Manchester Dead Theologians Society

The Ecumenical Creeds

2009-11-02T10:34:00.004Z

On the 24th of October, we got together to eat fried breakfasts and discuss the four ecumenical creeds (the apostle's creed, the nicene creed, the athanasian creed, and the council of chalcedon). Here are a few of the topics we brought up and discussed:

Did Christ "descend to hell"? Why have some churches changed it to "descended to the dead"?
What role, if any, should these creeds play in church life and discipline? Why are Christians generally unaware of these documents?
What developments in Trinitarian theology or Christology did each subsequent document express?

Next up, Confessional Lutheran theology!

For a taste of modern-day Confessional Lutheranism, check out the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and Steadfast Lutherans website

2009/10 Reading and meeting schedule

2009-09-18T15:56:00.004+01:00

This year, we will read documents that have been written by church bodies.

24 Oct., Trof Fallowfield, 10am
The Ecumenical Creeds: The Apostle's Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Council of Chalcedon, & The Athanasian Creed
These are very short. It would be good to investigate some of the history surrounding these statements.

12 Dec - The Lutheran Standards - the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Epitome of the Formula of Concord
These all come from the Book of Concord. The Augsburg is the seminal document in Lutheranism, the Smalcald Articles are penned by Luther, and the Epitome is a summary of the Formula of Concord and distinguishes Lutheranism from Reformed theology.

13 March - Presbyterian & Reformed Standards - we will read and discuss the Westminster Confession and Shorter Catechism (Presby) & the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism (Continental Reformed)

22 May - Anglican, Baptist, & Congregational - we will read and discuss the 39 Articles (Anglican), the Baptist Confession of 1689, and the Savoy Declaration (Congregational)

The Book of Concord can be downloaded here (pdf)
The rest can be found here (html)

Next book - "The Mystery of Providence" (by John Flavel)

2009-03-21T18:54:00.004Z

Saturday, the 2nd of May
2:00 @ The Friendship Inn (Fallowfield)

You can read a quick bio on John Flavel, author of our upcoming book, at Monergism:
John Flavel (or Flavell) was born in 1628 in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. He was the son of Richard Flavel, a minister who died of the plague in 1665 while in prison for nonconformity. John Flavel was educated by his father in the ways of religion, then “plied his studies hard” as a commoner at University College, Oxford. In 1650, he was ordained by the presbytery at Salisbury. He settled in Diptford, where he honed his numerous gifts.

You can read the book online here.

Audio lectures on "The Mystery of Providence" and the life of Flavel, from the Stillwater Reformed Presbyterian Church, are here.

Great quotes from Owen's "Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers"

2009-03-19T11:36:00.003Z

Posted on my blog:

4 great quotes

Instruction for preachers

Jonathan Edwards, "Images of Divine Things", Part II

2009-02-22T16:49:00.003Z

I mentioned, in my previous post, Edwards' basic approach to creation and some encouraging things we can learn from him. Here are a few things that prevent me from agreeing with his entire approach.

There is no verse in Scripture that teaches us to find the gospel revealed to us in nature. Surely, God has revealed truths about Himself in nature ("general revelation"). See Romans 1:20! He has taught us wonderful truths about Himself; however, that doesn't mean that the gospel is revealed through nature.
The Scripture, throughout, teaches us that we need 'special revelation' to learn of the gospel. We cannot simply learn of it through nature, so we need a preacher.
This approach would be very difficult for a preacher that is seeking to illustrate a point in a sermon. If there is an objective, spiritual truth behind everything in nature, he must be careful to use the "natural type" that was created by God to communicate that very spiritual truth. If not, he would be leading his flock astray from the true meaning of the "type".
If Scripture neither commands us to do this nor do we infer it by good and necessary consequence, we shouldn't do it. Edwards doesn't persuade me of either of those.
Because this depends wholly upon our speculation, we could run wild with this. There would be as many different interpretations of X as there are people. My wife and I have already had quite a bit of fun "figuring out types" together.
It would be strange if creation contained types of the gospel before the Fall. Shouldn't (pre-Fall) Adam and Eve, due to the absence of a sinful nature, have clearly recognized that gospel message? Wouldn't that have been quite confusing for them? I can imagine them stating, "Why is this silkworm (see below) telling us that someone needs to live and die for us? We haven't eaten of that tree yet!"

Here are a just two of Edwards' more extreme types

[35] The silkworm is a remarkable type of Christ, which, when it dies, yields us that of which we make such glorious clothing. Christ became a worm for our sake, and by his death finished that righteousness with which believers are clothed, and thereby procured that we should be clothed with robes of glory...

[50] The rising and setting of the sun is a type of the death and resurrection of Christ.

Jonathan Edwards, "Images of Divine Things"

2009-02-22T16:14:00.002Z

In 1741-42, Jonathan Edwards, the most pre-eminent theologian American Puritan ever, finished a series of notes that he called "Images of divine things". It doesn't seem that he ever published it. Rather, it appears that he contemplated its use in the future. "Images" consists of a series of 212 entries, wherein he writes of the ways in which common, earthly things were pictures ('types') of spiritual things (the 'antitype'). For example, the way in which snakes lure in unsuspecting victims was a 'type' of the way the devil catches our souls in temptation [#11]. I think it would be accurate to summarize Edwards' approach in this way: nothing in the earth is created and designed without a purpose; therefore, God has designed everything in the earth in such a way as to surround us with images of spiritual realities.

[57] 'Tis very fit and becoming of God, who is infinitely wise, so to order things that there should be a voice of his in his works instructing those that behold them, and pointing forth and showing divine mysteries and things more immediately appertaining to himself and his spiritual kingdom. The works of God are but a kind of voice or language of God, to instruct intelligent beings in things pertaining to himself. And why should we not think that he would teach and instruct by his works in this way as well as others, viz. by representing divine things by his works, and so pointing them forth, especially since we know that God hath so much delighteth in this way of instruction [in the Scripture]?

[59] ...why is it not rational to suppose that the corporeal and visible world should be designedly made and constituted in analogy to the more spiritual, noble and real world? 'Tis certainly agreeable to what is apparently the method of God's working.

[70] If we look on these shadows of divine things as the voice of God, purposely, by them, teaching us these and those spiritual and divine things, to show of what excellent advantage it will be, how agreeably and clearly it will tend to convey instruction to our minds, and to impress things on the mind, and to affect the mind. By that we may as it were hear God speaking to us. Wherever we are and whatever we are about, we may see divine things excellently represented and held forth, and it will abundantly tend to confirm the Scriptures, for there is an excellent agreement between these things and the Holy Scriptures.

While I wouldn't necessarily agree with his approach and conclusions, one has to be refreshed to see a man that has such a God-centered view of the world. To Edwards, all of creation was proclaiming the glory of God, and that was God's purpose in his design and creation. This is a great reminder that God didn't just mindlessly create things. Instead, he designed the universe for a specific purpose - to declare his glory.

In the next post, I'll share a few reflections on his method of typology. Please, post any of your thoughts!

Calvin - what pleases God?

2009-02-08T17:10:00.002Z

Speaking of the 10 Commandments:

The Lord, in delivering a perfect rule of righteousness, has reduced it in all its parts to his mere will, and in this way has shown that there ais nothing more acceptable to him than obedience. There is the more necessity for attending to this, because the human mind, in its wantonness, is ever and anon inventing different modes of worship as a means of gaining his favour. This irreligious affectation of religion being innate in the human mind, has betrayed itself in every age, and is still doing so, men always longing to devise some method of procuring righteousness without any sanction from the Word of God... We are certainly under the same obligations as they were; for there cannot be a doubt that the claim of absolute perfection which God made for his Law is perpetually in force. Not contented with it, however, we labour prodigiously in feigning and coining an endless variety of good works, one after another. The best cure for this vice would be a constant and deeply-seated conviction that the Law was given from heaven to teach us a perfect righteousness; that the only righteousness so taught is that which the divine will expressly enjoins; and that it is, therefore, vain to attempt, by new forms of worship, to gain the favour of God, whose true worship consists in obedience alone; scribed by the Law of God, is an intolerable violation of true and divine righteousness. [Calvin, Institutes, II.viii.5]

His emphasis is clear; true righteousness is about obeying the will of God. Obedience to His divine commands is what is pleasing to Him. Instead, we seek to invent ways to please Him all the time rather than approaching Him in a way that He has instituted. We think God will be pleased when we do X, because we do it with a sincere, authentic heart. Calvin argues that we ought to seek obedience rather than invent a new way to seek God's favour.

When we apply this to corporate worship, we find a great divide occur at the time of the Reformation with two principles of worship, the Regulative Principle of Worship (expressed below in the Westminster Confession of Faith) and the Normative Principle of Worship (below, from the 39 Articles). See if you can guess which one Calvin would support.

A) The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the hearth, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

B) The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

Upcoming book...

2009-01-13T22:51:00.005Z

John Owen "Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers"

At only 63 pages, this is a great introduction to John Owen and immensely practical for Christians to read. This is an absolute classic and deals with the battle Christians have with indwelling sin.

I've read it before and will try to post my notes in order that people who find his writing style to be difficult can follow along easily.

Here are my tips: (1) have a dictionary handy, (2) read it out loud when it's especially tough, (3) take notes

The discussion day will be 21 March at 10am in Wetherspoons, Fallowfield (as usual)

Post a comment or email me if you'd like me to email you a PDF of this book.
Otherwise, you can find it online here

John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man

2009-01-10T16:50:00.003Z

I'm just finishing up a brilliant book about John Owen (quick bio here). If anyone is interested in digging in to Owen's more theological works, this is a must read. Top Owen scholar, Carl Trueman, gives an overview of some of Owen's main contributions to Reformed theology: God as Trinity, covenant theology, and justification. He also provides a chapter that introduces Owen's historical context.

Trueman doesn't just labor to explain Owen's theology, he also labors to vindicate Owen from accusations that his theology resulted from systematic speculation and not from thorough study of the text.

One of the things I've been most impressed by is the thoroughly Trinitarian way in which Owen does theology. Not only that, but his formulations of covenant theology are simply brilliant. In a time when Reformed covenant theology is under attack, engagement with Owen is necessary.

History of American Evangelicalism

2008-12-09T16:43:00.003Z

Wanted to inform you that I just finished a blog series that surveys the history of American Evangelicalism. It's been an interest of mine lately. Most of the information came from a book called "Made in America", by Michael Horton. Although the posts focus on American Evangelicalism, it's very applicable to what's happened in Great Britain. Whether you like it or not, a lot of the things that characterize British Evangelicalism come from the States.

Click here to read the 4-part series.

Ryken on Scottish Presbyterian Thomas Boston

2008-12-05T17:58:00.004Z

Check out this audio in which Phil Ryken discusses the great Presbyterian Thomas Boston.

Calvin - praying through Jesus Christ, the Mediator

2008-11-12T20:14:00.002Z

"Is is certain, indeed, that from the very first all who ever prayed were heard only for the sake of the Mediator For this reason God had commanded in the Law, that the priest alone should enter the sanctuary, bearing the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his shoulders, and as many precious stones on his breast, while the people were to stand at a distance in the outer court, and thereafter unite their prayers with the priest. Nay, the sacrifice had even the effect of ratifying and confirming their prayers. That shadowy ceremony of the Law therefore taught, first, that we are all excluded from the face of God, and, therefore, that there is need of a Mediator to appear in our name, and carry us on his shoulders, and keep us bound upon his breast, that we may be heard in his person; and, secondly, that our prayers, which, as has been said, would otherwise never be free from impurity, are cleansed by the sprinkling of his blood." [Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter XX, Section 18]

Quoting Ambrose:
"He," says Ambrose, "is our mouth by which we speak to the Father; our eye by which we see the Father; our right hand by which we offer ourselves to the Father. Save by his intercession neither we nor any saints have any intercourse with God." [ibid., Section 21]

Carl Trueman "a brief history of Trinitarian thought"

2008-11-12T12:01:00.002Z

Here's a great interview with Carl Trueman (a British Presbyterian, not many of them left these days...) on the history of Trinitarian thought, especially that of John Owen. It's very helpful!

Trueman is professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He used to teach at the University of Aberdeen and the University of Nottingham.

The Didache

2008-10-25T17:46:00.002+01:00

The Didache means "the teaching". It was a sort of catechism used in the early church. There are two parts to it. The first contains moral instruction on the ways of life and death and the second gives teaching on matters pertaining to the church and the end-times. Once again, its author is unknown.

Instructions concerning the Lord's Supper, Baptism, the Lord's Day, Fasting, and the welcome of missionaries and prophets were given. The fact that local churches were still being frequented by itinerant missionaries and prophets leads me to believe it was written in the 1st century (although I'm far from an authority in this). Careful instructions are given for the way churches are to receive these missionaries and prophets. Apparently, people pretended to hold these offices and stole food and money from local churches - once again, problems that we aren't faced with today.

Its eschatology is quite interesting. The author of the Didache clearly didn't hold to an earthly Golden Age preceding the 2nd coming of Christ (i.e., modern-day postmillennialism), nor was he a preterist. His description of the end-times are consistent with both historic premillennialism or amillennialism. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas (reviewed below) held a pretty clear premillennial perspective. Obviously, it is anachronistic to attribute modern-day eschatological doctrines to these authors. Just because some of their beliefs were consistent with a modern-day doctrine doesn't mean that they held to its entirety.

The Epistle of Barnabas (70-132 A.D.)

2008-10-25T16:54:00.003+01:00

I'm finishing up a book containing most of the works of the 'apostolic fathers' today. The Epistle of Barnabas was somewhat painful; however, it was helpful to be reminded of the issues that the early church was facing.
First off, scholars are unanimous that this wasn't actually written by the Barnabas of the Bible, although it was attributed to someone by that name. No one is sure about when it was written either. Broadly speaking, it was between 70 A.D. and 132 A.D. Many scholars are of the opinion that it was around 130.

There are two things I took away from reading this letter.
(1) It was a great reminder of the tension that existed in the early centuries between the Jewish religion and Christianity. Both were vying for the Old Testament, claiming that it belonged to them. In this letter, "Barnabas" is desperately seeking to demonstrate that the Old Testament Scriptures were, in fact, speaking of Jesus all along. He was trying to show that they were Christian Scriptures and that anyone who didn't understand that was of a different and, consequently, wrong religion. The Old and New Testaments are intricately tied to Christianity in the 21st century. There is little opposition toward us when we claim that the Old Testament is, in fact, speaking of Jesus and rightfully belongs to the Christian faith.
(2) We need to beware of simply allegorizing the Old Testament Scripture. "Types and shadows" must be guided by the authoritative apostolic interpretation in the N.T. We know that the O.T. is all about Christ; however, we need to take care not to force things. "Barnabas" took too much freedom in finding allegories everywhere! He recognized typology in a few legitimate areas; however, he spiritualized every jot and tittle of the Law. If Moses commanded that the people reject certain fish, those fish "actually represented some sort of deeper moral command". In the end, the objectivity of the commands of the Mosaic Covenant was undermined due to his zeal to find Christ in every detail.

The Bruised Reed

2008-10-25T13:34:00.002+01:00

As it is just seven days until we meet to discuss The Bruised Reed, I thought I'd share another quote from the book.

The victory lies not with us, but with Christ, who has taken on him both to conquer for us and to conquer in us. The victory lies neither in our own strength to get it, nor in our enemies' strength to defeat it. If it lay with us, we might justly fear. But Christ will maintain his own government in us and take our part against our corruptions. They are his enemies as well as ours. Let us therefore be `strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might' (Eph. 6:10). Let us not look so much at who our enemies are as at who our judge and captain is, nor at what they threaten, but at what he promises. We have more for us than against us. What coward would not fight when he is sure of victory? None is here overcome but he that will not fight. Therefore, when any base fainting seizes on us, let us lay the blame where it ought to be laid.

If you've not had a chance to get the book, don't worry - there's a free copy online at Theology Network.

Thomas Brooks quote - "God incarnate, Man divine"

2008-10-14T18:42:00.003+01:00

Martin has posted an awesome quote from Thomas Brooks. Enjoy!

A quick bio about this English Puritan can be found here

The martyrdom of Polycarp (2nd century AD)

2008-10-10T20:19:00.004+01:00

I wouldn't say this about a lot of things - this is a must-read for all Christians! Here are two excerpts:

"Take the oath, and I will let you go" [the Governor] told him. "Revile your Christ." Polycarp's reply was, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He has done me no wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?"

The [Governor] said again, "If you do not recant, I will have you burnt to death, since you think so lightly of wild beasts." Polycarp rejoined, "the Fire you threaten me with cannot go on burning for very long; after a while it goes out. But what you are unaware of are the flames of future judgment and everlasting torment which are in store for the ungodly. Why do you go on wasting time? Bring out whatever you have a mind to do.

Polycarp to the Philippians

2008-10-10T12:57:00.003+01:00

After Ignatius of Antioch passed through the region (on his way to martyrdom), Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippian church. They were arranging to send someone to Antioch to encourage the church in the faith.
In this letter, Polycarp undertakes to address some of the problems that had recently arisen in Philippi. One of their elders (named Valens) had just been disciplined because he stole money from the church, and the Docetists (who denied Christ's full humanity) were introducing heresy.
Much of the letter is gentle and warm, even when he is encouraging godliness in the church. He states, "it is by His grace you are saved, not of your own doing but by the will of God through Jesus Christ." Even when addressing the Valens situation, he encourages the church to seek his restoration into the church family. Although he stole money from the church, he should be restored if he was brought to repentance. The only time Polycarp's tone changes is when he speaks of the Docetists. He states, "To deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is to be Antichrist. To contradict the evidence of the Cross is to be of the devil. And to pervert the Lord's words to suit our own wishes, by asserting that there are no such things as resurrection or judgemtn, is to be a first-begotten son of Satan. [7]" It is clear that his approach to heresy was much different than matters of sin and godliness. The former wouldn't be tolerated, while sin didn't exclude one from membership in the church.

Other beliefs it seems Polycarp held (I'm not implying that he understood them in the exact manner we do today):

He doesn't place the same emphasis on the bishops as Ignatius. In fact, compared to the other apostolic fathers, he speaks of leadership infrequently.
the perpetuity of the 10 commandments - he spoke of being conformed to "the Divine commandments". This, most likely, refers to the Decalogue, although it's not definite. [4]
a sort of postmillennial/amillenial understanding of history - he spoke of the present world and the world to come as being separated by the resurrection of the body, the latter of which is implicitly the eternal state. [5]
male leadership/clergy in the church - he stated that elders should be male, although this is hardly surprising to read. It seems implied that he saw the deacons as being male, too; however, this is not made explicit. [5-6]
justification & forgiveness - "Let us never relax our grasp on the Hope and Pledge of our righteousness; I mean Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in his own body on the tree; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth..." [8]

Ignatius of Antioch (35-110 AD)

2008-10-05T23:44:00.003+01:00

This Lord's Day, I was blessed to read the works of another "apostolic father" named Ignatius, not to be confused with the founder of the Jesuits. Rather, Ignatius of Antioch was the bishop of Antioch and was a Christian martyr. While he was on his journey to Rome, the place of his execution, he penned a number of letters. These letters reveal some significant concerns, (1) churches must be unified under their bishop and clergy (elders), (2) churches must avoid the false-teaching of the Docetists and Judaizers, and (3) churches must do everything to make sure that he is martyred (Yes, you read that correctly. I'll explain more below.).

(1) Ignatius' theology of the church is extreme. It is easy to see how his beliefs affected those of the Roman Catholics. In his mind, the bishop represented Christ to the people; therefore, united submission to the bishop (and clergy) was the essence of Christian unity and obedience to Christ. In fact, he believed that no church could exist without a bishop present. In an age in which false teaching abounded, the entirety of Scripture would not have been available and churches were on the verge of annihilation, it is easy to see why Ignatius went to this extreme.

(2) Although I'm not crazy about his ecclesiology, his Christology is awesome! He is abundantly clear about the deity of the Son and the fact that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man in one Person. In fact, Ignatius states that if Christ only appeared to be a man and didn't actually suffer in the flesh (Docetism), his martyrdom was pointless, as he wouldn't actually be following the footsteps of Christ. Here is something Ignatius wrote that may be an early Christian hymn:

Very Flesh, yet Spirit too;
Uncreated, and yet born;
God-and-Man in One agreed,
Very-Life-in-Death indeed,
Fruit of God and Mary's seed;
at once impassible and torn
By pain and suffering here below:
Jesus Christ, whom as our Lord we know.
[Ignatius to the Ephesians 7]

In his rejection of the Judaizers, he lays out his understanding of the Old Testament. He believes that OT saints were saved through Christ and brought into the unity of the Church and that all of Scripture speaks of Him. A great quote: "He is the doorway to the Father, and it is by Him that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the prophets go in, no less than the Apostles and the whole Church; for all these have their part in God's unity." Brilliant!

(3) He desperately wanted to become a "true disciple" of Jesus Christ. While I may not agree with that viewpoint of discipleship, his commitment to the truth of the gospel (virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection) is admirable. You see, if he would have been released, people would have believed that he renounced his faith. Therefore, he knew that he had to die in order that the faith wouldn't be profaned! Furthermore, he knew that his valuation of physical sufferings demonstrated his hatred of the Docetic doctrine, which claimed that the Son wasn't really a man - He just appeared to be a man and suffer like one. Finally, he believed that suffering for Christ was a great honor and was convinced that death would bring him into God's presence.

You must forgive me, but I do know what is best for myself. This is the first stage of my discipleship; and no power, visible or invisible, must grudge me my coming to Jesus Christ. Fire, cross, beast-fighting, hacking and quartering, splintering of bone and mangling of limb, even the pulverizing of my entire body - let every horrid and diabolical torment come upon me, provided only that I can win my way to Jesus Christ! [Ignatius to the Romans 5]

Gems of wisdom from "The Heavenly Doctor Sibbes"

2008-10-04T00:10:00.003+01:00

Something to whet your appetites for reading The Bruised Reed - Richard Sibbes on how we should view Christ:

"Since Christ is thus comfortably set out to us, let us not believe Satan's representations of him. When we are troubled in conscience for our sins, Satan's manner is then to present Christ to the afflicted soul as a most severe judge armed with justice against us. But then let us present him to our souls as offered to our view by God himself, holding out a sceptre of mercy, and spreading his arms to receive us.

When we think of Joseph, Daniel, John the Evangelist, we frame conceptions of them with delight, as of mild and sweet persons. Much more when we think of Christ, we should conceive of him as a mirror of all meekness. If the sweetness of all flowers were in one, how sweet must that flower be? In Christ all perfections of mercy and love meet. How great then must that mercy be that lodges in so gracious a heart? Whatever tenderness is scattered in husband, father, brother, head, all is but a beam from him; it is in him in the most eminent manner. We are weak, but we are his; we are deformed, but yet carry his image upon us. A father looks not so much at the blemishes of his child as at his own nature in him; so Christ finds matter of love from that which is his own in us. He sees his own nature in us: we are diseased, but yet his members. Who ever neglected his own members because they were sick or weak? None ever hated his own flesh. Can the head forget the members? Can Christ forget himself? We are his fullness, as he is ours. He was love itself clothed with man's nature, which he united so near to himself, that he might communicate his goodness the more freely to us. And he took not our nature when it was at its best, but when it was abased, with all the natural and common infirmities it was subject to.

Let us therefore abhor all suspicious thoughts, as either cast in or cherished by that damned spirit who, as he laboured to divide between the Father and the Son by jealousies, by saying, `If thou be the Son of God' (Matt. 4:6), so his daily study is to divide between the Son and us by breeding false opinions in us of Christ, as if there were not such tender love in him to such as we are. It was Satan's art from the beginning to discredit God with man, by calling God's love into question with our first father Adam. His success then makes him ready at that weapon still."

The Bruised Reed, p62, available for free here.

1 Clement

2008-10-03T16:12:00.001+01:00

I've recently started a book containing the works of the apostolic fathers. They are a group of about ten authors that wrote between the end of the first century to the middle of the second. Some of the authors' names are known while others aren't. While their theologies are far from brilliant, they help us to understand what people believed during that period of the post-apostolic era.
1 Clement was written to the Corinthian church in about 96AD by Clement (surprise!) of Rome. Many believe that he's the 'Clement' mentioned in the Bible (Php. 4:3). Here is a list of some things that struck me while I read this letter.

Unity in the church

The Corinthians were having problems with unity once again. This time, they appear to have ousted the leaders of their church. Clement appeals to them to reinstate those leaders, who were given the spiritual gifts by God in order that they may lead. Clement appeals to both their commissioning (ordination) and to their godliness. It seems that Roman Catholics skip over the latter. My understanding of the RC claim is that Clement's sole appeal was to their outward commissioning (aka "apostolic succession"). Instead, he appeals to both as the grounds for the congregation's submission to them.
Clement is much more concerned about corporate godliness than individual holiness. His concern is about how this group treats one-another.
He speaks of their unity in the mystical Body of Christ; however, there may be an over-emphasis on the importance of the clergy.
Application: When Western Christians think about holiness, we often think of things that we do privately (personal devotions and prayer). Lovingly submitting to one-another in the Body of Christ is normally secondary to us. Furthermore, elders are normally seen as people who may give helpful advice but not as Christ's undershepherds who should be obeyed when they are exercising biblical leadership.

Good stuff:

Clement was clearly familiar with 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. There were other NT references as well.
He understood the problem Paul was addressing in 1 Corinthians as being about people choosing favorites between Paul, Peter, and Apollos.
The deity of Christ is clear and he seems to have had an immature recognition of the Trinity.
bodily resurrection and new creation
The resurrection is contemporaneous with Christ's return
he's strong on creation and providence (see the quote below)
speaks a lot about grace and forgiveness
He equates bishops and elders (presbyters)
Corporate worship should not be done according to our good-pleasure. Rather, we must only do what God has prescribed and order it carefully.

Not so good stuff:

He says that one of the ways in which God testifies to the reality of the bodily resurrection (didn't Paul finish dealing with that in 1 Cor.?!) is the existence and life-cycle of the phoenix. (Ouch! So much for inspired popes!)
He's unclear on faith and works. One sentence is brilliant and the next makes you cringe...
The Lord's Supper is a sacrifice offered to God like the Old Testament animal sacrifices.

A small excerpt on creation and providence:
20. The heavens, as they revolve beneath His government, do so in quiet submission to Him. They day and the night run the course He has laid down for them, and neither of them interferes with the other. Sun, moon, and the starry choirs roll on in harmony at His command, none swerving from its appointed orbit. Season by season the teeming earth, obedient to His will, causes a wealth of nourishment to spring forth for man and beast and every living thing upon its surface, making no demur and no attempt to alter even the least of His decrees. Laws of the same kind sustain the fathomless deeps of the abyss and the untold regions of the underworld. Nor does the illimitable basin of the sea, gathered by the operations of His hand into its various different centres, overflow at any time the barriers encircling it, but does as He has bidden it - for His word was, Thus far shall you come; at this point shall your waves be broken within you... Upon all of [creation] the great Architect and Lord of the universe has enjoined peace and harmony, for the good of all alike, but pre-eminently for the good of ourselves who have sought refuge in His mercies through our Lord Jesus Christ. To Him be glory and majest for ever and ever, amen.

The Bruised Reed

2008-10-02T19:43:00.003+01:00

For those of you blessed to be in Manchester but who haven't read the Bruised Reed yet, I thought you might find this useful:

http://www.theologynetwork.org/christian-beliefs/the-holy-spirit-and-christian-living/starting-out/the-bruised-reed.htm

John Flavel on style and ministry

2008-09-23T10:40:00.002+01:00

a brilliant quote from John Flavel, which I'd never read before:

“. . . a crucified style best suits the preachers of a crucified Christ.”

RL Dabney, "Systematic Theology", 12 pounds

2008-09-20T11:55:00.003+01:00

Just to let ya'll know, I found a nice copy of R.L. Dabney's 'Systematic Theology' in Preston the other day. It was only selling for 12 pounds, which is a good price for you Brits. This used bookstore (called Halewood & Sons, i believe) also had a few Banner of Truth commentaries written by Hendrikson, selling for about 10 pounds each.
For those of you that are unfamiliar with Dabney, he was one of the leading Southern Presbyterian theologians in the States and was highly acclaimed by theologians such as B.B. Warfield and Archibald Alexander. I hope to add this to my library one day, but I'll wait and buy it in the dollar :)

Theology of Beer

2008-09-14T18:24:00.002+01:00

“The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.”, 13th Century Law in the City of Ausburg

(HT: Puritan Pub)

theology of the cross vs. the theology of glory

2008-08-28T00:13:00.001+01:00

Pondering Luther's distinction between two antithetical forms of religion.

Kettering Dead Theologians Soc Meeting #2

2008-07-24T21:05:00.002+01:00

After we managed to complete the introduction (lots of very big words…), we decided we’d keep on going! In session 2 we managed to cover most of part one of the first section, looking at how God’s plan to redeem humanity from their sin was already taking place between the fall and the flood!

The main hints at God providing a redeemer so far are:

Christ becomes a mediator immediately after the fall, as God still relates to man (we weren’t abandoned straight away like the fallen angels - hints at redemption even then!)
The gospel (good news of a saviour i.e. JC!), is revealed in Gen 3:15 (the serpent crusher). Not a complete return to darkness and despair!
God had instituted a tradition of sacrifice (Cain/Abel) – bigger sacrifice to come! God also covers Adam & Eve in animal hide before they leave the garden – God providing something to die in their place so they may survive!
Eve has a son & is hoping that he will save (Gen 4:1)

The english was a bit simpler this time meaning, reducing the number of areas of potential confusion. Things getting a bit of discussion included:
• God’s restraint of satan after/during the fall
• Jesus’ offices as prophet priest and king – plus JC’s movement between offices
• Isaiah 29:13 – God accepts worship on his terms not ours!
• The reasons for keeping sheep in a vegetarian society :-S

We had a little bit of confusion in regards to predictions and types/shadows (page 22, paragraph 3) of Christ’s sacrifice to come but realised after a few discussed examples!

Hopefully time and tiredness wont get the better of us next time – we’re hoping to finish off part 1 and do part 2 (flood-abraham) too!

Splinter Group - Kettering Dead Theologians Society

2008-07-18T22:37:00.004+01:00

The first meeting of the Kettering Dead Theologians Society took place tonight and we managed to get through the introduction of Jonathan Edwards classic - A History of the Work of Redemption. I realise brief summaries have been included beneath and so wont recap what was discussed, however there were several areas to which we are still confused!

1) Does Jonathan Edwards over-read into the idea of there being different associations with the term for ever in verses of the Bible? (were doubts over the uses of Ecc 1:4 & Isaiah 51:8 to support this idea)(page 9).

2) What does Jonathan Edwards mean by the term dispensation/s (page 13 - 1st & 3rd paragraphs) and is this linked in to the later works by Scofield and the doctrine of dispensationalism?

3) On what grounds does Jonathan Edwards claim a purely spiritual recreation of heaven & earth? (if this is what he is claiming!?!?) (Page 15 - 2nd paragraph). Also how does this tie in God's creation of heaven - presumably at the beginning of time (Page 11 - 2nd paragraph), and the elect's subsequent entry to it? (or a non amillenialist stance?)

Redemption and salvation - The factory will close down, but the wages will never stop!

Our next meeting is on Wednesday, where we will read through and discuss part 1 & 2 of period 1 (hopefully just as a memory aid - the aim is to have each read and annotated it by then!).

The Bondage of the Will

2008-05-24T09:14:00.004+01:00

I've just finished reading the mammoth historical and theological introduction at the start of Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will. The Bondage of the Will is Luther's reply to Erasmus' On Free Will, discussing the nature of man's free will with regard to salvation. Initially, you might be tempted to think that the exact nature of our free will is a side issue in Christianity. You would be wrong.

Erasmus said that whilst man has been weakened by his sin, he is still able to do some good things. He also believed that by doing some small good things in his own strength, he would be able to achieve some merit with God and thus he would deserve to be saved by God.

Luther completely refutes this pelegianism. He says that man's sin has caused him to cease to be good. He can't do anything that will please God and continually sins. Therefore, as he can't do anything to gain merit with God, his salvation is 100% from God. Man can't do anything to deserve it and if he is saved, it is 100% down to the grace of the 100% sovereign God.

When we realise this, we realise just how much we need a saviour - there is nothing that we can do to contribute to our salvation so we must just trust and rely in Jesus and what he has done on the cross.

We also realise just how much we are saved by our saviour - there is nothing that we can do to contribute to our salvation, as it has already been accomplished 100%. We are saved, justified, redeemed and adopted as God's children - we don't need to do anything this end to accomplish that.

Luther's arguments, whilst they are both biblical and make sense, can make us feel a bit uneasy when we see God acting sovereignly and saving some, but not others. I hope to understand a bit more about what Luther teaches on this throughout the course of the book. I'll try and blog them here.

Deep insight to historical theology

2008-05-23T15:26:00.002+01:00

"Studying historical theology is like a fake tan. Several applications are necessary before the color comes through." - Ruth Port

Perkins - Law and Gospel Pt. 2

2008-05-17T23:37:00.002+01:00

From The Calling of the Ministry, Part I (by William Perkins, 1605);

[Concerning] the true way to teach and declare righteousness. This is not preaching either the law alone, or the gospel alone, as some unwisely do, with the result that both are preached without profit. Both the law and the gospel must be preached; the law to give birth to repentance and the gospel to lead to faith. But they must be preached in their proper order, first the law to bring repentance and then the gospel to work faith and forgiveness - never the other way round.

We must never try to taste the sweetness of the gospel when we have not first swallowed the bitter pill of the law. If, therefore, we want to be declared righteous by the gospel, we must be content first to be pronounced miserable by the law. If we want to be declared righteous in Christ, then we must be content first to be pronounced sinful and unrighteous in ourselves.

Perkins - Knowing Law and Gospel

2008-05-16T19:13:00.005+01:00

I'm presently reading a little book on preaching, called "The Art of Prophesying", written in 1592 by William Perkins, an English Puritan. Regarding the preacher's application of the Bible to his congregation, Perkins writes,

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it. When we are regenerated by him we receive the strength we need both to believe the gospel and do what it commands. The law is, therefore, first in the order of teaching; then comes the gospel.

It is important for us to recognize this difference between the law and the gospel. If we confuse the two, we can either make Christianity into a religion of self-improvement or we may totally neglect the topics of sin and condemnation in our evangelism. Instead, we must return to the reality that, the law tells us of what God demands of us, while the gospel speaks of what Christ did to meet those demands on our behalf.

Edwards - History of the Work of Redemption

2008-05-04T11:20:00.004+01:00

Five of us turned out for yesterday's meeting to discuss the aforementioned Edwards book. Fry-ups were plentiful and the sun was out... What a day! :)

Here are some things that I remember us discussing (the others can fill in the gaps):

What was Jesus' role as intercessor/high priest before He was incarnate? Did He mediate for His Old Testament people in the same way as He does for the Church?
Garden of Eden - Adam & Eve were clothed with animal skins, symbolizing the cloaking with righteousness that comes through the perfect sacrifice of Christ.
Christ did two things during His earthly ministry, (1) absorbed the curse of the law in our place (passive obedience) and (2) obeyed the moral requirements of the law in our place (active obedience). Through those 2, we are both forgiven and justified.

The covenant of works must be fulfilled to enter into glory. Adam failed to do it (and us united to Adam); however, Christ fulfills the covenant of works (by faith, we're actually united to Him and partake of His merit).
Christ's crushing the head of the serpent crops up throughout the Scripture. He crushed Satan's head on the cross (accomplished) and will finish it at His return (final application & consummation).
Christ accomplished redemption on the cross for His elect and applies it to them throughout history, completing their redemption upon His return.

What are some distinctives of postmillennialism?
How are the Old Testament people of God related to the New Testament people? (e.g., membership in the people & baptism/circumcision)

Worship in the 16th and 17th centuries...

2008-05-04T10:43:00.002+01:00

Here's a great post for those that want to learn about the way worship services were conducted in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those old, Reformed churches had a different view of music & singing in church than we do today, a view that I had never really considered and one that has gotten me thinking. Take a step outside your generation and read this :)
Whether you agree with it or not, it will challenge you...

Neglect of historical theology

2008-04-28T01:01:00.002+01:00

Lately, I've been pondering the overemphasis modern-day Christians place on having a "personal relationship" with Jesus, language which cannot be found in the Bible. Now, I'm not saying that we don't have a personal relationship with God through Christ... It's just that the emphasis of Scripture isn't on "me and Jesus". The Bible actually emphasizes the corporate-ness of Christianity. We relate to God together, through Christ. We are a holy congregation, a royal priesthood, a chosen race. We are part of the Body, with Christ as our head, branches grafted into the vine, stones in God's temple, the Bride of Christ. Yes, we are all called to have faith in Christ; however, this "me and Jesus" stuff leads to all sorts of gnostic-like tendencies. For example, we separate faith and reason and begin to trust in our inner-experiences and feelings. Christianity is about looking outside of ourselves, because we are corrupt. Biblical faith involves knowledge, assent, and trust of something located outside of us. Language of personal relationship undermines that by making religion a merely private thing, neglecting the corporate-ness of Christianity, and causing a person to look inward (gnostic!) rather than outward - at Christ, our prize!
So, to finally get to my reason for writing this... This inward-looking, personal "Christianity" also leads to a lack of appreciation for Christian authors that have preceded us. We forget that Christ ransomed people not only from every nation but every generation! Great thinkers and theologians and godly men and women have passed down great insight in the Scriptures and the practice of godliness to us. We don't need to memorize Calvin's Institutes and read huge, theological tomes (that's not for everyone!), but a basic understanding of Church history would prevent us from entertaining many of the same, old heresies that other generations have rightly denounced, which we find novel. Satan doesn't come up with anything new, just the same stuff repackaged. In addition, reading sermons and devotionals from authors of other generations would help us recognize ways in which we are bringing the world into the Church, something we have a hard time recognizing without an outside perspective.
In his preface to Athanasius On the Incarnation, C.S. Lewis wrote, "It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones." We would do well to heed that advice.

2008-04-19T21:40:00.001+01:00

Well, as noone has posted anything here yet, I thought I might kick things off by copying something across from what I posted on my own blog a couple of days ago:

A few days ago I started reading 'A history of the work of redemption', by Jonathan Edwards. This is the first book that we are reading in the recently formed Manchester Dead Theologians Society.

I haven't really read any meaty old books before I don't think and, although I haven't read an awful lot of this book yet, it looks like it is going to be excellent!

In the introduction, Edwards outlines the terms of the redemption, which is really useful and interesting. He then goes on to out line the design of Redemption - what things are designed to be accomplished by it. He outlines five things:

1. To put all God's enemies under his feet, and that his goodness may finally appear triumphant over evil.
2. To perfectly restore all the ruins of the fall, so far as concerns the elect part of the world. Man's soul was ruined by the fall; the image of God was defaced; man's nature was corrupted, and he became dead in sin. The design of God was to restore the soul of man to life and the divine image in conversion, to carry on the change in sanctification, and to perfect it in glory.
3. To gather in one all things in Christ (all elect creatures) in heaven and in earth in one body, under one head.
4. To perfect and complete the glory of all the elect by Christ - to bring them to perfect excellency and beauty in his holy image.
5. To accomplish the glory of the blessed Trinity in an eminent degree.