‘Theology’ Category

There has been a lively interchange going on regarding theological education on my facebook page. This will be my final post on the issue of theological education (though I do intend to write, DV, a small book on the issue).

In the early Church context about 12%-15% of the Graeco-Roman world were literate. All of the Church Fathers were drawn from these ranks. They had to have been to be able to use and preach the Word of God.

It is very telling that the Reformation leaders were all men trained in the universities. And it is also very telling that the Puritans, all of them apart from Bunyan and Baxter, were university men, with MAs in theology. Very telling indeed. And the impact of the Puritan literature on the 18th century men is well known: it is a major stimulus for revival. And none could accuse the Reformers or the Puritans of not being lovers of the church and ardent pastors.

And then the 18th century leaders of the Evangelical awakening: which of them had not been to university? Well, there is Newton and some of the key Baptists like Fuller and Carey. But both of the latter were geniuses.

And do we really think in this complex world we will be best served in the church by men without such formal training? We are whistling dixie (no offence to my Southern brothers!) And we all know what happened to Dixie.

For the last two weeks have been pondering the fact that seminaries are of the bene esse of the church. They may not belong to the esse, but it is pure folly to think the local church can do the whole task of training men for a learned gospel ministry without the benefit of a seminary education. I am disturbed to think that we have to convince churches of this basic fact. Do these churches know nothing of the last five hundred years of church history?

Am reading Colin Marshall and Tony Payne, The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-Shift that Changes Everything (Kingsford, NSA: Matthias Media, 2009) and loving it. This struck me today: the comment that “According to Paul, gospel partnership is the normal Christian life” (p.66). A hearty Amen to that!

How can churches not be linked purposefully with others in gospel initiatives and defence? That some are speaks not of gospel fidelity but of disobedience to the Word.

In his new book, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (T&T Clark, 2009), Oliver Crisp has a fascinating note regarding the appropriateness of using the phrase “Reformed Catholics.” He rightly points out that the Reformed tradition was an historic attempt to reform catholic Christianity. Hence, he is wary of talking of Catholics and Protestants. Rather, he wants to distinguish Reformed Catholics from Roman Catholics (p.3, n.8).

I have long believed that it is quite appropriate to confess that one belongs to the one holy catholic apostolic church if one has truly believed on the Lord Jesus alone for salvation. For there is one church. It is holy by virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is apostolic, being based on the Apostles’ teaching. And it is catholic, in that it is universal.

In this light, there is much to be said for using the nomenclature “Reformed Catholic.” Of course, as with all name tags, the term “Catholic” has associations with Roman Catholicism that are not easily shed and that, as a consequence, can easily confuse. When explained it is a great term.

And within that great body of Reformed Catholicity, I am not ashamed to call myself a Baptist.

There was a good reason that Martin Luther argued that a true theologian is formed by oratio and meditatio and tentatio, that is, prayer, meditation, and temptation/spiritual conflict.

Student of theology: have you enrolled in this school?

On Saturday, Dr. Michael Haykin led a conference on the Holy Spirit on Saturday on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit at Farmdale Baptist Church in Frankfort, KY.  The MP3s of the conference sessions and Q & A session are below:

• Session 1:  “The Holy Spirit and the Trinity”

• Session 2:  “The Work of the Holy Spirit”

• Session 3:  “Leaning on the Holy Spirit”

• Session 4:  Question and Answer Session

Posted by Steve Weaver, Research and Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.

The New Testament authors are frank about false teachers. Just to give a sampling from the Apostle Paul: false teachers are “wolves” (Acts 20:29); men who “by smooth talk and flattery” deceive hearts (Romans 16:18; cp. 2 Cor 11:1-4; Titus 1:10); “false apostles, deceitful workmen” (2 Cor 11:13); “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil 3:18); “dogs” and “evildoers” (Phil3:2); men with seared consciences (1 Tim 4:1-2), who speak “irreverent babble” (1 Tim 6:20); “evil beasts,” “detestable” and unfit for any good work (Titus 1:16).

This is but a sample. It is very strong language. Rightly are we careful in applying such texts to the present day. Moreover, I know that this list of errorists does not refer to the same type of problems.

But…we would be utterly naïve if we thought our generation above all others had managed to avoid this problem entirely, a problem that was clearly not rare even in the Apostolic era.

In this light, read this excellent post by Dr. Russell Moore: Serpent-Sensitive Worship.

Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528), one of the greatest of Renaissance artists, has a painting entitled Adam and Eve (1504) in which there is the most curious of things: a cat (for the painting, see http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/ho/08/euwc/ho_19.73.1.htm)! The cat, experts in artistic metaphor tell us, represents the choleric temperament in man. In Dürer’s rendition, the cat seems to be sleeping, while very close to it is a mouse, utterly unconcerned for its safety. The scene is pre-fall, and thus the fact that there is no danger for the mouse.

Now, what I find most curious is this: cats are never mentioned in Scripture. How strange in that case to find one at the feet of Dürer’s Adam and Eve. That other prolific western pet, dogs, are mentioned in the Bible, though they rarely come off well. But cats make no showing at all. It is a good reminder that Scripture is not to meant to give us an exhaustive encyclopedia of all human knowledge nor is it designed as a comprehensive guide to every conceivable human decision.

Should I buy a cat? Well, cats are not even mentioned! So, no way. If God had wanted me to have a cat, he would have told me in his Word.

No, this is a misuse of Scripture. There are principles of guidance about buying and selling—which, we must say, are utterly sufficient—but as to the specifics of the question above in relation to cats, no details. This, it seems, has convinced some in the western tradition that cats are evil. Otherwise, why no mention of them? No, cats are not inherently evil—our flame-point Siamese Chai is rambunctious, but hardly evil—they are part of the goodness of God’s creation which our Maker has given us to enjoy.

All of this is a good reminder that we must ask questions of God’s Holy Word it is designed to answer. And the most critical of those is how can a Holy God deal with the sin of us post-fall human beings and yet still love the creation he has made and do it good? This is a weighty question indeed (and we heard some good answers at this year’s T4G this past week).

In the Ancient Church a Christian was a person who turned from idols and embraced the living God as he had revealed himself definitively in the crucified and risen Christ (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10). What made him a Christian? Faith, which was rooted in the electing work of God (see Acts 11:18; 13:48; 15:7-9; 16:31).

None of the early New Testament authors believed that the act of baptism alone saved anyone (thus Mark 16:16). Baptism is the way a person with a good conscience (to see what this is and how one obtains it, read Hebrews 9:14) responds to the saving work of God. Thus 1 Peter 3:21 means that the baptism which saves is that which is “the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”

These convictions must be asserted afresh today for the upholders of the so-called Federal Vision maintain that the baptism of infants makes them Christians—a position that is simply taking us back to the disastrous confusion of the medieval Church. As a Calvinistic Baptist I have deep admiration for many Reformed paedobaptist brothers, though I would disagree with their argument that infant baptism is a covenantal sign that must be affirmed later in life. But such brethren do not argue for trust for salvation in the baptismal rite. There must be conversion.

But this position is quite different from the affirmation that a human rite in itself and by itself saves. The Apostle clearly rejects this latter argument in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5. If participation in the ordinances saved, then surely those who followed Moses out of Egypt would have entered the Promised Land. But they did not—for baptism (and the Lord’s Table) do not save.

God will not give the glory of being the Saviour of his people to another person or thing!

So perverse is the human heart that even when a person grows up under the constant sound of the gospel and hears the Word preached regularly, and has surrounding him or her godly models of the Christian life, unless God acts in sovereign grace, there will be no saving faith in the heart. Well did John Calvin put it in his Treatise on Eternal Election (1562): ‘It is not within our power to convert ourselves from our evil life, unless God changes us and cleanses us by his Holy Spirit.’[1]

[1] CO 8:113.