Reformation Day Reading

Happy Reformation Day!

This is the 491st anniversary of Martin Luther’s nailing his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenburg Church. Because of the printing press, this step by Luther was soon the spark that kindled the Reformation fires across much of Europe. And as Dan Phillips points out, if we enjoy the privilege of freely worshipping in a non-Catholic, Christian church of almost any Protestant denomination (or even no denomination), we have Martin Luther to thank. We don’t need to idolize Luther, however. Instead we can be thankful for God’s mercy in providing us with the Reformation and the blessings we still enjoy because of it.

Here is some reading for you this Reformation Day.

Calvinism by Fives

Calvinism seems to spread by fives: five points, five solas, and I bet we could think of other groups of five. Five Reformation countries (Germany, France, Switzerland, The Netherlands, England). Five key Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Huss, Wycliffe). Okay, I know Huss and Wycliffe came earlier….

As most good Calvinists, I know my fives. My TULIP and my Solas. Or do I? I’m starting to read a new book by Joel Beeke entitled Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism. I should mention that my copy is a review copy provided by Reformation Trust Publishing. (Click here for details on how to blog your way to a free Reformation Trust book).

As Beeke works through the history of Calvinism, I’ve learned quite a bit: even though I’m a Calvinist blogger! I learned that the five solas are best understood in light of their Roman Catholic counterparts, and that the five points of Calvinism were actually four. The points were the Synod of Dort’s response to 5 Arminian points, and were actually given in 4 groupings, with 2 of the points treated under one heading (since they were inseparably joined in the minds of the Calvinists).

To help all of you learn your fives, let me provide some excerpts from Beeke’s book that will explain more about these two groups of Calvinist High Fives.

The Protestant response to Roman Catholic abuses gradually settled into
five Reformation watchwords or battle cries, centered on the Latin word solus,
meaning “alone.” These battle cries, expounded in chapter 10, served to contrast
Protestant teaching with Roman Catholic tenets as follows:

Protestant Roman Catholic
Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) Scripture and tradition
Faith alone (sola fide) Faith and works
Grace alone (sola gratia) Grace and merit
Christ alone (solus Christus) Christ, Mary, and intercession of saints
Glory to God alone (soli Deo gloria) God, saints, and church hierarchy

[from Chapter 1: Calvinism in History: The Origins of Calvinism, pg. 5.]

Though these points do not represent all of Calvinism and are better regarded as Calvinism’s five answers to the five errors of Arminianism, they certainly lie at the heart of the Reformed faith, for they flow out of the principle of absolute divine sovereignty in the salvation of sinners. They may be summarized as follows:
1. Unconditional election and saving faith are sovereign gifts of God.
2. While the death of Christ is sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy is limited to the elect.
3–4. All people are so totally depraved and corrupted by sin that they cannot exercise free will toward, or effect any part of, salvation. In sovereign grace, God irresistibly calls and regenerates the elect to newness of life.
5. God graciously preserves the redeemed so that they persevere until the end, even though they may be troubled by many infirmities as they seek to make their calling and election sure.
Although the canons have only four sections, we speak of five points or heads of doctrine because the canons were structured to correspond with the five articles of the 1610 Remonstrance. The third and fourth sections were combined into one because the Dortian divines considered them to be inseparable and hence designed them as “Head of Doctrine III/IV”.

[from Chapter 2: Calvinism in History: Confessing the Faith, pg. 25-26]

"A Persuasive to Unity in Things Indifferent" by Thomas Manton

manton.gifIn light of Nine Marks‘ recent e-journal on unity and separation, and in light of recent discussions on my blog over the legitimacy of unifying around fundamentals of the faith, I thought I would share some lengthy excerpts from a sermon by the Puritan Thomas Manton (1620-1677).

I was directed to this sermon in this Sharper Iron thread. I did a quick Google search, and came across links to all of his works available online. And so I found the sermon online in volume 2 of his 22-volume complete works.

Without further comment, let me present these extracts from the sermon (all bolded emphasis is mine).

“A Persuasive to Unity in Things Indifferent”

Phil. 3:15, “As many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.”

I now come to the other part of the text [this is his second sermon on this verse]: —

1. As many as be perfect be thus minded: touto froneite, think the same thing with me–that is, forsaking all other confidences, cleave to Christ alone, whatever it cost you. Mind this, take care of this, be thus affected; let us actually perform that to which circumcision was designed; let us worship God in a spiritual manner, trusting Christ as the substance of all these ceremonial shadows, depending upon him for his renewing and reconciling grace, and adhering to pure Christianity, without mingling with it the rudiments of Moses.

2. If in anything ye be otherwise minded, know not the abolition of the ceremonies through weakness of faith, or an affected ignorance; yet having knowledge of so many saving truths, we hope in time God will reclaim you from your error. Well then–

[1.] Here is a difference or dissent supposed: “thus minded,” and “otherwise minded.”

[2.] Lenity [that is, leniency] expressed toward the dissenters: “If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this to you.”

Doct. That when God’s people are divided in opinion, all lenity and mutual forbearance should be used to prevent things from coming to an open rupture.

So sweet and mild was the discipline in the apostle’s days, that he would not compel men to do whatever he or others did conceive to be good, or to forbear what they did conceive to be evil, but, without force, leave them to God’s direction and illumination….

1. What lenity and forbearance should be used. Let us state it in these considerations: —

[1.] There may be, and often are, differences of opinion about lesser things in the church; partly because of different degrees of light. All barks that sail to heaven draw not a like depth of water. And partly because of the remainders of corruption in all. Inordinate self-love is not in all alike broken and mortified, and so their particular interests have an influence upon their opinions. And partly because of the accidental prejudices of education and converse, etc.

[2.] When these differences arise, we should take care they come not to a rupture and open breach. This is the course the apostle taketh here; he doth not by and by despair of the dissenters, and reject them as heretics, but beareth with them, hoping in charity God will at length reveal their error to them by the ministry of his servants, through the powerful operation of his Spirit, and not suffer them to run on in dividing courses from the rest of his people. So should we do in like cases. Partly because when these differences of opinion breed division and separations, the church is destroyed: Gal. 5:15, “For if ye bite and devour one another, take heed ye be not consumed one of another.”… Partly because the whole is scandalised: John 17:21, “That they may all be one, that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” Divisions in the church breed atheism in the world…. And partly because when men give themselves up to separating and narrow principles, the power of godliness is lost, and all their zeal is laid out upon their petty and private opinions, and so religion is turned into a disputacity. That is the reason why the apostle doth so often tell them, Gal. 6:15, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature;” and gal. 5:6, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love;” and 1 Cor. 7:19, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the commandments of God.” Observe it where you will, and you shall find that separation and distance from the rest of believers, doth not befriend godliness, but undermine it. A regiment fighting apart from the rest of the army of Christ, is always lost through their own peevishness; at least, they lose great advantages of promoting the kingdom of Christ.

[3.] To prevent this open rupture, there must be all lenity used and mutual forbearance. We must not rigourously obtrude our conceits upon others, either by church-power, or private censure….

…for want of right stating of things, men fight with their friends in the dark; some think all things should be suffered; some nothing wherein to bear with our brethren. The one sort of Christians is for imposing on their brethren all things that have gotten the vogue and the favour of authority, and that not only on their practice, but their judgments too; and this in matters not fundamental or destructive to faith or worship, but in things controversial or doubtful among godly and peaceable men. But if it should not go so high, contending about every difference of opinion, and urging our brethren with everything we conceive to be right, is a breach of Christian love, and destroyeth the use of those differing gifts which Christ hath given to the church, and crosseth his mind in the frame of the scriptures, which are clear in soul-saving matters; in other things, especially matters of discipline and order, more dark and obscure. It is also contrary to the mild and gentle government of the apostles, who press in lesser matters a forbearance; as Paul, Rom. 14:1, “The weak in faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations;” receive him, own him, but do not cast him out of the church, nor trouble him for doubtful things, but let him come to himself, for men will sooner be led than drawn.

The other extreme is of them that will have all things to be tolerated, even blasphemy and fundamental errors, as if the scriptures were uncertain in all things. No; in things absolutely necessary to salvation, it is clear, open, and plain: “The law is a lamp, and a light,” Prov. 6:23 and Ps. 119:105. And in such a case we are not to “bid him God-speed,” 2 Jn. 10. In such cases of damnable heresy, the law of Christian lenity [the state or quality of being lenient] holdeth not; but if we agree in the principal articles of faith, let us embrace one another with mutual love, though we differ from one another in variety of rites and ceremonies and discipline ecclesiastical. If we agree in the substantials of worship, let us go by the same rule, do the same thing: though in circumstantials there be a difference, these are matters of less moment than separation, or the other division of the church….

…If you will not own yourselves weak, do the part of the strong meekly, hold forth your light, produce your reasons to convince others; but if you have nothing to produce but your obstinacy and ignorance, surely you are not only a weak, but a perverse brother. But what are the weak to do? Not to rend and cut off themselves from the rest of Christians, or be strange to them upon every lesser dissent, nor to raise troubles by your censures, but to be humble, teachable, diligent in the use of means, to lay aside obstinate prejudices, to examine how it cometh to pass that the rest of the godly and you differ; to leave room still for the discovery of God’s mind where your grounds are not clear and certain, and to count it no shame to retract that former practice which a future conviction disproveth.

[After discussing the many ways the church is “one” listed in Eph. 4, he continues:] He is the common Father of all believers, through Jesus Christ. Some are weak, some strong, some rich, some poor, but they have all an equal interest in God. Now, for us, who are so many ways one, to be rent in pieces, how sad is that! All these places, and many more, show how every Christian should, as far as it is possible, be an esteemer and promoter of unity among brethren, and not only make conscience of purity, but of unity also, which, next to purity, is the great badge of Christianity….

…A grounded Christian beareth with the infirmities he seeth in others, and pitieth and helpeth them, and prayeth for them more than the weak, who are usually most censorious and addicted to the interest of their party and faction in the world, and make a bustle about opinions rather than solid godliness; but the grown Christian is most under the power of love and a heavenly mind, and so loveth God and his neighbour, is most sensible of his own frailty, hath a greater zeal for the welfare of his church and interest in the world, and seeth farther than others do….

…Consider how dangerous it is to reject any whom Christ will own for his. Will Christ admit him to heaven, and will you think him unfit for your communion here upon earth? Despise not the weak brother, for god hath received him, Rom. 14:3….

…Our endeavours after unity among the professors of Christianity ought to be earnest and constant: Eph 4:3, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” I add this partly because many make fair pretences of peace and union, which their practice contradicteth; all cry out of the divisions, but every one keepeth them up; and partly, because when it is endeavoured we shall find difficulties and disappointments, but we must not rest in some careless endeavours, nor grow weary though we meet not with present success; and partly because the instruments of so great a good are usually sacrificed to the wrath of both parties. We must be content to digest affronts, reproaches, censures, and injuries, and love them that hate us: 2 Cor. 12:15, “Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am beloved of you.”

These quote come from this online version of Volume 2 of Thomas Manton’s complete works, edited by Thomas Smith (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), pages 67 – 78. Picture borrowed from this Thomas Manton page.

Calvin on Fundamental Doctrines

In reading through Nine Mark’s e-journal on fundamentalism, I came across an audio lecture by Iain Murray (editor of Banner of Truth) on George Whitefield and Catholicity. Catholicity refers to a spirit of unity among the universal (i.e. Catholic) church, and not in any way to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

The lecture was very interesting as it deals with George Whitefield’s life and influence. It focused on his ideas of Christian unity across denominational lines. And Murray alleges that this emphasis on Christian catholicity directly resulted in the birth of modern missions and other evangelistic ventures such as Bible societies and publishing houses. Murray is careful to apply Whitefield’s story to today’s Christianity, and warns against both a radical ecumenism and a sectarian disregard for unity.

In his lecture, he quoted from John Calvin on the idea of doctrines being fundamental or not. And as we’ve been arguing the historicity and validity of this idea (that doctrines can be ranked as primary and secondary, etc.), I thought I’d share the full quote, which I found in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 1, section 12.

What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes–short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness–that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Phil. 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters* should in no wise be the base of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation. (emphasis added)

Also note the footnote (at the place where the asterisk is in the above quote), where John McNeill notes several proponents of this fundamental doctrine ideal in the seventeenth century.

*What follows is the footnote in my copy of the Institutes (edited by John McNeill [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960] ), emphasis added:

Cf. IV. ii. 1. The distinction of fundamental and nonfundamental articles of belief is woven into Calvin’s thought, though not definitively treated by him. F. Wendel remarks on the importance of this doctrine in Calvin’s championing of church unity, and cites Comm. I Cor. 3:11 (Corpus Reformatorum: Johannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia XLIX. 1354): “The fundamental doctrine, which it is nowise permissible to break, is that we cleave to Christ, for he is the only foundation [unique fondament] of the church.” The doctrines here named are introduced by the word qualia (such as) and are of course not a full enumeration of those which Calvin would hold requisite. The notion of fundamental articles formed the core of various liberal projects of union in the seventeenth century when it was advanced by Georg Calixtus, Pierre Jurieu, Samuel Werenfels, J.A. Turretin, and others. See Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 79 ff., 92 f., 107, 111.

I’ll have more to say on Nine Mark’s e-journal later. For now, you should know that several excellent articles on the question of fundamentalism, separation and unity are brought together in this one resource. I find it very helpful.

Great Read on George Whitefield

I recently read an excellent overview of George Whitefield‘s life and influence.

Apparently, he surpasses Charles Spurgeon when it comes to his preaching and lasting influence. 80% of the population of the American colonies heard him preach at least once, and he also ministered extensively in the British Isles.

His prominence stems solely from his passionate commitment to Christ and the gospel, rather than from any books or organizations he left us. He was truly a servant of Christ.

In all the political thoughts, take time to focus on Christ. If you have a little bit of time, contemplate Whitefield.

Other resources for additional study include:

Picture borrowed from Wikipedia article on Whitefield.