As I start 2011 I've decided to focus some attention on one of the greatest theologians of church history and a book that he wrote mid-way through his ministry which has become one of the great Christian classics. I'm taking a graduate seminar this semester at McGill on the Confessions, and would like to chronicle my journey with St. Augustine over the next few months, so I hope that you'll join me and maybe even pick up a copy of the Confessions so that you can read along with me! Its been about 8 or 9 years since I've read this book, so I'm looking forward to digging in once again and learning from one of the most influential Christians who ever lived. Today I'll introduce the Confessions with a brief overview of Augustine's life and ministry.
St. Augustine was born on November 13th, 354 AD at Thagaste, North Africa (located in modern day Algeria). Although Algeria is today a Muslim country with few Christians, during Augustine's day North Africa was a Latin speaking Roman colony with a very robust Christian presence. North Africa produced some of the great theologians of the Patristic period such as Tertullian and Cyprian. Augustine's mother Monnica was a devout Christian who persevered in prayer for the conversion of her wayward son, but his father Patrick was a pagan who did not 'convert' to the Christian faith until he was baptized on his death-bed. The fourth century witnessed a very dramatic changes for believers living in the Roman Empire. Beginning with Constantine in the early fourth century, the state-sponsored persecution of Christians came to an end and in 381 AD Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire under Emperor Theodosius I. The age of Roman Catholicism had officially begun. It was also during Augustine's life that the Roman Empire experienced significant threats from the Goths and Vandals and the weakening of its military defenses. The city of Hippo, where Augustine served as bishop for many years, was under siege by the Vandal army when Augustine died within the city walls in 430 AD.
In 366, the young Augustine moved to Carthage in order to begin his formal education. He testifies that he hated school, resented corporal punishment and struggled to learn Greek (a fact which should be comforting to every Seminary student and pastor!). At this time in his life (age 17), Augustine decided to take a concubine from a lower caste (whom he never names in any of his writings and rarely mentions) and they had a son named Adeodatus. Augustine faithfully lived with her for over fifteen years, although Roman law and custom prevented their marriage. At age 18, Augustine read a book called Hortensius by Cicero which had a profound impact on him. From Cicero, he became convinced that happiness was not found in the pursuit of pleasure, but in the quest for truth. It was around this time that he picked up a copy of the Old Latin Bible in search of truth and quickly put it down. The educated and refined Augustine was offended by the barbarity of this rough Latin translation and offended by the morality (especially the polygamy) of the Jewish patriarchs in the Old Testament. As a result he placed the religion of his mother to the side was drawn instead to a Gnostic movement called "Manicheism". The founder of this movement (an Iranian gnostic named Mani) taught a radical dualism, where good and evil were locked in a never-ending cosmic battle. According to Mani, evil exists in this world because the 'good god' is unable to ultimately defeat the 'evil god'. Moreover, the Manichees believed that the physical world (especially the human reproductive system) was absolutely evil. Certain Manichees abstained completely from sex, while others were permitted to have intercourse providing that they took measures to ensure that they did not produce any offspring and thus entrap more divinity in the physical realm which was characterized by darkness. It is somewhat ironic that Augustine was drawn to this ascetic sect, since he struggled as a young man to keep his own sexual appetite under control (and often failed as we will see).
The now educated Augustine began a school of Rhetoric in Thagaste but soon relocated to Carthage. From Carthage he moved on to Rome where he could charge higher fees for his services. The dishonesty of his students in Rome pushed him take a vacant post in Milan. By this time in his career, it appeared to many, including Monnica, that the gifted Augustine was destined for great things - but there was one little problem! His low caste mistress was inhibiting his climb to the upper echelon of Roman society. Monnica knew that the concumbine had to go so that he could marry a wealthy Roman girl from a higher caste in order to secure a dowry that would fund his secular career. Tragically, Monnica convinced Augustine to put away the mother of his son, which he eventually did. There is no evidence that would suggest that they ever saw one another again although this may have happened upon the death of their son several years later. Monnica arranged a marriage with an young girl, but because she was still under 12 and not of legal age for marriage, he decided to take another concubine in order to gratify his sexual cravings.
The crisis surrounding his marriage drove Augustine away from gnostic dualism and into skepticism. For a short period of time he became convinced that mathematical knowledge was the only certain kind of knowledge and abandoned his quest for ultimate truth in the metaphysical sense. It was not long, however, until Augustine met a group of Platonists in Milan who introduced him to the Neo-Platonic religion of a man called Plotinus and his disciple Porphyry. Neo-Platonism explained evil by reference to a series of 'emanations'. They believed in a supreme being called 'the One' who was the supreme embodiment of beauty. The first emanation from this perfect being was the 'mind' and the second emanation resulted in the physical world of matter. Evil was therefore, not explained in terms of an good but powerless deity, but in terms of a series of descending emanations or "steps" from a perfect Being which made evil a real possibility. Plotinus taught that the purpose of life was to experience mystical union with 'the One' by transcending both the physical world and constraints of mind and thought, and he claimed to have experienced this ecstatic union on four different occasions. Augustine took up Neo-Platonism with the same zeal as he had previously taken up Gnosticism and desperately sought after this mystical experience which he believed would bring ultimate happiness and meaning to his life. He claimed to have had one mystical experience by following Plotinus' method which was incredibly brief and left him morally unchanged and disillusioned.
It was around this time that Augustine began to attend church with his mother to listen to the "golden throated" bishop Ambrose. This was the first time Augustine had met his intellectual equal in a Christian and he began to seriously consider the writings of Paul once again. In 386, while sitting in a garden in Milan, Augustine the pagan philosopher became Augustine the Christian. He was baptized in 387, and returned to Thagaste after the death of Monnica in 387. Tragically, his son died two years later in 389. Augustine was ordained a Presbyter against his will in 391 and was consecrated as the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hippo in 395. The Confessions was written sometime between 397-400. Although it contains a great deal of autobiographical information, it is much more than a simple autobiography and is a deeply theological work.
Augustine went on to have a prolific theological career, weighing in on the heated Donatist controversy in North Africa, the Pelagian controversy (regarding the doctrine of original sin and human depravity), and writing a very important work on the Trinity. During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, St. Augustine became a primary source of inspiration for Luther and Calvin as they pushed back against the Semi-Pelagian theology of the medieval Roman Catholic church and its emphasis on the ability of humans to co-operate with God in securing salvation. His emphasis on sovereign grace which is so important to Orthodox Protestant soteriology has not gone unnoticed by the Roman church and they have designated him as the "Doctor of Grace". Although Augustine enjoys an exceptionally favourable reputation among conservative Protestants, his legacy been equally important for Roman Catholic theologians who have appealed throughout history to his ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) for a defense of the structure of the Roman church.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
The 'Emmanuel' Prophecy in Historical Context - Isaiah 7
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14
This is probably one of the most quoted and least understood OT passages in the entire Bible. It is one of the most quoted passages because Matthew applies it to the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:23. It is one of the least understood passages because most of us don't take the time to understand this wonderful prophecy about the birth of our Lord in its original context.
The historical context of this prophecy is the 8th century BC during the reign of the wicked King Ahaz in Judah. Both Kings and Chronicles give us some insight into the dispicable character of this King. According to 2 Kings 16:3, Ahaz burned his child alive to the Canaanite deity Molech! He also corrupted temple worship in Jerusalem by replacing the broze altar with a Syrian model he saw while delivering tribute to the king of Assyria in Damascus. Ahaz reigned during a period of rising Assyrian power. The Assyrians were a brutal and powerful empire that terrorized the Ancient Near East until they were defeated by the Neo-Babylonian empire during the late 7th century BC. So cruel were the Assyrians in their military tactics that people would often commit suicide in advance rather than to face torture. In response to the Assyrian threat, king Pekah of Israel (Ephraim) and king Rezin of Syria, two bitter enemies, made an unlikely military alliance against king Tiglath-Pilesar III of Assyria around 735 BC. These two kings marched against king Ahaz of Judah in an attempt to intimidate him into joining their alliance or to replace him with a puppet king who would support their military ambitions. With Jerusalem under siege and having suffered severe losses in the conflict (cf. 2 Chronicles 28:6), Isaiah tells us that "the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind" (Is 7:2). The name given to this significant military event by modern day historians is the 'Syro-Ephraimite war'.
It was into this desperate situation in Judah that God sent His servant Isaiah to deliver the Emmanuel prophecy. 'Emmanuel' literally means "God is with us" and it refers to a prophetic sign given by the Lord to Ahaz and the people of Judah through the prophet Isaiah. The Emmanuel prophecy in its original context was not messianic, but referred to a sign given to Ahaz and Judah in the face of certain military defeat, reassuring them of YHWH's presence in spite of their wickedness and rebellion. The Emmanuel prophecy therefore speaks of God's patience and grace! Before bringing terrible judgment on the people of Judah for their rebellion and disobedience to the covenant, God is giving them an opportunity to repent! So who exactly was Emmanuel in historical context? The answer is found in Isaiah 8:3:
"And I (Isaiah) went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; for before the boy knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."
Emmanuel is none other than Isaiah's own son! This interpretation is confirmed by Isaiah's commentary in 8:18: "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from teh LORD of hosts." In its original context the "virgin" or "young woman" is Isaiah's wife who gave birth to Maher-shalal-hash-baz during the siege of Jerusalem. The birth of this child was a sign to Ahaz that God was still willing to deliver the people of Judah. This newborn child was a token of His ongoing presence with a rebellious and disobedient people, although the name of the child (literally - "the spoil speeds, the prey hastens") was intended to remind the people that divine judgment was indeed coming and did in fact come in 586 BC when Jerusalem fell to Babylon.
So how did Ahaz respond to this sign?? The sad truth is that he rejected it. Instead of trusting in God for protection, Ahaz ignored Isaiah and sent envoys to Tiglath-Pilesar III of Assyria asking for his help. Assyria did intervene on behalf of Judah, destroying the Syro-Ephraimite alliance and sending the northern kingdom into captivity, but at an incredibly high price. Within a generation, the Assyrians had overrun Palestine and were beseiging Jerusalem once again and brutally destroying other cities in Judah. The people rejected God's sign and God's judgment fell - although God once again demonstrated his mercy and grace to King Hezekiah by miraculously delaying the destruction of Jerusalem.
Fast forward to the manger in Bethlehem 700 years later and we find a new token of God's grace in the midst of despair. The baby Jesus, Matthew tells us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is Emmanuel - God with us! What wonderful news this must have been to the Jewish people who were familiar with their own history. The God of infinite grace and patience was once again reassuring His people of his ongoing presence and covenant fidelity - this time by sending his own Son to be born of a virgin. The fact that Jesus is our "Emmanuel" brings with it a message of hope and a message of judgement. In sending Jesus, God has chosen to delay the great day of judgement in order to give all people an opportunity to repent and believe the gospel. Every day that passes is a day of God's grace where the gospel invitation is extended to sinners: "Come unto me all ye who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest!" But just as terrible judgment came to Judah for their rejection of the Lord, so another terrible day of judgment is coming for all those who reject "Emmanuel". So let us who know Emmanuel rejoice this Christmas because we will enjoy His presence forever! But let us never forget that a day of terrible judgement is coming for all those who reject God's Messiah. Emmanuel will very soon return as a conquering King to destroy all of his enemies and to consummate His reign and rule over all things. The sign of Emmanuel should fill our hearts not merely with joy, but with a great sense of urgency for those who continue to reject Him. Let us therefore make the most of every opportunity this holiday season to share the "glad tidings of good news" with friends and family who do not yet know Emmanuel.
This is probably one of the most quoted and least understood OT passages in the entire Bible. It is one of the most quoted passages because Matthew applies it to the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:23. It is one of the least understood passages because most of us don't take the time to understand this wonderful prophecy about the birth of our Lord in its original context.
The historical context of this prophecy is the 8th century BC during the reign of the wicked King Ahaz in Judah. Both Kings and Chronicles give us some insight into the dispicable character of this King. According to 2 Kings 16:3, Ahaz burned his child alive to the Canaanite deity Molech! He also corrupted temple worship in Jerusalem by replacing the broze altar with a Syrian model he saw while delivering tribute to the king of Assyria in Damascus. Ahaz reigned during a period of rising Assyrian power. The Assyrians were a brutal and powerful empire that terrorized the Ancient Near East until they were defeated by the Neo-Babylonian empire during the late 7th century BC. So cruel were the Assyrians in their military tactics that people would often commit suicide in advance rather than to face torture. In response to the Assyrian threat, king Pekah of Israel (Ephraim) and king Rezin of Syria, two bitter enemies, made an unlikely military alliance against king Tiglath-Pilesar III of Assyria around 735 BC. These two kings marched against king Ahaz of Judah in an attempt to intimidate him into joining their alliance or to replace him with a puppet king who would support their military ambitions. With Jerusalem under siege and having suffered severe losses in the conflict (cf. 2 Chronicles 28:6), Isaiah tells us that "the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind" (Is 7:2). The name given to this significant military event by modern day historians is the 'Syro-Ephraimite war'.
It was into this desperate situation in Judah that God sent His servant Isaiah to deliver the Emmanuel prophecy. 'Emmanuel' literally means "God is with us" and it refers to a prophetic sign given by the Lord to Ahaz and the people of Judah through the prophet Isaiah. The Emmanuel prophecy in its original context was not messianic, but referred to a sign given to Ahaz and Judah in the face of certain military defeat, reassuring them of YHWH's presence in spite of their wickedness and rebellion. The Emmanuel prophecy therefore speaks of God's patience and grace! Before bringing terrible judgment on the people of Judah for their rebellion and disobedience to the covenant, God is giving them an opportunity to repent! So who exactly was Emmanuel in historical context? The answer is found in Isaiah 8:3:
"And I (Isaiah) went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; for before the boy knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."
Emmanuel is none other than Isaiah's own son! This interpretation is confirmed by Isaiah's commentary in 8:18: "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from teh LORD of hosts." In its original context the "virgin" or "young woman" is Isaiah's wife who gave birth to Maher-shalal-hash-baz during the siege of Jerusalem. The birth of this child was a sign to Ahaz that God was still willing to deliver the people of Judah. This newborn child was a token of His ongoing presence with a rebellious and disobedient people, although the name of the child (literally - "the spoil speeds, the prey hastens") was intended to remind the people that divine judgment was indeed coming and did in fact come in 586 BC when Jerusalem fell to Babylon.
So how did Ahaz respond to this sign?? The sad truth is that he rejected it. Instead of trusting in God for protection, Ahaz ignored Isaiah and sent envoys to Tiglath-Pilesar III of Assyria asking for his help. Assyria did intervene on behalf of Judah, destroying the Syro-Ephraimite alliance and sending the northern kingdom into captivity, but at an incredibly high price. Within a generation, the Assyrians had overrun Palestine and were beseiging Jerusalem once again and brutally destroying other cities in Judah. The people rejected God's sign and God's judgment fell - although God once again demonstrated his mercy and grace to King Hezekiah by miraculously delaying the destruction of Jerusalem.
Fast forward to the manger in Bethlehem 700 years later and we find a new token of God's grace in the midst of despair. The baby Jesus, Matthew tells us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is Emmanuel - God with us! What wonderful news this must have been to the Jewish people who were familiar with their own history. The God of infinite grace and patience was once again reassuring His people of his ongoing presence and covenant fidelity - this time by sending his own Son to be born of a virgin. The fact that Jesus is our "Emmanuel" brings with it a message of hope and a message of judgement. In sending Jesus, God has chosen to delay the great day of judgement in order to give all people an opportunity to repent and believe the gospel. Every day that passes is a day of God's grace where the gospel invitation is extended to sinners: "Come unto me all ye who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest!" But just as terrible judgment came to Judah for their rejection of the Lord, so another terrible day of judgment is coming for all those who reject "Emmanuel". So let us who know Emmanuel rejoice this Christmas because we will enjoy His presence forever! But let us never forget that a day of terrible judgement is coming for all those who reject God's Messiah. Emmanuel will very soon return as a conquering King to destroy all of his enemies and to consummate His reign and rule over all things. The sign of Emmanuel should fill our hearts not merely with joy, but with a great sense of urgency for those who continue to reject Him. Let us therefore make the most of every opportunity this holiday season to share the "glad tidings of good news" with friends and family who do not yet know Emmanuel.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
"Veiled in Flesh the Godhead See" - Docetism??
Without question the incarnation of Jesus Christ is one of the most wonderful truths of the Christian faith which we ought to especially consider during the Christmas season. The fact that God became a man in the person of Jesus of Nazareth is absolutely essential if He is to be the Saviour of sinful human beings, but how this could possibly be we will probably never fully understand until we meet the Lord one day.
When we talk about the incarnation, there are two opposite errors that we must avoid. On the one hand is the heresy known as "Ebionism". The Ebionites were an early Christian sect that denied the full divinity of Jesus. They basically viewed Jesus as a regular human who was simply empowered by God. This heresy is still alive and well among many Liberal Christians who deny the deity of Jesus Christ. The second error is known as "Docetism". Docetism was embraced by some Gnostic sects which believed that Jesus only appeared to be human. Docetism is essentially a denial of the full humanity of Jesus. However we speak of the incarnation or understand it, we need to avoid these two errors as orthodox believers have done down through the centuries. St. Athanasius (4th c.) said the following about the incarnation: "He was made man, that we might be made [like Him]". Gregory of Nazianzus (4th c.) said: "That which was not assumed is not healed." In other words, if Jesus did not "assume" our humanity, our sins could never have been atoned for on the cross. A correct view of the incarnation is foundational to a correct view of the atonement - that is why this issue is so critical to get right!
Which brings me to my question: What exactly did Charles Wesley mean when he wrote the line "veiled in flesh the godhead see" in the Christmas carol "Hark the Herald Angels Sing"? Overall, I love the theology of this hymn as Wesley tries to capture the glory of the incarnation, but I struggle with this one line... is this not teaching a Docetic view of the incarnation? Was Jesus' human flesh simply a "veil" for his deity? ....Or am I simply misunderstanding Wesley on this point??
When we talk about the incarnation, there are two opposite errors that we must avoid. On the one hand is the heresy known as "Ebionism". The Ebionites were an early Christian sect that denied the full divinity of Jesus. They basically viewed Jesus as a regular human who was simply empowered by God. This heresy is still alive and well among many Liberal Christians who deny the deity of Jesus Christ. The second error is known as "Docetism". Docetism was embraced by some Gnostic sects which believed that Jesus only appeared to be human. Docetism is essentially a denial of the full humanity of Jesus. However we speak of the incarnation or understand it, we need to avoid these two errors as orthodox believers have done down through the centuries. St. Athanasius (4th c.) said the following about the incarnation: "He was made man, that we might be made [like Him]". Gregory of Nazianzus (4th c.) said: "That which was not assumed is not healed." In other words, if Jesus did not "assume" our humanity, our sins could never have been atoned for on the cross. A correct view of the incarnation is foundational to a correct view of the atonement - that is why this issue is so critical to get right!
Which brings me to my question: What exactly did Charles Wesley mean when he wrote the line "veiled in flesh the godhead see" in the Christmas carol "Hark the Herald Angels Sing"? Overall, I love the theology of this hymn as Wesley tries to capture the glory of the incarnation, but I struggle with this one line... is this not teaching a Docetic view of the incarnation? Was Jesus' human flesh simply a "veil" for his deity? ....Or am I simply misunderstanding Wesley on this point??
Friday, November 26, 2010
One of my Favorite Hymns
This has always been one of my favorite hymns...Christ-exalting and theologically rich! Written by an incredible woman of the faith - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Crosby
To God Be the Glory - Fanny J. Crosby (1820-1915)
Verse 1:
To God be the glory, great things He hath done;
So loved He the world that He gave us His Son,
Who yielded His life an atonement for sin,
And opened the life-gate that all may go in.
Chorus:
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!
Let the earth hear His voice
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!
Let the people rejoice
O come to the Father through Jesus the Son,
And give Him the glory, great things He hath done!
Verse 2:
O perfect redemption, the purchase of blood
To every believer the promise of God;
The vilest offender who truly believes,
That moment from Jesus a pardon receives.
Verse 3:
Great things He hath taught us, great things He hath done,
And great our rejoicing through Jesus the Son;
But purer and higher, and greater will be
Our wonder, our vict'ry when Jesus we see!
Chorus:
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!
Let the earth hear His voice
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!
Let the people rejoice
O come to the Father through Jesus the Son,
And give Him the glory, great things He hath done!
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Some Thoughts on Open and Closed Communion
Over the past month or so I've been giving some thought to the issue of open and closed communion. When I was young I attended an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church which practiced closed communion, but since that time, I've met very few Evangelicals, aside from the Plymouth Brethren, who would subscribe to that view. Since most of us who have grown up in baptistic denominations have probably always taken open communion for granted without thinking about it too deeply, I want to present several arguments in favour of closed communion.
Before I present the case, let me define the terms. Advocates of open communion believe that the Lord's Supper is open to everyone who has professed personal faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. In a Baptist context, advocates of closed communion seek to restrict the Lord's Supper to believers who have been baptized by immersion. Some advocates of closed communion will go even further and restrict communion to members of a particular local congregation. Although I've never been overly dogmatic on this issue, I personally think that the Lord's Supper should be restricted to believers who have been baptized by immersion. The arguments which support this view are as follow:
1) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in the apostolic pattern
The strongest argument in favour of closed communion is found in Acts 2, although I would be quick to concede that we ought to use great caution in deriving normative patterns or doctrine from narrative portions of Scripture. Nevertheless, the order of events in Acts 2 does seem to lend considerable support to the practice of closed communion, viz. Repentance (v. 38) --> Water Baptism (v. 38) --> Church Membership (v. 41) -->Lord's Supper (v. 42).
Furthermore, there is not a single example in Scripture of a believer who is admitted to the Lord's Supper before being properly baptized. Once again, I will admit that this is an argument from silence, but it is still quite striking that nobody appears to partake of the Lord's Supper until they exercise faith and are baptized. (ie. Ethiopian Eunuch - Acts 8:36-38; Saul/Paul - Acts 9:18; Cornelius - Acts 10:44-47; Lydia - Acts 16:14-15; Philippian Jailor - 16:30-33)
2) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in the order of their institution
This is far less compelling, but interesting to think about nevertheless. Jesus instituted Water Baptism at the beginning of His earthly ministry and the Lord's Supper on the same night that He was betrayed.
3) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in their doctrinal order
Among other things, Baptists believe that Water Baptism is symbolic of a believer's death, burial and resurrection with Christ. Baptism is the outward sign of the inward work of regeneration effected by the Holy Spirit. Whereas circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and sealed upon the hearts of the Jewish people the tremendous promises that God had made to Abraham (cf. Gen 12:1-3), Water Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant in Christ, which seals upon the heart of the Christian the promises that God has made to us who have placed our faith in Jesus alone for salvation. Baptism has no saving power, but it is a non-negotiable part of the process of becoming a disciple of Christ (cf. Matt 28:18-20). The modern notion that a person can be saved and not worry about water baptism is utterly foreign to Biblical Christianity.
The Lord's Supper, unlike Baptism is an ongoing ordinance. Baptism is the initiatory ordinance which symbolizes new birth, whereas the Lord's Supper serves as an ongoing reminder of the broken body and shed blood of our Lord, so that our faith can be continually strengthened and nourished "as often as we eat the bread and drink the cup".
The main point is this - just as a baby must be born before she can eat and be nourished, so the ordinance symbolizing new spiritual life doctrinally precedes the ordinance symbolizing ongoing nourishment and sustainance. To reverse this order is to confuse the doctrinal significance of these two ordinances.
4) No other orthodox Christian denomination permits non-baptized believers to partake of the Lord's Supper
Although an appeal to tradition doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything, Baptists who practice open communion ought to at least be aware of the novelty of their practice. Every other Christian denomination that I am aware of recognizes that Baptism ought to precede the Lord's Supper.
5) Historically, Baptists been strong advocates of Closed Communion.
The Puritan forerunners of the Baptists were strong advocates of closed communion by and large. Before being admitted to the Lord's Table, a person was required to give an account of their conversion to the elders of the church. This had two primary advantages: 1) It helped to protect the purity of the visible church - something which is still a great concern for Baptists; 2) It enabled the church to exercise discipline. In the Reformed Tradition, believers under church discipline were typically barred from the Lord's Table - a practice which has almost completely disappeared today with the advent of open communion. During the early 18th century, some Puritans such as Solomon Stoddard began to practice open communion. This practice was strongly opposed by Stoddard's own grandson Jonathan Edwards - a doctrinal stand which ultimately cost him his pastorate!
Like Edwards and the Puritans, the earliest English Baptists practiced and defended closed communion because the majority of them believed, as I've argued above, that Baptism is a pre-requisite for the Lord's Supper. Some editions of the First London Confession of Faith (1644) explicity endorse the practice of closed communion: Article XXXIX - "That Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed only upon persons professing faith, or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized and after to partake of the Lord's Supper."
Interestingly, the Second London Confession (1689) does not contain this stipulation and probably reflects a diversity of opinion among Baptists on the issue. Shortly before the publication of this Second Confession, William Kiffin (the most important Baptist theologian of the 17th c.) and John Bunyan (author of the Pilgrim's Progress) had a lively debate about this subject in print with Kiffin defending closed communion, and Bunyan defending open communion.
Other notable Baptists who have defended closed communion include Benjamin Keach, John Gill, A.H. Strong, T.T. Shields and Mark Dever. One of my Baptist heroes who defended open communion was Charles Haddon Spurgeon!
Before I present the case, let me define the terms. Advocates of open communion believe that the Lord's Supper is open to everyone who has professed personal faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. In a Baptist context, advocates of closed communion seek to restrict the Lord's Supper to believers who have been baptized by immersion. Some advocates of closed communion will go even further and restrict communion to members of a particular local congregation. Although I've never been overly dogmatic on this issue, I personally think that the Lord's Supper should be restricted to believers who have been baptized by immersion. The arguments which support this view are as follow:
1) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in the apostolic pattern
The strongest argument in favour of closed communion is found in Acts 2, although I would be quick to concede that we ought to use great caution in deriving normative patterns or doctrine from narrative portions of Scripture. Nevertheless, the order of events in Acts 2 does seem to lend considerable support to the practice of closed communion, viz. Repentance (v. 38) --> Water Baptism (v. 38) --> Church Membership (v. 41) -->Lord's Supper (v. 42).
Furthermore, there is not a single example in Scripture of a believer who is admitted to the Lord's Supper before being properly baptized. Once again, I will admit that this is an argument from silence, but it is still quite striking that nobody appears to partake of the Lord's Supper until they exercise faith and are baptized. (ie. Ethiopian Eunuch - Acts 8:36-38; Saul/Paul - Acts 9:18; Cornelius - Acts 10:44-47; Lydia - Acts 16:14-15; Philippian Jailor - 16:30-33)
2) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in the order of their institution
This is far less compelling, but interesting to think about nevertheless. Jesus instituted Water Baptism at the beginning of His earthly ministry and the Lord's Supper on the same night that He was betrayed.
3) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in their doctrinal order
Among other things, Baptists believe that Water Baptism is symbolic of a believer's death, burial and resurrection with Christ. Baptism is the outward sign of the inward work of regeneration effected by the Holy Spirit. Whereas circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and sealed upon the hearts of the Jewish people the tremendous promises that God had made to Abraham (cf. Gen 12:1-3), Water Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant in Christ, which seals upon the heart of the Christian the promises that God has made to us who have placed our faith in Jesus alone for salvation. Baptism has no saving power, but it is a non-negotiable part of the process of becoming a disciple of Christ (cf. Matt 28:18-20). The modern notion that a person can be saved and not worry about water baptism is utterly foreign to Biblical Christianity.
The Lord's Supper, unlike Baptism is an ongoing ordinance. Baptism is the initiatory ordinance which symbolizes new birth, whereas the Lord's Supper serves as an ongoing reminder of the broken body and shed blood of our Lord, so that our faith can be continually strengthened and nourished "as often as we eat the bread and drink the cup".
The main point is this - just as a baby must be born before she can eat and be nourished, so the ordinance symbolizing new spiritual life doctrinally precedes the ordinance symbolizing ongoing nourishment and sustainance. To reverse this order is to confuse the doctrinal significance of these two ordinances.
4) No other orthodox Christian denomination permits non-baptized believers to partake of the Lord's Supper
Although an appeal to tradition doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything, Baptists who practice open communion ought to at least be aware of the novelty of their practice. Every other Christian denomination that I am aware of recognizes that Baptism ought to precede the Lord's Supper.
5) Historically, Baptists been strong advocates of Closed Communion.
The Puritan forerunners of the Baptists were strong advocates of closed communion by and large. Before being admitted to the Lord's Table, a person was required to give an account of their conversion to the elders of the church. This had two primary advantages: 1) It helped to protect the purity of the visible church - something which is still a great concern for Baptists; 2) It enabled the church to exercise discipline. In the Reformed Tradition, believers under church discipline were typically barred from the Lord's Table - a practice which has almost completely disappeared today with the advent of open communion. During the early 18th century, some Puritans such as Solomon Stoddard began to practice open communion. This practice was strongly opposed by Stoddard's own grandson Jonathan Edwards - a doctrinal stand which ultimately cost him his pastorate!
Like Edwards and the Puritans, the earliest English Baptists practiced and defended closed communion because the majority of them believed, as I've argued above, that Baptism is a pre-requisite for the Lord's Supper. Some editions of the First London Confession of Faith (1644) explicity endorse the practice of closed communion: Article XXXIX - "That Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed only upon persons professing faith, or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized and after to partake of the Lord's Supper."
Interestingly, the Second London Confession (1689) does not contain this stipulation and probably reflects a diversity of opinion among Baptists on the issue. Shortly before the publication of this Second Confession, William Kiffin (the most important Baptist theologian of the 17th c.) and John Bunyan (author of the Pilgrim's Progress) had a lively debate about this subject in print with Kiffin defending closed communion, and Bunyan defending open communion.
Other notable Baptists who have defended closed communion include Benjamin Keach, John Gill, A.H. Strong, T.T. Shields and Mark Dever. One of my Baptist heroes who defended open communion was Charles Haddon Spurgeon!
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Re-thinking Mission - Part 4
I want to conclude this series of posts on the missional movement with what I see as one of its major theological weaknesses, namely the tendency toward Universalism or Inclusivism. However much I appreciate Karl Barth, Lesslie Newbigin and the "Gospel and Our Culture Network" which they have influenced, I cannot follow them when it comes to their Christological re-working of election.
For Calvin, Luther and the magisterial Reformers, the decree of predestination stands separate from the decree to elect Christ for the task of redemption. Although the second person of the Trinity was intimately involved with the Father and the Spirit in the decree of election and predestination, the revelation of this decree lies hidden and shrouded in mystery in the decretum absolutum. This line of thinking was openly rejected by Karl Barth and many of the neo-orthodox theologians who followed in his footsteps. Barth felt that any notion of election apart from Christ could only lead to fear, uncertainty and loss of assurance. Both Calvin and the Puritans were well aware of this, which is why the latter group spent so much effort their sermons giving various biblical proofs by which men and women could "make their calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1). In contrast to the earlier Reformed tradition, Barth asserted that Jesus Christ is the electing God as well as the elect man. Because in Jesus Christ we see the divine Son, fully God and fully human, suffering on the cross for sinful humanity, all doubts as to God's "Yes" to his human creation necessarily disappear. In the election of Christ, and through His self-identification with His human creation, Barth concludes on the basis of Ephesians 1:4 that all of humanity is elect in Christ. Not only is Jesus the "elect" man, He is for Barth the only "reprobate" man - (this is Barth's Christological version of "double predestination"). No longer must humanity fear Calvin's decretum horribile (the terrible decree), says Barth, for there is only one reprobate man – Jesus of Nazareth who faced the rejection on the cross and suffered vicariously for sinners. There's only one little problem with this line of reasoning... if all of humanity is elect in Christ before the foundation of the world, it logically follows that all of humanity will ultimately be saved whether or not they trust in Christ - a view which cannot possibly be squared with the clear testimony of Scripture.
So was Karl Barth a universalist?? The answer to this question is both "yes" and "no". If you follow Barth's doctrine of election to its logical conclusion you will end up with universalism. But the surprising fact is that Barth himself explicitly denied that he was a universalist! This is one of the frustrating things about Barth's theology- as a dialectical theologian he is willing to live with unresolved tensions and to affirm what certainly appear to be contradictions. The same is true of Lesslie Newbigin. For example, in The Open Secret Newbigin writes the following: "The choosing is "in Christ" and not otherwise. There is no election apart from Christ, as some theologies have seemed to suggest." In true Barthian style, Newbigin leaves his audience with unresolved tension: "The exposition given so far of the doctrine of election may seem to lead straight to universalism, that is, to the doctrine that there can be no possibility of final exclusion from God's salvation… I believe it is essential to hold firmly together both the universalist perspective of the Bible and the clear teaching about judgment and the possibility of rejection."
I am personally of the opinion that Barth's doctrine of election has negative consequences for evangelism and mission. If you accept the teaching that humanity (and therefore every human being) is elect in Christ, evangelism simply becomes the announcement of a fait accompli. According to Emil Brunner, Barth has presented a picture of election which can be compared to a group of sailors who find themselves shipwrecked at sea. Although they greatly fear that they will drown in the sea, they don't realize that the water is too shallow for that to ever happen! Of course Barth wanted people to repent of sin and follow Jesus as Lord, but if you follow the logic of his theology, it doesn't really matter whether people respond or not because the grace of God has ultimately triumphed over unbelief.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Re-thinking Mission - Part 3
Today I'm going to tackle another major (and highly controversial) idea that is very central for many missional writers - the issue of bounded set thinking vs. centred set-thinking. This particular idea has gained quite a bit of traction within the emergent church, but it actually originated on the mission field. The late Dr. Paul Hiebert who taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for many years was a missionary to India during the early 1960s. As a cross-cultural missionary, Hiebert noticed that much of the missionary practice coming from the West represented what he called "bounded-set" thinking, whereas he felt that a "centred-set" approach was more biblical and culturally appropriate.
The traditional Western worldview which is rooted in "modernism" tends to prefer "bounded-set" thinking. We like to be able to distinguish clearly between different groups of people based on who's in and who's out and therefore tend to make a very sharp distinction between Christians and non-Christians. In this kind of cultural context, conversion is usually thought of as an event that we can pinpoint, often with the precision of date and time. A lot of our evangelistic strategies in the West reflect a "bounded set" mentality - our goal is to get a person to assent to certain truths about the gospel, then pray to receive Christ. For example, conservative Protestants believe very strongly that a person is saved by faith alone (sola fide), and would set this belief as a boundary. A Roman Catholic who doesn't accept sola fide is generally considered to be outside of the boundary and thus is probably unsaved. Bounded-set thinking generally focuses on the question "what do you believe?"
The centred-set approach recommended by Hiebert defines a Christian as someone who has made Christ the centre of their life and is moving toward the centre. The main question here is not "what do you believe?", but "who is your centre?" This view requires that a person change direction by repenting of sin and turning toward Christ in faith, but does not demand that a person assent to a list of very clear doctrinal distinctives before being accepted into the Christian community. According to this view, a conservative Protestant who believes strongly in sola fide might view a Roman Catholic as a brother or sister in Christ who simply has a significant doctrinal flaw. The main issue would be whether they have repented and believed in Jesus, not whether they have pristine Evangelical theology. (For that matter, I would argue that a large number of self-professing Evangelicals have a semi-Pelagian view of salvation and a modalist view of the Trinity). This centred-set approach has obvious advantages for cross-cultural missions, where syncretism is always a huge challenge. ('Syncretism' simply defined is the mixing of Christian beliefs with elements of pagan culture). If cross-cultural missionaries waited for new converts to have perfect theology (at least as we define it in the West), it might take years to baptize a new convert or to entrust a person with any position of leadership within the local church. For this reason, we've tended to hold two standards, a high standard of doctrinal purity for the average North American who converts to Christianity, and a much lower standard of doctrinal purity for everyone else in the non-Western world. Most missional thinkers also like to point out the fact that we've failed to recognize the extent to which Western Christianity has been affected by syncretism over the past 1600 years. We tend to assume that the Western expression of Christianity is the standard against which we ought to measure everything else. This was a particular problem in 19th and 20th century missions endeavours as the Western church exported certain cultural distinctives in addition to the gospel message. Missions in many cases was an expression of Colonialism and Western superiority, even if the missionaries were well intentioned.
Missional thinkers contend that we now live in a "post-Christian" age in the West, when Christendom no longer holds a privileged position in society. Fifty years ago, most non-believers in North America bought into the Judeo-Christian worldview, even if they rejected Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Most North Americans believed in the God of the Bible and accepted Biblical morality as the normative pattern for society. With the advent of "post-modernism" and relativism, all of this is changing - if you don't believe me, come to Montreal and we'll talk with some students together!! We can no longer assume that the people around us share our basic worldview. This means that we North American Christians are now cross-cultural missionaries in our own society, and as such, will deal increasingly with the challenge of syncretism in our ministries. Most missional thinkers believe that the centred-set approach which is now generally accepted on the mission field, ought to be used here in North America too given the dramatic cultural shifts we are currently experiencing. In other words, the dichotomy between "evangelism" here in the so-called "Christian West" and "missions" somewhere far away among the heathen is no longer valid. We must all begin viewing ourselves as cross-cultural missionaries.
Before you come to the conclusion that I've gone "emergent" and joined ranks with Brian McClaren and Rob Bell, I want to alleviate your concerns. I'm simply wrestling with some of these ideas and haven't come to any definite conclusions. I'm also not trying to say that doctrine isn't important- anyone who knows me well knows where I stand on this issue! I believe we are living in a time where sound doctrine is more important than ever! I'm very curious to know what other people think about some of the ideas I've raised in these blogs, so please feel free to comment, push back or add your own thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

