What struck me first were those eyes. They are remarkable…They clearly see beyond prison walls. With a twinkle in them, they are fixed on the realities of yet unseen eternal things, contemplating ways and words and means to convey such stupendous immortal truths revealed to him for those mortals whose sights are hemmed in by the narrow walls of day to day battles of the here and now. Conviction is written all over his confident, tranquil expression. He knows who holds his future, and the future of mankind. But how will he put into human language what his spirit has grasped? How will he pass on to his fellow-travellers outside prison walls what behind them has enlightened his heart through the study of the Scriptures? How will he condense into some brief epistle what he has experienced on the way to Damascus and in Arabia’s desert? These weighty and vital matters seem to preoccupy his lofty flights of thoughts.And yet, he is perfectly at ease in his gloomy cell. He indeed does not look like a prisoner of Caesar. No worry about his personal fate can be detected, a rather carefree, relaxed attitude permeates the confines of his earthly abode. Leisurely, one foot, being freed from the bondage of its shoe, rests upon it, as done by someone feeling right at home, without fear or apprehension. Here is someone who obviously is in charge, and not being charged. A man at peace with his destiny. A man of purpose at work. Persecution and Prison are merely incidental.Here, sitting on the simple bedstead, cramped and uncomfortable, though his posture never gives the impression for this to be just so, is the Champion of Christian liberty through divine grace, still busy in discharging his heavenly commission on earth. The surrounding cannot impede the driving force of the great purpose of his life, for all things must work together for good to them that love God.
And there he is, redeeming the remaining time to fulfill the passion of his heart to present to the Christ of God a Church without spot and wrinkle. He is intense and ponderous in putting on the finishing touches to this very objective. He is so enthralled that nothing seems to distract him, any ambiance is good enough as long as the message can be caught on paper and rushed to his friends to meet their needs of freedom, faith and charity.
In Paul’s bearing Rembrandt caught - in Rembrandt-fashion - the sovereignty of his divine calling. The portrait exudes the benign, but firm authority of the chief steward of the mysteries of God. Truly Pauline, his noble personality unobtrusively, but definitely and pleasantly, fills the prison cell, all other things and facts recede into the background as being less important. There is, however, no air of „pomp and circumstance,” there is no trace of self-importance or bigotry, let alone of self-pity, but there is authoritative modesty coupled with an almost lighthearted, victorious smile on his weather-beaten face that knows in Whom faith and trust have been placed. Here is someone who is not set to please, but to win men to his cause, here is an approved soldier of Christ who rightly divides the word of truth, come what - and who - may. He is under, and responsible to, God Himself, not to any earthling, and may he wield as much temporary power as he wishes.
It is intriguing to note that Paul’s sufferings and hardships are in no way highlighted or even hinted at, but rather his divine destiny, to be a light unto the Gentiles. Against the backdrop of the invading daylight and the prominence of the Scriptures on his lap, this is forcefully emphasized. Paul’s motto is thus beautifully and purposefully portrayed: „For me to live is Christ.”
Even in prison: Paul, the scholar, surrounded by his beloved, life-giving Scriptures, eager to transpose and apply the Old Testament prophecies to the New Testament realities. Paul, the aged, who has learned to cope with every situation and condition as long as Christ is glorified. Paul, the pragmatist, who is quite happy to enjoy the warming benefits of a cloak and the rays of the sun, filtered through prison bars, though, they are. Paul, the sound, well balanced Servant of Christ. Right to the end.
Head slightly bent forward, retrospectively hand to chin, , prospectively hand on the book, Rembrandt just about enables us to read Paul’s profound thoughts in the process of being penned down:
“I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me in the ministry; who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. This is now a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. However, for this cause I have obtained mercy, that in me first, Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering as a pattern to all of those who will come to believe on him, finding life everlasting. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
HERBERT ROS
Stuttgart, Germany
Through studying the history of the Anglican Church we can see the contrast between the Anglo Catholics and the Evangelical Catholics. The Anglos argue for a more liturgical and sacramental Church, where as the Evangelicals argue for a more mission/covenant oriented and doctrinal Church. The problem is that both tend to gravitate toward the extreme. With that said, it is a blessing that both are in the Anglican communions. They invoke balance and stimulate discussion!
The Anglos are fantastic at pursuing proper apostolic forms, which in turn protects the Church from the ghetto (seeker-sensitive) cultures from invading. But they lack doctrinal initiative and have attracted many Latitudinarians to the faith who submit the Liberals. Too many soldiers placed on the sacramental/ecclesiastical battle field will leave too few to defend the doctrinal/covenantal battle field.
The Evangelical Anglicans are fantastic at pursuing missions and essential doctrines of grace, which in turn protects the Church from the secular (liberal) cultures from invading. But they lack sacramental initiative and have attracted many syncretists to the faith who submit to today’s narcissistic Hollywood culture.
Both groups lack standard! The Anglos lack soteriological and eschatological standard while the Evangelicals lack sacramental and liturgical standard. Both groups have the backdoor unlocked at night, allowing the criminals to invade the homestead. The two camps must be brought together to understand each-others passions. I believe this will one day happen as many of the Baby-boomers pass on. This is not meant to be antagonistic to the Baby-boomers, but the fact of the matter is that “generational repentance” has been historically known to be very difficult. Once a group of corporately committed men spend decades committed to a particular cause, and then later “see the light” to pursue the extreme oposite, it becomes very difficult for them, as a group, to see the moderation and culmination of the two. But the succeeding generation of men can come in and see the works of the previous generation from a different perspective, and are enable to move forward with the best of both worlds.
There is much to be said on this subject. So much so, that I am making it my aim to demonstrate the finer points of both sides on this website. I do not claim to be the foremost expert on the matter, but I have been a part of both the Anglos and the Evangelicals, including seminaries from both sides, and I have come to this conclusion that the both are right in vital areas. I know I am not alone in this and have met men who believe and teach the same. I would like to encourage those men out there to fight the good fight that the Apostle Paul has called us to fight! Let us build a heritage of Reformed Catholics that are committed to both apostolic tradition as well as “modern” thought. Let us be committed to the ancient Church as well as the future Church. Let us be humbled by what has happened in the Reformation in order to be exalted in Christ for the future unity of this ancient faith (Ephesians 4:13).
One nice aspect of the Anglican faith is the ecumenical opportunity it offers in study (not being as doctrinaly bound as many other traditions. Anglicanism does not claim to have all the answers, but rather believes that one day she will. This requires listening to others while on this journey to eschatological victory). This does not mean that we are tolerable to all the latest trends and relativistic concepts of others, but it means that we are not ashamed to congratulate non-Anglicans for helping us better understand ourselves and God. One non-Anglican that has in the past said and wrote many wonderful things is John Piper. He has been a great help in understanding the controversies of justification. In his book Future Grace (the 1995 edition) Piper lays out a biblical foundation as to just what justification looks like, without any fear, and probably offending both sides of the current debate (journalism says this is a sign of a great piece). Page 26-27 of Future Grace reads as follows:
The fist assumption is that justifying faith is persevering faith. As Jonathan Edwards explained with careful and nuanced language, “perseverance in faith is, in one sense, the condition of justification; that is, the promise of acceptance is made only to a perseverance sort of faith, and the proper evidence of it being that sort is its actual perseverance.” Thus it is proper to speak of the moral effectiveness of justifying faith not merely because it brings us into right standing with God at the first moment of its exercise, but also because it is a persevering sort of faith, whose effectiveness resides also in its daily embrace of all that God is for us in Jesus. A second assumption is that justifying faith is not only a trusting in the past grace of God, but also trusting in the future grace of God, secured by the past grace of Christ’s death and resurrection…Or as John Calvin says in his sermon on Ephesians 3:14-19, “If we come to Christ, with belief in him, that is to say, if we receive the promises of the gospel, let us assume ourselves that he will dwell in our hearts, even by means of faith.
Sound familiar? Look at the recent post on NT Wright’s teaching of justification and you will find that both are touching on the fact that justification must relate to eschatology – time itself, and the fact that God’s justifying faith does not stop once one becomes a part of His kingdom. This faith carries on and takes on an even richer form. And in the end, when we are finally glorified, that justifying grace that God first imparted to us has ceased to exist and we are now with him in eternity. To say that justifying faith/grace ceases to exist at some Baptistic point of (psychological) conversion is just another modern error of the Church. All throughout the Bible we can see that we are indeed sanctified by faith and that without the precious blood of Christ, we can do nothing. And since it is His blood that justifies us, it goes to say that this justification fuels our sanctification. While presupposing election, this makes perfect sense and should sit well with the Reformed and maybe even the Catholic.
I recently attended a Baptist service for a seminary assignment. This was quite an experience as I was taken back by the difference in the liturgy as well as the overall culture of the people.
Arrival
When I first arrived, a fellow with shorts and sandals greeted me with a smile and a genuine tone. I walked into the church and observed many electronic gadgets, including a soundboard, huge speakers, drums, amps, and a video screen.
The people were dressed in a beach-type of attire and were all carrying Bibles. They appeared to be middle class and most of them were Anglo. There seemed to be a strong leadership from the women, as they were the most talkative and proactive in the service.
Precession
The precession of the service included some CDs of a Christian rock band and at 10:05 sharp, the choir (I think they call it a praise band) set up and the leader made some jokes. Everyone laughed. This was the beginning of the extemporaneous nature of the service.
The Service
These types of people believe that if the liturgy is extemporaneous than they are being led by the Spirit. But I did not see the Spirit leading; rather I saw comedy, and technology leading.
After each song the people clapped. Most of the people did not sing, though. I think they may have been clapping at the performance of the band. A couple songs passed and then a woman got up and began to state how the church is giving supplies to a local public school. Then, the pastor got up with his shorts and sandals and for about 10 minutes went on about all the fun activities available for the people during the week.
The band played a couple more songs and then the pastor began his sermon sitting down on a stool, pointed toward the video screen. The video screen publicized his Scriptures that he was expounding on, but it also, during the songs, flashed the crucifix along with other ancient symbols. This I thought to be very strange. From a psychological perspective it seemed like they were getting some sort of appeasement, some sort of legalism to prove to themselves that they do not hate the ancient, like a quick insert to say “look we too are symbolic.” But they were not symbolic in the ancient and biblical sense. Their symbol was the cool pastor, the modern music, scantily dress, and the plain walls.
The sermon was actually very good. The pastor preached on Psalm 23 and tied in the sovereignty of God and how we should not worry about our circumstances. I was quite impressed.
The Sacraments
Uh…yeah, there were none. You know where Jesus and Paul say in the Bible to take and eat of His flesh and drink of His blood? Well, there was none of this and no reference to it. We know from historical records that the Church practiced communion every service (see the Didache, ch.14) but they obviously are unaware of this scriptural command.
The sermon lasted about 30 minutes and then after a couple more songs the service was over. That was it: a couple jokes, some announcements, some songs and a sermon. Oh, they did pass some silver paint cans around at the end of the service. People were putting money in them, so I guess it was some sort of offering. I just can’t remember them making any sort of pronouncement or declaration to God beforehand. The service was very entertaining and I did enjoy both the songs and the sermon. But there were times that I felt almost sick to my stomach.
What’s Wrong?
What made me so disturbed was that Christ was not glorified in this service, man was! I’m sure the people believe they were glorifying Christ; I know - I used to serve in a very similar church. But the fact of the matter is that they were pleasing man. The argument is that they are evangelizing the lost, but what is really happening is that they are appeasing the lost. I question as to whether the lost get found at churches like this. I know that may sound harsh, but what if it is true? Are we entitled to draw a line and finally say this is enough? I think we can and I don’t think we have to be bishops to make such a judgment. Our families count on our good judgment so we therefore cannot afford to be ignorant.
Are people that go to an assembly to be entertained on a certain and ecclesiastical path of redemption? This is the question. I can hear good preaching at any conference or simply on the radio. In fact, the whole service could have been done via media.
The Ancient Way
The ancient way of worshiping God is entirely sacrificial. God says that we, as His people, are to be ‘living sacrifices’ for Him (Romans 12:1). This means – as the early church has taught us – that when we worship God on Sunday we are primarily there to be giving in a sacrificial way. This means that there will be reverent and majestic overtones that are not filled with adrenaline boosting technology and jokes. This means that there will be liturgy that has come directly from the Apostles, and a Eucharistic meal that was commanded by Christ! To have a service of living sacrifice means that there will be gestures of humility such as kneeling, like Christ did in the garden, or that Revelation says we will do in the future. Being sacrificial means to give up the things that we are typically entertained with during the week. It means giving our money for the sake of the Kingdom, and giving our voices as God calls ‘the fruit of our lips’ (Hebrews 13:15). It means responding with heart-felt motives to the word that is read over the lectern by a layperson.
What would happen if the movie screen and the electronic noises were halted? Would there be any fruit of the lips? What would happen if there were no jokes? Would there be any joy? What would happen if the people had to humble themselves to the point of believing in a piece of bread and a cup of wine; that it would be a spiritual blessing to the soul (1 Corinthians 10:16)? What would happen if people had to recite their responses to what the pastor said? Would their hearts still be in it? Or would they need to psychologically be convinced that the Spirit is moving spontaneously by responding to the extemporaneous sounds of the pastor and his leaders?
Many know of the more Catholic/Anglican way of worshiping. It involves the ancient liturgies, the Eucharistic meal, the singing and chanting with little instrumental accompany, the ancient vestments, the natural elements of candles and even incense, and the voices of the entire people singing and responding to the reading of the Scriptures. This is all where creation meets covenant! This is where man sacrificially gives his reverence and humility to the Almighty God, where he is not as entertained as he is focused and humiliated.
Many will say that this Catholic type of service is dry and gloomy. But what they do not account for is that through many tears man is made truly joyful (Psalm 126:6). The ancient worship is designed by God to begin the Christians life for battle. This means that they must enter into the gates of splendor with humility and awe, so that they may leave with joy and strength, not adrenaline and happiness. Happiness is circumstantial. Joy is spiritual. One must be humbled to receive this joy, and I believe it is difficult, if not impossible, to find at these types of services.
Balaam’s Ecclesiology?
The pre-canonical church in the first four centuries was not at all a precursor to the Christian church. It was not at all a silent period of mediation. It was the real deal; the New Covenant people of God! And this New Covenant Church sought the spoken word through the bishops of the church. They were the arbitrators of this new type of theology (New Covenant) while the canon was being formed. The church was growing into its canonical form in a very organic manner – no temporary building blocks or intermit positions were formed for “the coming of the canon.”
The very succession of apostolic authority to the later patriarchs was a permanent and therefore ecclesiastical part of the Church. For it was out of this group of bishops that the canon of the New Testament was formed. Therefore, to believe in the canon is to believe in the very authority of these bishops. Did God bring forth His Law through an invalid office or through just some man that happened to be available at the time? Likewise, did God choose the writings of the Holy Scriptures to be written by whomever the people of God currently had, or did he appoint the man Saul to a specific and anointed office of Apostle? Why then would God appoint the very gathering and confirming of his Holy Scriptures to an office and calling that does not spiritually or physically exist? How could this even happen except that one presuppose some sort of Balaam’s Ass theology? But we know that the Bishops of the early church were not equivalent to such a grotesque concept.
In the beginning of the second century Bishop Ignatius (A.D. 35-A.D. 117) referred to the written Word of God and later in the second century we find Irenaeus bringing forth the idea of two separate Testaments. Around this same time, the heretic Marcion, compiled his own canon, forcing the Church to adopt an official canon. F.F. Bruce describes this act in the following:
“Augustine’s [canonical] ruling supplied a powerful precedent for the western church from his own day to the Reformation and beyond.
In 393 a church council held in [Bishop] Augustine’s see of Hippo laid down the limits of the canonical books along the lines approval by Augustine himself. The proceedings of this council have been lost but they were summarized in the proceedings of the Third Council of Carthage (397), a provincial council. These appear to be the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon.”
The bishops gathered and confirmed the canon. It is clear that the office of the Bishop was a part of the very unification of the Church. The very Word of God was entrusted to them by God and His people for its consecration.
Another good topic to publish is Bishop N.T. Wright’s view of justification. This was taken from the Mandate magazine. I think that this basic tenor of Wright’s argument is often overlooked and thus excludes many. So, here is a basic outline, from Wright, of his teachings of justification. But beware, once you begin to understand this you will have to be very careful with this information when around Reformed Presbyterians. There is much controversy about Wright and the Presbyterians he has influenced.
1. It’s best to begin at the end, with Paul’s view of the future.(a) The one true God will finally judge the whole world; on that day, some will be found guilty and others will be upheld (Rom. 2.1-16). God’s vindication of these latter on the last day is his act of final “justification” (Rom. 2.13). The word carries overtones of the law court.(b) But not only the law court. Justification is part of Paul’s picture of the family God promised (i.e. covenanted) to Abraham. When God, as judge, finds in favor of people on the last day, they are declared to be part of this family (Rom. 4; cf. Gal. 3). This is why law court imagery is appropriate: the covenant was there, from Genesis onwards, so that through it God could deal with sin and death, could (in other words) put his creation to rights.(c) This double declaration will take the form of an event. All God’s people will receive resurrection bodies, to share the promised inheritance, the renewed creation (Rom. 8). This event, which from one point of view is their ‘justification; is therefore from another their “salvation”: their rescue from the corruption of death, which for Paul is the result of sin. The final resurrection is the ultimate rescue which God promised from the beginning (Rom. 4).
2. Moving back from the future to the past, God’s action in Jesus forms Paul’s template for this final justification.(a) Jesus has been faithful, obedient to God’s saving purposes right up to death (Rom. 5.12-21; Phil. 2.6-9); God has now declared decisively that he is the Son of God, the Messiah, in whom Israel’s destiny has been summed up (Rom. 1.3f.).(b) Jesus’ resurrection was, for Paul, the evidence that God really had dealt with sin onthe cross (1 Cor. 15.12-19). In the death of Jesus God accomplished what had been promised to Abraham, and “what the law could not do” (Rom. 8.3): for those who belong to the Messiah, there is “no condemnation” (Rom. 8.1, 8.31-9).(c) The event in which all this actually happened was the resurrection of the crucified Jesus.
3. Justification in the present is based on God’s past accomplishment in Christ, and anticipates the future verdict. This present justification has exactly the same pattern.(a) God vindicates in the present, in advance of the last day, all those who believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord (Rom. 3.21-31; 4.13-25; 10.9-13). The law court language indicates what is meant. “Justification” itself is not God’s act of changing the heart or character of the person; that is what Paul means by the “call’; which comes through the word and the Spirit. “Justification” has a specific, and narrower, reference: it is God’s declaration that the person is now in the right, which confers on them the status “righteous’; (We may note that, since “righteous’” here, within the law court metaphor, refers to “status’; not “character’; we correctly say that God’s declaration makes the person “righteous’; i.e. in good standing.)(b) This present declaration constitutes all believers as the single people, the one family, promised to Abraham (Gal. 2.14 - 3.29; Rom. 3.27 - 4.17), the people whose sins have been dealt with as part of the fulfilled promise of covenant renewal (Jer. 31.31-34). Membership in this family cannot be played off against forgiveness of sins: the two belong together.(c) The event in the present which corresponds to Jesus’ death and resurrection in the past, and the resurrection of all believers in the future, is baptism into Christ (Gal. 3.26-9; Rom. 6.2-11). Baptism is not, as some have supposed, a “work” which one “performs’” to earn God’s favor. It is, for Paul, the sacrament of God’s free grace. Paul can speak of those who have believed and been baptized as already “saved’; albeit “in hope” (Rom. 8.24). Among the remaining questions, three matters stand out at the moment. The “faith” in question is faith in “the God who raised Jesus from the dead’; It comes about through the announcement of God’s word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, “calling” them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to “obey” the gospel (Rom. 1.16f.; 1 Thess. 1.3f., 2.13; 2 Thess. 1.8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ, by means of his own obedient faithfulness to God’s purpose (Rom. 5.19; Phil. 2.6), relying on that rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law-observance (”the works of the law”) as the decisive factor (Phil. 3.2-11). And it looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6). By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith” itself. He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message, to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21).”Justification” is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham. That is how the word works in Paul’s writings. It doesn’t describe how people get in to God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but in understanding what Paul is saying it is vital.
Wright is saying that salvation is broken down, not just in the forensic sense of escaping judgment,, but also in the corporate sense of the very family of God and the believers place in this family. He is also is inclusive to eschatology - how all of this pans out in time itself. Paul did not set out to create a systematic approach to salvation. He did not receive special instruction from God to reduce the Gospel to a mere rhetoric, although he did use rhetoric when he preached, wrote and generally debated. He used the word ‘justification’ as a polemist and not as a systematic theologian. It’s doubtful that Paul intended the word ‘justification’ to be used as a liturgy/doctrine. He did, though, use it frequently, but he used it interchangeably. He says in one area that we are justified by blood (Romans 5:9), then in another, grace (Romans 3:24), and yet in another, faith (Romans 5:1), and even by Christ’s name alone (1 Cor. 6:11). Well, which one is it? It is all of the above, because justification takes its form in relation to salvation itself. Justification is not, like many imply, a point in one’s life that must be identified to some sort of emotional or psychological “conversion.” I do not believe the Reformers taught that. That is simply modern Baptistic theology. Justification is about God “placing” us in his plan of redemption; and yes, declaring us righteous. But we should not get hung up on his ‘declaration.’ Law-court language is helpful but not inclusive to all God’s power, which is why Paul used the word interchangeably.
I am waiting for someone other than NT Wright to write something to the effect of “Pauline Apologetics.” This would be presuppositional in nature, but inclusive to the ancient Greek polemics and a high view of the Church-corporate; something that is inclusive to all three of the giants: Luther, Calvin and yes, Aquinas as well.
It is with my great pleasure to announce this most exciting event as the first post of this website. The new Prime Minister of Britain has recently announced that he is releasing the government’s right to appoint the Church of England’s bishops. You can read about it here.
This is such great news because this gives hope to Anglicans everywhere - at least, it should. The hope is that a conservative Archbishop will be elected that will not embrace neutrality in regards to the essential issues dividing the Church. ABP Rowan Williams is certainly a gifted man but is not willing to face the persecution of liberals, thus appeasing them. This, of course is one man’s opinion. But the fact of the matter is the ABP Williams is not acting on traditional ecclesiology, but is rather embracing a much more modern concept of relativism.
It is my understanding that ABP Williams was advocating this split from the state for some time. This is certainly not traditional in itself, although in times like this, where the hole has been dug so deep by he and other bishops, the tradition may need to be broken.
Some would call this form of government Erastianism but the fact of the matter is that Erastus never taught such a radical concept of the modern day, English, view of Church and State. He advocated the turning over of heretics to the State but did not advocate many of the other modern concepts. I will certainly post more on this subject in the future.