Per request, I will try to address my thought in the general direction of the brief essay written bya PhD student at the University of Delaware (Ben Perry by name), as it has been presented as a basis for conversation. It can be read here.

In the first line he describes the paper as containing “a list of common-sense and biblical arguments against calvinism.” I may agree that the reasoning of these arguments is much too common, but in the area of biblical arguments he disappoints, offering no exegesis of any passage of Scripture, and only calling to his aid an allusion to a well-known verse and quotation of three other verses, of which he offers no explanation. I understand that this is only intended to be mainly a personal complaint list against what he often finds in the mouths of Calvinists, but I always hope for a more thorough rebuttal of Reformed doctrine than the oft retort from opposers, “but I believe differently.”

I myself could make a complaint list twice as long as his concerning the reasonings, strange assumptions, and other shortcomings of the myriad of similar rap sheets drawn up against Calvinists, but as his is a decent epitome of the more irenic sort of anti-Calvinism I will try to stick to his general structure pursuing the TULIP and finish with a short Biblical defense from selected passages.

Firstly, the TULIP acronym is presented as the gist of Calvinist doctrine. Without dipping too far into history beyond the scope of my intent, these five points do not really sum up Calvinist or Reformed doctrine. They (the doctrines basically comprising those represented by TULIP) were (kind of) originally drawn up at the Synod of Dordt (The canons of Dordt can be read here.) as a response to the five points produced by the Remonstrants in The Remonstrance of 1610 (most non-/anti-Calvinists wouldn’t fully subscribe to The Remonstrance either). I’m not sure when it was done, or who it was that put it in a handy acronym for us, but I do think it’s kind of cool that they did.

That said, it is a pet peeve of mine that this is so often presented, albeit tacitly, as a summary of Reformed doctrine. It is more of a summary of reformed soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation. For a summary of Reformed doctrine the Wesminster Confession and Catechism (shorter and larger), or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, The Savoy Declaration, or, my personal favorite, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. All of these basically agree (save in some points of ecclesiology, or doctrine of the Church, between the credo- and paedo-baptists) in Reformed or Calvinistic doctrine and cover many things from inspiration of the holy inscripturated Word of God, to the nature of Christ, to doctrine of creation, to the doctrine of “last things”, to marriage and divorce, to providence, to the responsibility of man before God; as well as the five points covered in TULIP.

I note this not only because I feel the need to vent, but also to point out that Calvinism is something broader than TULIP, and that was produced in the fires of controversy throughout Church history; just like the rest of church doctrine. It’s not an upstart religion. Just like the Definition of Chalcedon was written to address the problem of some who seemed to deny Christ’s human nature. Just like when Athanasius, contra mundum, fought the heresy, which was spreading like wildfire all over the known world, that Jesus Christ is not God. Just like the Nicene Creed was produced when heretics were teaching that Jesus Christ and the Father were not one. Like when the apostle John wrote a letter to the churches around the Asia Minor region to inoculate them against Nicolaitian and Gnostic type heresies. Like when the apostle Paul wrote the Galatian church concerning the Judaizer’s heresy of a works salvation. Like when the apostles and the elders of the churches in the early Church gathered together to answer what to do with the new Gentile converts concerning the Law of Moses. Not to mention in more recent Church History, when Rob Bell’s theology was positively condemned as heresy by nearly every church still concerned for orthodoxy and what the bible says.

Paul said in I Corinthians 11:19, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” Point being that Calvinism is not produced by idle philosophizing, but organically flows from a concern for the truth of Scriptural Revelation and it’s application throughout the course of Church history; and we ought to expect doctrine to be keenly discerned in such fashion and on such occasions. Calvinism not just a TULIP.

However, I will follow the TULIP since it is most often on trial, and quite often presented unwieldily by the opposition.

Concerning the TULIP

• T

Perry states that Total Depravity means that “man is hopelessly sinful. Man is incapable of being “good.” Any “good” deed is truly motivated by something evil…”This is true, as far as it goes. To be more accurate the doctrine of Total Depravity means that man, in all of his faculties is corrupted by sin. This is illustrated by the apostle Paul in Romans 3:13-18 as he quotes several verses from the OT. After he states, again quoting the OT, that “all are under sin”and “There is none righteous”and“there is none that seeketh after God”and“there is none that doeth good, no, not one” he then goes on:“ Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Notice that here the claim is made that sin corrupts the speech of men (throat, tongue, lips, mouth), their actions and thoughts (feet and ways, and the way of peace they have not known); It seems to go as far as to say that even their perceptions of reality are distorted for the fear of God is not before their eyes. Don’t confuse Total Depravity with the notion of men being as evil as they can possibly be. God’s Holy Spirit yet gracefully restrains even most unbelievers from committing the most destructive of sins (II Thessalonians 2:7).

Perry also states that, “The rest of the four points rely on this point.” I am not willing to concede this unqualified. Total Depravity is logically foundational to the rest of TULIP, but that has never been where the historic Reformed faith has solely derived any of those doctrines. Truthfully, every point has been believed because of the testimony of Scripture.

• U

Unconditional Election says that when God chooses, it’s not based on anything found in the person. Not “forseen faith” or any power that he may have, or anything he has been able to do. The testimony of Scripture is one. God “hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began”. (II Timothy 1:9) Diagram that sentence. The main verb is actually in the prior verse, it’s an imperative commanding Timothy to share in Paul’s suffering for the sake of the Gospel. To render the original Greek in a blockier translation (vs. 8b & 9, hopefully to make the original sentence structure stand out more clearly) it reads, “…share in suffering for the Gospel, according to the power of God, [the one who] saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our work but according to His own purpose and grace, that being given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.”

In the modifying participles we learn that the saving grace of God in Christ Jesus was given to us before the ages began. For what reason? Because of God’s own purpose, not ours, and His own grace to us.

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12, 13

Those to whom Jesus gave the right to become the children of God, those that believe on His name, were not born as God’s children because they were born into the right family, or because they felt like it, or because any man decided it should be so, but because God decided so. I’m not sure of any other credible way to read this verse…

• L

Limited Atonement, or as many prefer it, due to the ambiguity of that term, Particular Redemption, is the doctrine that Jesus came for to redeem a particular people. Jesus came with a particular mission, as it were, and is not disappointed. His very name testifies to His purpose in becoming flesh, “thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21) He came to save; not simply to make salvation a possibility, but to make it a reality in His people’s lives.

Why did Jesus become flesh and live and die? Jesus Christ Himself expresses it generally when He says, “…the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” (Matthew 18:11)

Consider also Ephesians 5:25-27,

“…Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”

The example given to husbands is Christ and how He gave himself. Husbands ought to give themselves particularly to their own wives, and not to all women indiscriminately. And husbands ought to give themselves with a particular purpose as Christ had an express purpose behind His giving. To effect an end for this church, whom He loves, that it might be made fit for God and brought nigh to Him. A similar expression is given in Titus 2:14,

“Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”

Who is “us”? Paul is writing to Titus in the context of the church: verse 5 of chapter 1 states that Paul left Titus in Crete to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city”. At 2:1 in this epistle, Paul has begun to explain some basic doctrine and instruction for piety which Titus was to be careful to teach and uphold in those Cretan churches.

Based on these observations it makes sense to understand the “us” to be those who were redeemed by Christ’s giving of Himself. Notwithstanding the statement in verse 11 that “the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” Of course if this were taken to mean that salvation is given to each and every individual person then the problem of some actually suffering eternal punishment (an undeniable fact, Matthew 25:46) presents an insuperable problem. This more easily means that God’s saving grace has appeared to, not each and every individual person, but to all men, great and small. This is historico-grammatically a very natural reading as well as a common idea in Paul’s pastoral epistles.

As for I John 2:2, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Consider what propitiation is. The verse gives a positive statement: “He is the propitiation”. Propitiation, according to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, is “to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of : appease” Christ as a propitiation has a definite effect, that is, to turn away the wrath of God. There are many in the world from it’s beginning until now that are under the wrath of God. If Christ was their propitiation too, then why are they yet under the wrath of God?

I don’t mean to imply that John was wrong when he wrote this, but that our understanding of this verse is wrong if we make it mean, by implication, that God is currently punishing those who have already had His wrath turned away from them. To avoid this contradiction, I think this verse ought to be understood to mean, as many other passages of Scripture most clearly affirm, that there is no person under the sun, no matter his wealth or poverty, his ethnicity, his greatness or smallness, etc., but Christ’s work will avail for him that believes. In the context of John’s letter, if anyman sin, he has an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. It doesn’t matter if he is there in the Church reading that letter, or in Spain eating beans, the one who believes on Christ has his sins forgiven and the wrath of God does not abide on him.

• I

Irresistable Grace is not the doctrine that “the elect have no choice” in the matter, but that God’s grace is sufficient to bring the sinner to Himself. It’s also called Effectual Calling. It can be plainly stated as, God will stop at nothing to win the hearts of His people. I can find nothing strange in this teaching. In fact, given particular redemption, it only makes sense that God would pursue his own elect to salvation. Given that, per John 1:13, those who are the sons of God were born of God’s will; given that, per Ephesians 5:25-27, Christ gave Himself for the Church in order to sanctify her, and present her to Himself; given that, per Titus 2:14, Christ gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us, to purify unto Himself a peculiar people; wouldn’t it simply follow that God would accomplish these things which are His expressed purpose?

Romans 8:29, 30 reads:

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

“Whom he did foreknow” necessarily distinguishes a group of foreknown from a group of those not-foreknown. This group he has predestined to be conformed to the image of His son. These He called, and justified, etc. This chain puts forth no more notion of men first being willing and then God calling and justifying than John 1:13 does. It’s not a factor here. Again God’s purpose prevails and His foreknown people are made willing if they aren’t in the first place. The preceding verse, of which this is a guarantee, reads, “all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” Those who are called according to His purpose. These are the same as love God and are willing to come to Him. It is all rooted in the purpose of God. Those who are called are also justified. According to this passage, none that receive this call do deny it.

• P

Perseverance of the Saints is the doctrine that those whom God saves, He saves indeed; no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand. Often grossly represented by the apothegm, “Once saved, always saved.” Faithful as far as it goes, but expressed in this obtuse manner is subject to terrible interpretation. It does not mean that one can abandon piety and still expect his profession of faith to be credible and one that can affirm his hope in Christ. Perhaps more aptly named Preservation of the Saints, for it is the doctrine that God preserves His saints from sin and Hell, it can be clearly seen again in Romans 8:28-30 quoted above. Those who love God are the same who were foreknown, the same who were predestined, the same who were called, the same who were justified, the same who were glorified.

Consider John 6:32-58 with me:

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

The passage begins with Jesus explaining to the people that the manna in the wilderness was only a shadow of Christ Himself; that He is the true bread that domes down from heaven. He is the one that gives life to the world. Indeed, those coming to him will never hunger, nor thirst, and those who are coming to to Him He will not ever cast out. In the midst of this Christ makes an interesting statement. “All that the Father gives me shall come to me.” Who does the Father give to the Son? Whoever these people are Jesus will not turn them away, but receives them. Jesus then goes on to explain that the will of the Father is that Jesus should not lose one of those that the Father gives to Him, but that He will raise them up at the last day; a clear reference to salvation and the resurrection.

Then He says, “No man can come to me, except the Father draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” The same one who the Father draws will be raised up at the last day by Christ. Those who the Father gives the Son will not be lost or cast out, but will be raised up at the last day. Perhaps those who are drawn by the Father (without which drawing none can come to the Son), are given to the Son who receives them, keeps them, and raises them at the last day?

Soon Jesus tells the people that if any man eat His flesh and drink His blood, that one has eternal life, and Jesus will raise him up at the last day. No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, those the Father draws are given to Jesus and they come to Him, Jesus receives them and will not cast them out, they eat his flesh and drink his blood, He keeps them losing not one, and gives them eternal life raising them at the last day. It seems a plain and simple reading to me and covers all of TULIP.

T: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him”

U: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

L: “All that the Father giveth me…”

I: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me”

P: “all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” “and I will raise him up at the last day.”

As time is short, I will leave you here. I am well open to questions, and am sure this will leave no want of them. This paper, I am sure you understand, is a bit of a shot in the dark. I am not sure exactly what your specific questions may be concerning Calvinism, so I’ve been as general as I can. It’s a topic nearly impossible to address in short, six-page letters. The bible is much longer than that.

–Jared

Image via Wikipedia

“Because to you was given, on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.”  Philippians 1:29 (Translation mine)

Here is another verse that tells us explicitly that faith is a gift. There are many who are quick to deny it saying that this verse must be speaking of Christ himself being given to us to believe on, not faith being given to us. While it is true of course that Christ was given to us that we might believe on Him and find life in Him (Jn, 3:16, Jn. 20:31, Acts 4:12); that isn’t what this verse is saying.

“οτι υμιν εχαρισθη το υπερ χριστου ου μονον το εις αυτον πιστευειν”
“Because to you was given, on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him…”

The first grammatical object of the verb, “εχαρισθη” (or “it-was-given”) is the infinitive “πιστευειν” (or “to-believe”). I suppose you can draw any non-grammatical interpretation from that that you want; as long as you don’t pay any closer attention to the text. There are many different words in the New Testament Greek language that could have been used to convey the idea of “it-was-given”. There are many that could have been translated as “it-was-given” that give a sense of issuing a command, or laying out the nature of a situation, or to relinquish, or to furnish what is needed, or offer, etc. It’s interesting to see from among those words that were actually translated as “give” in our English versions the words that were not used: http://bit.ly/gqtehX But the Holy Spirit thought it fit to write the word “Χαριζομαι” (the root of the verb “εχαρισθη”) with Paul’s pen.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary says that the word “Χαριζομαι” (the root of the verb “εχαρισθη”) “primarily denotes ‘to show favor or kindness…’” My Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon says the same.
The word used is not one that is used of giving commands, or presenting situations that are naturally occurring, or relinquishing, or any other. It’s one that is used of showing favor by a gift. This is how it is used consistently in Paul’s letters (“Χαριζομαι” is the Greek word underlying the italicized English words):

Galations 3:18 “For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.”

Romans 8:32 “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?”

I Corinthians 2:12 “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.”

Philippians 2:9 “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,”

Philemon 22 “At the same time, prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping through your prayers to be granted to you.”

The only two exceptions in the NT to the word being used of God’s giving of a gift as a display of His favor and kindness are found outside of Paul’s writings, Acts 13:14 and 25:11. Even outside of his epistles it is most commonly used to show God’s favor.

Favor by nature promotes one over another. I favor my wife and children; they will be the first out of anyone on this earth to receive gifts from me. For one to favor another, he separates that one from the rest by his actions, in gift giving or otherwise. In the case of Paul’s epistles, he is writing of God’s giving gifts that separate some out from the rest as a show of favor to them.

On Christ’s behalf, then, God showed favor to some in making a distinction between them and the rest of humanity by giving to-believe-on-Christ to them. Paul didn’t word it that “Christ was given to them to believe on”, but that “to believe on Christ was given to them”.

But of course he continues:
“…ου μονον το εις αυτον πιστευειν αλλα και το υπερ αυτου πασχειν”
“Not only to believe on Him, but also on his behalf to suffer.”
The word grammatically answering to “πιστευειν” (to-believe) joined by the conjunctions “ αλλα και” (but also), is “πασχειν” (to-suffer). If one is willing to admit that suffering for the sake of Christ is given of God, then he ought also admit that believing is as well. Remember also that the particular word for “given” is one that denotes separating one out with favor by a given gift. These ones which Paul was writing to were favored by God; this was shown by two gifts, to-believe and to-suffer. It seems he was offering them the comfort that not only is their believing on Christ a sign that God loves them, but also that when they suffer for the sake of Christ, it’s not a sign of God’s displeasure, but of His love and favor. These comforts are good for us today too. Bless God that these two gifts are given to His whole Church!

Americans don’t do history. Several recent polls show that Americans don’t even have basic knowledge of their own country’s history, and one poll shows that American public school students actually know less today than they did ten years ago.

Unfortunately, this ignorance is not limited to American history. Christians are just as bad, if not worse, with regard to church history. One has only to mention names such as Athanasius or Augustine or Anselm, and eyes begin to glaze over, or to flick from right to left looking for some means of escape from the impending boredom. Reformed folk are a little better, but they usually behave as if church history began with the Protestant Reformation, and anything that came before was “just a bunch of Catholic stuff”.

That old George Santayana quote, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” has become a cliché, but there is a grain of truth to it. The errors of the past do have an annoying tendency to resurface, repackaged in shiny new wrapping paper and occasionally accompanied by new accessories; but at root they’re still the same old Chia Pet.

In that light, I offer five or six good reasons why we, as Reformed Baptists, should study church history.

1.Church history is a chronicle of the further acts of God on behalf of His people.

I’m a sucker for a good story. When I was growing up, I always wondered what came after the book of Acts in the Bible. I don’t mean which book came next, but what happened to Paul? What about Peter, John, and the other Apostles? Did the churches that Paul planted survive? What about the Seven Churches of Revelation? It seemed to me that when Biblical history stopped, so did the story.

But it’s a mistake to think that God ceased working on behalf of His people at the end of the Apostolic Age. The story continues. Though the accounts of God’s workings in history after the close of the book of Acts are not inspired, they are equally as gripping. Who could fail to be moved at Polycarp’s speech to his executioners as he was being burned at the stake, or at Athanasius’ steadfast stand for the deity of Christ in the face of an entire empire, or the thrilling story of William Tyndale as he was constantly on the run for daring to translate the Scriptures into English?

2.Church history teaches us to avoid “chronological snobbery”.

In the early 20th century, C.S. Lewis coined the term “chronological snobbery” to describe the attitude that people of later times are more knowledgeable and culturally superior than those of earlier ones. Lewis rightly called it “snobbery”, because it is a subtle form of pride that sees one’s own time and place as inherently superior to all that came before.

In addition to being prideful, however, it also involves a sort of revisionist history. After all, is it really reasonable to think that those poor Romans, who were masters of torture and death, didn’t know that people don’t rise from the dead? Or how about another example: as we have seen in our age of digital glitter, newer is not always better. Would anyone want to defend the notion that a culture characterized by fluffy digital Christianity is superior to the simple faith of times past? Or, again, would anyone dare to suggest that the Christianity that we know and practice is somehow deeper than that of the Reformers or the Puritans, for example?

A study of church history helps us to see that we have much to learn from the brilliant and godly men and women in all ages, and much to take warning from, as well.

3. Church history helps to develop a proper ecumenism.

The term “ecumenism” has fallen on hard times among conservative Christians. It has been associated with groups such as the World Council of Churches, movements such as the National Day of Prayer, and institutions such as the National Cathedral. As such, it represents a watered down (at best) and liberal (at worst) counterfeit Christianity that the child of God is well-advised to flee.

There is, however, an older sense to the word, which refers to that which is commonly held by Christians. One thinks of the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, the so-called “ecumenical creeds” which are held universally by all branches of Christianity. This kind of ecumenism aims to demonstrate the basic unity among those who are like-minded on essentials, while perhaps differing at other points which, while important, are non-essential with regard to the question of whether a particular group is Christian. In other words, used in this way, ecumenism sets the outer limits of what it means to be Christian.

A study of church history will help a person to develop a sense of identity with the past and with Christians of other theological persuasions, by showing us our place within the stream of historic Christianity which flows all the way back to the Apostolic church. It can help us see that Christianity is broader than just our own narrow sliver of it.

4. Church history helps us to develop respect for our forefathers in the faith.

Many great men and women of God remain largely unknown to contemporary Christians. Martin Luther and John Calvin are well known, of course, and Augustine usually gets a nod, but who knows much about Irenaeus, Athanasius or Anselm? Or how about the Cappadocian Fathers: Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, or Basil the Great?

It is significant that in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” John Calvin quoted Bernard of Clairvaux more than anyone else except for Augustine. But aside from a few hymns in the Trinity Hymnal, who really remembers who Bernard of Clairvaux was?

It is shameful that we are so ignorant of much of what went before us. Because we don’t know church history, we rarely have a sense of the titanic struggles the church went through to define many of the core doctrines which today we take for granted. How many realize that the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, didn’t simply spring into existence at the Council of Nicaea? Or that the doctrine of the baptism of believers alone has been around in one form or another since the Early Church?

A solid knowledge of church history can provide us with a deep respect and healthy sense of honor for those who went before; men and women who often paid with their lives to uphold and preserve the faith for future generations.

5. Church History helps to inoculate us against theological error and heresy.

It is a principle of business that every product has a life cycle. At the end of the product life cycle, it has to reinvent itself. This usually involves adding some new features, perhaps offering it in a new color, or adding a couple of accessories. The packaging is usually changed, and the advertisement campaign is completely overhauled to make it seem new, or at least improved. The striking thing, however, is that at root, it’s still the same old product.

Theological errors and heresies have a similar tendency to reinvent themselves. Take, for example, the recent “New Perspective on Paul”. While couched in new terminology, and with a few new bells and whistles, it is at root nothing more than the same sort of semi-Pelagianism, which has been around since the fourth century.

Or how about the “Emergent Church” movement? At first it seems to be a sort of neo-hippie rant, but really it’s just Medieval mysticism repackaged in brightly colored wrapping paper with a shiny new bow for the digital age.

A firm grasp of church history can insulate us against the errors of the past by helping us recognize them when they rear their ugly heads. After all, there isn’t anything new under the sun.

6. Church history helps us understand who we are as Reformed and Baptist.

It is no secret that West Michigan is an area heavily populated by churches that baptize babies. No doubt many of us have been on the receiving end of the stare which says “Reformed Baptist? What planet are you really from?”. Let’s be honest – we are a minority. The Reformed don’t like us because we’re Baptists, and other Baptists don’t like us because we’re Reformed.

For this reason, it is all the more important for us to know who we are, and more importantly, why we are. Where did Reformed Baptists come from? What makes us Reformed? Why are we Baptist? Why are we confessional? The answers to these questions can help instill a confidence in our particular theological position, and as a side benefit, provide an answer to those around us who might question our application of the term Reformed to ourselves.

So there are my five or six good reasons to study church history. I hope that these will inspire you to “take up and read”.

I have included a brief list of books on church history to get you started. Some people have more time to listen than to read, so I have also included a list of some good lecture series in mp3 format that are available for free on the internet.

Books on Church History:

The Story of Christianity – Justo Gonzalez
A History of Christianity – Kenneth Scott Latourette
The Church in History – R.B. Kuiper
Trial and Triumph – Richard M. Hannula
Christianity Through the Centuries – Earle E. Cairns
Church History in Plain Language – Bruce Shelley
Sketches From Church History – S.M. Houghton

Audio Lecture Series:

From the Covenant Worldwide site: (http://worldwide-classroom.com)
Ancient and Medieval Church History – Dr. David C. Calhoun
Reformation and Modern Church History – Dr. David C. Calhoun

From Reformed Theological Seminary (http://iTunes.rts.edu)
History of Christianity I – Dr. Donald S. Fortson III
History of Christianity II – Dr. Donald S. Fortson III
History of Missions – Dr. Samuel H. Larsen
History and Theology of the Puritans – Dr. J.I. Packer

From Westminster Theological Seminary (iTunes U)
The Medieval Church – Carl Trueman

Another worthy recommendation, courtesy of David Haslam: “2000 Years of Christ’s Power” by Nic Needham.

Our whole moral life must be a finite replica of the eternal glory of God. As creatures we are to be like God because we were created in his image. But the fact that we were created in his image and therefore should be like him may never make us forget that we were created in his image, so that we can never and should never strive to be identical with him.

Cornelius Van Til, Chapter 10: The New Testament Summum Bonum: The Example Of Christ; Christian Theistic Ethics. Philadelphia: Reformed Episcopal Seminary, 1940. Syllabus, 135 pp. / Sigward 1940.

It is quite important to remember the creator/creature distinction when thinking about our modeling of God. Consider the greatest commandments: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. The neighbour is to be loved as yourself, another creature, but for God is reserved the whole of the being. For God alone is reserved worship. Also, because God is the creator,  He  doesn’t become holy by submitting to a standard;  everything He does is holy because He is holy ontologically. He is in His being holy and righteous and good.  We cannot be thus in our being, though we can, in submitting ourselves to His law, be finite replicas of the eternal glory of God. When we obey God’s law we do not submit ourselves to a moral standard under which God also is. We obey His prescription for how a creature made in His image ought to reflect His righteousness.

Ephesians 5:21-28

You’ve probably read that passage in your scripture searching. One thing good to note is that no person, in any relationship dynamic, is allowed to not submit, or in another manner of expression to be un-submissive. Somewhere in this world, whether to your husband or to another anyhow if you don’t have one, and of course ultimately to God, you will be required by the God of the Bible to submit; this passage begins with a command to submit to one another. You can work out other obvious contexts in which you will be required to submit or will have the responsibility of others submitting to you (work, civil law obedience, etc.). You can’t really escape the necessity of submitting; the fact is that you are a creature and are quite responsible to your creator.

Notice also that in the context of the submission which causes you most angst, the husband certainly is not getting a “free pass.” He is burdened by the yoke of loving you with a love comparable to Christ’s love for his church. Imagine having that responsibility, there is no way on earth that any man can ever meet that standard. But not only is his love to meet that height, but also match that purpose of Christ in purification and benefit for his bride. Sounds rather selfless to me. Sounds like the bride gets some pretty good benefits for the sacrifice of giving the headship of her household to her husband. Shouldn’t he get some fully-comprehensive reward for laying down his life in love for her? A wife not in submission has reserved part of herself for someone other than her husband. Maybe not another man, but for herself for sure; I assure you it’s not much of a comfort to him.

Is what would most help a more clear idea of what is meant by submit? I doubt that the fullness of it is not comprehended, but I still wonder why does the heart of the modern woman shrink at that notion of resting in the care of another? Another she has sworn she trusts with all of her … heart? Does submitting really mean only to be meek and quiet and small and weak? That seems to be the impression of many a modern woman, yet the bible uses the title (most literally translated) “house-despot” for even the house wife (surely considered the least of today’s women). So the Bible gives a mighty title to those we too often think small. But remember, to submit to your husband is going to be something largely defined by what your husband needs of you, not what everyone else tells you it means for them.

Look at those first two, husband and wife, in the beginning. First we read, “The Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”” It’s not good for man to be alone. He needs you; he needs a helper made to fit him. After God forms the woman from the man’s side (not out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, nor made out of his head to rule over him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved*) and man marvels at her suitableness to him we read, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” For what reason? Why should a man leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife? Why will they become one? It’s because God had made them both, male and female, a man and his helper. A man leaves his father and his mother that he might become one with his wife, a helper who is made just so to fit him.

*Borrowed from Matthew Henry

“Who is the liar, if not the one denying [saying] that Jesus is not the Christ? This is the Antichrist, the one denying the Father and the Son. All who are denying the Son have neither the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father.”

Check out the grammar. According to Granville Sharp‘s sixth rule, the article before ‘πατέρα’ and before ‘υἱόν’ with a copulative ‘καὶ’ in between identify these two as separate persons. Yet the two (Son and Father) are shown to be ontologically united when the one who denies that the Son, Jesus, is the Christ, is denying the Father and the Son together. Also, if one denies the Son they have neither the Father. It shows that they are one (“ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.” or “I and the Father are one” John 10:30) and yet Christ is shown as a distinct person here, the one who, if denied, will logically result in a denial of the Father*. That is to say: Christ is the door. No man comes to the Father but by Him. The text doesn’t read that any who denies the Father will not have the Son (though this be true); rather the place of mediation is given to Christ between us and the Father. Their unity is again confirmed when John tells us that the one confessing the Son also has the Father. You can’t have one without the other, and we come to the Father through no one but by Christ.

*Or perhaps, to put it more strongly: whose denial is identified with denying the Father.

Granville Sharp’s book “Remarks on the Definitive Article, etc.” can be downloaded free of charge in .pdf format here.

A white glass medallion of Granville Sharp - Image via Wikipedia

Cornelius Van Til-Image via Wikipedia

I recently offered openly for consideration this quote from Cornelius Van Til‘s essay My Credo, ”Faith in the self-attesting Christ of Scripture is the beginning, not the conclusion, of wisdom!” One then told me, “It’s both the beginning as well as the conclusion. And it does not exclude the possibility of inviting others into the the journey at any point along the way.”

Certainly if you begin with the fear of God being the beginning of Wisdom your conclusion won’t be anything other than more fear of God; of course it is the living Christ “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” But to insert this idea, that you can begin your search into wisdom anywhere in between, seems to state the opposite of what the proverb referenced here in this Van Til quote means to say.

The proverb reads thusly: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

The point is that wisdom logically begins with the fear of the Lord; without that foundation it isn’t actual wisdom. So in truth you cannot begin anywhere but at the beginning with the fear of God. No man’s rebellious heart will ever reach the logical conclusion, beginning with a foundation of hatred of the God of the bible, that he ought to fear that God over which he has placed himself as judge of (i.e. judge of whether he be real and of what sort this god is).

Certainly we can begin our conversation with the unbeliever at any point, but unless our first assumption and main point be that God has authoritatively revealed himself most fully in his word (and of course that every point of the doctrine of his being is most fully and accurately expounded there alone) then our beginning will not be the fear of the God of the bible, but of another god. Of course one may be distrubed at the position that this relegates natural theology to, but the bible never claims that natural theology is sufficient for much else than to make every man without excuse in his rebellion against God. It is also quite wonderful when the Christian will interpret all of nature in light of the Scriptures and there find much to praise God for in the discovery of His profound wisdom in those things much mundane in comparison to the wonders of the wisdom of the Gospel of Christ’s Kingdom.

Man is completely surrounded by God’s revelation, and is infact, in his nature of being created in God’s image, made up of the stuff of God’s self-revelation. None of those facts can be really understood unless we interpret this reality after the interpretation that God has given by His specific self-revelation, the Holy, infallible, and inerrant, inscripturated Word of God.

I am sure that Van Til by no means meant that if we begin with the fear of the Lord we end with impiety and sinfulness, but his point was to emphasize the fact that true wisdom is always begun in the fear of the Lord and not on anything else at all.

Image by Wonderlane via Flickr

“τη γαρ χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι δια της πιστεως και τουτο ουκ εξ υμων θεου το δωρον”

or as more commonly understood by English speaking peoples:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”

The doctrine of faith being a gift is derived *partly* from the quoted verse.

An important consideration is the use of pronouns here. Some say that the “gift” is Grace, not faith. It’s true that the Grace is a gift, but the use of pronouns tells a fuller story.

When translated into English the clarity is somewhat removed, but this is only because it is nearly impossible to find a one to one equivalent between two languages. Simply the limitations of translating. A wooden translation might sound like this, ” For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, [it is] the gift of God…”

The thing to be noted in the use of the demonstrative pronoun “τουτο” (or in the familiar KJV “that”) is it’s gender. It is neuter. The preceding words vying for the office of antecedent would be “χαριτι” (or “grace”) and “πιστεως” (or “faith”) right? Perhaps the substantive participle “σεσωσμενοι” (or “are ye saved”) should be considered too. The problem with any one of these taking the place is that none of them are neuter. “χαριτι” is feminine, “πιστεως” is also feminine, and “σεσωσμενοι” is masculine.

Now what? It seems that the demonstrative pronoun is referencing the entirety of the blessed situation. God’s gift to men is His grace, by which He gives us His salvation, and He does this through another gift, faith.

So God’s grace is certainly not of ourselves, but neither is His salvation that He gives to us, but faith is also counted in that statement, “For by grace you are saved through faith,” and the apostle affirms that this state of affairs is “not from yourselves.”