Category: Church History

Legacy of Sovereign Joy, cont.

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

This is the second part of a review of John Piper’s The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Piper’s book is less a detailed biography and more a pastoral treatment of the lives of great saints. Augustine, Luther and Calvin—great men indeed in the history of the Church—yet each is human, and Piper shows us how they ticked, and why their lives shined for Christ.

Each of these men had flaws. We looked briefly at Augustine’s in part 1, and we cannot escape Luther’s. But God’s grace met these flawed men in such a way as to transform the world through them. With God still moving today, we can look to the lives of these men and find hope that God may stoop to use us, frail and human though we be.

Luther

Luther was a passionate and very emotional man. He lived in a harsh world, and was hounded on all sides as he helped lead one of the world’s true and great reformations. Perhaps this explains Luther’s harsh tongue. At times crude and almost vulgar, Luther knew how to use his tongue, and how to put his words down on paper. Piper does not try to explain away Luther’s tendency to be mean with his opponents, and he rightly calls “Luther’s sometimes malicious anti-Semitism” as “an inexcusable contradiction of the Gospel he preached” (Legacy, pg. 31).

Yet for all of Luther’s faults, he singlehandedly gave us the Reformation. And central to the Reformation stands the authority of the Bible, unfettered by church tradition. Luther in many ways recovered the true Scripture, which had been lost and obscured through Roman tradition and general neglect.

Luther prized Scripture since “the Holy Spirit himself and God…is the Author of this book” (quoted in Legacy, pg.78). He further said, “The Word of God is the greatest, most necessary, and most important thing in Christendom” (quoted in Legacy, pg. 79). The following comments on Psalm 119 show why Luther felt this way:

In this psalm David always says that he will speak, think, talk, hear, read, day and night and constantly—but about nothing else than God’s Word and Commandments. For God wants to give you His Spirit only through the external Word. (quoted in Legacy, pg. 78)

Piper draws from Luther’s emphasis on the Word, as well as his example of rigorous study of the Word, and encourages pastors to be students of Scripture:

The Word of God that saves and sanctifies, from generation to generation, is preserved in a book. And therefore at the heart of every pastor’s work is bookwork. Call it reading, meditation, reflection, cogitation, study, exegesis, or whatever you will—a large and central part of our work is to wrestle God’s meaning from a book, and then to proclaim it in the power of the Holy Spirit. (Piper in Legacy, pg. 79).

As one who preached often 2 or more times a day, Luther has much to say to today’s pastor. And Piper distills six primary lessons for the Pastor and his study from Luther’s life.

  1. Luther came to elevate the biblical text itself far above the teachings of commentators or church fathers.
  2. This radical focus on the text of Scripture itself with secondary literature in secondary place leads Luther to an intense and serious grappling with the very words of Paul and the other biblical writers.
  3. The power and preciousness of what Luther saw when he “beat importunately” upon Paul’s language convinced him forever that reading Greek and Hebrew was one of the greatest privileges and responsibilities of the Reformation preacher.
  4. Luther employed extraordinary diligence in spite of tremendous obstacles.
  5. For Luther, trials make a theologian. Temptation and affliction are the hermeneutical touchstones.
  6. Key to Luther are prayer and reverent dependence on the all-sufficiency of God. And here the theology and methodology of Luther become almost identical.

This last point is key. For all the emphasis on mental rigors and study, Luther remains like Augustine, dependent on a Sovereign God. Christian, faithful pastors study hard, but are often on their knees. I close with a final quote from Luther, let it encourage all of us to use this study method more often.

You should completely despair of your own sense and reason, for by these you will not attain the goal…. Rather kneel down in your private little room and with sincere humility and earnestness pray God, through His dear Son, graciously to grant you His Holy Spirit to enlighten and guide you and give you understanding. (quoted in Legacy, pg. 108)

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Crossway.

“Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin” by John Piper

~ Bob Hayton ~ 13 Comments

I recently finished John Piper’s The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

John Piper’s biographies are written with a pastor’s eye and so are more than just the story of a famous individual. Rather, they focus on how the person ticked, and how they lived for Jesus. This book looks at 3 great men in the history of the Church, and even though each man had serious flaws, Piper points out the evidences of God’s grace and how these men were used so mightily for God.

I am going to spread this review over 3 posts and look briefly at the lives of each character. May God bless us as we see Him in these men. [Update: I only did 2 posts, this one on Augustine and one on Luther. One day I may finish this series…]

Augustine

Augustine is a difficult character to study because he has been so influential in both the founding of Roman Catholicism, with its undue emphasis on sacraments and the Church, and the birth of the Reformation, with its praiseworthy emphasis on the authority of Scripture and salvation by grace through faith. In the eyes of many historians Augustine is the most influential figure in all of Church History after Christ and Paul. Benjamin Warfield helps us with this comment, “The Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the Church.” (quoted in Legacy pg. 25)

Many conservative Christians can not get past Augustine’s contribution to Roman Catholicism and so they have no appreciation for his life. What many do not know is that Augustine has one of the greatest stories of conversion in the history of the Church.

Despite the prayers and pleadings of his mother, Augustine started out on a life of sin. He studied philosophy and indulged in the pleasures of a mistress or concubine, living with the same woman for 15 years. In time God moved him from Carthage to Milan where he was influenced by the Christ-centered preaching of Ambrose. He came to understand and even intellectually believe in Christianity but could not submit to Christ due to his sexual passions. It will be best to let Augustine tell his own story:

I flung myself down beneath a fig tree and gave way to the tears which now streamed from my eyes…. In my misery I kept crying, “How long shall I go on saying ‘tomorrow, tomorrow’? Why not now? Why not make an end of my ugly sins at this moment?”… All at once I heard the singsong voice of a child in a nearby house. Whether it was the voice of a boy or a girl I cannot say, but again and again it repeated the refrain “Take it and read, take it and read.” At this I looked up, thinking hard whether there was any kind of game in which children used to chant words like these, but I could not remember ever hearing them before. I stemmed my flood of tears and stood up, telling myself that this could only be a divine command to open my book of Scripture and read the first passage on which my eyes should fall.

So I hurried back to the place where Alypius was sitting… seized [the book of Paul’s epistles] and opened it, and in silence I read the first passage on which my eyes fell: “Not in reveling and drunkenness, not in lust and wantonness, not in quarrels and rivalries. Rather, arm yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ; spend no more thought on nature and nature’s appetites” (Romans 13:13-14). I had no wish to read more and no need to do so. For in an instant, as I came to the end of the sentence, it was as though the light of confidence flooded into my heart and all the darkness of doubt was dispelled.

[quoted Legacy pg. 53 from Augustine’s Confessions pg. 177-178 (VIII, 12)]

After this experience, Augustine’s life was transformed, he submitted to baptism and eventually became a priest and then bishop of Hippo.

What Piper focuses on in this book is how Augustine said it was the superior joys of God which drove him from the “fruitless joys” of sin. God, to Augustine, was “sweeter than all pleasure”. Piper calls this the “liberating power of holy pleasure”. And even as he describes Augustine’s stalwart defense of sovereign grace against the threat of Pelagius (who denied original sin and claimed people could be saved apart from Christ), Piper highlights Augustine’s treatment of joy.

I would very much encourage you to read this book. And follow me in purposing to pick up Augustine’s Confessions and read his story from his own lips. Augustine should challenge us to be so satisfied and thrilled with God and “the joy of the Lord”, that we forsake all other joys to know Him more fully.

Let me leave you with a quote which summarizes Augustine’s joyful, God-centered theology.

A man’s free-will, indeed, avails for nothing except to sin, if he knows not the way of truth; and even after his duty and his proper aim shall begin to become known to him, unless he also take delight in and feel a love for it, he neither does his duty, nor sets about it, nor lives rightly. Now, in order that such a course may engage our affections, God’s “love is shed abroad in our hearts” not through the free-will which arises from ourselves, but “through the Holy Ghost, which is given to us” (Romans 5:5).

[quoted in Legacy 59-60]

See part 2 of this review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Crossway.

Agreement on Baptism

~ fundyreformed ~ 12 Comments

There has been a discussion of late concerning Baptism. Is it something about which professing believers can agree to disagree over and at the same time be fellow members of one church. John Piper says yes, and Wayne Grudem used to agree with him in his Systematic Theology. In the latest edition, Grudem changed his mind and Justin Taylor publicized that on his blog.

I provided links to the discussion in a recent post Baptism & Church Membership. Then Justin Taylor linked to some articles by Vern Poythress about young children and baptism, which I link to (and discuss briefly) in this post: Baptism & Young Children.

Then Mark Dever chimed in. John Piper responded. Justin Taylor provided a helpful summary of the Biblical argumentation for infant baptism [see my summary of that position here]. Ligon Duncan (of the PCA) responded with a simpler summation (focusing on Acts 2:38-39); and Justin Taylor followed up with a Baptist brief response.

Now Justin has posted a list of 17 points on which paedobaptists (of the Presbyterian variety) and Baptists agree. He takes his list from a footnote a new book edited by Thomas Schreiner & Shawn Wright from a chapter written by Mark Dever. The points come from a debate on the issue hosted at Dever’s church between himself (SBC) and David Coffin (PCA). This list is well worth your time and should serve to broaden your understanding of the arguments and the degree of Christian charity you can display to brothers who differ on this issue. Note, Dever agrees to the list even though he would forbid a paedobaptist from joining his church.

Finally, I should point out that Aaron Menikoff of Church Matters (the blog for Mark Dever’s 9 Mark’s Ministries) has posted his second “Historical Reflection on Baptism and Church Membership“. This time he focuses on 19th Century Baptist theologian John Dagg, who affirmed both the universal and local church, but distinguished the two arguing for believer’s baptism as necessary for local church membership. Don’t forget to see Menikoff’s first historical post on John Bunyan & Abraham Booth.

I find this whole debate encouraging as there is such a display of Christian charity even as opposing arguments are laid down. I hope that if any of my readers have followed this exchange they will at least have a greater appreciation for brothers on the opposite side of this issue.AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Bible, the Sole Authority?

~ fundyreformed ~ 17 Comments

“The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.” I bet you have never heard that line before. Oh wait, if you are Baptist, you probably have.

Sadly, while many affirm this in principle, in practice they deny it. Tradition or culture often dictate a particular application of Bible principle. In the end, this application becomes Bible teaching and dogma. Alcohol, movies, pants on women, specific styles of music, specific translations of the Bible — the list of topics on which Scripture is “steered by tradition” could go on and on.

To compound this, doctrinal positions, where the Bible seems to allow for competing yet Biblically faithful interpretations, again morph into “its just plain Bible”. So if one doesn’t agree with a pre-trib rapture position, for example, he is rejecting the Bible; yet the facts of the matter stand differently. The one who denies a pre-trib rapture, only denies it on the basis of another Biblical position with various strong proof texts of its own. Of course only one end-times doctrine can be absolutely correct, but is it a sin to be wrong? And are we to be as dogmatic of our correctness on lesser points such as eschatology, as with major points like the Trinity and the Gospel?

All this comes from thinking about a fascinating look at church creeds by the always thought-provoking Carl Trueman. In an article called “A Good Creed Seldom Goes Unpunished” from the March 2007 issue of Reformation 21, Carl has the following insights into the “Bible only, we don’t need creeds” view.

On the issue of creeds, the evangelical world often seems absolutely divided into two broad camps: There are those who are so passionately committed to a particularly narrow view of scripture’s sufficiency that they not only deny the need for creeds and confessions but regard them as actually wrong, an illegitimate attempt to supplement scripture or to narrow the Christian faith in doctrinal or cultural ways beyond the limits set by scripture itself. Then there are those whose view of creeds and confessions is so high that any other theological statement, and sometimes even the Bible itself, seems to be of secondary importance. Neither group, I believe, really does the creeds justice.

I am very suspicious of both approaches. While I share the concern of the first group to safeguard the uniqueness of scripture and to avoid imposing my own cultural preferences and tastes on someone else under the guise of gospel truth, I have a sneaking suspicion that the cry of `No creed but the Bible!’ has often meant rather `I have my creed, but I’m not going to tell you what it is so that you can’t know what it is and thus cannot criticize it or me for holding it.’ Such is often the case with those evangelicals who reject creeds but have very definite views on the legitimacy of the consumption of alcohol and the nature of the end-times, for example. In practice, they effectively allow for no hypothetical distinction between what the Bible says and their own, or their church’s, interpretation of the same. Thus, they render themselves immune to any criticism. Further, as soon as they use words such as `Trinity’ or even consult a commentary, they reveal that what they say about their relationship to tradition and what they actually do in practice with tradition are in conflict. (HT: The Journeymen)

As I have stated above, I think Trueman hits the nail on the head with this issue. (Be sure to read the entire article.) We need to be careful to recognize our tendency to bring culture, and preconceptions to the Biblical text. Let us be silent where Scripture is silent, and cautious when the issues are truly complex. Let’s respect God’s Word and not presume to speak for It.

So Joe Knows…

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Regler Joe at the Big Orange Truck asked what people thought about having more than one service each week in church. He made it clear he does that and loves that, but wondered what people thought. I wrote this response, and as I was writing it I thought it’d make a good post for my blog. Well due to Blogger not displaying the word verification box properly on my computer tonight, that post is happening now. And that is why the post is “so Joe knows”. And now you know, and so I’ll stop while I’m ahead and give you that comment.

———————————

Joe,

It would be interesting to know the Puritans well enought to hear their answer. I suspect it would have been one service a week and only on Sunday.

Sunday School originally was invented for the purposes of helping orphans and poor kids. They would have to work a 40+ hour week in the factories in horrible conditions, and on Sundays (their only day off), people would come and have school with them. They would teach them how to read and write and about arithemetic and etc. Of course the people doing this were Christians, and they would teach the Bible too. This eventually morphed into the modern day Bible lessons for kids on Sundays. Click here for more info.

Sunday evening service was not possible really, before the invention of oil lamps. And it actually was the invention of oil lamps which started Sunday evening services. Churches purchased oil lamps when they were still novel, and lit them on Sunday nights. This attracted a crowd, and an evangelisic service was held. So originally, it was Sunday evening services which were evangelistic in nature, and Sunday morning services were worshipful and geared toward the believing church members rather than lost attenders. It also may have been tied to the fact that in pioneering type days, people would travel miles to get to church and would not just turn around and leave, but would rather stay and fellowship. See more here.

I’m not sure about Wednesday night’s history, however.

Anyways, these are traditions. Tradition is great, and if you and the people want to do these services wonderful! But I said all that to say this, we should not needlessly tie ourselves into traditions of men merely for tradition’s sake. We shouldn’t look down our noses at people who don’t do it like us. And beyond that, we should take the time to learn church history better (and history in general, for that matter) so that we don’t live in an isolated 100 year time bubble.

And I plead guilty to having lived there at times, and of still needing to do more learning and researching myself.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the matter. (Don’t mean to sound “preachy” or anything!)

Also, thanks for bringing this up, Joe. Great questions and great discussion so far.

Blessings in Christ to all,

Bob Hayton

Rom. 15:5-7

———————————

I would really like to find some more authoritative internet sources for my history cited here. I did read this in another book, and I believe I’ve heard others mention it as well. So anyone reading this, please feel free to correct me or to add some further proof. Anyone read the Puritans more than I have? Can you attest to my claims?

Thanks!