Not Many Square Inches

Published on by D. G. Hart

Is it media bias when Buzzfeed reports on the religious affiliation of U.S. Congress members and does not even have a category for Calvinism? Not really since no such communion and as the Calvinist Churches of Christ exists. As I tried to demonstrate in the big book of British smiles history of Calvinism, the institutional vehicles for exporting what we know as Calvinism around the world were the Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Unfortunately, Buzzfeed doesn’t include a category for Reformed Protestants. It does for Presbyterians and the result are not the basis for flag waving:

According to Buzzfeed, there are 31 religions represented in the House, including 26 denominations of Christianity. Here’s the breakdown of the top six faith backgrounds:

1. Catholics (31 percent with 135 members)
2. Baptists (15 percent with 66 members)
3. Methodists (10 percent with 45 members)
4. Anglicans/Episcopalians (8 percent with 35 members)
5. Presbyterians (6 percent with 28 members)
6. Jews (5 percent with 22 members)

Buzzfeed reports that the majority of Catholics and Jews are Democrats while the remaining religions on the top-six list tend to be represented by Republicans. Jews are listed as the most partisan — 21 out of 22 Jewish members are Democrats — while Mormons come in second, with seven out of eight members as Republicans. There is only one atheist in the House, and only Idaho and Utah are represented by exclusively one religion (barring states that have only a single seat)

The other discouraging news is that if Presbyterians want to consolidate their religious identity and build on top of square inches already captured, they will need to move to Montana. Mind you, I don’t have anything against Montana per se (but its bears do give me the willies). And Montana has accounted for a pretty good story about a Presbyterian pastor and his family, A River Runs Through It. Still, Montana is not what comes to mind when you think of Francis Makemie and John Witherspoon.

65 thoughts on “Not Many Square Inches”

  2. For non-subscribers:

    The Eating of Sausages

    Reformed Protestantism was born in Zurich in 1522, when a few brave believers defied a church ban on eating meat during Lent.

    By BARTON SWAIM

    D.G. Hart is a cantankerous conservative, a stalwart Presbyterian and a talented polemicist with a delightfully perverse sense of humor. (For years he coedited a newsletter called the Nicotine Theological Journal.) He is best known for his books critiquing American religious cultures of the 20th century, particularly “The Lost Soul of American Protestantism” (2002) and “From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin” (2011). He isn’t known as an expert on early modern Europe, however, and I wondered whether he was the ideal candidate to write a history of Calvinism. I underestimated the man. “Calvinism” covers its imposingly diverse subject with scholarly precision and the kind of charity and balance one hopes for in any historian.

    Calvinism is a form of Protestantism that may be simpler to define by what it is not. As a historical phenomenon, it is neither an obsession with the doctrine of predestination (Calvin himself rarely wrote about it) nor the anxious introspection that, according to Max Weber, led northern Europeans of the 17th century to achieve high levels of wealth-making productivity. The religious doctrines and attitude to life now signified by the word “Calvinism” actually predate John Calvin (1509-64).

    In early 1522, in Zurich, a small number of believers met in the home of Christopher Froschauer for the purpose of defying a church teaching that banned eating meat during the Lenten season, a prohibition nowhere found in the Bible. They ate sausages, and the resulting controversy led in time to the city council passing an ordinance affirming the freedom to do so, stating that “no Christian is bound to do those things which God has not decreed.” The sausages controversy, as Mr. Hart says, nicely captures the essential conviction of Reformed Protestantism: God’s word alone defines what it is to be faithful to him. The tradition came to bear John Calvin’s name—”Calvinism” and “Reformed Protestantism” are more or less synonymous—not because Calvin originated it but because his enormous body of writing exhibited this principle from beginning to end.

    In “Calvinism,” Mr. Hart skillfully combines political and institutional history, on the one hand, and theological developments and the “history of ideas,” on the other. The former predominates in the first half of the book, covering the two centuries when Reformed Protestantism was found predominantly in Switzerland, the Netherlands and the German states. From the mid-16th century through the early 18th century, the state of Reformed churches depended largely on which monarch or prince ruled at the time. As late as 1719, for instance, Charles III Philip, the Roman Catholic Elector Palatine, adopted a series of policies aimed at squeezing the Calvinists out of Heidelberg altogether. He imposed fines on anyone caught using the 1563 Heidelberg Catechism, confiscated Reformed churches’ Bibles and Psalters, and sent in soldiers to occupy the city’s Church of the Holy Ghost. This kind of volatility characterized the experience of Reformed churches all over Europe.

    Calvinism: A History

    By D.G. Hart
    (Yale, 339 pages, $35)

    Hence one of the chief factors in determining the vigor of Reformed Christianity, Mr. Hart writes, “was the capacity of ecclesiastical figures to create structures independent of the state for overseeing and determining religious affairs.” In the 1570s, as the Dutch freed themselves from Spanish domination, citizenship was effectively separated from church membership; church attendance became voluntary, giving ecclesiastical authorities much greater latitude in instructing their flocks. Yet even in the Netherlands there were church-state entanglements for another 200 years.

    The second half of Mr. Hart’s book chronicles the ways in which Calvinist churches began at last to break free from state power. The “Great Disruption” in Scotland in the mid-19th century was the turning point. For more than a century, the Church of Scotland had maintained the “right of patronage,” according to which wealthy landowners chose the local church’s minister, whether the congregation liked him or not. The Calvinist-dominated Church of Scotland was Presbyterian in structure (governed by elders, or presbyters, from each congregation, not by a hierarchy of bishops). Many ministers felt that the practice of patrons “installing” ministers violated the spiritual independence of the church, and in 1843, 121 ministers and 73 elders walked out of the Kirk’s General Assembly to form the Free Church of Scotland—a major blow to the idea that the church must accept some level of control by earthly authorities.

    In the U.S., where Calvinist ideas arrived with the first settlers, state interference in the affairs of the church was never the problem it had been in Europe. The problem here, among the Reformed as among those of other traditions, was the reverse. Many American Presbyterians had been led to think that the point of their faith was to influence society and especially the political realm. Mr. Hart records a wonderful moment in 1926 when a Presbyterian minister named J. Gresham Machen, then a professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, was urged to vote “yes” on a motion before the New Jersey presbytery supporting Prohibition. It seemed to be the obvious thing to do—most Presbyterians supported Prohibition—but Machen couldn’t find any support for such a resolution in the Word of God. So, to the ultimate detriment of his own career—he would lose a promotion at the seminary as a result—Machen voted “no.” Mr. Hart sees this vote as, in a small way, a culmination of Calvinistic thought and practice.

    Where does Calvinism stand now? Mr. Hart, whose other writings tend toward pessimism and regret, sounds almost cheerful about Calvinism’s global presence. “Reformed Protestantism has been a global faith since the 17th century,” he writes, and it is equally so now. It thrives in South Korea; self-consciously Reformed churches in the U.S. aren’t on life support as their “mainline” counterparts are; missionaries from Reformed denominations are spreading throughout Africa and Asia; and there are even modest signs of a Calvinist resurgence in Europe.

    In the developed world, established churches have dwindled to the point of insignificance, and national loyalties (along with national borders) mean less and less. If Mr. Hart’s view of Calvinism is right—that it has flourished best when freed from the encumbrances of the nation-state’s power—its history is far from over.

    Mr. Swaim is the author of “Scottish Men of Letters and the New Public Sphere, 1802-1834.”

    A version of this article appeared August 20, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Eating Of Sausages.

    Like

  3. After reading the WSJ(!) review DG’s magnum opus I suggest that the NTJ be renamed the Nicotine-Booze-Bratwurst Theological Journal. We have the best form of piety, surely.

    Like

  4. Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,054 in Books

    That’s for “Calvinism: A History”

    Hart’s buying every Old Lifer a steak dinner at the Big Social in Des Moines November 1-2…

    I’ve listed books for sale with rankings well over 1,000,000 so 1,054 is really good.

    Like

  5. I finished the book on the front deck of a Moosehead Lake cabin while pretending to keep an eye on the kids jumping off the dock. Once in a while I’d look up and count them.

    Meanwhile, what’s up with Montana? There is no OPC in the entire state, although there is a PCA in Billing.

    One source tells us:

    “The population of Montana identifies as religious at a much lower rate than the national average. About 38% of the state population identifies as religious, compared to the national average of 49%. Out of the 38%, about 13% identify as members of the Catholic Church, making it the largest denomination in Montana. The next largest denomination in the state is Lutheran at about 6% of the population. All the other Christian denominations make up about 18.75% of the population. Those who identify as Jewish, Islamic, or as an Eastern religion only make up 0.25% of the population.”

    But that beats Maine, in which less than 30% claim religious affiliation, a national low.

    Another source emphasizes the prevalence of non-Christian religions in Montana:

    11 Indian Tribes living on 7 Reservations
    45 Hutterite Colonies
    13 Buddhist Sanghas
    10 Sects of Buddhism
    225 Individual Baha’is
    3 Muslim Communities
    14 Pagan groups
    3 Interfaith Associations

    That is all.

    Like

  6. #1 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Christian Denominations & Sects > Protestantism > Calvinist
    #4 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > History

    Like

  8. That reminds me, Erik, of The Bear Story.

    Tucked into the woods a bit away from the cabin is a kid’s clubhouse. It’s not much but it doesn’t take much for kids to transform it with their imagination. So one evening there were six kids in there when I decided to make a memory. I began by walking down the hill toward the clubhouse while making breathy grunting noises. Along the way I peeled chunks of bark off a couple trees. By that time the kids were wondering what was out there, and the consensus was “a bear.” That was the design, of course, so by the time I was grunting and peeling bark within a few feet the clubhouse they were absolutely quiet. But I had one more effect: clawing at the side of the clubhouse. That I did, then waited ten seconds and flung open the door. There were shouts. There were screams and tears. Loons from miles away paused their calls, humbled by the sound of sheer terror traveling across the lake.

    That night I actually verbalized that it was just me but they were so convinced it was a real bear that they disregarded my words. So I’m just going with the flow now. In our two visits since The Night of the Bear the kids – now 4 years older – only visit the clubhouse during the day.

    Cross reference this with parenting tips we did some time ago – “don’t be ignorant of why your kids need therapy – be proactive.”

    Like

  9. Just got an Amazon gift card from a company…so “Calvinism” is on it’s way to Weakly Manor.

    Like

  11. “So one evening there were six kids in there when I decided to make a memory.”

    It’s seminary all over again.

    “I began by walking down the hill toward the clubhouse while making breathy grunting noises.”

    We would be out on the porch and we’d occassionaly catch them coming back from evening meal a few drinks into the night already

    “That I did, then waited ten seconds and flung open the door. There were shouts. There were screams and tears.”

    Bastage!

    “the kids – now 4 years older – only visit the clubhouse during the day.”

    We all learned to sleep on our backs with our heads to the wall so we could see who was coming down the line of bunks

    Like

  13. Chortles,

    Throw is a few sticks of deodorant and you can get free shipping (I did).

    I added some shampoo to my order today for Donald Fagen’s book to do the same.

    Now I not only have two great books, but enough toiletries to last for quite some time. It doesn’t get much better than that…

    Like

  15. You’re not cheaper or craftier than me, young Erik. I got your free shipping. DGH and Inspector Wallander will get along swimmingly in the same package. Gruff, lovable, etc.

    Like

  16. Big spender. I see you can stream that on Netflix now.

    Speaking of Netflix, I’m attempting to watch Michael Cimino’s historic bomb “Heaven’s Gate” (although I’ve heard it’s not actually that bad).

    The film starts with some lengthy speeches followed by a lengthy scene of people in top hats and long dresses dancing. Riveting stuff…

    Like

  17. Now every scene has scores of extras, milling around in fancy clothes, doing very little. Learning why we have seen nothing from Cimino since this in 1980.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001047/

    Nothing like “The Deer Hunter”, although, come to think of it, that film also had a lot of large crowds (before the action moved to Vietnam).

    Like

  18. D.G.,

    You linked to the Wikipedia page for McLean’s book and not to the one for Redford’s movie. Both are great, though. The location of Paul’s demise is fictionalized in the movie, as is much else, I imagine. That’s my all-time favorite movie.

    Like

  20. Montana is the home of Gospel Mission, the home base of some ex Dutch Reformed wheat farmers. I used to work there, a long time ago.

    I do agree with Hart that people can be “Presbyterian” but not “Reformed”. One of my continuing questions about the history of “Magisterial Reformed” missions is about the need to ask permission of the Magistrate (not to eat sausages) but to enter another nation-state so as to preach the gospel.

    I understand the old Luther-Calvin-Beza answer about the Great Commission being given to the apostles and the apostles being temporary. Not only does this eliminate any conjectures about the sequence between discipling and baptism, but it’s realistic about the need to negotiate (for sausages) with the powers in one’s local “place”.

    So far, no problem. The Great Commission was temporary, so also perhaps was baptism. But the “Reformed” story now seems to have changed. Now we are told that the Great Commission was not only for the temporary apostles, but was and is for “the church” and its ordained administrators of the “sacraments”. Mere baptism does not mean that you have a calling to evangelize.

    My historical question is about when this explanation changed. Before, the Great Commission was temporary, but now, the Great Commission is only for those institutions which have “sacraments”. I am not arguing against either idea, but I would like to know how and when the thinking changed.

    Hart’s book is about halfway down my “to read” stack, but maybe I need to move it up. (Unless some kind readers have “spoilers” for me!)

    I certainly agree that academic “para-churches” (Christian colleges, seminaries) are not in the Great Commission business.

    Like

  28. Calvin, commentary on I Corinthians 12: 28—“of the offices which Paul makes mention of, some are perpetual, others temporary. Those that are perpetual, are such as are necessary for the government of the Church; those that are temporary, are such as were appointed at the beginning for the founding of the Church, and the raising up of Christ’s kingdom; and these, in a short time afterwards, ceased.

    For the Lord created the Apostles, that they might spread the gospel throughout the whole world, and he did not assign to each of them certain limits or parishes, but would have them, wherever they went, to discharge the office of ambassadors AMONG ALL NATIONS AND LANGUAGES. In this respect there is a difference between them and Pastors, who are, in a manner, tied to their particular churches. For the Pastor HAS NOT A COMMISSION TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OVER THE WHOLE WORLD, but to take care of the Church that has been committed to his charge.

    Like

  29. And I just embarrassed myself by spelling Maclean wrong. A sacrilege…

    Now everyone will think they are lowland Scots and not highland Scots.

    Like

  31. Mark,

    That Calvin quote supported the cessation of the Apostleship, but where do you find a quote that the Great Commission was temporary?

    Like

  32. Hart’s buying every Old Lifer a steak dinner at the Big Social in Des Moines November 1-2…

    Whaaat?
    That sounds like discrimination against those to uhm . . mature to show up.
    I smell a lawsuit. Something to do with equal protection.

    Like

  33. Someone answer MMc’s question. Will check back during the day for such….

    Thank you.

    Like

  34. As of this morning:

    Publisher:Yale University PressRelease date:July 30, 2013Language:EnglishItem Weight:1.6 poundsShipping Weight:1.63 poundsNumber of Pages:352 pagesISBN-10:0300148798ISBN-13:978-0300148794Amazon.com Sales Rank:1039

    1039?!

    Like

  35. If the Great Commission was for the apostles (not the pastors, not the churches), and if the apostles were temporary, that would seem to make the Great Commission temporary. As in, it’s already been done. Cessationist—like tongues and Acts 2 socialism

    Like

  36. d4v34x,

    Exactly.

    Mark,

    Calvin’s quote became relevant during the First (pretty good) Awakening. Think one traveling Presbyterian minister riding into town and telling church members that their pastor was a piece of crap because he was Old Side and not New Side, justifying it in the name of the Great Commission.

    Like

  37. My question has to do with the time of the original Magisterial Reformers: Luther, Calvin, and Beza.

    The Magisterial Reformed reading of the Great Commission denies any idea of sequence—discipling and baptizing are parallel. Indeed, baptizing IS discipling.

    Also, the Magisterial Reformed reading is anti-individualizing. The command is not to baptize individuals but “nations”. Thus the argument for negotiation with the federal representatives of “people groups”. Why would it necessarily be a bad thing for colonialists/missionaries to sprinkle the crowds/ masses/ecclesias with Trinitarian water?

    Also, the Magisterial Reformed reading is anti-gnostic, so that any attempt to make a distinction between water baptism and Spirit baptism is “spiritualist” enthusiasm. Of course this does not quite explain Mark 1:8 –“I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

    But none of those three points get to my question. If indeed the Great Commission was given to the apostles, and the gospel has now gone to the whole world, how could it be said that the Great Commission is now given to churches (but not to Christian para-church organizations like colleges and seminaries)
    Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” (Rom. 10:18)

    The gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing… (Colossians 1:6)

    The gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven (Colossians 1:23)

    Again, I am only asking a question here. Of course I have many agendas, but I am not a preterist and I am not claiming that the Great Commission is temporary. I am interested in how and when the Reformed explanation of the Great Commission changed.

    If indeed the Great Commission was temporary, on what basis would we command individuals to allow themselves to be baptized with water? But then, on the other hand, if the Great Commission is not temporary, what does it say about individuals deciding to be baptized?

    When a pagan guy comes to the church for baptism, why would you hesitate to baptize his heathen teenagers and wait for their “free-will” to decide? Have we all become enlightenment liberals?

    Like

  38. MMc — “Acts 2 socialism” sounds like a movement coming to a more-or-less-redeemed city near you.

    Like

  39. Mark – When a pagan guy comes to the church for baptism, why would you hesitate to baptize his heathen teenagers

    Erik – It’s tough to baptize them once they can outrun you.

    Like

  40. That I did, then waited ten seconds and flung open the door. There were shouts. There were screams and tears.

    AND THAT, Children, is why you don’t leave food in the clubhouse…

    Where’s J. Walter Weatherman when you need him?

    Like

  41. Reading Van Drunen the Longer last night and was interested to find a footnote that referred to both Alan Strange and D.G. Hart (our hoped for conference speakers in November). Strange was cited as one who primarily linked the Southern Spirituality of the Church arguments with slavery, Hart as one who did not.

    Van Drunen’s citing Preston Graham’s “A Kingdom Not of this World – Stuart Robinson’s Struggle to Distinguish the Sacred from the Secular During the Civil War” is making me want to buy that book soon.

    Lest one think that Robinson was a shill for slavery, he had to flee to Canada during the war (presumably because he would not speak out in favor of the Southern cause).

    Hart has written on Robinson here:

    https://oldlife.org/2011/02/introducing-the-old-school-presbyterians-stuart-robinson/

    Like

  43. Mark,

    I think you are confusing the end of the Apostleship with the end of the Commission. On Matt 28 Calvin wrote, “It ought likewise to be remarked, that this was not spoken to the apostles alone; for the Lord promises his assistance not for a single age only, but even to the end of the world… the Lord commands the ministers of the gospel to go a distance, in order to spread the doctrine of salvation in every part of the world.”

    Calvin was arguing against the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession when he speaks of the cessation of Apostles. When he speaks of the task of spreading the gospel he looks beyond the apostleship to ministers in general.

    Like

  45. @Erik Charter

    “Lest one think that Robinson was a shill for slavery, he had to flee to Canada during the war (presumably because he would not speak out in favor of the Southern cause).”

    No, you presumed wrongly. Robinson was pastoring in Kentucky, a “neutral” border state. He was hustled off to Canada by colleagues because he was subject to arrest and imprisonment due to his refusal to take the loyalty oath to the Union required of pastors in border states. Southern sensibilities had nothing to do with his refusal to take the loyalty oath, it was his firm doctrine of the spirituality of the church.

    Respectfully,
    Linda J.

    Like

  49. Linda,

    And if you think about it, why would he need to flee to Canada for defying the South? Duh, he could have just gone to the North. Sometimes I’m not so smart (so my wife tells me, anyway).

    Like

  51. Click to access 14-2_davies.pdf

    Davies: The theological successors of Luther and Calvin were even stronger in their opposition to the idea of the continuing validity of the Great Commission than the original Reformers. John Gerhard, one of the leading Lutheran theologians in the beginning of the seventeenth century produced a major treatment of the subject, arguing against the continuing validity of the
    Great Commission and giving a number of reasons why the universal preaching of the gospel is no longer necessary, offering supposed proofs that the apostles had finished the job

    In 1651 when the Theological Faculty of Wittenberg were asked for their views on the subject, they gave their ‘Opinion’ that, firstly, the command to go into all the world was a privilege of the apostles, like the gift of miracles, and that they had fulfilled it. Secondly, the light of nature means that no man can be excused through ignorance> In addition, through Adam, Noah and the apostles, the gospel had been preached throughout the world.

    In 1663 and 1664 a German nobleman, Justinian von Weltz, produced a number of tracts in which he tried to stir up missionary interest among Lutherans, but he was rebuffed in official Lutheran circles. Among other motives for world mission, he appealed to Matthew 28 and sought to show its relevance not only to the apostles but to the church of all ages. Disappointed with the negative response to his ideas, Justinian moved to the Netherlands, and from there sailed to Surinam, the Dutch colony in South America.

    In the next century the Divinity Faculty of Wittenberg denounced advocates of missions as false prophets and in 1722 the hymnologist Neumeister of Hamburg closed his Ascension sermon by giving out the hymn:
    ‘Go Out into the world’,
    The Lord of old did say;
    But now: ‘Where God has placed thee,
    There he would have thee stay!’

    Among Reformed theologians, Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor at Geneva, was far stronger against the continuing obligation imposed by the Great Commission than Calvin himself. In 1590 a Dutchman, Adrianus Saravia (1531-1613), from 1582 to 1587 a preacher and professor in Leyden, published a treatise which contained a chapter dealing with missions, showing that the Great Commission applied to the church of all times. Saravia’s work provoked Beza’s attempted refutation of the permanent validity of the Great Commission.”

    mark: If indeed the Great Commission was given to the apostles, and the gospel has now gone to the whole world, how could it be said that the Great Commission is now given to churches? That God is still with us does not mean that we now have apostles.

    If indeed the Great Commission was temporary, on what basis would we command individuals to stand still to be baptized with water? But then, on the other hand, if the Great Commission is not temporary, what does it say about individuals deciding to be baptized? Should we not first negotiate with the prince of the local square inches involved? What need is there for a buffet of various religious franchises in each “parish”?

    Like

  53. I had Friesen as a teacher…B+ in upper division reformation Europe. Good class, as I recall, I took it about 3 years after he wrote the book you linked, Mark. Just had to mention, I guess (emoticon).

    Like

  54. Mark,

    Though some Lutherans and a few others have interpreted the Great Commission as temporary, that is not the witness of Calvin, or the Reformed churches since Calvin. They have almost all understood that the Great Commission was given to the visible church via the apostles until Christ returns.

    (Charles Hodge – What is Presbyterianism) The third argument on this subject is derived from the commission given by Christ to his Church, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” This commission imposes a certain duty; it conveys certain powers; and it includes a great promise. The duty is to spread and to maintain the gospel in its purity over the whole earth. The powers are those required for the accomplishment of that object, i.e. the power to teach, to rule, and to exercise discipline. And the promise is the assurance of Christ’s perpetual presence and assistance. As neither the duty to extend and sustain the gospel in its purity, nor the promise of Christ’s presence is peculiar to the apostles as a class, or to the clergy as a body, but as both the duty and the promise belong to the whole Church, so also of necessity do the powers of the possession of which the obligation rests. The command, “Go teach all nations,” “go preach the gospel to every creature,” falls on the ear of the whole Church. It wakens a thrill in every heart. Every Christian feels that the command is addressed to a body of which he is a member, and that he has a personal obligation to discharge. It was not the ministry alone to whom this commission was given, and therefore it is not to them alone that the powers which it conveys belong.

    Like

  57. Todd,

    Hodge is not saying the same thing that Calvin and Beza was. Hodge disagreed with them about “sacraments” also. There is no good historical reason to ignore the diversity and discontinuity in the various Reformed territories.

    We don’t need to “cherry-pick” what we like from the history to agree (or disagree) with Hodge. One thing which is different about Hodge is that he speaks from a territory where there is no national church. Of course there has been a distinction between the cult of the king and the cult of the priest (even in Mosaic theocracy), but in the first Magisterial Reformation churches, the pattern was one state religion per territory.

    I don’t give the “anabaptists” credit for changing the reading of the Great Commission. God’s providence has brought us (for good or evil) the religious liberty/ privacy which makes churches less public, less nationalistic, and less culture-creating/conserving.

    Like

  58. AB

    Did you also know Jonathan Rainbow, a baptist who wrote a very important book on Calvin, Martin Bucer, and the anabaptists? Jon died a couple years back. Friesen was his doctoral advisor.

    Jonathan H Rainbow, The Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Atonement.

    It’s a great book about how there was a debate back then about the nature of the atonement.

    Jon taught the definite effectual nature of Christ’s satisfaction of the law. In all aspects ( even the civil and the ceremonial), the law demands death. The only end of the law is Christ.

    Ephesians 2: 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances….

    Like

  59. Todd,

    “Hodge is not saying the same thing that Calvin and Beza was.”

    Calvin saw a continuation of the great commission. Calvin started a great missionary movement.

    “Hodge disagreed with them about “sacraments” also.”

    What has that to do with their views on the great commission?

    “We don’t need to “cherry-pick” what we like from the history to agree (or disagree) with Hodge.”

    Which is what I think you are doing. I don’t have time to provide quotes of the Puritans and other reformed fathers to show that they thought the responsibility to fulfill the great commission rested on the visible church, and not just the apostles, but they are there.

    “One thing which is different about Hodge is that he speaks from a territory where there is no national church. Of course there has been a distinction between the cult of the king and the cult of the priest (even in Mosaic theocracy), but in the first Magisterial Reformation churches, the pattern was one state religion per territory.”

    Not sure how this point applies.

    “I don’t give the “anabaptists” credit for changing the reading of the Great Commission. God’s providence has brought us (for good or evil) the religious liberty/ privacy which makes churches less public, less nationalistic, and less culture-creating/conserving.”

    It doesn’t matter what the anabaptists did. What we are debating is how Matt. 28 has been understand by Calvin and Reformed theologians, and almost to a tee they saw the commission extending beyond the apostolic age.

    Like

  60. Mark, interesting. No, I was all business courses after that class (boo!). Just checking in here at OL seeing that name, brought back memories of that class and that man. Thanks for sharing.

    Like

  62. http://heidelblog.net/2013/08/riddlebarger-on-the-buzz-vs-reformation-in-the-oc/

    From Scott Clark:

    Kim Riddlebarger spent his summer sabbatical profitably and one of the things he did was to write a series of fascinating posts on evangelicalism in Orange County, California during the 1970s—2013. It’s not an exhaustive account but it does illustrate well the stark difference between “buzz” and Reformation theology, piety, and practice. The former is rooted in temporary excitement and personalities and the other is rooted in Scripture, in confession, and in a piety oriented around the due use of ordinary means.

    The “Burned Over District” is a reference to a period of religious enthusiasm in the 19th century, in Western New York. See Whitney Cross, The Burned Over District. See also Nathan Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity.

    Here’s the series: The OC: A New Burned Over District?

    Introduction
    Part 1: The Buzz
    Part 2: TBN
    Part 3: Calvary Chapel
    Part 4: Robert Schuller and the Crystal Cathedral
    Part 5: The Bible Teachers
    Part 6: Lessons To Be Learned

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.