RS: Preaching the Word of God is not necessarily using human ingenuity. Romans 14:17 “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” I simply fail to see how Edwards can be accused of using human ingenuity to produce a revival. Edwards preached the sovereignty of God and told the people that God must convert them. Finney used psychological (so to speak) pressure on people to get them to make a decision.
D.G. Hart: Edwards would have clearly disagreed with Finney’s crude definition of revival. But Edwards (and you?) could not see that he may have also been using human and natural means (not ordained) to gin up revival.
RS: But so far you have not shown that Edwards used human and natural means that were not ordained to gin up revival. So far it just appears that you don’t like it when people are not calm when God converts them.
D.G. Hart: And it is the naivete combined with Edwards’ brilliance that continues to confound me, as well as why those who revere and study Edwards don’t seem to notice the disparity between Edwards’ genius and his lack of discernment.
RS: What lack of discernment? That he either didn’t know of what was going on with Phebe or perhaps he didn’t stop what was going on if he did? When people’s hearts are pierced with the Word of God as the Spirit can do, they want God. Acts 2 shows us this along with other passages in the Gospels and Acts. Jesus was a peripatetic preacher in that He walked around with His group of disciples and He preached in many places and He preached on hell. Not one time did He offer the sacraments to people or tell them to go to church and take the sacraments week after week. Not one time do we have Paul doing that either. They preached to the hearts of people and told them that God must save them. Jesus used many analogies that were directed to awaken people to their sinfulness and lost condition. It seems to me that your arguments against Edwards and Whitefield point in a direction that you may not want them pointed.
LikeLike
Richard, nobody is disagreeing that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. But do you see that when you draw a straight line from critics of revival to the Pharisees and say they don’t understand the things of God you pretty much shut down the conversation (even if it keeps repeating itself)? So the irony is when you claim that confessionalist criticism of revival is to “have assumed almost a divine status” when no confessionalist critic has suggested a lack of spirituality but the revivalist keeps saying to be skeptical of revival is to resist the work of God.
LikeLike
Richard, are you forgetting that Jesus and the apostles preached in the synagogues? How does one do that without an invitation or at least approval? But in order to explain their non-synagogue preaching, weren’t they in a sort of unique position, going from the old covenant to the new, as in from synagogue to church? In other words, not all synagogues were approving and there weren’t established churches as we understand that now. And the point of any preaching was to establish local churches—it was not an end in itself. But in making the case for churchless revival by pointing to the unique situation of the early church, your continuationist slip is showing.
LikeLike
Richard, Jesus and Paul did not conduct open-air services. They taught people. And they were doing so where churches did not exist. Not so with Whitefield.
I’d hate to be married to you, btw. You seem incapable of noticing that when you think you’re right you also end up taking all of the covers. You won’t recognize that since we live in a fallen world, telling the truth (which the Bible commands) may need to be done in a way that doesn’t communicate that your wife looks fat. And again, this is a major question concerning the discernment of the likes of JE and GW. They thought God was behind them and so that gave them license to be “biblical.” They did not consider, even when church leaders criticized, that they may have been wrong to employ the methods they did. At least Finney admitted up front what he was doing. JE and GW thought that they were solely instruments of God. You seem to lack a similar discernment gene.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, nobody is disagreeing that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. But do you see that when you draw a straight line from critics of revival to the Pharisees and say they don’t understand the things of God you pretty much shut down the conversation (even if it keeps repeating itself)?
RS: I see your point, and to some degree feel the weight of it, but the issue with Stout is that he simply assigned the power of Whitefield to the power of acting. That is precisely what a natural man has to do to explain what happened with the powerful preaching of Whitefiedl. I am not arguing that all who deny the truth of revival are doing what Stout did. I would say that some have seen the effects of revivalism and it blinds them to the biblical practices of revival. Revivalism is unbiblical and is a product of Pelagian thinking, but that is nothing against God’s sovereign work when He works in and through the preaching of His Word.
Zrim: So the irony is when you claim that confessionalist criticism of revival is to “have assumed almost a divine status” when no confessionalist critic has suggested a lack of spirituality but the revivalist keeps saying to be skeptical of revival is to resist the work of God.
RS: Whether or not any confessionalist critic has suggested a lack of spirituality or not in those who seek revival, it is certainly assumed. Notice the way people have spoken of Edwards and Whitefield. My point in the “divine status” comment is that it seems that confessionalists criticize revival (true) it is as if God cannot work in that way, but rather He is committed to working in the one way of the ordinary and never changing way of Word and Sacrament in the local church on Sunday morning. While there is a sense that God will always work through those means, He has demonstrated in Scripture and in history that He works through those on days other than Sundays and in places that are not the local church buildings.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, are you forgetting that Jesus and the apostles preached in the synagogues? How does one do that without an invitation or at least approval?
RS: Yes, but those were not the only places they preached. It is also the case that a synagogue was not a church and it appears from my reading of the historical background that people were more free to stand and offer a reading and/or teaching.
Zrim: But in order to explain their non-synagogue preaching, weren’t they in a sort of unique position, going from the old covenant to the new, as in from synagogue to church? In other words, not all synagogues were approving and there weren’t established churches as we understand that now. And the point of any preaching was to establish local churches—it was not an end in itself. But in making the case for churchless revival by pointing to the unique situation of the early church, your continuationist slip is showing.
RS: Ouch, now I am wearing a slip. I do believe that God continues to work in the world, so I am guilty of that, but that is not the same thing as holding to miracles and the like. I would not argue for a churchless revival, but am making a point that not all that is to be done is to be done within the walls of a church building. The Great Commission does not say invite all the people to the building, but it is that we are to go to them in some way. If I understand the situation with Whitefield at all, he would preach in churches when he was given the opportunity. However, he was not always given the opportunity so he would preach where he could. It is also true that the church buildings were not large enough to hold the crowds that were drawn to hear him preach.
Anyway, despite the fact that I may have a slip showing, I certainly believe that I don’t have to be a non-cessationist to believe that God still does mighty things in the world today. Jesus Christ has been resurrected and so He is a living Christ and all His enemies will be crushed. The preaching of the Word of God can still be preached with power and the Spirit and full conviction (I Thess 1:5) because the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all time. Not only do I need to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ each moment to cover my sin and my slip, but all people must have that if they are to be saved. God is still on the throne and He is very active in the world to do as He pleases.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, Jesus and Paul did not conduct open-air services. They taught people. And they were doing so where churches did not exist. Not so with Whitefield.
RS: True, Whitefield preached a lot in churches that did exist. I am amazed that you would make the claim that Jesus and Paul did not preach in the open-air, but maybe you mean something else.
D.G. Heart: I’d hate to be married to you, btw.
RS: Wow, what a morning. One, Zrim tells me my slip is showing. Two, you inform me that you would hate to be married to me. I am crushed beyond belief.
D.G. Hart: You seem incapable of noticing that when you think you’re right you also end up taking all of the covers. You won’t recognize that since we live in a fallen world, telling the truth (which the Bible commands) may need to be done in a way that doesn’t communicate that your wife looks fat.
RS: You are correct, I don’t think I need all the covers. My female wife would beat me if I did that. I don’t need all the covers, but enough to try to show you that you don’t have all the covers either. Easy on my wife. She is one of those thinner people that runs a fair amount. I am, once again, a bit shocked that you would accuse me of this. I thought the OldLife folks were the ones that thought they had all the covers and would not share.
D.G. Hart: And again, this is a major question concerning the discernment of the likes of JE and GW. They thought God was behind them and so that gave them license to be “biblical.” They did not consider, even when church leaders criticized, that they may have been wrong to employ the methods they did.
RS: It is hard for anyone but natural men and those with OldLife blinders on (please, notice that there can be a big distinction between the two things in the phrase just before this) to not know that God was truly working in and through Edwards and Whitefield. Have you ever considered that the church leaders may have been like the leaders of the Pharisees? I see that in the world we live in today. God can give one man power in preaching and others are jealous and will try to tear that man down. Were they to listen to men or could God have truly led them through His Word and put a true conviction in their souls?
D.G. Hart: At least Finney admitted up front what he was doing. JE and GW thought that they were solely instruments of God. You seem to lack a similar discernment gene.
RS: Ah, so not only is my slip showing, you don’t want to be married to me, but now I wear the wrong kind of genes. Sigh, what a horrible day. But once again, you have slipped into explaining spiritual things like a natural man. I have also heard that scientists have proven that diarrhea is also a genetic problem……………… It runs in your jeans. I am not sure that Edwards and Whitefield thought that they were solely instruments of God, nor am I sure what you mean by that phrase. However, churches were filled when they preached, membership went up in churches in the areas, the morals of the town they were in were changed, and a lot more people began to partake of the sacraments. Even from your view, I am not sure why you think those are such bad things and how you could deny that God used their preaching to bring many of His elect to Himself.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, Jesus and Paul did not conduct open-air services. They taught people. And they were doing so where churches did not exist. Not so with Whitefield.
RS: Below are a few examples of Jesus, Peter, and then Paul. They preached to people in the synagogues which were full of unbelievers and among the crowds in many places.
1. Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:1 He went up on the mountain)
2. Mt 11:7
3. Mt 12:46
4. Mt 13:2-3ff
5, etc
6. Acts 2:
7. Acts 3:11-4:2
8. Acts 4:5-13
9. Acts 5:27-29 (filled Jerusalem with this teaching)
10. Acts 5:42
11. etc
12. Acts 13:44-49
13. Acts 14:2-7, 9, 12-15
14. Acts 16:13-15
15. Acts 16:25-34
16. Acts 17:19ff
LikeLike
Richard, thanks for all the cites. But I believe preaching should be in the context of a religious service and I don’t see what Jesus and Paul were doing in the open air as conducting worship, complete from invocation to benediction.
Sorry to bring your wife into this, but I grew up with your blinders on. Revivalists rocked in my world. But when I began to mature as a Christian and looked at matters with a bid more candor, revivalists now neither rock nor roll.
I understand that you feel like the minority here, the one who has to keep reaching for more blankets. But in the larger non-Old Life world, you have all the blankets and even the remote (and never give it up).
LikeLike
Richard,
Sorry to intrude on the conversation, I don’t mean to just pile on here. However, you have raised an issue that I’d like you to clarify for me. Do you not have a problem with Whitefield (or anyone else for that matter) taking upon themselves to preach and teach to members of another minister’s flock without their permission? Those ministers had been duly called and appointed by the church and also ordained by God for the oversight and care of those people’s souls. But where is the calling of the itinerant preacher? What reason has anyone to believe that God has ordained them for any purpose (other than the general application of Rom 8:28) of being a means of His grace when the church, the one body that He promised to be with to the end of the age, to bless and to lead in truth and life exists and functions there already? Does the calling and setting apart of ministers by congregations/denominations and God’s entrusting of His people to those so appointed have no authority?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, thanks for all the cites. But I believe preaching should be in the context of a religious service and I don’t see what Jesus and Paul were doing in the open air as conducting worship, complete from invocation to benediction.
RS: Okay, I understand that and, I think, I understood that previously. However, in light of all the citations (and more could be brought in) why do you think that preaching should always be in the context of a religious service? Why do we think that worship must always include an invocation and a benediction?
D.G. Hart: Sorry to bring your wife into this, but I grew up with your blinders on. Revivalists rocked in my world. But when I began to mature as a Christian and looked at matters with a bid more candor, revivalists now neither rock nor roll.
RS: Well, at least we can agree on rock and roll noise and the need for true reverence. Stephen was a man who spoke the Word of God in a non-church setting, and one could call him an evangelist as well, but he was an evangelists that got rocked. But again, he was out preaching and spreading the Word of God outside the bounds of a building called the “church”. It is not comfortable out there and the crowds don’t always like those things, but it was done in the Bible. I have read that those awful men (in your eyes) like Howell Harris would go to fairs and the like and preach. While preaching people would have the old crank fire engines and they would shoot pigs blood on them. Taking the Word of God to people is more uncomfortable than remaining in the four walls and certainly more respectable in certain eyes. But as to being biblical, that is a different story.
D.G. Hart: I understand that you feel like the minority here, the one who has to keep reaching for more blankets. But in the larger non-Old Life world, you have all the blankets and even the remote (and never give it up).
RS: It is okay to be in the minority, but I do wish the Bible played a bigger part in the discussions. It is, after all, what the WCF said is to settle all disputes. So far I have not seen in the Bible an order set out authorizing in statement or in practice all of these things like OldLife says needs to be done.
LikeLike
Richard, now you’re pointing at big numbers and pumped up morality and religiosity to prop up revivalosity (is that better than revivalism?). I don’t see how this really differs from megachurch evangelicalism reasoning, which itself mirrors something deep within the American culture it ironically (hypocritically?) seeks to chastize: bigger annd better always means gooder and bestest and most realist. So what that more people were taking the sacaments in the wake of revivalpalooza? The biblical standard isn’t results oriented, it’s obedience oriented. So I’ll take five or six people who aren’t pillars of their community communing weekly at the small and local P&R and happily affirming the 3FU/WCF as evidence of God’s profound work in the world over swelling numbers of cultural change agents lukewarm about the confessions.
LikeLike
Drew Pressoir: Richard, Sorry to intrude on the conversation, I don’t mean to just pile on here.
RS: No need to think you have intruded. After all, the organ is not playing yet.
DP: However, you have raised an issue that I’d like you to clarify for me. Do you not have a problem with Whitefield (or anyone else for that matter) taking upon themselves to preach and teach to members of another minister’s flock without their permission?
RS: Does the Bible forbid that? In the time of Whitefield there were many, many of the ministers who were unconverted and living in open sin. If God was to be obeyed and those people were to hear the true Gospel, something had to be done.
DP: Those ministers had been duly called and appointed by the church and also ordained by God for the oversight and care of those people’s souls.
RS: Being duly called and appointed by a church or a denomination as such does not necessarily mean that the man is converted or that the person is truly ordained by God. But again, where do we see in the Bible that each and every minister has to be “duly called and appointed” in the way that this was done in 18th century England or in our day?
DP: But where is the calling of the itinerant preacher?
RS: The Bible specifically says that some are called to be evangelist. We see in the book of Acts that men were going places and preaching.
DP: What reason has anyone to believe that God has ordained them for any purpose (other than the general application of Rom 8:28) of being a means of His grace when the church, the one body that He promised to be with to the end of the age, to bless and to lead in truth and life exists and functions there already?
RS: When Christianity was as dead in England as it was then, it is not surprising that God would raise a trumpet to proclaim the Gospel. In that proclamation of the Gospel life came into the churches. The spiritual death that reigned there meant that good men would not be ordained but instead it was on a buddy system. In the US today, in certain denominations with good order, a man who believes the Gospel could not be ordained.
DP: Does the calling and setting apart of ministers by congregations/denominations and God’s entrusting of His people to those so appointed have no authority?
RS: Jesus said that all authority had been given to Him. When the Church is strong and functioning as it should, yes those men have the authority given to them by God. But when they are not upholding the Gospel, they are not a true church. It is not surprising, then, that God would call a true man of God to go out and preach to His sheep and warn all of the wrath to come.
LikeLike
Richard, one reason the Bible doesn’t play a bigger role is that you and I interpret it differently. So another approach is to look at the history of the church and there you find no one ever using the word revival until recently (I’m not even sure that Edwards did). If word use doesn’t suggest something to you, I’m not sure what would.
BTW, why wouldn’t you invoke God’s presence and blessing at the beginning of worship or close the service with God’s blessing? Talk about being biblical.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, now you’re pointing at big numbers and pumped up morality and religiosity to prop up revivalosity (is that better than revivalism?).
RS: I am not trying to prop up revival, but simply trying to point out that it happens to be a much closer picture of the Bible than confessionalism. Acts 2 did give numbers as well. At other times in the books of Acts we see people burning idols. Giving of numbers is not the problem, it has to do with the focus and intent. My point was that instead of revivial being against the local churches, it actually built them up.
Zrim: I don’t see how this really differs from megachurch evangelicalism reasoning, which itself mirrors something deep within the American culture it ironically (hypocritically?) seeks to chastize: bigger annd better always means gooder and bestest and most realist.
RS: Uhm, so the Holy Spirit used megachurch reasoning in the book of Acts? It tells us that 3,000 souls were added in one day. Again, it is the point and focus of the issue.
Zrim: So what that more people were taking the sacaments in the wake of revivalpalooza?
RS: I thought that was a great things for the guys on your side of the block. You folks have been saying you were opposed to revival because it was not for the local church and its preaching and sacraments. I pointed to the fact that the churches were filled and people were taking the sacraments as a result of the revival. In other words, true revival is not opposed to true churches, but instead BY DEFINTION true revival builds up true churches.
Zrim: The biblical standard isn’t results oriented, it’s obedience oriented. So I’ll take five or six people who aren’t pillars of their community communing weekly at the small and local P&R and happily affirming the 3FU/WCF as evidence of God’s profound work in the world over swelling numbers of cultural change agents lukewarm about the confessions.
RS: So while you assert that the biblical standard is not results oriented, you then point to some results. It is a great sign, according to you, that numbers (small number) meet and commune weekly while happily (watch those feelings) affirming the 3FU/WCF as evidence of God’s profound work. Allow me to point to just a few problems with that.
1. You are happy with small numbers, but knock large numbers. Why not just be content with the number that God sends whether large or small? Neither (large or small) is necessarily a sign of the workings of God.
2. Why does it matter if people are or are not the pillars of the community? I thought that we were to pray for all sorts and groups of people.
3. Does the Bible set out that people are to commune weekly? Is that a biblical standard of holiness or church practice?
4 How can it be that affirming the confessions ( 3FU/WCF) is so wonderful when we are to confess Christ?
5. Wouldn’t it be better to study the Scriptures (which we are commanded to do) rather than the confessions (which we are not commanded to do)?
Does this mean that you are guilty of confessionalolatry?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, one reason the Bible doesn’t play a bigger role is that you and I interpret it differently.
RS: So we are to put it on the shelf and not use it?
D,G. Hart: So another approach is to look at the history of the church and there you find no one ever using the word revival until recently (I’m not even sure that Edwards did). If word use doesn’t suggest something to you, I’m not sure what would.
RS: But the Bible uses the word “revive” which is what “revival” is based on. Off hand, the work I can think of is when he wrote to some ministers in Scotland in an attempt to get them to pray for the “revival of religion” at more or less the same time others were praying.
D.G. Hart: BTW, why wouldn’t you invoke God’s presence and blessing at the beginning of worship or close the service with God’s blessing? Talk about being biblical.
RS: When people speak of invocations and benedictions, I think of written prayers at stated times. One, it is certainly not wrong to pray at the beginning and the end of each service. Two, on the other hand, is it really written out in Scripture that this is a necessity? Shouldn’t the whole service, in one sense, be a prayer meeting? Should we not pray for the preaching during the sermon and lift up our hearts to God during the singing (hopefully worship)?
LikeLike
Richard, like a good practical divinity fellow, you don’t know that a benediction is the word of God, not a prayer?
And you evade the point from church history. You see revive and experience everywhere through your affection illuminated glasses. You reason like a Landmark Baptist.
So how about church history? You don’t find it before the 18th century. Doesn’t mean you are wrong (though I think you are). But it does mean that revival is not historic.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, like a good practical divinity fellow, you don’t know that a benediction is the word of God, not a prayer?
RS: Yes, I am aware that OldLife types would read a short passage of Scripture as a form of prayer. But is this commanded in Scripture? By the way, I am not arguing with the practice as such.
D.G. Hart: And you evade the point from church history. You see revive and experience everywhere through your affection illuminated glasses. You reason like a Landmark Baptist.
RS: But Landmark Baptists can reason very well when they are arguing for the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, so I will take that as a compliment. I wasn’t aware that I was evading your point, I am simply not convinced it is a good point since the fact that a word has not been used in history is not an argument that has a lot of weight. The concept is what is important. However, I think that I did show that Jonathan Edwards used the term. Since he did not explain it, I would imagine that it was known to the Scottish ministers as well.
D.G. Hart: So how about church history? You don’t find it before the 18th century. Doesn’t mean you are wrong (though I think you are). But it does mean that revival is not historic.
RS: The word “revive”, “reviving”, and “revived” are used in the Bible and I would hope that you think it is true history (I know you do). The reviving of the people of God is surely not such a bad thing.
Below is one paragraph of a shortened version of James Buchanan’s chapter on revival written in 1843 (original chapter).
“It being admitted that the real and active agency of the Spirit of God for the conversion of souls may reasonably be expected in the Christian church, the only question which remains to be considered is whether that divine agent will always act in one uniform method, quietly and gradually extending the kingdom of Christ by the successive conversion of individual sinners, as he is wont for the most part to do: or whether he may not, for wise reasons, and in the exercise of that sovereignty that belongs to him, act occasionally in a more extraordinary and remarkable way, turning multitudes at once, and perhaps suddenly, from darkness to light, and bringing about a general Revival of the power of religion in particular places and congregations? In other words, may we reasonably expect that the Spirit of God will occasionally produce a remarkable religious Revival?”
LikeLike
Richard, think about word usage. You may actually doubt revival is as certain as you believe.
As for Buchanan, I have no problem affirming that God is sovereign and may accomplish his purposes any way he pleases. That in no way proves that what you say is a revival is a revival. And when we look at the effects of those movements you laud, we see activities and beliefs that suggest the Spirit is not at work. What is more, where revival has thrived, it has called into question the ordinary and gradual ways in which the Spirit works such that revivalists like Edwards and Tennent required a conversion narrative to show authentic faith. They require the extraordinary and distrusted the ordinary. If they were like Buchanan, they may not have split the church. But like you, they insisted that either the revival was a work of God, or its critics were carnal.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, think about word usage. You may actually doubt revival is as certain as you believe.
As for Buchanan, I have no problem affirming that God is sovereign and may accomplish his purposes any way he pleases. That in no way proves that what you say is a revival is a revival. And when we look at the effects of those movements you laud, we see activities and beliefs that suggest the Spirit is not at work.
RS: I hope you see that just because there are activities and beliefs that are around certain movements and perhaps have attached themselves to these movements (though not part of the movements in reality), that the whole movement should not be declared bad because of that. If so, no movement in the history of humanity would be declared bad.
D.G. Hart: What is more, where revival has thrived, it has called into question the ordinary and gradual ways in which the Spirit works such that revivalists like Edwards and Tennent required a conversion narrative to show authentic faith.
RS: Where (in his writings) did Edwards require a conversion narrative to show authentic faith?
D. G. Hart: They require the extraordinary and distrusted the ordinary.
RS: Are you sure of that? While seeking revival is one thing, and certainly Edwards sought that, he certainly focused on the ordinary means of grace Sunday after Sunday.
D.G. Hart: If they were like Buchanan, they may not have split the church.
RS: Edwards split the church? Whitefield split the church?
D.G. Hart: But like you, they insisted that either the revival was a work of God, or its critics were carnal.
RS: I have argued that one critic of Whitefield was interpreting him as a natural man, but I don’t recall making the argument that all critics of revival were or are carnal. Misguided, yes, but not necessarily carnal.
LikeLike
A little more of Buchanan on Revival:
“That we may proceed to the calm and impartial consideration of this question, it may be useful, first of all, to obviate and remove some prejudices which might either prevent us from entertaining it at all, or unfit us for deciding it aright.
“It is of great importance to form a clear and definite idea of what is meant by a ‘Revival’ of religion. It properly consists in these two things:–a general impartation of new live, and vigor, and power, to those who are already of the number of God’s people; and a remarkable awakening and conversion of souls who have hitherto been careless and unbelieving: in other words, it consists in new spiritual life imparted to the dead, and in new spiritual health imparted to the living.
” A Revival properly consists in one or both of these two things—a revived state of religion among the members of the church, and the increase of their number by the addition of souls converted to God. Can it be doubted by any professing Christian, either such a Revival is possible, or that it is desirable? Why, what is the end of the gospel ministry? What great design of our Sabbaths and our sanctuaries? What the purport of all gospel promises in reference to the kingdom of grace? Is it not, that such souls as have heretofore been ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ may be quickened into spiritual life and that such souls as have already been quickened into life may grow in spiritual health and vigor, and be revived and restored when they have fallen into declension and decay? Do we not all pray for these things? And is it not our privilege to expect, that for these things our prayers will be heard and answered?”
LikeLike
Richard, my point wasn’t to be discontent with the numbers God sends, whatever they may be. It was to not be razzle-dazzled by bigness and shininess. Like adults try to impress upon children who are naturally oriented otherwise, not all that shimmers is gold. And, yes, it is to privilege the ordinary before the extraordinary and the understated before the enthusiastic. That’s what a theology of the cross, as opposed to that of glory, is all about.
And there you go again, dissing a happy affirmation of the confessions for the sake of no creed but Christ. But enter our Mormon friends and all of a sudden you’ll go creedal all up in here. I still don’t understand why you can go creedal in the presence of Arians but when confessionalists do it every week to set ourselves apart from all manner of worldiness it’s confessionalolatry.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, my point wasn’t to be discontent with the numbers God sends, whatever they may be. It was to not be razzle-dazzled by bigness and shininess.
RS: I was not totally unaware of your point, but there are others who are proud of their excusivity and therefore their smallness. The numbers game is not limited to those who desire big numbers. But anyway, the Bible does give numbers at times, though certainly the glory is not to men. But again, the point about Edwards and Whitefield is that their ministries did not lead people away from the church, but instead was within (Edwards) and then to (Whitefield).
Zrim: Like adults try to impress upon children who are naturally oriented otherwise, not all that shimmers is gold. And, yes, it is to privilege the ordinary before the extraordinary and the understated before the enthusiastic. That’s what a theology of the cross, as opposed to that of glory, is all about.
RS: I guess I would prefer that people be content with the ordinary when God sovereignly works through that, but if He does send the extraordinary then know that it is of Him. The theology of the cross teaches us that Christ has purchased His elect, He has purchased the Spirit for the elect, and that they will be saved in His time and in accordance with His pleasure. As far as I am concerned, anyway, we should always seek the face of God and rest in Him regardless of what He does. I guess I don’t see that looking to true revival denigrates the Sunday by Sunday worship of the church.
Zrim: And there you go again, dissing a happy affirmation of the confessions for the sake of no creed but Christ.
RS: Not exactly, but I did leave myself open to that criticism. It was interesting that people have to have a happy affirmation rather than just an ordinary affirmation. My real point, I think, is that affirming a confession is one thing, but there has to be more. Even the Bible is a dead letter apart from the Holy Spirit opening the spiritual eyes to it. Jesus said that there were those that searched the Scriptures looking for eternal life and yet did not come to Him. The Scriptures are to lead us to Christ and His words are spiritual and are life. At least that is what He said in John 6.
Zrim: But enter our Mormon friends and all of a sudden you’ll go creedal all up in here. I still don’t understand why you can go creedal in the presence of Arians but when confessionalists do it every week to set ourselves apart from all manner of worldiness it’s confessionalolatry.
RS: Is going creedal like going postal? Perhaps confessionalolatry is a bit strong for most folks. I was actually going for confessionalosity (contrasting with your revivalosity toward me) and the other came out. I considered that to be inspired at the moment and so left it (you did say my slip of non-cessationism was showing, so I thought I would hike my skirt a little more for fun). I guess I would say that a confession should help us stay true to Scripture which is to guide us to Christ. A mere affirmation, and even a happy affirmation, seems to fall short of that. But a happy affirmation sure sounds like joy to me.
LikeLike
Richard, Presbyterians split during the 1740s over revivalism. You know that, right?
I don’t think that revivalism is bad because of what happened later. My point is that the piety revivalism or revival encourages is at odds with important teachings in Scripture, like living quiet and peaceable lives, like being content, like looking to Christ rather than self, like covenant children don’t necessarily need to convert to make a true profession. I get it that revivalists affirm some important parts of Scripture. So do Roman Catholics. The problem is that revivalists emphasize some at the expense of others and don’t keep all the balls in the air. You seem to think that because of the good, the bad can be overlooked (as if there is any bad in Edwards for you).
Edwards did require a conversion narrative for church membership, right? Didn’t all the Puritans? Where does the Bible require that? Being born again is not conversion. In fact, thanks to revivals conversion now means what it did not mean in the sixteenth century when for Calvin and Ursinus conversion was a life-long process, meaning, sanctification.
You now back away from your complaint about the natural man on revivals and seem to limit it to Stout (even though Stout is not a natural man). But the important thing to notice is that a revivalist’s natural tick is to look at critics as natural men. Why else would you quote all that Scripture at me?
LikeLike
Richard, and now I object to Buchanan. I don’t see how one sermon or harrangue can cover both believers who may need more repentance and faith and unbelievers. The terrors of the law don’t work. It’s like having VBS materials for covenant children and unbelievers from the neighborhood.
Plus, the Christian life is one long revival, by B’s standards. I don’t want believers to have great outbursts of piety. I had them. They didn’t last past going back to school in the fall after the embers of the Christian youth camp fire cooled. I want slow and steady growth, life long faith and repentance. And I don’t see how the outburst model has been at all good for the church.
Btw, do you have a citation for the B quotes?
LikeLike
Richard, you say that if the extraordinary happens, we should know it is from God. But what are the criteria for knowing it is from God? Here you list gets awfully selective and historically naive. What you consider to be a great effect — Phebe’s angst — is actually very questionable on so many levels. Plus, the revival fires cooled in Edwards’ own town. So how genuine could the revival have been even on your own grounds. Think perseverance of the saints, man!
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, Presbyterians split during the 1740s over revivalism. You know that, right?
RS: Ah, but that is not the same thing as the church splitting. As you know, there was more to that issue as well. Harvard was too liberal for some and so there were divisions over new schools. I am not sure that was the only issue, but it was one.
D.G. Hart: I don’t think that revivalism is bad because of what happened later. My point is that the piety revivalism or revival encourages is at odds with important teachings in Scripture, [1] like living quiet and peaceable lives, [2] like being content, [3] like looking to Christ rather than self, [4] like covenant children don’t necessarily need to convert to make a true profession.
RS: 1. Jesus and Paul did not live quiet and peacable lives. A true revival is not necessarily opposite of living quiet and peacable lives as such. 2. I am not sure how true revival leads people to be discontent. 3. True revival would certainly lead people away from self to Christ. 4. Sorry, I don’t see the covenant child concept in the New Testament. Jesus was also very clear with one covenant child (Nicodemus) that he needed to be born from above. John was also clear that one must be born of the will of God rather than according to natural descent of the will of any human flesh or man.
D.G. Hart: I get it that revivalists affirm some important parts of Scripture. So do Roman Catholics. The problem is that revivalists emphasize some at the expense of others and don’t keep all the balls in the air. You seem to think that because of the good, the bad can be overlooked (as if there is any bad in Edwards for you).
RS: I suppose I am waiting for some truly bad stuff on those who advocate true revival. I understand that when God moves things are not quite as staid as you want them, but from my reading of the Bible people are very uncomfortable when they are in the presence of God. Isaiah was very uncomfortable.
D.G. Hart: Edwards did require a conversion narrative for church membership, right? Didn’t all the Puritans? Where does the Bible require that? Being born again is not conversion. In fact, thanks to revivals conversion now means what it did not mean in the sixteenth century when for Calvin and Ursinus conversion was a life-long process, meaning, sanctification.
RS: I guess it has to do with what is meant by a conversion narrative. Yes, he required a credible profession to be a member and so did the Puritans. By biblical definition to be part of the church is to be a regenerate person and only those who are regenerate are married to Christ. If one thinks that the visible church should strive to be like the invisible, then only those who at least appear to be new creatures in Christ should join.
Whatever Calvin meant by that, the Bible is crystal clear in teaching on the fact that a person must be born again or born from above. This new birth is of the inner man and not just some external things.
Calvin III:III:16 “I will not gather evidences from the prophets, wherein they sometimes scorn the follies of those who strive to appease God with ceremonies and show them to be mere laughingstocks, and at other times teach that outward uprightness of life is not the chief point of repentance, for God looks into men’s hearts. Whoever is moderately versed in Scripture will understand by himself, without the admonition of another, that when we have to deal with God nothing is achieved unless we begin from the heart. And the passage from Joel will contribute no little to the understanding of the rest: “Rend your hearts and not your garments” [ch 2:13].”
“In like manner, the pastors of the church would not be doing ill today if, when they see ruin hanging over the necks of their people, they were to cry out to them to hasten to fasting and weeping.”
III:III:3 “Indeed, I am aware of the fact that the whole of conversion to God is understood under the term “repentance,” and faith is not the least part of conversion.”
III:II:33 “But our mind has such an inclination to vanity that it can never cleave fast to the truth of God; and is has such a dullness that it is always blind to the light of God’s truth. Accordingly, without the illuminatin of the Holy Spirit, the Word can do nothing.” From this, also, it is clear that faith is much higher than human understanding. And it will not be enough for the mind to be illumined by the Spirit of God unless the heart is also strengthened and supported by his power. In this matter the Schoolmen go completely astray, who in considering faith identify it with a bare and simple assent arising out of knowledge, and leave out confidence and assurance of heart.”
D.G. Hart: You now back away from your complaint about the natural man on revivals and seem to limit it to Stout (even though Stout is not a natural man).
RS: I don’t think I backed away from what I meant, though perhaps you did not understand what I meant and got trapped by some implications of some sort. At one point I said that it is possible for a Christian to use reasoning in a naturalistic way (not an exact quote, but something like that). Whether Stout is a believer or not I don’t know, but his interpretation of Whitefield as an actor and the results that came through him as a result of his acting is nothing more than a natural man’s way of looking at things. Other men do this, but I have not argued that all who resist the grand truth of true revival are natural men.
D.G. Hart: But the important thing to notice is that a revivalist’s natural tick is to look at critics as natural men. Why else would you quote all that Scripture at me?
RS: Not necessarily as natural men, but also men acting or thinking like a natural man. Why would I quote Scripture? Because as the WCF says it is the final authority on all matters.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, and now I object to Buchanan. I don’t see how one sermon or harrangue can cover both believers who may need more repentance and faith and unbelievers. The terrors of the law don’t work. It’s like having VBS materials for covenant children and unbelievers from the neighborhood.
RS: The terrors of the law don’t work? Don’t work for what? Jesus sure preached the terrors of the law and Paul said that it was the law that shut the mouths of men.
D.G. Hart: Plus, the Christian life is one long revival, by B’s standards. I don’t want believers to have great outbursts of piety. I had them. They didn’t last past going back to school in the fall after the embers of the Christian youth camp fire cooled.
RS: Then they were not real outbursts of piety.
D.G. Hart: I want slow and steady growth, life long faith and repentance. And I don’t see how the outburst model has been at all good for the church.
RS: Acts 2 was not good for the church? While you want slow and steady growth, the Bible is not always focused that way. Notice the prayers of Paul in Ephesians 1 and 3. He was panting after more of Christ for others.
D.G. Hart: Btw, do you have a citation for the B quotes?
1) His work on The Holy Spirit. Chapter 9 is on revival
2) A shortened version of chapter 9 is provided in The Ulster Awakening (oh ick, a book on revival) by John Weir. This shortened version was taken from Banner of Truth Magazine, Issue 44, Sept-Oct 1966.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you say that if the extraordinary happens, we should know it is from God.
RS: Or perhaps can know that it is from God.
D.G. Hart: But what are the criteria for knowing it is from God?
RS: Bible standards for the work of the Spirit in holiness and love.
D.G. Hart: Here you list gets awfully selective and historically naive.
RS: They are selected from the Bible. But of course you understand that from my point of view those who deny true revival are historically naive at that point. But wait, maybe there is another issue going on that is not history at all. Someone is interpreting things through something else. Ah, perhaps history does not determine the truth of these things after all.
D.G. Hart: What you consider to be a great effect — Phebe’s angst — is actually very questionable on so many levels.
RS: But anything can have questions raised about them. Institutes III:IV:2 “WE must, I admit, carefully and sharply urge every man, but weeping bitterly for his sins, to what his displeasure and hatred toward them, for we ought not to repent this sorry which begets repentance unto salvation [II Cor 7:10].”
Institutes III:III:3 “Mortification they explain as sorrow of soul and dread conceived from the recognition of sin and the awareness of divine judgment. For when anyone has been brought into a true knowledge of sin, he then begins to truly hate and abhor sin; then he is heartily displeased with himself, he confesses himself miserable and lost and wishes to be another man. Furthermore, when he is touched by any sense of the judgment of God (for the one straightaway follows the other) he then lies stricken and overthrown; humbled and cast down he trembles; he becomes discouraged and he despairs…Now these words, if only they hae a right interpretation, express well enough the force of repentance.”
D.G. Hart: Plus, the revival fires cooled in Edwards’ own town. So how genuine could the revival have been even on your own grounds.
RS: That is the nature of revival. The whole book of Acts and then the rest of the NT did not maintain the same intensity as Acts 2. God pours out His Spirit and then withdraws according to His good pleasure.
D.G. Hart: Think perseverance of the saints, man!
RS: I prefer to think of the preservation of God which the perseverance of saints absolutely depend on. But I do get your point. However, persevering is easier during times of revival and certainly help in the days after that as well.
LikeLike
Richard, if you don’t think the Presbyterian Church was a church than you are even more pietistic than I feared. Really, I expected more from you. You can’t even admit that a revival split the church so you won’t count Presbyterians as a church. Wow!
So you really try to live a life like Jesus and Paul? Double wow!
It’s not what I want or what I find to be staid. God is indeed a God of order and compliance with his order and rules would seem to be a good thing. God of course can act outside his order — that’s what a miracle is. But humans should not be so quick to advocate going against God’s order.
As for the covenant child in the NT, have you thought about Timothy?
LikeLike
Richard, so God withdraws his Spirit? Triple Wow!
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, if you don’t think the Presbyterian Church was a church than you are even more pietistic than I feared. Really, I expected more from you. You can’t even admit that a revival split the church so you won’t count Presbyterians as a church. Wow!
RS: I fear you are reading too quickly. The Presbyterian aspect of the Church is not the Church. Those who are Presbyterian and are believers are part of the Church. If some who are Presbyterian and yet are not true believers, then they are not part of the Church. If a particular denomination divides, at times it is a denomination splitting but not the Church splitting. Local churches can split, but then that is a church that is splitting. Until you can show me that the only reason that a Presbyterian denomination split was because of an awakening or a revival, then I will remain skeptical. As I claimed in my earlier post, they had lots of problems not specifically related to the revival.
D.G. Hart: So you really try to live a life like Jesus and Paul? Double wow!
RS: Why not, after all it is biblical. We are commanded to be holy as He is holy. A disciple is one that denies self and follows Christ. Paul told us to follow him as he followed Christ.
D.G. Hart: It’s not what I want or what I find to be staid. God is indeed a God of order and compliance with his order and rules would seem to be a good thing. God of course can act outside his order — that’s what a miracle is. But humans should not be so quick to advocate going against God’s order.
As for the covenant child in the NT, have you thought about Timothy?
RS: I have thought of Timothy.
Acts 16:1 “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek.”
The evidence seems to be lacking that Timothy was a child of the covenant in the sense I think you mean. All we know is that his grandmother and then mother were believers, though the text (II Tim 1:5) does not tell us when they became believers. From the two following verses it would appear that Paul was the spiritual father and so had been an instrument in the conversion of Timothy. Paul was also the one that had Timothy circumcised.
1 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
2 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, so God withdraws his Spirit? Triple Wow!
RS: Ephesians 4:30 “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” Here you have those who are truly saved and yet the Spirit can be grieved (withdraw).
Why have you ignored all of my Calvin quotes? Here are some of them again.
Repeated from old Post–D.G. Hart: What you consider to be a great effect — Phebe’s angst — is actually very questionable on so many levels.
Repeated from old post– RS: But anything can have questions raised about them. Institutes III:IV:2 “We must, I admit, carefully and sharply urge every man, but weeping bitterly for his sins, to what his displeasure and hatred toward them, for we ought not to repent this sorry which begets repentance unto salvation [II Cor 7:10].”
Institutes III:III:3 “Mortification they explain as sorrow of soul and dread conceived from the recognition of sin and the awareness of divine judgment. For when anyone has been brought into a true knowledge of sin, he then begins to truly hate and abhor sin; then he is heartily displeased with himself, he confesses himself miserable and lost and wishes to be another man. Furthermore, when he is touched by any sense of the judgment of God (for the one straightaway follows the other) he then lies stricken and overthrown; humbled and cast down he trembles; he becomes discouraged and he despairs…Now these words, if only they have a right interpretation, express well enough the force of repentance.”
LikeLike
Richard, you said, “I guess I don’t see that looking to true revival denigrates the Sunday by Sunday worship of the church.” Again, the very statement seems to presume that the weekly, ordered, and orthodox worship of God by his church is somehow distinguished from this thing called “revival.” So don’t you see that by looking for revival you’re saying that the the Sunday-by-Sunday worship of the church isn’t enough? I wonder how you’d characterize the orthodox worship of the church or even what the point is if you’re looking for something more.
But I think that were I to tell my wife on our anniversary that the tried and true marriage all these years has been one thing, but I’m looking forward to revival she’d have every right to read that as a sophomoric denigration. So I can’t help but think revivalists are the misguided-foot-in-mouth romanticists of the church.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you said, “I guess I don’t see that looking to true revival denigrates the Sunday by Sunday worship of the church.” Again, the very statement seems to presume that the weekly, ordered, and orthodox worship of God by his church is somehow distinguished from this thing called “revival.” So don’t you see that by looking for revival you’re saying that the the Sunday-by-Sunday worship of the church isn’t enough? I wonder how you’d characterize the orthodox worship of the church or even what the point is if you’re looking for something more.
RS: Note the verses below. The church is to come together to seek the face of God and to seek for Him to manfiest His glory each day of the week. The church is to come together with desire for His glory and kingdom. The church should desire and long for the Lord to come to the church and manfiest His presence and glory to them. The church should desire that He would glorify Himself in the salvation of many. I fail to see the problem with wanting more of God and then more of God and then….
Isaiah 44:3 “For I will pour out water on the thirsty land And streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring And My blessing on your descendants.”
Mat 6: 9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
10 ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
Isaiah 63:15 Look down from heaven and see from Your holy and glorious habitation; Where are Your zeal and Your mighty deeds? The stirrings of Your heart and Your compassion are restrained toward me.
Isaiah 64:1 Oh, that You would rend the heavens and come down, That the mountains might quake at Your presence– 2 As fire kindles the brushwood, as fire causes water to boil– To make Your name known to Your adversaries, That the nations may tremble at Your presence! 3 When You did awesome things which we did not expect, You came down, the mountains quaked at Your presence. 4 For from days of old they have not heard or perceived by ear, Nor has the eye seen a God besides You, Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him.
Zrim: But I think that were I to tell my wife on our anniversary that the tried and true marriage all these years has been one thing, but I’m looking forward to revival she’d have every right to read that as a sophomoric denigration.
RS: As with all analogies, they don’t tell the whole story. How about telling your wife that you only wanted to see her once a week and then you would affirm the wedding vows to her. I would think that the better picture is that of a spouse who wants more of the other spouse. So I can’t help but think that confessionalists don’t seek Christ enough and are satisfied with too little. As C.S. Lewis said, that is to be like little kids who would rather make mud pies when are offered a vacation at the beach. We are to love Him with our whole being, yet our being has the ability to expand. The more we have of Christ the more we should want of Him.
Isaiah 64:1 “Oh, that You would rend the heavens and come down, That the mountains might quake at Your presence– 2 As fire kindles the brushwood, as fire causes water to boil– To make Your name known to Your adversaries, That the nations may tremble at Your presence!”
RS: I would think that Isa 64:1-2 is descriptive of a biblical desire for God to come down and shine forth His glory. It is in line with the Lord’s Prayer in desiring that His name be hallowed and His kingdom to advance. There is a huge difference in the manifestation of God and His glory in times of spiritual famine (Amos 8:11 and Isa 64:6-7) and that of when He is pouring out His Spirit.
Zrim: So I can’t help but think revivalists are the misguided-foot-in-mouth romanticists of the church.
RS: Perhaps the revivalists of revivalism are, but true revival is something far different. It is the presence of God in and among His people and He is manifesting His glory to their souls.
LikeLike
Richard, the point of the analogy is to say what one seems to be looking for is right in front of him the whole time. So, all of the verses you cite are already happening in the weekly worship of God. True enough, this is the semi-eschatological era where we live in the already-not yet tension and are waiting for faith to be made into sight, so it’s happening in a type and shadow sort of way. That said, revivalosity seems like just another way to immanentize the eschaton, to bring forth that which only will come at God’s own hand and in God’s own timing. In a word, it’s a function of glorified human impatience.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, the point of the analogy is to say what one seems to be looking for is right in front of him the whole time. So, all of the verses you cite are already happening in the weekly worship of God. True enough, this is the semi-eschatological era where we live in the already-not yet tension and are waiting for faith to be made into sight, so it’s happening in a type and shadow sort of way. That said, revivalosity seems like just another way to immanentize the eschaton, to bring forth that which only will come at God’s own hand and in God’s own timing. In a word, it’s a function of glorified human impatience.
RS: On the other hand, it could be like the cry of Moses who cried out in Exodus 33:18, “”I pray You, show me Your glory!” It could be like the Matthew 5:6, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” It is an absolute verity that thiese things will only come at God’s own hand and in God’s own timing. However, when God wants to feed a hungry person, He puts it in the heart of a person to do it. A thought from long ago, “When God intends to bless His people, He sets His people a prayin.” God works through the desires and prayers of His people.
Do you not long for people to know God better and glorify Him more? Do you desire to see the lost converted? Then I am not sure why people have trouble with true revival.
Psalm 43:4 Then I will go to the altar of God, To God my exceeding joy; And upon the lyre I shall praise You, O God, my God.
Isaiah 61:10 I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
Habakkuk 3:18 Yet I will exult in the LORD, I will rejoice in the God of my salvation.
Romans 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
LikeLike
But, Richard, God intends to bless his people and sets them praying all the time. And Moses’ prayer has been aswered in that he already has shown his glory in the first advent of Christ in his own timing and in his own way–is it possible that revivalosity is trying to bring about the not yet second advent on human timing and in human ways? Have you considered that his first advent went largely unrecognized because human expectation of timing and mode wouldn’t allow it, and that contrariwise revivalosity is impatient and bored with the ordinary means of grace for the same reasons?
Yes, confessionalists do desire those things (and I get the implication of impiety hidden within the question, ahem). But the reason we have trouble with revivalosity is that it sure seems like it’s not very content for them to come in God’s own timing and through his means, polite acknowledgment notwithstanding.
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, God intends to bless his people and sets them praying all the time.
RS: But what does it mean to pray for His kingdom to come if it is not that He would send showers of blessing now? He does not always “set them a prayin” with the same intensity and desire at all times.
Zrim: And Moses’ prayer has been aswered in that he already has shown his glory in the first advent of Christ in his own timing and in his own way–is it possible that revivalosity is trying to bring about the not yet second advent on human timing and in human ways?
RS: It might be hard to show that the desire of Moses was limited to the advent of Christ. He wanted the glory of God to go with them as they went into the land. He wanted the presence of God to be with them in power. But yes, it is certainly possible (broadly speaking) that revivalism tries to bring about the second advent in their own way. But again, revivalism is far different than true and biblical revival. True revival desires the glory of God to shine forth through His Church both now and for eternity. In true prayer God shapes the hearts of His people so that they can be instruments of His glory in the world. Surely we desire the glory of the Lord to be manifested in a greater way in a purer and more focused worship and in souls being converted now.
Zrim: Have you considered that his first advent went largely unrecognized because human expectation of timing and mode wouldn’t allow it, and that contrariwise revivalosity is impatient and bored with the ordinary means of grace for the same reasons?
RS: Yes, I have read on that and considered that. However, that is no hindrance with seeking the Lord to come down and that the nations would tremble in His presence. True revival comes from a desire planted in the soul by God Himself and is a people seeking His face (presence and glory) on His own terms and in His own timing. It is not trying to talk God into something, it is seeking God for Himself and desiring to be an instrument in the manifesting of His glory.
Zrim: Yes, confessionalists do desire those things (and I get the implication of impiety hidden within the question, ahem).
RS: No implication there, but just saying that most likely you desire those things. Most likely you would not mind those things to be there with a bit more power. The desire for those things and for them to come in greater power is what I am saying is a desire for true revival.
Matthew 11:12 “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.
Zrim: But the reason we have trouble with revivalosity is that it sure seems like it’s not very content for them to come in God’s own timing and through his means, polite acknowledgment notwithstanding.
RS: Yes, but if God chose to send revival, would you be content with that? I understand (I think) why you think it seems that those who desire revival seem to be less than content. I hope you see why I think that perhaps confessionalists seem way too content.
John 2:17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME.”
Jesus had great zeal for the house of God. Why shouldn’t His people have some zeal for the manifestation of His glory and honor? Why shouldn’t we have longings and desires so that we truly seek for His name to be hallowed and for His kingdom to come?
Revelation 3:15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
LikeLike
Richard, praying for the kingdom to come and God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven seems to correspond with the closing words of Revelation that urge Christ to come soon, which is to say that the confessionalist prays along with Scripture for the second advent and that to be speedy. Doesn’t an eye toward the actual appearing beat looking for a second-rate substitute in the meantime? And that’s really what I hear all throughout your commentary, a quest for the not yet to swallow up the already. And I don’t know why you think the zeal quotient is wanting amongst confessionalists, unless you count being content with God having sent his Son for the remission of sins lazy. So on top of being prone to manufacture a pre-second advent, I wonder if revivalists ever realize how they come off as speaking as if the first was ho-hum.
And in citing Moses to make the case for seeking more and more glory and power in the here and now, you might consider that Moses was denied entrance into the promised land.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, praying for the kingdom to come and God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven seems to correspond with the closing words of Revelation that urge Christ to come soon, which is to say that the confessionalist prays along with Scripture for the second advent and that to be speedy. Doesn’t an eye toward the actual appearing beat looking for a second-rate substitute in the meantime?
RS: I don’t think that praying for the Spirit to be poured out is a second-rate substitute.
John 14:16 “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. 28 “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Zrim: And that’s really what I hear all throughout your commentary, a quest for the not yet to swallow up the already.
RS: Well, maybe you are not hearing what I am saying, then. The quest is for the glory of God come come down and manfiest His glory. Indeed that may be a taste of heaven, but still the people of God throughout the Bible and history and longed for more of Him.
Zrim: And I don’t know why you think the zeal quotient is wanting amongst confessionalists, unless you count being content with God having sent his Son for the remission of sins lazy.
RS: I do think that is lazy (as stated). God saved sinners so that they would be zealous for good deeds. Titus 2:14 ” who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.” God saved sinners for a greater purpose and that is not so they can be content with being forgiven. God cleanses sinners from their sin so that He may dwell in His temple and manifest His glory through them.
Zrim: So on top of being prone to manufacture a pre-second advent, I wonder if revivalists ever realize how they come off as speaking as if the first was ho-hum.
RS: I doubt that hardly anyone would think that at all. The second Person of the Trinity took human flesh to the glory of the Father. He lived a perfect life doing all to the glory of the Father. He sent to the cross and died for the glory of the Father. He purchased the Holy Spirit to be given to His people to the glory of the Father. He died in order to make His people zealous for good deeds, and nothing is good unless it is done to the glory of God. The first coming of Christ is not rendered ho-hum by seeking revival, but it is rather exalted by seeking revival as it is in line with all that Christ did.
Zrim: And in citing Moses to make the case for seeking more and more glory and power in the here and now, you might consider that Moses was denied entrance into the promised land.
RS: Yes, Moses himself was denied entrance. But God and the people of God were not. The prayer of Moses was for the glory of God and so his prayer was answered.
LikeLike
According to a recent Gospel Coalition review of “The Joy of Calvinism”, application comes down to the “how does it feel” question. But without Bob Dylan’s tone!
The GD review by Ted Gluck: “There is, in fact, a lot of ink devoted to love in this book, which may be a surprise/wake-up call for certain kinds of curmudgeonly, joyless Calvinists.If you’re not a devoted, loyal TGC reader and have stumbled upon this site and this review some other way, or if you have Calvinist leanings but haven’t consumed the entire young Calvinist library (or consumed
the entire mug of Calvinist Kool-Aid), I would encourage you to read this book.
“You… should read this book because it devotes considerable space to how Calvinism feels. There are all kinds of books about what we believe, but very few, I think, about how it should makes us
feel—which, primarily, is joyful! One of the tenets of Calvinist subculture is to not trust our feelings, and I get that. I get the intent. I get that knowledge of God and truth about God should be our
foundation, rather than our moods or appetites. But this book does a brilliant job of summing up the feeling of Calvinism—a feeling that is driven by our knowledge of a God who loves personally,
unconditionally, irresistibly, and unbreakably.
From page 19: “The absence of affirmative and spontaneously devotional expression of
Calvinistic theology has left a gaping hole in the public understanding of what Calvinism is. “
LikeLike
Richard, I’m not saying God pouring out his Spirit is a second-rate substitute either. I’m saying revivalosity is a second-rate substiutute for Jesus’ actual return in power and glory.
The quest is for the glory of God come come down and manfiest His glory. Indeed that may be a taste of heaven, but still the people of God throughout the Bible and history and longed for more of Him.
He already has come down in his first advent in weakness and humility. His Word and sacraments are the taste of heaven in the inter-advental age while we await his second advent yet to come in power and glory. The point is that power and glory are inappropriate for now. This age is characterized still by weakness and humility. Can you see that by this construal how revival and revivalism are one and the same no matter how much you try to distinguish them?
And if revivalists don’t think the first advent was ho-hum then maybe they should stop suggesting that confessionalists who put the accent on it are being lazy.
LikeLike
Lily,
Thanks for the links. Sorry, I have not checked here for a while, but I will try to read the links and if I have any comments/questions, I will let you know.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: According to a recent Gospel Coalition review of “The Joy of Calvinism”, application comes down to the “how does it feel” question. But without Bob Dylan’s tone!
RS: Disregarding Bob Dylan’s tone, if that is an accurate assessment of the book, then the book misses the truth of the matter.
McMark quoting: From page 19: “The absence of affirmative and spontaneously devotional expression of Calvinistic theology has left a gaping hole in the public understanding of what Calvinism is. “
RS: Perhaps that statement, at least without the context, goes too far. However, there may be a kernel of truth there. The kernel is that Calvinism has been viewed as intellectualism, going through the motions of ritual, and then a very stern approach to church.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I’m not saying God pouring out his Spirit is a second-rate substitute either. I’m saying revivalosity is a second-rate substiutute for Jesus’ actual return in power and glory.
RS: But those who have held to and those who presently hold to revival are looking for the Father and the Son to breath forth His Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ.
Zrim quoting RS: The quest is for the glory of God come come down and manfiest His glory. Indeed that may be a taste of heaven, but still the people of God throughout the Bible and history and longed for more of Him.
Zrim: He already has come down in his first advent in weakness and humility. His Word and sacraments are the taste of heaven in the inter-advental age while we await his second advent yet to come in power and glory.
RS: Yet we are told to preach the Word in power. We are told that the “kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Paul teaches us to pray for more of Christ.
Zrim: The point is that power and glory are inappropriate for now.
RS: Not at all.
Acts 1:8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
Romans 15:13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
Ephesians 3:16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,
1 Thessalonians 1:5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Zrim: This age is characterized still by weakness and humility.
RS: Believers are to be humble, but the truly humble are filled with the power of God. Indeed we are to be utterly weak in our own strength, but we are to be filled with His power.
Ephesians 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might.
Zrim: Can you see that by this construal how revival and revivalism are one and the same no matter how much you try to distinguish them?
RS: I cannot see that at all. Revivalism is man-centered and man-focused, but true revival is God-centered and God-focused.
Zrim: And if revivalists don’t think the first advent was ho-hum then maybe they should stop suggesting that confessionalists who put the accent on it are being lazy.
RS: Titus 2:14 ” who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.”
One purpose of the cross was to make for Himself a people zealous for good deeds. If confessionalists are just going to church on Sunday, affirming the confession, taking the sacrament and just waiting for Christ to come again, then they are being lazy. If confessionalists are not seeking His glory in all things, then they are being lazy. The list could go on, but you get my point. Another word for “lazy” is even worse. It is disobedient. Look, I get the idea that we may be talking by each other and maybe I don’t really understand what you are saying and you don’t really get the idea of what I am saying. However, to exalt the first coming of Christ in truth is also to live to the glory of a risen King now. To exalt the first coming of Christ in truth is to have that risen King manifest His glory in and through His people who are now His temple. How can the dwellling place of God not have the very life of God in them? How can the God of perfect joy and glory not manifest the truth of Himself to His people and the world? He lives in His people and they will share in who He really is.
LikeLike
Theologian of the Cross vs.Theologian of Glory
The theologian of glory observes the world, the works of creation. With his intellect he perceives behind these the visible things of God, His power, wisdom, and generosity. But God remains invisible to him. The theologian of the cross looks to the Crucified One. Here there is nothing great or beautiful or exalted as in the splendid works of creation. Here there is humiliation, shame, weakness, suffering, and agonizing death… [That] “God can be found only in suffering and the cross”… is a bedrock statement of Luther’s theology … Theology is theology of the cross, nothing else. A theology that would be something else is a false theology… Measured by everything the world calls wisdom, as Paul already saw, the word of the cross is the greatest foolishness, the most ridiculous doctrine that can confront a philosopher. That the death of one man should be the salvation of all, that this death on Golgotha should be this atoning sacrifice for all the sins of the world, that the suffering of an innocent one should turn away the wrath of God — these are assertions that fly in the face of every ethical and religious notion of man as he is by nature… God Himself has sent us into the hard school of the cross. There, on the battlefields, in the prison camps, under the hail of bombs, and among the shattered sick and wounded, there the theology of the cross may be learned “by dying”… To those whose illusions about the world and about man, and the happiness built on these, have been shattered, the message of the cross may come as profoundly good news.
Herman Sasse
Cheers, Zrim!
LikeLike
Richard, you don’t seem to be able to appreciate Paul’s point that the power of the gospel is rather ordinary compared with the might of the Jews and the wisdom of the Greeks.
LikeLike
Lily: Theologian of the Cross vs.Theologian of Glory
The theologian of glory observes the world, the works of creation. With his intellect he perceives behind these the visible things of God, His power, wisdom, and generosity. But God remains invisible to him. The theologian of the cross looks to the Crucified One. Here there is nothing great or beautiful or exalted as in the splendid works of creation. Here there is humiliation, shame, weakness, suffering, and agonizing death… [That] “God can be found only in suffering and the cross”… is a bedrock statement of Luther’s theology … Theology is theology of the cross, nothing else. A theology that would be something else is a false theology… Measured by everything the world calls wisdom, as Paul already saw, the word of the cross is the greatest foolishness, the most ridiculous doctrine that can confront a philosopher. That the death of one man should be the salvation of all, that this death on Golgotha should be this atoning sacrifice for all the sins of the world, that the suffering of an innocent one should turn away the wrath of God — these are assertions that fly in the face of every ethical and religious notion of man as he is by nature… God Himself has sent us into the hard school of the cross. There, on the battlefields, in the prison camps, under the hail of bombs, and among the shattered sick and wounded, there the theology of the cross may be learned “by dying”… To those whose illusions about the world and about man, and the happiness built on these, have been shattered, the message of the cross may come as profoundly good news.
RS: There may be some confusion on the author of the above statement as to what Luther meant by the ” Theologian of Glory”. To Luther, in this context, the Theologian of Glory was seeking his own glory. The theologian of the cross learned obedience through suffering. It is the glory of God that is seen in the theology of the cross.
Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation:
Thesis 18: ” It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.” He repeats this in his Bondage of the Will.
Thesis 22: “That wisdom which perceives the invisible things of God by thinking in terms of works completely puffs up, blinds, and hardens.”
Those who think that the theology of the cross means for them to work hard and suffer in their works are quite mistaken if they think that makes them theologians of the cross. All of our suffering is of no good if it is not done out of love for God and love for His glory.
1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Psalm 115:1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us, But to Your name give glory Because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth.
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Isaiah 48:11 “For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.
What did Jesus pray for just before He went to the cross?
John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
4 “I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.
5 “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. 22 “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. 24 “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
The cross is where the glory of God shines brightest, which is why those who still see and seek their own glory have never truly been broken from self and given a sight of the cross. The cross is the highest theology of glory as long as it is all about the glory of God. There is no Gospel apart from the glory of God either.
II Cor 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you don’t seem to be able to appreciate Paul’s point that the power of the gospel is rather ordinary compared with the might of the Jews and the wisdom of the Greeks.
RS: I guess I will plead guilty to that, but I don’t think that was Paul’s point for all concerned. The Gospel is not ordinary at any point and in any way in and of itself. It is centered upon the triune God and declares the beauty and greatness of His glory. The Jews looked for signs and the Greeks looked for wisdom, but in their deadness they did not see what was truly extraordinary. It was the Gospel of the glory of God. It was the Gospel of God. It was the Gospel of the kingdom of God. There is nothing ordinary about the Gospel. It is there that the wrath of God was satisfied. It is there that the glory of God shines forth. It is there that the love of Christ for His Father shines ever so brightly. It is there that justice and mercy kiss. It is there that purchased grace is put on dispaly. It is there that that all of the promises toward the elect are revealed and applied. It is there that it is seen that Christ lives in His people and He is their very hope of glory. No, no, and a thousand times a thousand times no. The Gospel is not ordinary.
LikeLike
Richard, no, we are not talking past each other. It is revivalism opposing confessionalism and vice versa, cross opposing glory and vice versa. To oppose glory with the cross is to glory lazy and disobedient, which sounds awful synonymous with foolishness. But that’s exactly what Paul said you’d say.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, no, we are not talking past each other. It is revivalism opposing confessionalism and vice versa, cross opposing glory and vice versa.
RS: I am not supporting revivalism and I am not opposing the cross. It is not the cross opposing glory, it is the cross opposing the glory of man and then being the manifestation of the glory of God. There is no seeking the glory of God apart from the cross.
Galatians 6:14 “But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”
Zrim: To oppose glory with the cross is to glory lazy and disobedient, which sounds awful synonymous with foolishness. But that’s exactly what Paul said you’d say.
RS: Just to be clear (and to repeat), man’s glory is opposed by the cross but not the glory of God which shone forth and shines forth by the cross. To oppose the glory of God in this day is to go against the confessions and the cross of Christ. I don’t think that is what Paul said. I know that is not what the catechisms say. In the catechisms we are taught that the highest thing we are to seek in all that we do and is our very purpose for life is the glory of God. Part of that very purpose is also to enjoy Him fully. The seeking of true revival is very consistent with seeking the manifestation of the glory of God in and through His Church and then in the world. When God comes, as the Psalms so frequently set forth, God is the joy of our joys. Both the Bible and the catechisms teach these things. If you are going to be a true confessionalist, then at least believe all that they teach. The very first thing that the two Westminster catechisms teach are given below.
WSC Q. 1 What is the chief end of man?
A. To glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
WLC: Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.
LikeLike
Richard, if the glory of God shines forth by the cross then why is it lazy and disobedient to be content with the cross and the preaching of Christ and him crucified?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, if the glory of God shines forth by the cross then why is it lazy and disobedient to be content with the cross and the preaching of Christ and him crucified?
RS: Here is where I think you and I may be talking past each other. When you say preaching Christ and Him crucified, I hear you talking about giving a lecture on Sunday morning about the historical data and background. When I talk about how the glory of God shines forth by the cross, I mean that the cross should be declared in a way where the glory (attributes and beauty of the triune God) is set forth in a way that God’s beauty and delightfulness is seen. I am also saying that this glory should be preached to where the resurrected and living Christ is seen and exalted. I am trying to get at how Christ is the very life of the believer each and every moment of every day. I am speaking of the living Christ who cannot be contained by formal religious meetings on Sunday, though those are important. I am speaking of the resurrected Christ who has authority over all human flesh and He can give eternal life to those whom the Father gives Him. I am speaking of the Christ who should be preached to people whether they come to church or not. The glory of God is worth being made known to all human beings in all places, whether they come to church or not. Of course they should come, but if they don’t, we are to go.
LikeLike
Richard, I agree that even if others don’t come to church that we should.
But seriously, when you speak of the “living Christ who cannot be contained by formal religious meetings on Sunday” I wonder why you think the Belgic spends not less than six Articles on the church (27-32). In particular, Article 28 speaks in a way that doesn’t seem conducive to the revivalist’s apparent yawning at the prospect of formal participation:
We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition.
But all people are obliged to join and unite with it, keeping the unity of the church by submitting to its instruction and discipline, by bending their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and by serving to build up one another, according to the gifts God has given them as members of each other in the same body.
And to preserve this unity more effectively, it is the duty of all believers, according to God’s Word, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the church, in order to join this assembly wherever God has established it, even if civil authorities and royal decrees forbid and death and physical punishment result.
And so, all who withdraw from the church or do not join it act contrary to God’s ordinance.
The point is that God has ordained and sustains his church to be more than merely a homeroom for like-minded individuals—it’s where he promises to be personally, and if that’s the case, I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to put the accent on the church . You admit that formal religious participation is important, but the tone is the rote almost dismissive way one might speak of homeroom.
By the way, if it helps, to my confessionalist mind there is an important difference between a lecture and a sermon and the way many conservative P&R encourage note-taking instead of old-fashioned use of that instrument of faith commonly called “the ear,” I feel your pain.
LikeLike
Richard,
I would advise against thinking you stand above and are able to correct a stellar Lutheran theologian who understands Luther and his theology.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I agree that even if others don’t come to church that we should.
But seriously, when you speak of the “living Christ who cannot be contained by formal religious meetings on Sunday” I wonder why you think the Belgic spends not less than six Articles on the church (27-32). In particular, Article 28 speaks in a way that doesn’t seem conducive to the revivalist’s apparent yawning at the prospect of formal participation:
RS: But “the church” cannot be contained to one meeting on Sunday. I guess this is one of the reasons that I think we are talking past each other to some degree. True revival must happen within the church because it is for those who are already converted. In the teaching of Jonathan Edwards, he encouraged believer and unbeliever alike to attend the meetings of the church as often as the doors were opened.
Zrim quoting the Belgic Confession: We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition.
RS: Agreed, but this is not contrary to seeking for the church to be revived.
Zrim quoting the Belgic Confession: But all people are obliged to join and unite with it, keeping the unity of the church by submitting to its instruction and discipline, by bending their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and by serving to build up one another, according to the gifts God has given them as members of each other in the same body.
RS: Agreed, but this is not contrary to seeking for the church to be revived.
Zrim quoting the Belgic Confession: And to preserve this unity more effectively, it is the duty of all believers, according to God’s Word, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the church, in order to join this assembly wherever God has established it, even if civil authorities and royal decrees forbid and death and physical punishment result.
RS: But once again, this is not contrary to seeking for the church to be revived,
Zrim: And so, all who withdraw from the church or do not join it act contrary to God’s ordinance.
The point is that God has ordained and sustains his church to be more than merely a homeroom for like-minded individuals—it’s where he promises to be personally, and if that’s the case, I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to put the accent on the church . You admit that formal religious participation is important, but the tone is the rote almost dismissive way one might speak of homeroom.
RS: My tone, if it sounds dismissive, is about the way churches seem to operate. One is said to attend church rather than be part of the body of Christ which is the Church. One is said to go hear the homily or lecture, take the sacrament, and is then good for a week. On the other hand, the early believers in Acts seemed to have met almost every day and were devoted to the apostles teaching and to prayer. They thought so much of church that they met often and prayed together when they met. It was more than just agreeing that a confession is true, it was the resurrected Christ living in and through His people. So I don’t think that I am dismissive of the Church, but I just think that it is so important that folks should be more serious about it.
Zrim: By the way, if it helps, to my confessionalist mind there is an important difference between a lecture and a sermon and the way many conservative P&R encourage note-taking instead of old-fashioned use of that instrument of faith commonly called “the ear,” I feel your pain.
RS: I am glad we have a mutual pain at one point. I like to think that it points to a hunger for true preaching of Christ crucified.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, I would advise against thinking you stand above and are able to correct a stellar Lutheran theologian who understands Luther and his theology.
RS: If a person is a modern Lutheran, I would say that person does not follow the theology of Luther. He was quite one with Calvin on the Bondage of the Will and predestination. If you are interested in a book On Being A Theologian of the Cross, there is one written by Gerhard O. Forde. He is a professor of systematic theology at Luther Seminary. Unless I have read him incorrectly, he would agree with my general assessment. So while I may disagree with one Lutheran theologian, I do agree with another one.
LikeLike
Richard,
Goodness, you do beat all. Calvin and Luther are one in agreement on predestination. You opine what “modern” Lutherans believe and practice. You opine that Gerhard would agree with you and rank Lutheran theologian’s work as interchangeable. My, my – your understanding is as dark as the inside of a bull.
LikeLike
Richard, the point isn’t that the church can be contained to one meeting on a Sunday—or even two for those with certain Reformed sensibilities. The point is that the Lord’s Day is the day he has set apart as holy and in which to meet with his people and feed them. It is typological for that final day of consummation.
But the pattern of one in seven is also better than the 24/7 concept in revivalosity because, though redeemed, we are also still creatures who have earthly vocations to attend, to say nothing of how revivalosity’s 24/7 notion seems to be another example of redemption swallowing up creation at high octane speeds. Yes, Jesus is Lord of all of life and every second of every year, but it’s hardly obvious that this means every day is the Lord’s Day. I bet you’re a “all of life is worship” sort of fellow. But if all of life is worship then nothing is. This is where revivalists sound like children who want every day to be their birthday but need the aid of maturity to realize just how misguided it is to neglect patterns set in the order of things. The sacred-secular distinction exists for our good.
LikeLike
Richard,
Since Calvin held to double predestination and Luther held to single predestination, that should be a clue that the two men are not in agreement even though they agreed on the bondage of man’s will and saw the same impasses with man’s depravity, universal grace, and God’s election. Some Reformed would posit that since the two men agreed in part, that they were in full agreement. In order to understand why the Reformed are mistaken, one needs to read/understand Luther’s full work and see why Luther and Calvin are not in full agreement.
Unlike Calvin, Luther stops where scripture stops, and does not try to resolve the impasses, but leaves them in tension. He does not teach limited atonement. He leaves God’s hidden will on why some are saved and others are not a mystery. Luther taught that we are to look to the revealed will of God in the cross of Christ, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper and not to look for the hidden will of God. Look to Christ to find ourselves in Christ and not to ourselves (eg: works, emotions, etc.).
Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination:
But it pleases me to take from this passage the opportunity to discuss doubt, God, and the will of God; for I hear that here and there among the nobles and persons of importance vicious statements are being spread abroad concerning predestination or God’s foreknowledge. For this is what they say: “If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.” I would be glad to debate in detail against these wicked statements if the uncertain state of my health made it possible for me to do so. For if the statements are true, as they, of course, think, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, and all that He did for the salvation of the world are done away with completely. What will the prophets and all Holy Scripture help? What will the sacraments help? Therefore let us reject all this and tread it underfoot.
These are devilish and poisoned darts and original sin itself, with which the devil led our first parents astray when he said (Gen. 3:5): “You will be like God.” They were not satisfied with the divinity that had been revealed and in the knowledge of which they were blessed, but they wanted to penetrate to the depth of the divinity. For they inferred that there was some secret reason why God had forbidden them to eat of the fruit of the tree which was in the middle of Paradise, and they wanted to know what this reason was, just as these people of our time say: “What God has determined beforehand must happen. Consequently, every concern about religion and about the salvation of souls is uncertain and useless.” Yet it has not been given to you to render a verdict that is inscrutable. Why do you doubt or thrust aside the faith that God has enjoined on you? For what end did it serve to send His Son to suffer and to be crucified for us? Of what use was it to institute the sacraments if they are uncertain or completely useless for our salvation? For otherwise, if someone had been predestined, he would have been saved without the Son and without the sacraments or Holy Scripture. Consequently, God, according to the blasphemy of these people, was horribly foolish when He sent His Son, promulgated the Law and the Gospel, and sent the apostles if the only thing He wanted was that we should be uncertain and in doubt whether we are to be saved or really to be damned.
But these are delusions of the devil with which he tries to cause us to doubt and disbelieve, although Christ came into this world to make us completely certain. For eventually either despair must follow or contempt for God, for the Holy Bible, for Baptism, and for all the blessings of God through which He wanted us to be strengthened over against uncertainty and doubt. For they will say with the Epicureans: “Let us live, eat, and drink; tomorrow we shall die” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:32). After the manner of the Turks they will rush rashly into the sword and fire, since the hour in which you either die or escape has been predetermined.
But to these thoughts one must oppose the true and firm knowledge of Christ, just as I often remind you that it is profitable and necessary above all that the knowledge of God be completely certain in us and that we cling to it with firm assent of the heart. Otherwise our faith is useless. For if God does not stand by His promises, then our salvation is lost, while, on the other hand, this is our comfort, that, although we change, we nevertheless flee for refuge to Him who is unchangeable. For in Mal. 3:6 He makes this assertion about Himself: “I the Lord do not change.” And Rom. 11:29 states: “The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” Accordingly, this is how I have taught in my book On the Bondage of the Will and elsewhere, namely, that a distinction must be made when one deals with the knowledge, or rather with the subject, of the divinity. For one must debate either about the hidden God or about the revealed God. With regard to God, insofar as He has not been revealed, there is no faith, no knowledge, and no understanding. And here one must hold to the statement that what is above us is none of our concern. For thoughts of this kind, which investigate something more sublime above or outside the revelation of God, are altogether devilish. With them nothing more is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into destruction; for they present an object that is inscrutable, namely, the unrevealed God. Why not rather let God keep His decisions and mysteries in secret? We have no reason to exert ourselves so much that these decisions and mysteries be revealed to us.
Moses, too, asked God to show him His face; but the Lord replies: “You shall see My back, but you will not be able to see My face” (cf. Ex. 33:23). For this inquisitiveness is original sin itself, by which we are impelled to strive for a way to God through natural speculation. But this is a great sin and a useless and futile attempt; for this is what Christ says in John 6:65 (cf. John 14:6): “No one comes to the Father but by Me.” Therefore when we approach the unrevealed God, then there is no faith, no Word, and no knowledge; for He is an invisible God, and you will not make Him visible.
Furthermore, God has most sternly forbidden this investigation of the divinity. Thus when the apostles ask in Acts 1:6, “Has it not been predestined that at this time the kingdom should be restored?” Christ says to them: “It is not for you to know the times” (Acts 1:7). “Let Me be hidden where I have not revealed Myself to you,” says God, “or you will be the cause of your own destruction, just as Adam fell in a horrible manner; for he who investigates My majesty will be overwhelmed by My glory.”
And it is true that God wanted to counteract this curiosity at the very beginning; for this is how He set forth His will and counsel: “I will reveal My foreknowledge and predestination to you in an extraordinary manner, but not by this way of reason and carnal wisdom, as you imagine. This is how I will do so: From an unrevealed God I will become a revealed God. Nevertheless, I will remain the same God. I will be made flesh, or send My Son. He shall die for your sins and shall rise again from the dead. And in this way I will fulfill your desire, in order that you may be able to know whether you are predestined or not. Behold, this is My Son; listen to Him (cf. Matt. 17:5). Look at Him as He lies in the manger and on the lap of His mother, as He hangs on the cross. Observe what He does and what He says. There you will surely take hold of Me.” For “He who sees Me,” says Christ, “also sees the Father Himself” (cf. John 14:9). If you listen to Him, are baptized in His name, and love His Word, then you are surely predestined and are certain of your salvation. But if you revile or despise the Word, then you are damned; for he who does not believe is condemned (Mark 16:16).
You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them. The only thing you have to do is to receive the Son, so that Christ is welcome in your heart in His birth, miracles, and cross. For here is the book of life in which you have been written. And this is the only and the most efficacious remedy for that horrible disease because of which human beings in their investigation of God want to proceed in a speculative manner and eventually rush into despair or contempt. If you want to escape despair, hatred, and blasphemy of God, give up your speculation about the hidden God, and cease to strive in vain to see the face of God.
Otherwise you will have to remain perpetually in unbelief and damnation, and you will have to perish; for he who doubts does not believe, and he who does not believe is condemned (Mark 16:16).
Therefore we should detest and shun these vicious words which the Epicureans bandy about: “If this is how it must happen, let it happen.” For God did not come down from heaven to make you uncertain about predestination, to teach you to despise the sacraments, absolution, and the rest of the divine ordinances. Indeed, He instituted them to make you completely certain and to remove the disease of doubt from your heart, in order that you might not only believe with the heart but also see with your physical eyes and touch with your hands. Why, then, do you reject these and complain that you do not know whether you have been predestined? You have the Gospel; you have been baptized; you have absolution; you are a Christian. Nevertheless, you doubt and say that you do not know whether you believe or not, whether you regard as true what is preached about Christ in the Word and the sacraments.
But you will say: “I cannot believe.” Thus many are troubled by this trial, and I recall that at Torgau a little woman came to me and complained with tears in her eyes that she could not believe. Then, when I recited the articles of the Creed in order and asked about each one whether she was convinced that these things were true and had happened in this manner or not, she answered: “I certainly think that they are true, but I cannot believe.” This was a satanic illusion. Consequently, I kept saying: “If you think that all these things are true, there is no reason why you should complain about your unbelief; for if you do not doubt that the Son of God died for you, you surely believe, because to believe is nothing else than to regard these facts as the sure and unquestionable truth.”
God says to you: “Behold, you have My Son. Listen to Him, and receive Him. If you do this, you are already sure about your faith and salvation.” “But I do not know,” you will say, “whether I am remaining in faith.” At all events, accept the present promise and the predestination, and do not inquire too curiously about the secret counsels of God. If you believe in the revealed God and accept His Word, He will gradually also reveal the hidden God; for “He who sees Me also sees the Father,” as John 14:9 says. He who rejects the Son also loses the unrevealed God along with the revealed God. But if you cling to the revealed God with a firm faith, so that your heart is so minded that you will not lose Christ even if you are deprived of everything, then you are most assuredly predestined, and you will understand the hidden God. Indeed, you understand Him even now if you acknowledge the Son and His will, namely, that He wants to reveal Himself to you, that He wants to be your Lord and your Savior. Therefore you are sure that God is also your Lord and Father.
Observe how pleasantly and kindly God delivers you from this horrible trial with which Satan besets people today in strange ways in order to make them doubtful and uncertain, and eventually even to alienate them from the Word. “For why should you hear the Gospel,” they say, “since everything depends on predestination?” In this way he robs us of the predestination guaranteed through the Son of God and the sacraments. He makes us uncertain where we are completely certain. And if he attacks timid consciences with this trial, they die in despair, as would almost have happened to me if Staupitz had not delivered me from the same trial when I was troubled. But if they are despisers, they become the worst Epicureans. Therefore we should rather impress these statements on our hearts, such as John 6:44: “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him.” Through whom? Through Me. “He who sees Me also sees the Father” (cf. John 14:9). And God says to Moses: “You cannot see My face, for man shall not see Me and live” (Ex. 33:20). And we read (Acts 1:7): “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by His own authority. But go, and carry out what I command.” Likewise (Ecclus. 3:22): “Seek not the things that are too high for you, and search not into things above your ability; but the things that God has commanded you, think on them always, and in many of His works be not curious.” Listen to the incarnate Son, and predestination will present itself of its own accord.
Staupitz used to comfort me with these words: “Why do you torture yourself with these speculations? Look at the wounds of Christ and at the blood that was shed for you. From these predestination will shine. Consequently, one must listen to the Son of God, who was sent into the flesh and appeared to destroy the work of the devil (1 John 3:8) and to make you sure about predestination. And for this reason He says to you: ‘You are My sheep because you hear My voice’ (cf. John 10:27). ‘No one shall snatch you out of My hands’ ” (cf. v. 28).
Many who did not resist this trial in such a manner were hurled headlong into destruction. Consequently, the hearts of the godly should be kept carefully fortified. Thus a certain hermit in The Lives of the Fathers advises his hearers against speculations of this kind. He says: “If you see that someone has put his foot in heaven, pull him back. For this is how saintly neophytes are wont to think about God apart from Christ. They are the ones who try to ascend into heaven and to place both feet there. But suddenly they are plunged into hell.” Therefore the godly should beware and be intent only on learning to cling to the Child and Son Jesus, who is your God and was made flesh for your sake. Acknowledge and hear Him; take pleasure in Him, and give thanks. If you have Him, then you also have the hidden God together with Him who has been revealed. And that is the only way, the truth, and the life (cf. John 14:6). Apart from it you will find nothing but destruction and death.
But He manifested himself in the flesh to snatch us from death, from the power of the devil. From this knowledge must come great joy and delight that God is unchangeable, that He works in accordance with unchangeable necessity, and that He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) but keeps His promises. Accordingly, one is not free to have such thoughts or doubts about predestination; but they are ungodly, vicious, and devilish. Therefore when the devil assails you with them, you should only say: “I believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, about whom I have no doubt that He was made flesh, suffered, and died for me. Into His death I have been baptized.” This answer will make the trial disappear, and Satan will turn his back.
Thus on other occasions I have often mentioned the noteworthy example of a nun who underwent the same trial. For under the papacy there were also many godly persons who experienced these spiritual trials, which are truly hellish and thoughts of the damned. For there is no difference at all between one who doubts and one who is damned. Therefore whenever the nun felt that she was being assailed with the fiery darts of Satan (cf. Eph. 6:16), she would say nothing else than this: “I am a Christian.”
We must do the same thing. One must refrain from debates and say: “I am a Christian; that is, the Son of God was made flesh and was born; He has redeemed me and is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and He is my Savior.” Thus you must drive Satan away from you with as few words as possible and say: “Begone, Satan! (Matt. 4:10.) Do not put doubt in me. The Son of God came into this world to destroy your work (1 John 3:8) and to destroy doubt.” Then the trial ceases, and the heart returns to peace, quiet, and the love of God.
Otherwise doubt about some person’s intention is no sin. Thus Isaac doubts that he will live or have a pious host. About a man I can be in doubt. Indeed, I should be in doubt. For he is not my Savior, and it is written (Ps. 146:3): “Put not your trust in princes.” For man is a liar (Ps. 116:11) and deceitful. But one cannot deal doubtfully with God. For He neither wants nor is able to be changeable or a liar. But the highest form of worship He requires is your conviction that He is truthful. For this is why He has given you the strongest proofs of His trustworthiness and truth. He has given His Son into the flesh and into death, and He has instituted the sacraments, in order that you may know that He does not want to be deceitful, but that He wants to be truthful. Nor does He confirm this with spiritual proofs; He confirms it with tangible proofs. For I see the water, I see the bread and the wine, and I see the minister. All this is physical, and in these material forms He reveals Himself. If you must deal with men, you may be in doubt as to the extent to which you may believe a person and as to how others may be disposed toward you; but concerning God you must maintain with assurance and without any doubt that He is well disposed toward you on account of Christ and that you have been redeemed and sanctified through the precious blood of the Son of God. And in this way you will be sure of your predestination, since all the prying and dangerous questions about GOD’S secret counsels have been removed—the questions to which Satan tries to drive us, just as he drove our first parents.
But how great would our first parent’s happiness have been if he had kept the Word of God carefully in sight and had eaten of all the other trees except the one from which he had been forbidden to eat! But he wanted to search out why God had forbidden him to enjoy the fruits from that one tree. In addition, there was Satan, the malicious teacher who increased and abetted this curiosity. Thus he was hurled headlong into sin and death.
Thus God reveals His will to us through Christ and the Gospel. But we loathe it and, in accordance with Adam’s example, take delight in the forbidden tree above all the others. This fault has been implanted in us by nature. When Paradise and heaven have been closed and the angel has been placed on guard there (cf. Gen. 3:24), we try in vain to enter. For Christ has truthfully said: “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18). Nevertheless, God, in His boundless goodness, has revealed Himself to us in order to satisfy our desire. He has shown us a visible image. “Behold, you have My Son; he who hears Him and is baptized is written in the book of life. This I reveal through My Son, whom you can touch with your hands and look at with your eyes.”
I have wanted to teach and transmit this in such a painstaking and accurate way because after my death many will publish my books and will prove from them errors of every kind and their own delusions. Among other things, however, I have written that everything is absolute and unavoidable; but at the same time I have added that one must look at the revealed God, as we sing in the hymn: Er heist Jesu Christ, der HERR Zebaoth, und ist kein ander Gott, “Jesus Christ is the Lord of hosts, and there is no other God”—and also in very many other places. But they will pass over all these places and take only those that deal with the hidden God. Accordingly, you who are listening to me now should remember that I have taught that one should not inquire into the predestination of the hidden God but should be satisfied with what is revealed through the calling and through the ministry of the Word. For then you can be sure about your faith and salvation and say: “I believe in the Son of God, who said (John 3:36): ‘He who believes in the Son has eternal life.’ ” Hence no condemnation or wrath rests on him, but he enjoys the good pleasure of God the Father. But I have publicly stated these same things elsewhere in my books, and now I am also teaching them by word of mouth. Therefore I am excused.
(From the American Edition of Luther’s Works 5:43-50; Luther’s Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9).
LikeLike
Richard,
The Book of Concord (1577) is the historic doctrinal standard of the Lutheran Church that confessional Lutherans believe, teach, and confess. Hermann Sasse (d. 1976) was a premier twentieth century confessional Lutheran theologian whose theology was orthodox. Gerhard Forde (d. 2005) was a respected theologian whose theology was not completely compatible with Lutheran orthodoxy (eg: he did not accept the third-use of the law and the inerrancy of scripture; he did accept women’s ordination; etcetera). Forde’s book, The Heidelberg Disputation is well regarded and well worth reading and digesting. I sincerely doubt that Forde would agree with your theology of glory / theology of revival, for the Disputation reads in part:
“That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.
This has already been said. Because men do not know the cross and hate it, they necessarily love the opposite, namely, wisdom, glory, power, and so on. Therefore they become increasingly blinded and hardened by such love, for desire cannot be satisfied by the acquisition of those things which it desires. Just as the love of money grows in proportion to the increase of the money itself, so the dropsy of the soul becomes thirstier the more it drinks, as the poet says: »The more water they drink, the more they thirst for it.« The same thought is expressed in Eccles. 1:8: »The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.« This holds true of all desires.
Thus also the desire for knowledge is not satisfied by the acquisition of wisdom but is stimulated that much more. Likewise the desire for glory is not satisfied by the acquisition of glory, nor is the desire to rule satisfied by power and authority, nor is the desire for praise satisfied by praise, and so on, as Christ shows in John 4:13, where he says, »Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again.«
The remedy for curing desire does not lie in satisfying it, but in extinguishing it. In other words, he who wishes to become wise does not seek wisdom by progressing toward it but becomes a fool by retrogressing into seeking »folly«. Likewise he who wishes to have much power, honor, pleasure, satisfaction in all things must flee rather than seek power, honor, pleasure, and satisfaction in all things. This is the wisdom which is folly to the world..”
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, Goodness, you do beat all. Calvin and Luther are one in agreement on predestination.
RS: Yes, that is correct. It has been stated that Calvin was a Lutheran and Luther was a Calvinist.
Lily: You opine what “modern” Lutherans believe and practice.
RS: Yes, as a whole Lutherans hold to ‘free-will’ and followed Melancthon away from Luther.
Lily: You opine that Gerhard would agree with you and rank Lutheran theologian’s work as interchangeable. My, my – your understanding is as dark as the inside of a bull.
RS: Read Gerhard and simply see if Luther’s theology of the cross was not indeed to the glory of God. I simply said one Lutheran said one thing and you say another Lutheran says another. I guess I don’t know how dark it is inside of a bull, so I will have to take your word for it.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, the point isn’t that the church can be contained to one meeting on a Sunday—or even two for those with certain Reformed sensibilities. The point is that the Lord’s Day is the day he has set apart as holy and in which to meet with his people and feed them. It is typological for that final day of consummation.
RS: Yet, some do like to eat more than once a week.
Zrim: But the pattern of one in seven is also better than the 24/7 concept in revivalosity because, though redeemed, we are also still creatures who have earthly vocations to attend, to say nothing of how revivalosity’s 24/7 notion seems to be another example of redemption swallowing up creation at high octane speeds. Yes, Jesus is Lord of all of life and every second of every year, but it’s hardly obvious that this means every day is the Lord’s Day. I bet you’re a “all of life is worship” sort of fellow. But if all of life is worship then nothing is. This is where revivalists sound like children who want every day to be their birthday but need the aid of maturity to realize just how misguided it is to neglect patterns set in the order of things. The sacred-secular distinction exists for our good.
RS: I am not sure of the “all of life is worship” thing, but the Great Commandment teaches us that we are to love God 24/7 and that all we do is to be for His glory.
LikeLike
In His “Proclamation” book, Forde quite clearly rejects any idea of Christ’s atonement as that which satisfies God’s wrath and justice. I am not saying to not read Forde. I do. I like his soundbites. I enjoy when he exposes Sinclair Ferguson in Five Views of Christian Spirituality. I even think we can quote somebody who has a false gospel. But the fundy in me wants to also report every time I quote–“despite this guy’s false gospel….”
Of course I don’t want to teach “sanctification by effort” anymore than Forde did.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard’ The Book of Concord (1577) is the historic doctrinal standard of the Lutheran Church that confessional Lutherans believe, teach, and confess. Hermann Sasse (d. 1976) was a premier twentieth century confessional Lutheran theologian whose theology was orthodox. Gerhard Forde (d. 2005) was a respected theologian whose theology was not completely compatible with Lutheran orthodoxy (eg: he did not accept the third-use of the law and the inerrancy of scripture; he did accept women’s ordination; etcetera). Forde’s book, The Heidelberg Disputation is well regarded and well worth reading and digesting. I sincerely doubt that Forde would agree with your theology of glory / theology of revival, for the Disputation reads in part:
RS: Let me be clear once again. The theologian of the cross learns his theology by suffering. The theologian of glory learns his theology in order to glory in himself. But the theologian of the cross should seek the glory of God in his suffering. If one seeks to suffer for the glory of self, that is still seeking the glory of self.
Forde’s work On Being a Theologian of the Cross says the following on pages 14-15:
Quoting Luther: “But in the kingdom of his divinity and glory he will make us like unto his glorious body, where we shall be like him and shall be no longer sinners, no longer weak, but shall ourselves be kings, the sons of God, and as the angels that are in heaven. Then we shall say “my God” in real possession, which now we say only in hope.”
Forde’s footnote says this: “It goes without saying, perhaps, that “glory” here means something different from the glory in a theology of glory. The glory of God comes by God’s grace and power. The glory of the theology of glory is made, sought, and appropriated by fallen creatures in the attempt to usurp divine glory.”
LikeLike
Richard,
Please see my previous two comments where each of your points are refuted.
LikeLike
Mark,
Forde was orthodox Lutheran in his theology in a number of areas. That’s why his work has value.
LikeLike
Lily: Luther held to single predestination
Canons of Dort (1:15)
Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election – those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
God Decrees the Damnation of the Lost From All Eternity (Luther)
Now, if you are disturbed by the thought that it is difficult to defend the mercy and justice of God when he damns the undeserving, that is to say, ungodly men who are what they are because they were born in ungodliness and can in no way help being and remaining ungodly and damnable, but are compelled by a necessity of nature to sin and to perish (as Paul says: “We were all children of wrath like the rest,” since they are created so by God himself from seed corrupted by the sin of the one man Adam)—rather must God be honored and revered as supremely merciful toward those whom he justifies and saves, supremely unworthy as they are, and there must be at least some acknowledgement of his divine wisdom so that he may be believed to be righteous where he seems to us to be unjust. For if his righteousness were such that it could be judged to be righteous by human standards, it would clearly not be divine and would in no way differ from human righteousness. But since he is the one true God, and is wholly incomprehensible and inaccessible to human reason, it is proper and indeed necessary that his righteousness also should be incomprehensible, as Paul also says where he exclaims: “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways!” But they would not be incomprehensible if we were able in every instance to grasp how they are righteous. What is man, compared with God? How much is there within our power compared with his power? What is our strength in comparison with his resources? What is our knowledge compared with his wisdom? What is our substance over against his substance? In a word, what is our all compared with his? (LW, vol. 33, 289)
God Hates Many Men From All Eternity
God’s love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal, being prior to the creation of the world, and not only to the merit and work of free choice; and everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity, . . . (LW, vol. 33, 198)
Limited Atonement:
Luther’s sermon on Hebrews 1:1-12, and the quote is expounding on verse 3 “who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
32. The apostle says “our,” “our sins;” not his own sin, not the sins of unbelievers. Purification is not for, and cannot profit, him who does not believe. Nor did Christ effect the cleansing by our free-will, our reason or power, our works, our contrition or repentance, these all being worthless in the sight of God’, he effects it by himself. And how? By taking our sins upon himself on the holy cross, as Isaiah 53:6 tells us.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard,
Please see my previous two comments where each of your points are refuted.
RS: I guess I did not see anything that actually refuted what I said.
LikeLike
Lily: Luther held to single predestination
RS: It is impossible to believe in real predestination without believing in double predestination. If God chose some and did not choose others, then that is double predestination. By definition a true believer in predestination is one who believes in double predestination. If one does not believe in double predestination, then one does not really believe in predestination.
LikeLike
Richard,
It’s easy to see that you did not have time to read, much less digest what I posted in my comments. At this point, there appears to be little purpose in your debates other than to argue for the sake of arguing. Taking quotes out of context and making false comparisons also doesn’t bolster support for your arguments.
It is clear in one Luther quote that he was speaking of the church triumphant not the church militant when it comes to glory. The confused comparison using the Canons of Dordt (official Reformed doctrine) with Luther’s heated debate with Erasmus where he is arguing for the fact that man cannot be saved apart from the grace of God for us in Christ is not particularly surprising. The failure to understand that a quote does not make an argument when Luther’s body of work and later work will not support your claim should be evident. Luther’s last sermon on predestination, which I have posted, clearly shows his final thoughts on the subject and these are the teachings which have been incorporated into the Book of Concord (official Lutheran doctrine).
It’s strange that you do not recognize that when scripture teaches that not all men will be saved, it must mean Reformed double predestination. My best guess is that you are not very familiar with other Christian traditions. Lutherans are elect in Christ and also know that scripture teaches that it is possible for the elect to become apostate (eg: A man who was never saved cannot become apostate or fall away from something he never had). I give this example, not to argue, but to point out how little you understand about Luther, a tradition to which you do not belong, and how little you understand about the ease that one might take with Calvin’s writings by cherry-picking and insist he’s an Anglican.
Lastly – regarding your last comment that was separate from what I addressed above. You are creating some debatable if/thens by insisting that if there is a real predestination, then it must be double predestination. To say that someone who doesn’t agree with your logic or view of predestination is not a true believer takes judgment where God forbids you to take it. It would be good to learn that what your tradition considers orthodox, other traditions consider heterodox, but not apostate. Please stay within the boundaries.
LikeLike
Mark,
If you want to say Forde proclaimed a false gospel, you would need to say the Eastern Orthodox proclaim a false gospel. Read up on all of the history and different explanations of Christ’s atonement. I think you may find it fascinating and edifying reading.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, It’s easy to see that you did not have time to read, much less digest what I posted in my comments.
RS: Digesting does not always mean agreeing.
Lily: At this point, there appears to be little purpose in your debates other than to argue for the sake of arguing. Taking quotes out of context and making false comparisons also doesn’t bolster support for your arguments.
RS: That is why I didn’t do those things.
Lily: It is clear in one Luther quote that he was speaking of the church triumphant not the church militant when it comes to glory. The confused comparison using the Canons of Dordt (official Reformed doctrine) with Luther’s heated debate with Erasmus where he is arguing for the fact that man cannot be saved apart from the grace of God for us in Christ is not particularly surprising.
RS: I was not comparing the quote from Dordt with Luther, but showing that to believe in predestination is to believe in double predestination. The quote from Luther demonstrated that he believed in double predestination as well. So your statement that I used a confused comparison is simply a confused statement.
Lily: The failure to understand that a quote does not make an argument when Luther’s body of work and later work will not support your claim should be evident. Luther’s last sermon on predestination, which I have posted, clearly shows his final thoughts on the subject and these are the teachings which have been incorporated into the Book of Concord (official Lutheran doctrine).
RS: It is not quite so simple to deny that a man that taught something (in this case, predestination) for years and years would simply deny it outright later on and that the later teaching (if correct) should overwhelm all of his former teaching. Nada. Luther taught the Bondage of the Will and considered it his greatest work because he was defending the sovereign grace of God in that work.
Lily: It’s strange that you do not recognize that when scripture teaches that not all men will be saved, it must mean Reformed double predestination.
RS: I did not say that. What I said was that if a person truly believes in predestination, that person is compelled to believe in double predestination. You cannot have one without the other.
Lily: My best guess is that you are not very familiar with other Christian traditions. Lutherans are elect in Christ and also know that scripture teaches that it is possible for the elect to become apostate (eg: A man who was never saved cannot become apostate or fall away from something he never had).
RS: A reading of Romans 8:29-30 should help you see the great error in that teahcing: “29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”
Lily: I give this example, not to argue, but to point out how little you understand about Luther, a tradition to which you do not belong, and how little you understand about the ease that one might take with Calvin’s writings by cherry-picking and insist he’s an Anglican.
RS: Like I said earlier, though using different words, the teachings of Lutheranism are not necesarily the same as those of Martin Luther. I gave you direct quotes and you insist that I am cherry-picking. As I read the Luther sermon again, he is not denying predestination. Remember, a few times he mentions it he is quoting what others say.
Lily: Lastly – regarding your last comment that was separate from what I addressed above. You are creating some debatable if/thens by insisting that if there is a real predestination, then it must be double predestination. To say that someone who doesn’t agree with your logic or view of predestination is not a true believer takes judgment where God forbids you to take it.
RS: When did I say that if someone does not agree with my logic or of my view of predestination is not a true believer? I didn’t say that. Please, listen to my logic just once. Don’t leap over the words that I actually used to implications that are not proper deductions.
Lily: It would be good to learn that what your tradition considers orthodox, other traditions consider heterodox, but not apostate. Please stay within the boundaries.
RS: Sorry, but you don’t make the boundaries. While we are to listen to other traditions, we are to listen to Christ alone for the Gospel.
LikeLike
Richard, yes, Calvin advocated for the Lord’s Supper at least once a week. I’d settle for just once though every week. But revivalosity doesn’t tend to be good for eucharistic frequency, probably in part because to focus so much on Christ’s first advent is considered lazy and disobedient.
LikeLike
Richard, the self-importance regarding your possession of reason, logic, and deductive skills, and your omniscient comprehension regarding Luther’s work, the Book of Concord, and Lutherans are beyond words. Kyrie eleison.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, yes, Calvin advocated for the Lord’s Supper at least once a week. I’d settle for just once though every week. But revivalosity doesn’t tend to be good for eucharistic frequency, probably in part because to focus so much on Christ’s first advent is considered lazy and disobedient.
RS: But again, back when people spent a few days getting ready to take the sacrament and then a day of thanksgiving after it, revival did break out. But wouldn’t you agree that if all people did would be to meet on Sunday, affirm the confession, take the sacrament, and then leave that this would be something less than non-lazy and obedient? I am not arguing that all confessionalist are that way, but if they are wouldn’t they be something like the passage below?
Mat 25:24 “And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25 ‘And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’
26 “But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, the self-importance regarding your possession of reason, logic, and deductive skills, and your omniscient comprehension regarding Luther’s work, the Book of Concord, and Lutherans are beyond words.
RS: What can be said other than you did not deal with what I really said. Do I think I get the heart of Luther’s theology? Yes, I have read Bondage of the Will several times and have led studies over it. He called it his most important writing. I claim no expertise on the Book of Concord and no real expertise on Lutherans. However, from what study I have done and of Lutherans I have spoken to and listened to, the doctrine of ‘free-will’ is there. Luther said without mincing words that you must deny your ‘free-will’ in order to be saved.
Lily: Kyrie eleison.
RS: May the Lord have mercy on you too.
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t understand how doing what God commands–to attend his means of grace on his appointed day–is lazy and disobedient. I also don’t understand why it takes a few days to get ready and another whole day to give thanks. My guess is that what you have in mind is something like a communion season in the Scottish Highlands, and as I understand it it’s fairly complicated and mirrors the once-a-year medieval system of Calvin’s day. The parallels seem instructive. But Reformed worship is supposed to be, amongst other things, simple. And one benefit of conducting worship the “lazy and disobedient” way is that routine and regularity have a helpful way of guarding against spiritual complication.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I don’t understand how doing what God commands–to attend his means of grace on his appointed day–is lazy and disobedient.
RS: But if that is all that one does. Scripture tells us that we have a Great Commissin. Scripture tells us that we are in a spiritual war. There are many comands regarding the life of the body and that the Church is to be salt and light in the world. It does seem like one is hiding the talent in the ground and not doing anything with it.
Mat 25:24 “And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25 ‘And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’
26 “But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
Zrim: I also don’t understand why it takes a few days to get ready and another whole day to give thanks. My guess is that what you have in mind is something like a communion season in the Scottish Highlands, and as I understand it it’s fairly complicated and mirrors the once-a-year medieval system of Calvin’s day. The parallels seem instructive. But Reformed worship is supposed to be, amongst other things, simple. And one benefit of conducting worship the “lazy and disobedient” way is that routine and regularity have a helpful way of guarding against spiritual complication.
RS: Yes, it is something like they did in Scotland, but they did it perhaps two or three times a year if I recall correctly. However, they also handed out tokens when they did these communion seasons. Each person was examined by the elders to see if the person could take communion. If they passed, the person received a token. It took quite a while to carry out these examinations.
I have read in a few different places about the special services and communion services of John Howe. Here is the description of those:
1. He began at 9:00 with a prayer of about one quarter of an hour
2. He read and expounded the Scripture for about three quarters of an hour
3. He prayed an hour
4. He preached another hour
5. He then prayed for half an hour
6. The people sang about a quarter of an hour while he took a little refreshment
7. He then prayed for an hour more
8. Preached for another hour
9. Then concluded with a prayer of half an hour
LikeLike
Richard,
Regarding predestination, I said the difference between Luther and Calvin was single and double. I gave you evidence that Luther did not adhere to double predestination by offering you one of Luther’s last sermons given not too long before his death. Apparently, you skimmed it at best and I have doubts about the skimming. Why would I think that? You didn’t have time to read Luther’s sermon before you gave your reply.
In reading the sermon, you would have seen that Luther was addressing double predestination and speaking strongly against it. Why might you not see that? I would guess that you might have problems seeing that if you are imposing your Reformed thinking upon Luther. You do seem determined to impose double predestination on Luther and make his purpose “defending the sovereign grace of God” based on one book. Did he make points like that? Granted, he did in his furious speech against Erasmus’ work: On Free Will. That was central to the debate. But since you aren’t familiar with Luther’s body of work and the history, you wouldn’t know that Luther believed in universal grace and that God was not willing that any perish – both deny limited atonement and double predestination. Here is an excerpt from the Book of Concord with a partial summary of Luther’s views on predestination:
“This Bible-revelation, however, by which alone Luther would have men guided in judging God, plainly teaches both, that grace is universal, and that salvation is by grace alone. Luther always taught the universality of God’s love and mercy, as well as of Christ’s redemption, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace. Also according to De Servo Arbitrio, God wants all men to be saved, and does not wish the death of sinners, but deplores and endeavors to remove it. Luther fairly revels in such texts as Ezek. 18, 23 and 31, 11: “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die,O house of Israel? “He calls the above a “glorious passage” and “that sweetest Gospel voice-illam vocem dulcissimi Evangelii.” (E. v. a. 7, 218.)
Thus Luther rejoiced in universal grace, because it alone was able to convince him that the Gospel promises embraced and included also him. In like manner he considered the doctrine that salvation is by grace alone to be most necessary and most comforting. Without this truth divine assurance of salvation is impossible, with it, all doubts about the final victory of faith are removed. Luther was convinced that, if he were required to contribute anything to his own conversion, preservation, and salvation, he could never attain these blessings. Nothing can save but the grace which is grace alone. In De Servo Arbitrio everything is pressed into service to disprove and explode the assertion of Erasmus that the human will is able to and does “work something in matters pertaining to salvation,” and to establish the monergism or sole activity of grace in man’s conversion. (St. L. 18, 1686, 1688.)
At the same time Luther maintained that man alone is at fault when he is lost. In De Servo Arbitrio he argues: Since it is God’s will that all men should be saved, it must be attributed to man’s will if any one perishes. The cause of damnation is unbelief, which thwarts the gracious will of God so clearly revealed in the Gospel. The question, however, why some are lost while others are saved, though their guilt is equal, or why God does not save all men, since it is grace alone that saves, and since grace is universal, Luther declines to answer. Moreover, he demands that we both acknowledge and adore the unsearchable judgments of God, and at the same time firmly adhere to the Gospel as revealed in the Bible. All efforts to solve this mystery or to harmonize the hidden and the revealed God, Luther denounces as folly and presumption.”
As I hope you can see, Luther taught single predestination.
Re: Do you get to the heart of Luther’s theology?
No. The heart of Luther’s theology is Christ crucified not God’s sovereignty, predestination, or the bondage of man’s will. Until you understand that Christ crucified is central to Luther, you will never get Luther. That is why you don’t “get” the Heidelberg Disputation.
Re: I claim no expertise on the Book of Concord and no real expertise on Lutherans. However, from what study I have done and of Lutherans I have spoken to and listened to, the doctrine of ‘free-will’ is there.
Apparently you’ve not read orthodox Lutheran theology or met any confessional Lutherans.
Re: Bondage of the Will was Luther’s “most important work”
Let’s see what Luther said in the letter written 10 years prior to his death:
“Regarding the plan to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism.”
Sounds like “most important” is grade inflation. I would suggest that you read Lutheran writers if you wish to understand Luther, not Reformed writers. The Reformed don’t speak Luther any better than the Lutherans speak Calvin.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, Regarding predestination, I said the difference between Luther and Calvin was single and double. I gave you evidence that Luther did not adhere to double predestination by offering you one of Luther’s last sermons given not too long before his death. Apparently, you skimmed it at best and I have doubts about the skimming. Why would I think that? You didn’t have time to read Luther’s sermon before you gave your reply.
RS: I am aware of the difference you said regarding Luther and Calvin. I am also aware that I read the sermon whether you believe that or not. I still believe that anyone who believes in predestination has to believe in double predestination. That does not preclude the idea that some people are not aquainted with the teaching of double predestination, or at least some of the real implications of it.
Lily: In reading the sermon, you would have seen that Luther was addressing double predestination and speaking strongly against it. Why might you not see that? I would guess that you might have problems seeing that if you are imposing your Reformed thinking upon Luther.
RS: Because Luther was not speaking against double predestination at all, though indeed you may think he was. Actually, Luther has imposed his Reformed thinking on me.
Lily: You do seem determined to impose double predestination on Luther and make his purpose “defending the sovereign grace of God” based on one book. Did he make points like that? Granted, he did in his furious speech against Erasmus’ work: On Free Will. That was central to the debate.
RS: Don’t be so sure that he was furious when he wrote that. Sure enough that might help explain to you how he could be so strong in certain areas, but his thinking in that book did not display fury but a strong reason and a strong desire for the glory of God’s grace.
Lily: But since you aren’t familiar with Luther’s body of work and the history, you wouldn’t know that Luther believed in universal grace and that God was not willing that any perish – both deny limited atonement and double predestination. Here is an excerpt from the Book of Concord with a partial summary of Luther’s views on predestination:
“This Bible-revelation, however, by which alone Luther would have men guided in judging God, plainly teaches both, that grace is universal, and that salvation is by grace alone. Luther always taught the universality of God’s love and mercy, as well as of Christ’s redemption, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace. Also according to De Servo Arbitrio, God wants all men to be saved, and does not wish the death of sinners, but deplores and endeavors to remove it. Luther fairly revels in such texts as Ezek. 18, 23 and 31, 11: “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die,O house of Israel? “He calls the above a “glorious passage” and “that sweetest Gospel voice-illam vocem dulcissimi Evangelii.” (E. v. a. 7, 218.)
RS: “All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned.” Luther on Romans
Lily: Thus Luther rejoiced in universal grace, because it alone was able to convince him that the Gospel promises embraced and included also him.
RS: What can I say. The statement of your book does not convince me. Luther’s commentaries on Romans and Galatians along with his Bondage of the Will are more convincing.
Lily: In like manner he considered the doctrine that salvation is by grace alone to be most necessary and most comforting. Without this truth divine assurance of salvation is impossible, with it, all doubts about the final victory of faith are removed.
RS: True, but evidently there is some difference on what true grace really is.
Lily: Luther was convinced that, if he were required to contribute anything to his own conversion, preservation, and salvation, he could never attain these blessings. Nothing can save but the grace which is grace alone. In De Servo Arbitrio everything is pressed into service to disprove and explode the assertion of Erasmus that the human will is able to and does “work something in matters pertaining to salvation,” and to establish the monergism or sole activity of grace in man’s conversion. (St. L. 18, 1686, 1688.)
At the same time Luther maintained that man alone is at fault when he is lost. In De Servo Arbitrio he argues: Since it is God’s will that all men should be saved, it must be attributed to man’s will if any one perishes. The cause of damnation is unbelief, which thwarts the gracious will of God so clearly revealed in the Gospel. The question, however, why some are lost while others are saved, though their guilt is equal, or why God does not save all men, since it is grace alone that saves, and since grace is universal, Luther declines to answer. Moreover, he demands that we both acknowledge and adore the unsearchable judgments of God, and at the same time firmly adhere to the Gospel as revealed in the Bible. All efforts to solve this mystery or to harmonize the hidden and the revealed God, Luther denounces as folly and presumption.”
As I hope you can see, Luther taught single predestination.
RS: Your statements do not convince me. It is better to read Luther than trust in fallible men to synthesize him.
Lily: The heart of Luther’s theology is Christ crucified not God’s sovereignty, predestination, or the bondage of man’s will. Until you understand that Christ crucified is central to Luther, you will never get Luther. That is why you don’t “get” the Heidelberg Disputation. As a side note, Luther rested a lot on Augustine who believed both in double predestination and in the bound will as well
RS: Until you understand that there are reasons that Christ was crucified, you will not understand Luther. Heidelberg Thesis 18:” It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.” This is repeated in even stronger language in Bondage of the Will. Until a person understands the bondage of the will, one will not understand the necessity of the cross and the righteousness and the resurrection of Christ.
Lily: Apparently you’ve not read orthodox Lutheran theology or met any confessional Lutherans.
RS: I do not agree with Lutheran theology.
Lily, quoting Luther: “Regarding the plan to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism.”
RS: So Luther is not eager to have any of his works collected, but then sets out Bondage of the Will and the Catechism. Sounds like Luther himself esteemed these two books above all of his others. By the way, in the Bondage of the Will he congratulated Erasmus for getting at the main point.
Lily: Sounds like “most important” is grade inflation. I would suggest that you read Lutheran writers if you wish to understand Luther, not Reformed writers. The Reformed don’t speak Luther any better than the Lutherans speak Calvin.
RS: I prefer to go the primary sources themselves. It is almost like gossip when we only read what a person says that Luther said. I want to go to the source. It might be helpful if you did that as well.
LikeLike
Richard, “all that one does”? I have to say, for someone who says he wants to take the church seriously you sure have an ironic way of undermining her.
Re Howe, yeow. What about Jesus’ own instructions not to heap up many words in prayer?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, “all that one does”? I have to say, for someone who says he wants to take the church seriously you sure have an ironic way of undermining her.
RS: But again, Scripture tells us that the Church is the body of Christ and that each true believer is part of that body. The Church is not the building that people meet in and the Church has to do with the life of the believers during the week as well. I see that as exalting the Church and the local church. How does this undermine the local church?
Zrim: Re Howe, yeow. What about Jesus’ own instructions not to heap up many words in prayer?
RS: I think that we are warned that we are not heard because of our many words and not to use meaningless repetition.. Maybe he was convinced that he was heard for another reason and did not repeat himself very often. But yes, it does seem like a very long service. It could also be that he and his people thought of prayer as worship and so the prayers were acts of adoration and praise as they sought the face of God. Assuredly, though, one would only hope that his preaching was real preaching and not a simple lecture. If not, then the people that listened to him had the patience of Job (so to speak). Interestingly enough, Howe wrote a work on Delighting in God that extended to almost 200 pages with fairly small print.
LikeLike
Richard, you undermine the church by yawning at her attending God’s means of grace on his appointed day. And it’s hard to imagine any man praying publicly for hours on end and not vainly repeating himself. But, I know, I know, the revivalist’s default setting is to think this MUST be the work of God, couldn’t possibly be human vanity. Just handing out thou-mayest-pass tokens and seeking the face of God is all.
LikeLike
Richard,
I do not fault you for reading primary sources nor for not agreeing with Luther and Lutheran theology. I find it strange that you dismiss the witnesses of your primary source (the men who knew Luther) and give them no consideration in that you may be mistaken in your judgments of Luther and his times. I find it peculiar how easily you dismiss the expertise of trusted theologians and historians whose life work is far superior to your own in theological and church matters. You call them gossips and fail recognize that label would necessarily include you. It is uncanny that even though you have no expertise in a theologian, tradition, or doctrine you “think and feel” you are qualified to unabashedly critique while at the same time assenting to your ignorance. Astounding.
The lack of self-awareness of the inherent risks and dangers in not heeding our limitations and placing trust in our own fallible reason and emotion in matters that are beyond our familiarity is staggering. It continues to sound like the American non-denominational evangelical temperament where each man is his own infallible Pope. In light of these difficulties and in hopes of waking you up – please give me give me your concrete evidence:
1. “Anyone who believes in predestination has to believe in double predestination.” Show me the evidence starting with early church theologians and proceed to our current era.
2. “Don’t be so sure that he was furious when he wrote that.” Show me the evidence to refute the historical claim.
3. “Luther on Romans.” Show me why double predestination is compatible with the rest of Luther’s teaching on predestination: Luther saying that God, desiring to save all fallen human beings, sent his Son Jesus Christ to atone for the sins of the whole world on the cross. Those God saves have been predestined from eternity in Christ and those who are condemned are condemned because of their fallen will.
4. “Heidelberg 18.” Show the evidence that 18 (man’s bondage) is the central to Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation and not Christ. (Hint: If you understand the Heidleberg Disputation arguments regarding the Hidden God and the Revealed God, question 5 will be easy to answer).
5. “Luther’s sermon.” Show me the evidence that Luther is not speaking against double predestination. Include refuting these passages:
a) …this is what they say: “If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.” I would be glad to debate in detail against these wicked statements if the uncertain state of my health made it possible for me to do so.
b) … these people of our time say: “What God has determined beforehand must happen. Consequently, every concern about religion and about the salvation of souls is uncertain and useless.” Yet it has not been given to you to render a verdict that is inscrutable. Why do you doubt or thrust aside the faith that God has enjoined on you? For what end did it serve to send His Son to suffer and to be crucified for us? Of what use was it to institute the sacraments if they are uncertain or completely useless for our salvation? For otherwise, if someone had been predestined, he would have been saved without the Son and without the sacraments or Holy Scripture. Consequently, God, according to the blasphemy of these people, was horribly foolish when He sent His Son, promulgated the Law and the Gospel, and sent the apostles if the only thing He wanted was that we should be uncertain and in doubt whether we are to be saved or really to be damned.
c) this is how I have taught in my book On the Bondage of the Will and elsewhere, namely, that a distinction must be made when one deals with the knowledge, or rather with the subject, of the divinity. For one must debate either about the hidden God or about the revealed God. With regard to God, insofar as He has not been revealed, there is no faith, no knowledge, and no understanding. And here one must hold to the statement that what is above us is none of our concern. For thoughts of this kind, which investigate something more sublime above or outside the revelation of God, are altogether devilish. With them nothing more is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into destruction; for they present an object that is inscrutable, namely, the unrevealed God. Why not rather let God keep His decisions and mysteries in secret? We have no reason to exert ourselves so much that these decisions and mysteries be revealed to us.
d) this inquisitiveness is original sin itself, by which we are impelled to strive for a way to God through natural speculation. But this is a great sin and a useless and futile attempt; for this is what Christ says in John 6:65 (cf. John 14:6): “No one comes to the Father but by Me.” Therefore when we approach the unrevealed God, then there is no faith, no Word, and no knowledge; for He is an invisible God, and you will not make Him visible.
e) Therefore we should detest and shun these vicious words which the Epicureans bandy about: “If this is how it must happen, let it happen.” For God did not come down from heaven to make you uncertain about predestination…
f) I have wanted to teach and transmit this in such a painstaking and accurate way because after my death many will publish my books and will prove from them errors of every kind and their own delusions. Among other things, however, I have written that everything is absolute and unavoidable; but at the same time I have added that one must look at the revealed God … But they will pass over all these places and take only those that deal with the hidden God….remember that I have taught that one should not inquire into the predestination of the hidden God but should be satisfied with what is revealed.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you undermine the church by yawning at her attending God’s means of grace on his appointed day.
RS: I am not aware of yawning at this, though indeed I yawn at times during the Sunday morning services. I just see the Bible teaching things about the body of Christ that requires more than just Sunday morning.
Zrim: And it’s hard to imagine any man praying publicly for hours on end and not vainly repeating himself.
RS: But when prayer is taken up with God, then there is an infinite amount of things to say about His glory in praise, thanksgiving, worship, and in praying for His name to be hallowed and for His kingdom to come.
Zrim: But, I know, I know, the revivalist’s default setting is to think this MUST be the work of God, couldn’t possibly be human vanity. Just handing out thou-mayest-pass tokens and seeking the face of God is all.
RS: That sounds like the confessionalists default setting of blaming all that one cannot explain or understand or like on revivalists. In other words, it seems like you are saying that this MUST NOT be the work of God. Of course some of this could logically be human vanity, but it could also be a real work of God. Right?
LikeLike
Richard,
Why don’t you show us from the Book of Concord where Lutherans teach “free will”?
Also, here’s a link to an article written by a Calvinist on the question of whether Luther held to the “five points”:
http://tquid.sharpens.org/Martin%20Luther%20and%20TULIP.htm
LikeLike
Richard, when the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered it is ALWAYS the real work of God–even when done by and amid hypocrites, or men handing out tokens and praying for hours on end. But that doesn’t mean hypocrisy, tokens and endless prayers are the work of God.
LikeLike