After faith and conversion, according to these Puritans and their modern disciples, the convert does not have assurance.  He ought not expect to have assurance.  The Spirit has to give assurance, and “till the Spirit does so … [the believer] lacks assurance; which, said the Puritans, seems to be the case of most Christian people (J. I. Packer, “The Witness of the Spirit:  The Puritan Teaching,” in Puritan Papers, vol. 1 [P&R, 2000], pp. 20, 21; emphasis added).

      This conception of the Christian life and experience passes for great spirituality in some quarters. 

      On the basis of the gospel and the Reformed confessions, I judge this conception of assurance to be pernicious error. It is dishonoring to God, who is a tender Father to all His children, not only to a favored few.  It is destructive of the comfort of many of God’s people, who languish in black doubt on account of this teaching.  It creates Reformed and Presbyterian churches that differ not a whit from the Roman Catholic Church and the Arminian assemblies, for all alike are full of members who profess to believe the Bible and to trust in Christ, but who cannot be sure of their salvation. 

      The teaching that only a few believers have assurance divides the congregation as effectively and disastrously as does the doctrine of two baptisms.  Here, close to God—at the table of the Lord—are the spiritual elite, God’s “best and dearest friends.”  Over there, far from God, are the rest—the majority—not merely less dear friends, but for all they know His enemies. 

      This doctrine of assurance sends many to hell, for the doubt of God’s promise that the doctrine instills, nourishes, and encourages is unbelief.  And unbelief damns.

      However this doctrine of assurance may have found entrance into Reformed churches, it is an alien element in the body of Reformed truth.  It may be a Puritan doctrine.  It is not Reformed doctrine.  The Reformed faith does not tolerate—for years, lifetimes, and generations!—much less promote, doubt.  The Reformed faith gives comfort, certainty, assurance.  A Reformed church is not a congregation of doubters.  It is a congregation of believers and their covenant children, who by virtue of the Spirit of Jesus Christ—no sceptic!  no doubter!—can confess that they possess the comfort of belonging to Jesus Christ (Heid. Cat., Q. & A. 1).

Assurance as Fatherly Will

      According to the Puritan doctrine of assurance, God wants most of His children to live much, if not all, of their life in doubt of their salvation.  That is, He desires that they live in doubt of His Fatherly love for them.  This is a dreadful spiritual condition, for it is the terror of God’s hatred. 

      This doctrine casts aspersions on the Fatherhood of God.

      It is the will of God, as the good heavenly Father, that all His children know His love for them.  From the Fatherhood of God in Jesus Christ come not only the blessing of the children’s salvation, but also the benefit of the children’s assurance of salvation.

      Is there an earthly father, especially a Christian father, who likes to have most of his children go through much of their life doubting whether he is a father to them?  Are there Christian parents who want most of their children to live their life long in fear that their parents hate them and are bent on their destruction?  Are there Reformed parents whose pleasure is that most of their children are so paralyzed by fear that they dare not even take supper with their parents?

      Is it not rather the case that more than anything else we earthly fathers want all our children to be perfectly sure that they are our children, loved by us with a father’s love and welcomed into our fellowship?  Do we not work at this from their very birth?

      Is God less a Father than we?

      Are we really to suppose that the heavenly Father demonstrates such extreme partiality as to give to only a few of His favorite children the fundamental blessing of knowing His love for them?  Are we really to suppose that He leaves the rest to tremble in doubt, whether He hates them and likely will damn them? 

      How senseless of God to accomplish the work of salvation for all His children, but then to leave many, or even most, of us in constant doubt of this, our salvation!  God does not simply will our salvation.  He wills also that we be assured of our salvation, so that our salvation does us some good and so that, knowing our salvation, we will love Him, thank Him, serve Him, and glorify Him.

      God has made known in Scripture that assurance of His love, and therefore certainty of their salvation, is His Fatherly will for all His children.  He puts on the lips of every one of His children, that is, every one who by His grace believes on Him in Jesus Christ, a prayer that begins, “Our Father which art in heaven” (Matt. 6:9).   Implied by this address of God is that the one who prays knows God as his Father for the sake of Jesus Christ.  This is assurance of one’s sonship and salvation.  One cannot know God as his Father without knowing himself as God’s child. 

      If someone is doubtful about his salvation, he doubts that God is his heavenly Father.  And if he doubts that God is his Father, he cannot pray.  For him to go through the motions of prayer would be hypocrisy.  Confidence that God is our Father in Christ, that is, assurance that we are saved, is the very foundation of prayer (Heid. Cat., Q. & A. 120).  Only that prayer is acceptable to God, and heard by Him, in which the one who prays has the firm confidence (German:  “festen grund”) that, notwithstanding his own unworthiness, God will certainly hear his prayer (Heid. Cat., Q. & A. 117). 

      To every one who fears Him—weak and strong, young and old, child and graybeard—God gives Psalm 23 as his or her own confession:  “The Lord is my shepherd.”  To say this, from the heart of course, is to have certainty of salvation.

      Concerning all the elect, quickened, believing members of the church, at any stage of their spiritual development, the apostle says in Ephesians 3:12:   “In [Christ Jesus our Lord] we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.”  The apostle includes the covenant children and young people, whom he will recognize as members of the church in chapter 6:1-3, as well as their parents. 

      It was by no means the least serious aspect of the grievous error of the Puritans regarding assurance, as it is not the least serious aspect of the teaching of their modern disciples, that, as the rule, they reserved, and reserve, assurance for old people.  Assurance comes only with age, usually old age.  The children and young people of the church are taught to live in doubt of their salvation.  As a result they do live in doubt, terrifying doubt. 

      What a daring assault on God’s Fatherhood and contradiction of His covenant Word!

      The covenant Father says, in the gospel and in the baptism of the children, “I am the God in Jesus Christ of believers and of their children.”  The Puritan ministers said to the children, “God is not your God, at least while you are children, and very likely not until you become old men and old women.  If He is your God, you cannot know Him as your God.  You must therefore live in terror of Him.” 

      This was not only false doctrine about assurance.  It was also sin against the covenant.  Denying assurance to the children of believers is connected with the false doctrine of the covenant that views the baptized, covenant children of believers as unsaved until such a time as they receive a “conversion experience.”

      According to Hebrews 10:19, every man, woman, and child who trusts alone in the one sacrifice of Christ, renouncing the Old Testament ceremonies and every human work, has boldness to enter the holiest.  This is some boldness, for the holiest is where the holy God dwells.  Every one who trusts alone in Jesus Christ is exhorted, not to have full assurance of faith, but to draw near to God in the full assurance that every one of them has.  Every one of them has this boldness and assurance by virtue of his faith in Jesus Christ and by virtue of this faith alone:  “in full assurance of faith.”

      In Hebrews 10:19ff., the apostle is not speaking to a select few in the congregation, perhaps some of the old men and old women who have struggled with doubt for fifty or sixty years and worked hard all that time to attain to certainty.  But he speaks to all who profess Christ and the Christian faith with a true heart.

      There is no need to belabor what is perfectly plain in the entire Bible:  God’s will for all His children is that they enjoy assurance of their salvation.  The very purpose of I John is that all who believe on Jesus Christ may know their salvation.  “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God” (I John 5:13).  

      God wills that we know that we are saved, that we have eternal life.     

      Who may and must know this?  Only God’s “best and dearest friends”?  Only a favored few of God’s elect, redeemed, and regenerated sons and daughters? 

      The God of I John is far more Fatherly and gracious than the Puritan preachers and their modern disciples. 

      “You that believe on the name of the Son of God”!  Every one who believes on the name of the Son of God!

      Do you believe on Jesus Christ as He is presented in the gospel of the Scriptures?  You have eternal life!  Know it!  Be assured of it!  Be absolutely certain of it! 

      Do not let anyone rob you of this knowledge.  Let them steal your possessions, your freedom, your reputation, anything and everything earthly, if need be!  But not the knowledge that God is your Father for Christ’s sake and that you are His beloved, saved son or daughter!

      Do not let Satan rob you of assurance.

      Nor your Reformed minister.

      And not the theology of the Puritans.

Letters:

The Sunday Evening “Gospel” Service

      Rev. Kortering’s series on “Mission Preaching in the Established Church” (Standard Bearer, March 1, 2003; April 1, 2003; June 2003; August 2003; Nov. 1, 2003) raises the issue of evangelistic worship services.  I thought that SB readers would be interested in some observations on this subject by a PRC missionary laboring in the British Isles.  In many churches in the United Kingdom generally and in Northern Ireland in particular, it is customary that the Lord’s Day evening service contain a “gospel” sermon.  Moreover, sometimes even the morning speech is largely, or even especially, addressed to the unbeliever.  There are, however, many serious problems with this practice, especially in the areas of exegesis, the nature of the gospel, doctrinal preaching, worship, Arminianism, hawking Jesus, and the nature of the church.

      1.   The Scriptures are written for the church and simply do not contain enough texts to preach exegetical sermons for unbelievers 52 times or more a year, year in and year out.  This results in the “gospel” preacher engaging in forced, and thus flawed, exegesis.  As a former lay preacher entrenched in this system, and as one who has heard many such sermons, I know whereof I speak.  Since often the text does not lead where the preacher wants it to go, it must be compelled to yield the desired evangelistic sermon.  As well as grieving the Holy Spirit who inspired the Word of God (and the child of God who understands what is going on), this practice fails to teach the congregation to interpret the Scriptures rightly.

      2.   This forced exegesis results in the “potted gospel,” which always contains what the minister considers the bare essentials of the gospel (and not much else) and frequently finishes with an appeal of various lengths tacked on at the end.  After a little exegesis at the start of the sermon, the message often consists of something little more than an expansion of the “five spiritual laws,” with a concluding exhortation very like that of the week or month or year before.  Many listeners confess to being bored with such sermons.  Christians are tempted to a certain smugness:  “We’re forever hearing that people need to be saved, but we’re already converted.  In at least half of the sermons we hear, the holy God of heaven and earth has little or nothing to say to us by way of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (cf. II Tim. 3:16). ”

      3.   It is evident from all this that the congregation is not properly fed through such a system.  With at least half of the church’s services devoted to preaching the potted gospel, there is simply no way in which the minister can proclaim “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) — something necessary for the great work of “edifying … the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12).   The Holy Spirit has led the church into the truth over the last 2,000 years, but where over 50% of the church’s worship services are given over to “gospel” services, the congregation will never grasp the riches of the Reformed faith.  Thus true confessional Christianity and doctrinal preaching is ruled out.  Especially the doctrine of God — His Being, Persons, attributes, and decrees — and the doctrine of the church — her nature, attributes, marks, sacraments, worship, and discipline — are corrupted or rarely treated.  This results in serious ignorance of God’s truth and weakness in the church’s members, which leaves them susceptible to further errors.  In the Brethren assemblies, this problem is particularly acute because they not only have an evening gospel service, but they have no ordained and few able speakers.  Thus they need special weekday “ministry” services, through which some of their more capable men provide a supplementary diet.

      4.   This all-absorbing focus on evangelism — what John Kennedy of Dingwall would call “Hyper-Evangelism” — shapes the whole evening service.  Uninspired poems (called “hymns” in popular parlance) are sung instead of the God-breathed Psalms, in part because the Psalms simply do not serve the purpose of the “gospel” service, for they do not create the right “atmosphere.”  Besides, they are filled with imprecations on the wicked!  Enter, too, the “ministry in song,” whereby one or more singers and/or musicians, male or female, entertain the audience while seeking to sing the sinner into the kingdom of heaven.  Thus the ethos of the “gospel” service moulds the church’s worship and hence the members’ ideas of the church.

      5.   The whole approach proceeds from — and thus reinforces — Arminianism, revivalism, baptistic individualism, and fundamentalism.  In his Paisley:  The Man and his Message, Ian Paisley, Northern Irelands’ greatest exponent of the Sunday evening “gospel” service, includes amongst those who “primed [his] pulpit pump” noted Arminians John Wesley and R.A. Torrey.  The evening “gospel” approach and the Arminian hymn-books mean that even where outright Arminianism is not preached, it must certainly be tolerated so that Arminians in pulpit and pew will not be disciplined.  Thus confessional Christianity and sound doctrinal preaching enforced by church discipline are ruled out.  Revivalism hereby excludes biblical reformation.  Hyper-evangelism readily leads to lay preaching — a great scourge in the United Kingdom that is condemned by the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q & A 158).  Those who forthrightly oppose Arminianism, and the Sabbath evening “gospel” meeting which it foments, are then dismissed as hyper-calvinists!  Never mind that Calvin and all the Reformed fathers taught antithetically sovereign and particular grace and would have had no time for the modern innovation of the Sunday night “gospel” service with all its trappings!

      6.   Arminian terminology such as “accepting Christ,” “commitments,” and “letting Jesus into your heart” find ready acceptance in Sunday night “gospel” services.  In his Jesus Savior and the Evil of Hawking Him, Herman Hoeksema speaks of “hawking Jesus” as “one of the most sinister” of “the evil tendencies of our age” (p. 1).  He explains,

By hawking Jesus I mean all such preaching as leaves the impression, directly or by implication, that He is impotent to save unless the sinner first wills and gives his consent.  This is done directly by the denial of predestination, by the preaching of a Jesus for all, and by the teaching of the freewill of man by which the latter is able to accept or to reject the proffered salvation.  But it is also done indirectly, when preachers change the grace of God into an offer of God to all and present Jesus as a poor beggar, standing outside the door of man’s heart, begging him to let Him in and give Him a chance to save the sinner.  It is done in various forms and degrees.  But all such preaching as finally leaves the impression that it is at all up to man, to the sinner, whether Jesus will save him or not, is hawking Jesus, or rather, it is an attempt to hawk Him (p. 17).

      Another referred to this as “making a begging bowl out of the Son of God.”  This is rife in Northern Ireland, especially where the Sunday evening “gospel” service has gotten a hold.

      7.   The Sunday evening “gospel” service proceeds from a total misunderstanding of the nature of the church, which is “the house of God” and “the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15) and “an assembly of those who are saved” (Belgic Confession 28).  The true gospel minister must address the Lord’s congregation:  “Beloved in our Lord Jesus Christ, called to be saints.”  This, of course, does not rule out direct addresses in a sermon to those outside of Christ, especially where the text itself leads this way.  But true Reformed churches do not want to go the way of the Sunday evening “gospel” service.  Few Reformed churches have become apostate overnight.  Normally, the way of apostasy runs like this:  a Reformed church becomes an evangelical church, which, through further departure, slides into a fundamentalist church, and eventually its Arminianism takes it into full-blown modernism.  True Reformed churches must not even start on that track.

(Rev.) Angus Stewart,

Covenant Protestant Reformed Fellowship in Northern Ireland

RESPONSE:

      We appreciate very much the contribution that Rev. Stewart gives to us regarding the abuse of “gospel services” in the British Isles.  It helps us to understand the thinking of those who abandon or replace the rightful preaching of the gospel with wrongful substitutes.  We do well to heed such warnings.  We continue to pray for him as he does missionary work among many of those who have abandoned “the old paths.”

      I like to spend a little time addressing his comment, “But true Reformed churches do not want to go the way of the Sunday evening gospel service.”

      First, I do appreciate the brother’s care in not accusing me of advocating the evils which he enumerates regarding such abuse in the British Isles.  As our readers can testify, the article dealing with “gospel services” is the last in a series of five articles.  They were written at one time and constitute a unit.  Throughout these articles I tried to identify what the local church’s role is in doing mission work.  I stand convinced that mission outreach is not done by the church only in some “mission station” in a distant place, but the local church has the duty to obey the injunction given throughout Scripture to “make disciples of all nations.”  The established church must concern herself with outreach ministry. I suggested that part of that outreach ministry includes the membership of the church sharing the gospel with family, friends, neighbors, and all who cross their paths.  In connection with an organized effort to do this, we can include an evening service geared to receive such people whom God is pleased to bring under the gospel.  This obviously is once or at most twice a year and a special event.

      I appreciate that Rev. Stewart also acknowledges that the fact that the focus of the preaching is always upon the congregation “does not rule out direct addresses in a sermon to those outside of Christ, especially where the text itself leads this way.” 

      The difficulty, I see, is the use of a term that is loaded with heresy and misuse, as the brother so capably illustrates.  Certainly, I do not use “gospel service” in the way he describes as wrongful use.  Thus we face the question, may we use a term that can be misunderstood because of its abuse?  That is an issue that warrants consideration, though we have to be careful to remember that misuse and abuse do not themselves warrant non-use.  A writer must always be given the right to define his terminology carefully and the reader must be cautioned about reading into it what the writer does not intend.  Whether it is wise to use the word in the first place is a different issue.  Maybe we can produce a better word to describe what I have in mind.

      Second, when we discuss the possibility of going in a wrong way, we have to deal with two related issues.  The first is how we deal with change, and the second is how we deal with change which has been abused by others, but we have no intention of going in that direction.  Let’s say a word about each.

      The Christian church in obedience to Christ stresses the “old paths” according to Jeremiah 6:16 and “to hold to the traditions” (II Thess. 2:15).   This refers to the instruction that our Lord has given to us, both as it relates to our faith (belief or doctrine) and practice (life).  In response to such obedience, the people of God often reason, “we have always done it this way” or “we have not done that before.”  This is our way of expressing concern for wrongful change.

      Let’s face it, there are times when change is necessary.  I see certain aspects of mission outreach, both in the mission field and in the established church, that require some change.  Let me illustrate.  A key aspect of our obedience to Christ in outreach is our personal witnessing to those who cross our path.  Some of us do not do this, and have never done it.  When this is pointed out to them, they may say, we never did that before, why do you say we need to do this now?  We even hear some comment that preaching is the work of the pastor, and the believer does not have to speak of the gospel to others.  That is wrongful thinking, and some people may reject instruction regarding personal witnessing simply because they never did it and the “old paths” forbid it.  The point I make is that some change is good and necessary.  I view a restricted use of “gospel service” in this light.  It may be change, it may not be change.  Some of our congregations have already held such services in connection with reaching out to their community.  They advertise a special message and invite others to join them in worship.  My suggestion for a special “gospel service” can be viewed in this same light.

      The other aspect of the issue concerns the danger of going too far.  Perhaps I can accept a certain suggested change, but it can so easily be abused, and often is abused, by others, even other churches.  This has to be addressed.  If we continue our illustration of personal witnessing, we all know that it too is taken to wrongful extremes by believers advocating that they can preach the gospel, just as well as pastors can preach.  Then you get some of the errors Rev. Stewart mentions — non-ordained people conducting worship services, and all the rest.  But, we may not deny the biblical mandate given to every Christian to make use of his prophetic office in speaking of the gospel to others.  The Heidelberg Catechism aptly says that this is necessary so that “others may be gained to Christ.”  Abuse must not stop us from advocating proper use.

      The practice of mission work seems to raise many of these issues.  Is it, for example, alright for a seeking soul who has difficulty praying with “thee and thou” to use “you and your,” as long as he is reverent?  Can we make use of the New King James Bible (or another suitable translation) as a personal help for those who have difficulty reading the King James Version of the Bible?  It seems that when these issues arise, a plethora of emotions bursts forth with warnings of going down the wrong road.  Introducing some of these changes can lead to error, to be sure.  Introducing “you” and “your” in prayer can lead (as it has in many instances here in the USA) to “pop prayers” and horrible sacrilegious practices.  Regarding translation of the Bible — on the one hand, we do not want to go to the extreme and hold that the KJV is our inspired Bible because the translators were inspired as were the original writers, as is done in some Christian circles.  On the other hand, we do not want to accept dynamic equivalency translation in place of word translation.  The Christian church has always advocated that the Bible must be in the common language of the people.  The translation must not hinder understanding but help it.  Limited use of another suitable translation in mission work (much like a commentary) does not mean that the church herself has to abandon the KJV and replace it with another.  If that should take place, it must be the decision of the entire denomination working together.  Also, we must be careful that we not fall into the trap of “accommodation evangelism,” where the church makes changes in her worship just to accommodate outsiders who come to worship.  That is dangerous and must not be the basis for any change.  New converts and worshipers must be trained to worship with us as we worship God in a proper and biblical manner.  It seems to me that in this same sense, we can make proper use of “gospel service” without fear of abuse.

      With these illustrations, I do not want to throw gasoline on the fire of controversy.  I only want to illustrate that even though some changes can go too far, we must not forbid proper change just because we fear abuse.  Yes, the danger is there, but here too, we must not be wiser than God.  Sometimes I hear our people reason this way, that we must be careful with missions, because many heresies and wrongful practices were introduced into the church by the door of missions.  This is historically factual and ought to give us pause before we get so carried away with missions that we lose our spiritual footings.  There is, however, another side to this.  I observe that of the seven churches in Asia Minor addressed in Revelation chapters two and three, there were only two churches that did not receive admonitions because of errors prevalent in that congregation.  The one was Smyrna, the church that stood faithful and endured tribulations, and the other was Philadelphia, the church that was faithful in her mission calling as God gave that church an open door.  The church that is faithful in her outreach ministry receives blessings from God, but a church that neglects it may not have them.  There is spiritual life, great rejoicing, earnest praying, mutual upbuilding, when the leaders and members of the church are enthusiastically engaged in her mission calling.  We can focus on the fear of change, doing something different, risking abuse — or we can focus on God’s promise to be with us in our mission work and to bless us in it as he said, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20).   Our safety and security is staying close to our Lord.

      I trust God will give us the grace of His Holy Spirit to be obedient in missions and to stay free from extremes and error and to enjoy the blessings of obedience.  Let us all pray for this.

(Rev.) J. Kortering  

All Around Us:

Rev. Gise VanBaren

Rev. VanBaren is a minister emeritus in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

“Burger King” Religion – “Have It Your Way!”

   It is a sad fact that one finds a multiplicity of churches and denominations in the land.  There are many confessions extant in these bodies—often expressing what we are convinced is contrary to the Word of God.  Within the churches and denominations there is a trend to provide the kind of services that attract the differing age groups.  Contemporary services are more suited to the young—and traditional services to those older. 

      A number of years ago there was the rise of mega-churches—with a large staff of ministers and other assistants.  These appeared to attract people of all sorts and with all sorts of spiritual problems.  Not infrequently the mega-church continued only under the strong and domineering leadership of one man.  If he died, or was ousted, the large church often withered.

      But many were not content with this diversity.  They wanted something more, something different.  Each should be able to decide for himself or herself how God should be worshiped.  One’s own preferences should be the guide. 

      The Denver Post, Dec. 21, 2003, presented a feature article on these emerging “churches” in that area.  The article stated:

         Defining a church as emerging can be difficult because such groups take so many forms.  That elusiveness, in fact, is part of the character of a movement that shuns structure and hates being put in a box.

         “There is no formula,” said Sally Morganthaler, a Denver author and consultant who works with emerging churches nationwide.  “If you’re going to become a model, then you become a franchise.”

         Some emerging churches want to stay small, believing that’s the only way to maintain real relationships.  Others hope to grow and touch as many people as they can.

         Many use candles, incense and crosses — elements of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and mainline Protestantism that seeker churches reject — to forge a connection to Christianity’s rich history.  Others say that’s not who they are.

         Some emphasize shared leadership over the pastor-as-CEO approach typical of the seeker movement.  Others have senior pastors (though they may be only 25).

      The article continues by describing other of the differences that abound in the movement:

         Mike Shepherd, 39, started Connected Life Church in August.  He calls it “the church of the bar.”  It meets at the D-Note in Old Town Arvada on the last Tuesday of each month because the unchurched crowd “wants to play on the weekend — they want to ski or hike.”

         Shepherd fills the club with incense and flashes ancient religious art onto projection screens before launching into programs such as “Spirituality and ‘The Matrix,’” or “Microbrews in the Bible.”

         “One of our big phrases is to make this a safe place to engage at the level where you feel comfortable,” he said.  “It’s safe to explore….”

 

      The article concludes by describing some of the people and things that can be seen in these “churches.”

         At 6:30 p.m. on a recent Sunday, Scum of the Earth church (I Cor. 4:11-13 —GVB) began its weekly gathering with pizza.

         A deejay spun Bjort and Cake, alternative rock favorites.

         Many in the crowd of 200 looked ready for a punk show.

         Black clothes.  Chains.  Blue hair.  Pierced lips and noses.

         The walls were covered in art produced by Scum regulars, including a wall-sized mural of Bible scenes and surrealistic interpretations of Christ’s Resurrection.

         “We are a church for the left out and the right-brained,” said Mike Sares, 49, the pastor….

         …Sares sees different priorities in the Scum crowd.  They want to sing, they don’t want to be sung to.  They don’t want to go to church to listen to a sermon, watch a drama skit and go home without talking to anyone.  They want to offer a spare bedroom to a stranger who got kicked out of the house.

         Most of all, they come to Scum of the Earth Church to connect with kindred souls.

         “You can come in here and not have everyone stare at you,” said Steve Warren, 21, who until recently wore dread locks and still stands out with nine body piercings….

      It’s sad to what extent some will go to “worship.”  I was about to write: “worship God.”  But they do not appear to be doing that.  One would think that Satan surely encourages this kind of “worship.”  It is man-centered and designed to please man.  It reminds of the days of the Judges when everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

      In all humility we ought to give God thanks that our forefathers did write creeds that bind the Reformed churches to the truths of the Word of God.  We can give God thanks that we gather in the churches to hear sermons that present Christ and Him crucified.  We can praise God for the dignity and piety of the services.  One can appreciate it, too, that those who assemble to worship come dressed in a manner that indicates reverence as well (though perhaps we are “slipping” a bit in this regard).  We see in dress and attitude the desire of covenant families to fellowship with God in Jesus Christ.  But the number of those who appear to desire this seems to grow smaller and smaller as the end of time approaches.

 “What Think Ye of the Christ?   Whose Son is He?”

    It is not unusual at Christmas time to read articles concerning Jesus.  Many of these articles, of course, come with conclusions not based on Scripture but the theories of man.  In a feature article, U.S. News and World Report, December 22, 2003, writes of this.  The article treats especially a recently published book, The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown.  The article says the book is “a gripping thriller suggesting that some of the fundamental beliefs held dear by millions of Christians are not only wrong but were deviously foisted upon believers by the Roman Catholic hierarchy….”

      The article does present some interesting information:

 

         Way back in February of 1804 President Thomas Jefferson, ever the enlightened rationalist, sat down in the White House with two identical copies of the New Testament, a straight-edge razor, and a sheaf of octavo-size paper.  Over the course of a few nights, he made quick work of cutting and pasting his own bible, a slim volume he called “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth.”  After slicing away every passage that suggested Jesus’s divine nature, Jefferson had a Jesus who was no more and no less than a good, ethical guide.

         The third U.S. president is credited with being among the first wave of Americans to tinker with the traditional image of Jesus.  But that wave was far from the last.  As two new scholarly studies show, for more than two centuries Americans have been busy recasting the image of Jesus to suit contemporary sensibilities and to advance personal or political agendas.  From the revivalist sermons of the 19^th century’s Second Great Awakening to the ’70s rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar to Mel Gibson’s forthcoming film depicting Christ’s Passion, those engaged in representing Jesus always claim to be returning to the real Galilean….

         …Though other revisionists may not have been so bold as to cut and paste the New Testament, Jefferson was not alone in his revisionary thinking.  Old-line Calvinists, anti-Calvinist liberal Protestants, deists, and evangelical revivalists all gave different hues and tints to their pictures of Jesus.

      It is true that there are many different presentations of Jesus.  Who is correct?  Which presentation is the most accurate?  Satan himself is pleased to have man present Jesus as a morally good man, but not the divine Son in the flesh.  He would gladly agree with Thomas Jefferson that all the references in the Bible to the second person in our flesh should be cut from the Bible.

      It becomes, then, not only a matter of who Jesus really is—but on what basis the conclusions are drawn.  Only by denying the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible can man come with all kinds of different conclusions.

      Let the words of the apostle Paul resound loudly and clearly, “I determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified”  (I Cor. 2:2).   Then we must interpret that truth without cutting out the references to His divinity.  Otherwise, there is no hope but only despair.

Marking the Bulwarks of Zion:

Prof. Herman Hanko

Prof. Hanko is professor emeritus of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed Seminary.

The Marrow Men (1)

Introduction

 A controversy arose in the Scottish Presbyterian Churches of Scotland in the early part of the eighteenth century.  It has been called the Marrow Controversy.  It gets its name from a book, first published in 1645, called The Marrow of Modern Divinity.  Although this book, written by a man named Edward Fisher, was republished in 1648 and 1649, it never had a great deal of influence until, under rather peculiar circumstances, it became a subject of bitter debate that had to be settled by the broadest judicatories of the church.

      The teachings at issue were many and complicated, and often framed in ways that are foreign to us and difficult to understand.  But at bottom these debated questions concerned the nature of the preaching of the gospel, particularly the question whether the preaching of the gospel may be construed as a well-meant offer by God to all who hear it.  Because this was the central issue, the controversy had great influence on Presbyterian thought in subsequent years and is of interest to us.

      Because of the close contacts between the Scottish Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, the Marrow Controversy also had an impact on Dutch thinking.  In fact, it is likely that the idea of the gospel as a well-meant offer first entered Dutch thinking under the influence of the Marrow Men.  If this is true, and there is reason to believe that it is, then this Marrow Controversy cast a long dark shadow also over Dutch Reformed thinking and is chiefly responsible for the introduction into Reformed theology of the heresy of the gospel as a well-meant offer.

      It is worth our while to take a look at this controversy.

Background

      The evil heresy of Arminianism appeared early in England’s Anglican Church, the church that emerged from the Reformation in that country.  Arminianism was first taught in 1595 by Peter Baro, Margaret professor of divinity in Cambridge University.  In fact, the Lambeth Articles were written as supplements to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, because these articles, while Calvinistic, were not strong on the doctrine of predestination and sovereign grace.  Attempts were made to add officially the Lambeth Articles to the creed of the Anglican Church, but this was never, in fact, accomplished.  Nevertheless, Peter Baro was forced to resign from his teaching position in 1596.  The Anglican Church was sufficiently strong to combat this deadly heresy.

      Arminianism had, however, taken root.  And along with Arminianism, Amyraldianism had also taken hold in England.  We noted this in our articles on Amyraldianism and we need not repeat what we said, other than to remind the readers that Davenant was an Amyraldian and represented the Amyraldian position on the Synod of Dordt as one of the English delegates.

      From that time on, the struggle of the English Church, along with the church in Scotland and Ireland, was a constant battle to resist the teachings of Arminianism and its blood brother, Amyraldianism.  Especially the Stuart kings, deeply committed to Episcopalian Church government, and always attempting to nudge the Anglican Church closer to Rome, were ardent supporters of Arminianism — something not surprising, for Arminianism is, in turn, a blood brother of Pelagianism, the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

      Of greater concern was the fact that Richard Baxter, author of the popular book The Reformed Preacher, taught an Amyraldian doctrine of the atonement of Christ and of the preaching of the gospel.  He claimed that it was necessary to hold to such a doctrine because of creeping antinomianism in the church; but, in fact, Baxter became a neonomist with his doctrine of justification by faith and works.  And his doctrine of a certain universality in the atonement of Christ opened the door to later heresies.  He was even reluctant to sign the Westminster Confession of Faith, although he finally did this — without any alteration in his views.

      The chief defender of Calvinism was John Owen, known primarily for his magnum opus, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.  Owen fought against Arminianism and Amyraldianism and defended vigorously the doctrine of the particular redemption of Christ.  It is probably true that at the time John Owen wrote his masterful defense of the particularity of the atonement and the sovereignty of God’s grace, neither Davenant, Baxter, nor Bishop Ussher (the author of Ussher’s chronology of the Bible, but also, at best, a modified Amyraldian) had come out publicly for their views.  Nevertheless, Owen’s defense of this truth over against Arminian and Amyraldian errors clearly indicated how widespread these heresies were in the English churches.

      Because the nature of the preaching was closely connected to the whole controversy over Christ’s atonement, Owen paid close attention also to this latter doctrine.  He taught that the preaching proclaimed that Christ died for sinners, and that all who confess sin and believe in Christ will be received by Christ.  At the same time, he insisted that those who believe in Christ are also the elect.

      Owen did not shirk the command of the gospel and insisted that in the gospel all men were confronted with the command to forsake sin and believe in Christ.  This was their duty before God, and those who refused brought upon themselves God’s dreadful judgments.

      Thus, Owen taught, Christ is offered in the gospel.  He repeatedly used the word offere, which is the Latin word from which the English word offer is taken.  But he did not use the word in the sense of a well-meant offer of God to all who hear the gospel, but as a presentation of Christ crucified and as the One who accomplished satisfaction for sin.

      In pressing home the commands of the gospel, Owen spoke of the fact that God’s commands are given in utter seriousness:  God means what He says when He commands men to repent of sin and believe in Christ.  To press home to men the seriousness of God’s commands, and to bring forcibly to the consciousness of sinners that Christ has accomplished salvation for all who believe, Owen did not hesitate to speak of an invitation by which Christ urges upon sinners the calling to believe in Him.  Owen maintained that the minister of the gospel should do this with the tenderest of entreaties and most urgent pleas; in this way the minister would be conveying properly Christ’s demands.

      I make a rather detailed point of all this, because these very issues were to be the chief bones of contention in the Marrow Controversy.  One can readily see how closely these are related to the whole idea of a well-meant offer of the gospel.  It is not, after all, a big jump, in the minds of people, between Christ’s earnest pleas and tenderest entreaties to sinners to come to Him, and Christ’s desire to save all who hear the gospel preached to them.

The Marrow

      In 1648 or 1649, shortly after the Westminster Assembly had completed its work, Edward Fisher published his The Marrow of Modern Divinity.  The first part of the book, the part of immediate concern to us, is a conversation between Neophytus, a new convert to the faith; Nomista, who represents the position of anti-nomianism; and Evangelista, a pastor, who speaks the views of the author and what he considered to be the truth of Scripture.  The book was purported to be a discussion of the relation of the gospel to the law, but, in fact, it was a vendetta against what the author perceived to be a characteristic of the church at this time, a dangerous and deadly antinomianism.

      The book did not attract any significant attention until over a half-century later, although the question of whether antinomianism was truly a weakness in the church is another question.  It would be well worth while to consider the matter briefly.

      We must remember that the Marrow Controversy took place in Scotland and that we are dealing, from now on, not with the Anglican Church, but with the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.  After Cromwell defeated the royalist forces under Charles I, and after the Westminster Assembly had met, the Presbyterian Church became the national church.  It remained such in Scotland, although its existence as the national church in England was brief.  This Presbyterian Church of Scotland was the church of the covenants, the church that had fought fiercely against the Stuart kings and their doctrine of prelacy, the church that had endured persecution when thousands were martyred for the sake of the gospel, and the church that struggled to remain faithful to the Westminster Confessions.  Its credentials were solid.

      Faithful to the Westminster Confessions, the church maintained strongly the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  This important truth was fundamental to its doctrine of salvation, and it was the pivot on which turned the whole truth of sovereign and particular grace.  I mention this because enemies of the doctrine of justification by faith alone always accuse those who hold to this truth of being antinomian.  They claim the doctrine makes careless and profane Christians.  They maintain that it is detrimental to preaching the gospel and makes it impossible to bring the gospel to sinners with passion and a sense of urgency and love for the lost.

      Though the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was accused of anti-nomianism, one ought not to accept that accusation without some strong proof.

      It was equally true, however, that the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was a national church.  As such it had to harbor in its fellowship and retain on its rolls wicked men who infrequently came to church, lived worldly lives, and scorned things spiritual.  Such a state of affairs opened the church to the charge of antinomianism; and undoubtedly, at least in some respects, the charge was true.  It is doubtful whether antinomianism was an officially held position within the church.  I know of no one who taught, in so many words, antinomianism’s teaching that good works are not necessary for the Christian.  But there was a sort of “practical antinomianism” in the church because, being a national church, ungodly men had to be harbored, and discipline was very difficult to exercise.

      The Marrow Men offered a solution to the problem of a perceived antinomianism.  Was the proposed solution of the Marrow Men the biblical solution?  Or was it treating a case of food poisoning with a dose of tainted meat?  This question must wait till our next article.  

Search the Scriptures:

Rev. Ronald Hanko

Rev. Hanko is minister in the Protestant Reformed Church of Lynden, Washington.

      (Preceding article in this series:  January 15, 2004, p. 188.)

Haggai:  Rebuilding the Church (4)

The First Prophecy (cont.)

3.  Then came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet, saying,

4.  Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?

 <