“Wherever we find the Word of God surely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there, it is not to be doubted, is a church of God.” John Calvin

Book 4 Chapter 8 Section 1-16

Over Christmas I listened to a great programme on Radio 2. It was all about the Salvation army’s Family Tracing Service - this group work tirelessly to reunite loved ones who have lost contact for one reason or another. The one story that stood out to me was of a young mum who had lost touch with her Dad because of her parent’s divorce. She had little hope that the FTS could help, but sent the application form in anyway. One day she was just about to leave for the shops when the phone went. As she answered she was suprised to hear it was one of the FTS’s workers on the phone. She was expecting bad news, but instead the voice said “Hi Rebecca, I wanted you to know that I have found your Dad.” After 12 years of separation, Rebecca was overcome with emotion to hear that he was found and wanted to meet with her. It reminded me that delivering a simple and honest message, when delivered faithfully can often have a great impact on the hearer.

In this chapter of the Institutes Calvin presents the minister of Christ as the messenger bringing another’s message. It is precisely because the message did not originate in the messenger that it is both authoritative and unchanging. It is authoritative because it is a message from God, delivered to mankind through their peers. It is unchanging because the messengers have no remit to modify that message as they deem fit. Their job is to present the message with clarity and conviction, not decide which bits fit their or their hearer’s scruples.

Calvin begins by address the question: what are the limits of ecclesiastical power? That is, what was the nature of the authority conferred on ministers of the gospel? He begins be reminding us that authority is conferred on the position, not the person. The authority comes from delivering the word of the Lord, “for whenever they are called to office, they are enjoined not to bring anything of their own, but to speak by the mouth of the Lord.” Thus the importance of having a deep understanding of God’s word, that we may have something to say when we stand before people as God’s mouthpiece.

Progressive revelation is the theme of the next section, with Calvin recognising that as redemptive history unfolds, God’s ministers possess an increasing understanding of God’s character and plan of salvation. So, the resolution of the message becomes clearer from the patriarchs, to the prophets and then the apostles, and finally with the revelation of the Son, God’s testimony is now complete. No new teaching, prophecy or revelation is to be added to the testimony of scripture. Thus ministers are to cling solely to the revealed word, and not attempt to “coin some new doctrine”. Why did God do this? Well, “God deprives man of the power  of producing new doctrine in order that he alone may be our master in spiritual teaching, as he alone is true, and can neither lie nor deceive.”

If that is what should have happened, Calvin laments how far the reality is from the ideal. For the 16th century Roman Catholic church maintained that “a universal council is a true representation of the Church” and that “such councils are under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit”. But these councils are called, organised and run by fallen men who then demand that we “assent to all their dogmas, affirmative as well as negative.” Calvin agrees that the Spirit guides the people of God, but it does not perfect them in this life. Contrary to the claims of his opponents, who reason that “since the church is governed by the Spirit of God, she can walk safely without the word”, believers “confine themselves anxiously within the limits of the word of God, lest in following their own sense too far, they forthwith stray from the right path.” True, we enjoy the first-fruits of the Spirit in this present life, but we are also acutely conscious of our great weakness and fallibility. In summary Calvin describes his opponents as placing “the authority of the Church without the word of God: we annex it to the word, and allow it not to be separated from it.”

Response

Far from divesting the messenger of his responsibility for, and connection to, the message he delivers, this knowledge of its divine source affirms and secures such a bond. This is not some dreary announcement by a middle manager of the new company branding – a message that has no interest for the hearers and no conviction from the messenger. No, the gospel must be delivered by people who have so consumed its elements that it has been branded onto their soul. It is a message of life, joy and hope – not unlike the news that a loved one has been found after years of seperation. The way of restoration has already been secured, our duty is to simply deliver this message, faithfully, clearly and with conviction to enable both parties to finally meet. We share in the joy of reuniting family members – lost sons and daughters to their heavenly Father. Our message of reconciliation has never changed and will never change. May we be always found with that message on our lips.

“Son of man, I have made you a watchman to the house of Israel, therefore hear the word at my mouth and give them warning from me….We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: be reconciled to God.” Ezekiel 3.17 & 2 Corinthians 5.20

Father, rise up those who will faithfully & lovingly proclaim your message to a lost world, a message of hope, life and joy. May we see many come back to their only true Father and be reunited with the parent who formed them before they were born. For your sake, Amen

Now everyone who has studied their Bibles, knows that the idea of The Devil and Jesus playing chess for our souls is silly. (Remember Chris De Burgh’s song) Also we are pretty sure that though the Devil has POWER, it is not EQUAL to that of God’s POWER, but the Devil is certainly not a push over, and has a well structured army. For it is St Paul in the book of Ephesians who instructs about ARMOUR, and weapons to war. But does the DEVIL have enough POWER to keep an unbeliever blinded ? Is there a battle for a persons soul ? Or, is Satan bound up somewhere and unable to interfere with those who are still in the darkness ?

In short, ‘How Much POWER Does The DEVIL have ?’

(((To view this discussion, follow this link : ‘How Much POWER Does The DEVIL have ?’ )))

From the discussion, with some suprises…

John Calvin’s Institutes – Book III, Chapter 20, verse 46…

John Calvin’s Institutes – Book III, Chapter 20, verse 12…

John Calvin’s Institutes – Book III, Chapter 20, verse 32…

“Removing, then, mention of law, and laying aside all consideration of works, we should, when justification is being discussed, embrace God’s mercy alone, turn our attention from ourselves, and look only to Christ….If consciences wish to attain any certainty in this matter, they ought to give no place to the law.” (Calvin Institutes 3.19.2.) Quote via Horton’s Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ.

Here.

A 11″ X 14″ High Resolution Picture of John Calvin from Reformation Art for your study, home, or office at only $11.00 while supplies last. Buy here, buy now.

I’m trying to keep pace by reading through Torrance’s posthumously published Edinburgh lectures on dogmatics, Incarnation and Atonement at the moment.  I noticed something interesting after reading through the first two chapters: Torrance’s proper insistence on Christ’s obedience being part of the atonement undergirds his somewhat more odd assertion, increasingly en vogue in “Barthian” circles, that Christ assumed fallen human nature (cf. Edward Irving and Karl Barth).

Like his influences before him, Torrance emphasizes Christ as the word spoken from God to man and then appropriated by man and spoken back to God.  The Son is sent “to fulfill a vicarious mission in suffering . . . this mission of the servant-son is regarded as being fulfilled not simply in Christ’s final passion on the cross, but in the whole course of his obedience.”  Torrance seems to connect the pascha to this mission in its entirety.  It was because he assumed fallen flesh that this entire life of obedience “was a battle.  The temptations make that abundantly clear.  It was in agony of blood, ‘with strong cryings and tears’ [Heb 5:7] in the things that he suffered that Jesus learned obedience, bringing his holy relation with sinners to its perfection and completion at last on the cross.”  So it seems that Torrance understands “passion” to mean not the suffering of his crucifixion and death, but the suffering of his life-long wrestling with fallen flesh, culminating in the cross.

Calvin also clearly stated (Inst. II.16.5) that Christ purchased our righteousness, in part, through “the whole course of his obedience.”  He wrote, “In short, from the moment when he assumed the form of a servant, he began, in order to redeem us, to pay the price of deliverance.”  Calvin admits that the Scriptures place the priority on Christ’s death (John 1:29; Rom 3:25; 4:25; 5:9; 2 Cor 5:21), but don’t exclude his obedience (Phil 2:7).  Then there’s this statement:

This, indeed, he did not without a struggle, for he had assumed our infirmities also, and in this way it behooved him to prove that he was yielding obedience to his Father.

What exactly Calvin means by “infirmities,” I cannot authoritatively say, but it appears from the following sentences that he means Christ’s “struggle with dire terrors.”  This would be consonant with his earlier quotation of Heb 4:15 when discussing Christ’s humanity (II.12.1): “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet he did not sin.”  Calvin also seems to enumerate these terrors and weaknesses without reference to a fallen nature : “he was subject to hunger, thirst, cold, and the other infirmities of our nature” (II.13.1).

The point of all this is that where Calvin sees the “infirmities” Christ struggles with in his life of obedience as issues relating to our physical condition in a creation under the curse, Torrance sees them more holistically; he extends the infirmities to include the condition of our nature itself.  The question, of course, is where the Scriptural warrant for this extension comes from.  I’ve seen both Barth and Torrance refer to passages such as Rom 8:3 and 2 Cor 5:21, but I have yet to see either offer a robust, detailed exposition of these texts to support the weight of their “fallen nature” view (I know the logic for this move, on Torrance’s end, comes from Gregory Nazianzen.  But does he believe Gregory held to this view himself?  Did Gregory?).

Jonathan Edwards once wrote a book titled “The Religious Affections” highlighting the power God has upon man in the affections.  Primarily Edwards speaks of the heart and it’s ability to be transformed by the calling God gifts to us through His Son Jesus Christ.  Books are few and far between that discuss the matters of both the heart and the affections, especially in the seminary where most assigned readings affect a cognitive growth in the mind versus an enlarging of the heart.  John Calvin writes an able medium between both the mind and the heart in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that is both pastoral and theologically academic.  Few have elucidated a response from the reader as strong as the persistent page turn of conviction and religious affection in the Institutes.

The Institutes is a treasure trove of theological advancement from the enslavement to tradition as a source of theology to scripture as the sole source (sola scriptura).  Calvin architects his systematic theology frequently with a pastoral emphasis, after all the Institutes was first written as a small book emphasizing piety that could be carried in your back pocket.  His pastoral tongue speaks volumes to the reader with an ear to listen.  Hear this statement from Calvin on hypocrisy in the life of a Christian:

“For where they ought to have remained consistently obedient throughout life, they boldly rebel against him in almost all their deeds, and are zealous to placate him merely with a  few paltry sacrifices.  Where they ought to serve him in sanctity of life and integrity of heart, they trump up frivolous trifles and worthless little observances with which to win his favor.  Nay, more, with greater license they sluggishly lie in their own filth, because they are confident that they can perform their duty toward him by ridiculous acts of expiation” (I.v.4)

As sinners we are by definition consistent hypocrites.  Our will longs for a true worship of God, glorifying him with our “every breath”, yet our will is corrupted and we are unable to act in a consistent manner with our lofty will.  This passage speaks directly into all of our lives as ones who have “fallen short of the glory of God” and have exchanged God-worship for self-worship.  We cannot merely placate him with a few paltry sacrifices nor worthless little observances with which to win his favor.  Man does not reconcile himself to God by win[ning] his favor.  God’s favor is a gift granted to us in Christ, something which is unmerited and can never be earned.  How right is Calvin’s exclamation that all who seek to win the favor of God do so by ridiculous acts of expiation.  Christ alone expiates our sin and by no means does he do so on the grounds of our goodness or ability to elicit a response of grace.  How Pelagian we as Christians can often be, convincing ourselves that we can earn God’s favor.  This is an anathema that should be cast far from our minds and faith.  Our salvation rests upon God alone and our response is one only of worship and gratitude in His abundant grace.

We ought to think long and hard about the hypocritical observances that we as Christians exhibit as a Pelagian means of restitution, be that of prayer, tithing, morality or worship.  May we, as children through Christ to the Father, worship God not with vain observances that are self serving, but with worship that is truly awarded to God most high.  May our worship, the life that we live in response to God’s grace in Christ, exhibit truth in that it be focused upon the glory of God and not exchanged for the false glory of man.  May all that we do be done for the worship of our Lord, not of our own desires and paltry hopes to save ourselves.  May we above all know of the redeeming love and grace that God has given us freely in His Son Jesus Christ and rejoice with arms wide open.  May the words of saints such as Calvin elucidate responses that draw us away from ourselves and into an ever renewing conviction into true worship of our most gracious God.

Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I, by Stephen Hampton (Oxford, 2008)

The author says:

This book grew out of a doctoral thesis on the thought of five post-Reformation divines: Thomas Barlow, William Beveridge, John Edwards, John Pearson, and Thomas Tully. That research opened my eyes to the strength of the conforming Reformed tradition within the later Stuart Church, a tradition which has, for various reasons, been overlooked by most of those who have written on the period. This book is intended as a corrective to that neglect.

And he also says:

I am especially grateful to the staff of the British Library, the Bodleian Library, Durham Cathedral Library, Durham University Library [Dr. Brad Matthews, note these two from your Durham life], and the libraries of Exeter College and the Queen’s College, Oxford.

Some chapter titles are: 1) “The Anglican Reformed Tradition after the Restoration”; 4) “The Reformed Defence of Trinitarian Orthodoxy”; 5) “The Slide into Subordinationism”; 7) “The Reformed Defence of Thomist Theism.” The final, eighth chapter is “Conclusions.” The bibliography is divided into manuscript sources, primary sources, and secondary sources.

Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries, by Everett Ferguson (Eerdmans, 2009)

This 953-page work (plus 20 pp. of preliminaries) has 55 chapters, all but the last—titled “Conclusions”—fall under seven Parts: 1) Antecedents to Christian Baptism; 2) Baptism in the New Testament; 3) The Second Century; 4) The Third Century to Nicaea (325); 5) The Fourth Century; 6) The Fifth Century; and 7) Baptisteries. There are six Indexes: Biblical passages; Greek & Roman authors and writings; Jewish authors and writings; Non-canonical Christian authors and writings; Modern authors; and Subjects.

Here are both some quotes and my own distillations from chapter 55, “Conclusions”:

Both Jesus’ command in Mt. 28:19 and example (Mt. 3:13-17 and parallels) commonly were the basis for Christian baptism, which

had its precedent in the baptism administered by John the Baptizer, which seemingly was engaged in also by Jesus and his disciples (John 3:26; 4:1-2). Christian baptism was distinguished from John’s in its call for faith in Jesus, its being administered in Jesus’ name, and its connection with the Holy Spirit. John’s baptism, in its turn, had its background in Jewish religious washings but differed from them in its eschatological call for repentance, its one-time exercise, and its being administered […] and not self-administered.

Christians adopted βάπτισμα rather than using “the word for pagan and Jewish dippings”—βαπτισμός.

François Bovon identifies these common elements in early baptismal theology: baptism is a work of God and of humans and a sign of the covenant; baptism is a sign of the work of Christ, an actualization of the redemptive work of Christ; and it was an efficacious sign.

Among early Christian authors

there is remarkable agreement on the benefits received in baptism. And these are present already in the New Testament texts. Two […] are often repeated: the person baptized received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). The two fundamental doctrinal interpretations of baptism are sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ, with the attendant benefits and responsibilities (Rom. 6:3-4), and regeneration from above (John 3:5), with its related ideas.

Other features are based on Gal. 3:27 (clothing with Christ), Col. 1:13 (deliverance), “and enlightenment (Heb. 6:4?).” Also present but less frequent are marriage to Christ (Eph. 5:25-27) “and a contract (more often associated with the renunciations and confession of faith – 1 Pet. 3:21).” Building on 2 Cor. 1:22 and Eph. 1:13, “those who brought spiritual circumcision into relation to baptism made the equation most often not of baptism itself with circumcision but saw baptism as the occasion for the inward circumcision by the Spirit.”

The New Testament and early Christian literature are virtually unanimous in ascribing a saving significance to baptism. [Here Ferguson’s footnote is to TDNT 1:540-43.] If anything, the early church exaggerated this aspect of baptism’s significance. […] Only a few (fringe) heretics of the ancient church tried to dehydrate the new birth. The main variation among mainstream Christian authors was in how strongly different individuals affirmed the necessity of baptism for salvation. The major explicit exception to this requirement was for martyrs who died for a confession of faith prior to receiving baptism. […] Baptism, however, was not seen as a human work but as God’s work, and the salvation in baptism was premised on the saving effect of Christ’s death on the cross and his victorious resurrection.

Ferguson says that, “though not mentioned in the earliest sources,” nudity in baptism likely was fairly common and gives reasons. And, triple immersion was “the nearly universal custom” in the period AD 200s through 400s. “A laying on of hands accompanied baptism from a quite early period.” Before AD 200, anointing with oil as a separate act was added to the baptismal rite. And, from about AD 150 baptisms were followed “by the newly baptized joining in the congregational celebration of the eucharist.” Other early symbolic acts were the taking of milk and honey indicating food for the newborn child in Christ (milk) and for the promised land (honey). By the 200s the baptized were re-clothed with white garments, signifying the purity of being clothed with Christ. “In general we can say that there was a great deal of similarity in the baptismal rites during the patristic period.”

Ferguson observes that infant baptism may well have occurred before the latter part of the second century, but “there is no firm evidence.” “Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations.” “The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure” and it did not become the usual practice until the fifth century.

In the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy infant baptism was a principal support for the doctrine of original sin, rather than the other way around, since baptism was universally recognized as for forgiveness of sins. With the victory of Augustine’s arguments original sin became the reason for infant baptism in the western church.

The development of the view of baptism as objectively effective paralleled the development of infant baptism. If baptism is defined as consisting of water and the Trinitarian formula, then conscious faith and obedience become less important. In the absence of a personal confession of faith and renunciation of the devil other justifications were offered—the faith of the church; the guarantee by the sponsors that the child would be raised in the church; the child considered a believer by reason of receiving the sacrament of faith (baptism).

Ferguson is Professor of Church History Emeritus at Abilene Christian University and affiliated with the Churches of Christ.

Competent Christian Counseling, edited by Timothy Clinton and George Ohlschlager, Vol. 1: Foundations & Practices of Compassionate Soul Care (Waterbrook Press, 2002)

At the head of the title page is “American Association of Christian Counselors” (which holds the copyright). This first volume is over 800 pages. Larry Crabb says “Christian counseling is facing both dusk and dawn. The era of professionalism with a biblical overlay is over. The season of Biblically defined competence is at hand. It’s a good time! Competent Christian Counseling effectively announces dawn.”

Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin, by Randall C. Zachman (U. of Notre Dame Press, 2007)

This is a remarkable work. Calvin’s opposition to images is not what many—both within and outside the Reformed community—for so long have made it out to be.

There is no question that the thesis of this book appears to contradict not only commonly received impressions of Calvin but also a good deal of scholarly analysis of Calvin’s thought. There does in fact appear to be abundant evidence in Calvin’s writings that he denied that the invisible God can be seen, and in which he exhorts us to hear the Word of God. [p. 3]  Even scholars who wish to highlight the centrality of the sacraments in Calvin’s theology emphasize the verbal nature of the sacraments for Calvin. […] In spite of the apparent consensus that Calvin privileges hearing over seeing, recent scholarship has begun to notice the importance of visual manifestation for Calvin. [p. 5]  Calvin scholars have also noted the essential interdependence of manifestation and proclamation in Calvin’s theology, though usually only in isolated instances [p. 6].   As I show in the following chapters, the interdependence of the Word and work of God, or proclamation and manifestation, is not present in a few isolated topics of Calvin’s theology but is central to the way he thinks theologically. [p. 7]  Calvin’s thought about self-manifestation continued to develop throughout his career, but it is important to note that he demonstrated an interest in this issue from the beginning of his writing career in 1532. Of particular note is Calvin’s interest in the phenomenon of “beholding an image in a mirror” in his earliest written work, the Commentary on Seneca’s treatise De Clementia. [p. 9]

Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin has two parts. Part I, titled “The Living Images of God the Creator” comprises three chapters; Part II, “The Living Images of God the Redeemer” comprises chapters four through fourteen. The Introduction precedes all. Here’s more:

The goal of this study is fourfold. First […] to reawaken interest in the self-manifestation of God in creation in Protestant theology, which is especially timely in light of our current ecological crisis, to counter the one-sided emphasis on the proclamation of Christ introduced by twentieth-century theologians such as Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann. […] The feelings of awe and reverence that the image of God in creation awakened in Calvin are a far cry from the heartless manipulation of the natural world for our own profit that one sees in modern industrialized societies. Calvin’s countless exhortations […] would be a serious check on the participation of Christians in the denigration of the environment.

Second, by showing the centrality to seeing as well as hearing in Calvin’s theology, this study hopes to create avenues of further research by those interested in theological aesthetics, and to encourage a greater appreciation of visual contemplation in Protestant theology, including efforts of liturgical renewal in the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions. Given Calvin’s awareness that the fountain of every good thing manifests itself in beauty and truth together, it is not surprising to see one of the heirs of Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, making beauty central to his understanding of God. Contrary to the suspicions of Luther and Kierkegaard, Calvin shows that it is in fact possible to combine a radical theology of the cross with an equally radical emphasis on visual manifestation.

Third, the essential conjunction of manifestation and proclamation with regard to the knowledge of God is mirrored by Calvin’s attention to the words, gestures, and actions of others as they communicate with us. […] Calvin’s attention to gestures and actions would be a salutary corrective to an overemphasis on words, and his attention to the communication and strengthening of the pious affections would be a healthy corrective to the neglect of affectivity in modern Protestant theology, which has been deeply influenced by the suspicion of pietism in Ritschl and Hermann, as well as Bultmann and Barth. Calvin’s increasingly positive assessment of gestures, rites, and ceremonies also opens avenues of access to Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Anglican understandings of worship.

Fourth […] by showing the importance of manifestation in both creation and redemption, this study hopes to demonstrate the ecumenical promise of Calvin’s theology. […] This study shows that Calvin thinks in terms of the essential interrelationship of manifestation and proclamation, which may provide interesting bridges between Protestant and [non-Protestant…] Churches, without ignoring the major differences between them. (pp. 19ff)

So, can anyone guess what John Calvin and Guy de Bres had in common?  I mean, besides the fact that they were Reformed?  While both spoke French, their native tongue was likely Picard.  Noyon was the birthplace of Calvin — Noyon is in Picardy, France.  Picard was also spoken in Mons, the town in present-day Belgium where de Bres was born.  Picard was also the lingua franca of the cities where de Bres served as a pastor:  Lille, Tournai and Valenciennes.

Although I didn’t plan it, an emerging theme of posts this week seems to be the skillfulness of challenging of orthodoxy and mere conceptual thinking. Whether we agree or disagree with them, iconoclast teachers make us think—or maybe in the case of these two teachers, not so much think, as pay attention and wake up!

Zen Master Seung Sahn

“True God, True Buddha”

Reaction to Seung Sahn-the Buddha Laughed!

J. Krishnamurti

Krishnamurti—An Uncompromising Teacher

Krishanmurti—Freedom from the Known

Unorthodox teachers challenge us—and that’s good!

What I love about unorthodox teachers is that they challenge our complacency and our easy assumptions that we “know” the truth.  I may not always agree with them, but at least I have considered their critique and examined my own views.

When it comes to spiritual practice, I think truth is more of a verb than a noun.  Truth is something we do.  Truth is not words or beliefs.  It is a reality to be discovered, explored, and lived.

If we are really open to truth, honest critiques and different perspectives shouldn’t really disturb us. If they do, this could well mean we are just accepting our own self-created orthodoxy and have stopped being alive to truth as a living way, not a set of answers.

The value of criticism and self-examination

As the essay below that I’m sharing below says:

I like to suggest that the person who says “I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts,” is making me think the opposite of what they want me to think. Do they have great faith? Instead, I can’t help but think that deep down, they already know the jig is up! You don’t lock up the barn that tight unless you know the horse wants out! They must know their faith would never survive a close look at certain facts. Trying to preserve the illusion, they are only making it more obvious that they know it is an illusion after all.

When I was a believing Christian, I read lots of critiques and criticisms of Buddhism by Christian theologians and academicians. Now that I am a practicing Buddhist, I see how how incorrect and uninformed most of those critiques were.  Most of all, I saw that these criticisms were mainly intellectual and semantic arguments that missed the very core of Buddhism—practice.  Few critics had actually tried Buddhist meditation, tried mindfulness practice, tried metta (loving-kindness) practice.

At the same time, I’ve come to value these criticisms.  Why?  Because they challenged me to clarify my own articulation of Buddhism.  I can explain Buddhism better because I have had to look carefully at Christian misconceptions and objections to it.  The second value of these criticisms is that they helped see even more clearly where Christians and Buddhist fundamentally disagree and where we might share common ground.

A Critical Look at Buddhist Beliefs

So, continuing in the spirit of healthy iconoclasm and honest self-examination of our beliefs, I offer the following critical essay by Robert M. Price, a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at Colemon Theological Seminary.  In academic circles, Price is probably best known as a Christian skeptic.  But in a way, that’s exactly why I chose him—because he doesn’t come from the typical place orthodox Christian critics  of Buddhism do—i.e. Buddhism denies Christ and is the work of the devil!

What is fascinating to me is that Price sees many of the same problems of Christian religious orthodoxy mirrored in some Buddhist philosophic systems and beliefs.  He also points out that many ex-Christians who have adopted Buddhism have a very selective reading of Buddhism and might be surprised to learn that millions of Buddhists believe things very similar to what they disliked in Christianity!

Are we honest and brave enough to challenge our own orthodoxies?

There’s no doubt that there’s something in Price’s essay to challenge or offend  just about everybody, Buddhist or Christian! Every school of Buddhism gets a sharp critique, and Christian orthodoxy fares little better.  If one is  aligned with one of these schools, one’s natural reaction will probably be: “That’s not true! That’s not fair!  That’s a gross distortion or misunderstanding of what we believe!”

Well, maybe. I’m not saying everything this critique says is right, or that I agree with all Price’s criticism!  I see his criticisms more as “talking points” in an ongoing dialog between people of very different traditions.  The courageous approach is to drop our defenses, have an open mind, consider what is factual and what isn’t, and then see if criticisms have any truth or merit to them.

Price’s criticisms make us consider: Have we chosen a Buddhist path and simply “re-packaged” our previous religious beliefs and prejudices?   Or, on the other hand, have we accepted, without examination, ancient cultural beliefs about the nature of reality, personal saviors, and divinity simply because we grew up with them? And in some cases, do we already know deep down that “the jig is up?”

I honestly don’t think that’s the goal of Price’s essay is just to offend people or make them defensive. It’s helpful to see ourselves from an “outsider’s” perspective. See what you think. You may disagree with some or all of the author’s views or characterizations. But maybe after reading this, you’ll  look at Buddhism, or at least, what millions of Buddhist’s believe and practice, with a more critical eye.

So, take a look. The article is somewhat long, but I think it’s well worth the time and effort to read it.

If You Dislike Christianity, You’ll Hate Buddhism!
by Robert M. Price

As a teacher of comparative Religion courses over many years, I have come to notice some surprising and even paradoxical things. It is no surprise to me when certain students keep their minds as closed as a clenched fist because their fundamentalist upbringing demands it. I know to expect it, especially since I felt that way myself when I was their age. I try not to let it rest that way, though. I have no trouble respecting various points of view, because I have no problem respecting individuals as persons, and their most intimate beliefs are a part of them. I think Rousseau had the same thing in mind when he observed that one cannot live in harmony with one’s neighbor so long as one really believes one’s neighbor is damned to Hell.

But accepting their belief insofar as they cherish it is another thing than accepting it as on a par with other options when the belief has nothing going for it, no leg to stand on. For instance a servant of truth simply cannot dignify Creationism by treating it as a scientific alternative deserving equal time in the class room. Anyone who knows the first thing about scientific method and the nature of theorizing knows Creationism does not belong in the game. You don’t enter a horse in a dog race. Thus as a teacher, your responsibility is to use Creationism as a foil to demonstrate what the scientific approach really is, and it is not a set of particular conclusions but rather a method of arriving at (tentatively held) conclusions.

“I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts!”

In the same way, if education is your game, you cannot allow it to appear that you respect and thus appear to legitimate narrow-mindedness. Like a good Zen Master, your business is to ask disturbing Socratic questions, to coax the truth out from within the student.

For instance, I like to suggest that the person who says “I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts,” is making me think the opposite of what they want me to think. Do they have great faith? Instead, I can’t help but think that deep down, they already know the jig is up! You don’t lock up the barn that tight unless you know the horse wants out! They must know their faith would never survive a close look at certain facts. Trying to preserve the illusion, they are only making it more obvious that they know it is an illusion after all. I merely point this out.

“there are plenty of fundamentalist nonbelievers”

As I say, I am not too surprised to find this attitude prevalent among fundamentalist Christian students. But it has surprised me on occasion to discover the same sort of mind set present in other quarters. For instance, there are plenty of fundamentalist nonbelievers: people who have left fundamentalism behind in terms of doctrine, but who have only redoubled it as an attitude. Just scan the letters pages of certain Rationalist and Free Thought periodicals.

Once I read a letter from an ex-fundamentalist boasting of his various efforts at propagating the lack of faith. This poor fellow was making a spectacle of himself by passing out atheistic handbills on the street corner, printing up atheist bumper stickers, etc. In short, he had given up religion only to preserve what most of us would consider its most odious and onerous aspects! For such a person, the tag “ex-fundamentalist” denotes merely another sub-type of fundamentalism, like “neo-fundamentalist” or “hyper-fundamentalist.” But, again, I can empathize with this one, pathetically ironic as it is, because I have succumbed to this one, too.

“denoting more of a New Ager than any traditional sort of Buddhist”

But we seem never to learn. I can remember some fifteen years ago when my wife Carol and I dropped by to visit Maryanne, a classmate of my wife, and her husband. Carol had told me she was a convert to Buddhism–which today may mean anything, often denoting more of a New Ager than any traditional sort of Buddhist. After all, if you really believe Cyril Henry Hoskins, AKA Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, is a Buddhist, you may think you are, too, even if you are as far from the Dharma as he was.

As we opened a polite conversation, it rapidly developed that Maryanne took a rather non-Buddhistic stance toward Christianity. That is to say, her third eye was somewhat jaundiced when it came to Christianity. She proceeded to fulminate bitterly against its psychological and theological inadequacies. You can imagine the usual line about the destructive self-hatred and guilt over the physical body that Christianity fosters. Then she went on to denigrate the bloody superstition of the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross.

“My chosen strategy was to show how she was reading Buddhism even more selectively than she was reading Christianity”

Let’s get one thing straight. I agreed with these critiques. At the time I still maintained some sort of vague Christian identity myself, albeit of a rather left-wing Tillichian brand. My approach then was to try to “purify” Christian existence from these various phobias and superstitions, get to the philosophical/psychological meat of the thing. I have since given up the enterprise.

But I felt the gauntlet had been thrown down and I made ready to reply. I figured the best defense was a good offense. Thus I sought not to defend Christianity (I couldn’t have defended those aspects in good faith anyway). But neither did I consider attacking Buddhism, which then as now I revere as a true religion. My chosen strategy was to show how she was reading Buddhism even more selectively than she was reading Christianity.

Surely, I ventured, she could not be unaware of the fact that the very doctrinal features she despised in their Christian avatars were not only present in but absolutely central to historic mainstream Buddhism! I’m not sure what she took Buddhism to mean, but it’s a safe bet all the Buddhist faithful in China, Mongolia, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan, Nepal, Korea, and Japan (to say nothing of that ancient stronghold of Oriental mysticism, Colorado) would not agree with her. For Mahayana Buddhism is solidly based on the Bodhisattva doctrine. Southern Asian Buddhism, Theravada (or Hinayana, as the Mahayana call it), is a spare and logically simpler scheme of attaining Nirvana through self-effort aimed at extinguishing the apparent self, or ego.

“the Lords of the Mahayana rejected such a goal as selfish…“

But the Lords of the Mahayana rejected such a goal as selfish in aim and in means. Instead, they believed, all Buddhists ought to emulate Gautama Buddha himself who, after all, did not yield to the temptation of Mara that he should leave this poor world behind and pass forever into his own Nirvana at once. For the sake of poor mortals, Samsara addicts, the Lord Buddha deferred his own rightful Nirvana. And so should we! And given the fact that all beings share the Buddha nature and are thus capable of eventual Buddhahood, it is finally nonsensical to suggest that I can be saved without you and everyone else being saved. It’s all or nothing.

This means, as the Buddha is made to reveal to his disciples in the Saddharma Pundarika (The Lotus of the True Law), that even the 24 previous Buddhas (including Dipankara, the one under whose tutelage Gautama Buddha first heard the Dharma preached many ages before) are still active behind the scenes in the Sambogkhya, the penultimate realm of existence where the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas dwell like celestial gods, answering prayers and otherwise aiding poor mortals who need a hand up.

One ought to take the vow to embark on the path to Buddhahood, and once one does so, one counts as a Bodhisattva (a Buddha-to-be). This is a long and hard row to hoe, but you’d be spending the time in pointless reincarnations anyway, so why not? Through countless lifetimes of toil and self-sacrifice for the good of others, the Bodhisattva earns good karma far in excess of that necessary to win his wings (as Clarence does in It’s a Wonderful Life). He has to be in the business of doing good works to become worthy of Bodhisattvahood.

Now, who’s the Bodhisattva to do these good works for? This works out rather well for the vast majority of Buddhist laity who have not the stamina to undertake the Greater Career. They are doing their bit by financially supporting the earthly Bodhisattvas (as they did the Theravadin monks down south) and by praying to the heavenly ones, as their ancestors used to pray to the Vedic gods. Eventually the store of supererogatory merit amassed by the Bodhisattvas was believed so great that they could grant not only worldly boons but actual salvation itself!

“By hook and by crook, Mahayana Buddhism eventually evolved a salvation scheme”

We think that the Buddha taught that there was no grace upon which to draw to gain Nirvana, since the whole idea was to change your own frame of mind, nullify the ego, which in the nature of the case only you can do. But by hook and by crook, Mahayana Buddhism eventually evolved a salvation scheme by which certain virtuosos, like the Buddha himself, might in fact offer such saving grace to those calling upon them in faith.

By such an act of receptive faith the believer is allowed to draw upon the store of good Karma gained by the Bodhisattvas by their good works. It will be transferred to the believers’ accounts as if it had been their own achievement. Does this sound familiar? It will sound even more so. For some Bodhisattvas, in order to gain still more abundant good Karma, will voluntarily submit to the tortures of the numerous spectacular Hells of Buddhist eschatology. Avalokiteshvara and his brethren are in this fashion undergoing expiatory suffering in your place and for your benefit.

In Pure Land Buddhism, fantastically popular in Japan where it spread from China and India, we witness the ultimate spinning out of the logic of this redemptive theology. A long succession of Pure Land patriarchs, basing their teachings on the Longer and Shorter Sukhavati Sutras (= Pure Land Scriptures), sought to refine the meaning of salvation by grace through faith alone. Their Sutras have Gautama taking the role of John the Baptist, singing the greater glories of Amitabha Buddha, an ancient king who, hearing the preaching of a contemporary Buddha, renounced the throne and took up the discipline of the Bodhisattva.

“…accumulated Karmic ‘Green Stamps’…”

His strategy was to put all of his accumulated Karmic “Green Stamps” toward the creation of a “Pure Land,” a world in which one need only be reborn to achieve the stage of non-returning, the seventh stage of the Bodhisattva path (something that would otherwise take unthinkable eons of good works, as it did in the case of Amitabha himself). At the end of one lifetime in the Sukhavati, one would infallibly attain Buddhahood.

And how was to one guarantee one’s reservations? Aye, there’s the rub. The text said one need only call on Amitabha’s name three times, and that would do it. But the various patriarchs sought to determine, with all the introspective micro-scrutiny of a medieval penance manual, precisely what mental condition constituted saving faith. What meditations and attitudes were required?

As always happens with introspective pietism (read Watchman Nee, Andrew Murray, etc.) what looked easy turns out to be arduous and confusing–or is made to be so. Each subsequent patriarch narrowed the range of activity required, recognizing that the more a successful faith hinges upon one fulfilling certain conditions, the more salvation after all depends on one’s own works (“Self-Power”). And this is incompatible with the doctrine that one needs grace to be saved in the first place.

On the one hand, we are so crushed beneath a burden of bad Karma that we would have no hope of ever working it off ourselves. On the other, we live in a degenerate age when the Dharma is but dimly understood. Facing Scylla and Charybdis in this way, we must be saved by grace (“Other-Power”), or we will not be saved at all. Hence the Pure Land theologians tried to circumvent the clever subterfuges of the self-exalting ego by placing complete and utter reliance on the Other-Power of Amitabha Buddha.

“…wound up recapitulating Martin Luther and John Calvin”

In the end, the Japanese patriarch Shinran wound up recapitulating Martin Luther and John Calvin: he taught that the first inkling of an inclination one felt to call upon the name of the Buddha was itself proof of Amitabha’s prevenient (anticipatory) grace. One could never have even sought such salvation without already having been given it! We cannot even seek to repent unless we have already been regenerated by the unilateral grace of God. If we were still sinners, we would think of nothing but continuing to sin. There is no question of subtle Christian missionary influence.

It is just that the logic of piety, taught not to believe in its own power, and yet having to do something, however minimal and passive, always issues in the same solution, as it did also in Visistadvaita Vedanta Hinduism, which divided into the monkey school (believers must hang on to God’s grace like a baby monkey carried by its mother) and the cat school (momma cat simply carries her kittens by the scruff of the neck, like it or not).

Is all this a betrayal of Buddhism with its doctrine of self-reliance?

Is all this a betrayal of Buddhism with its doctrine of self-reliance? They say no, since a religion based on the negation of self can hardly rely for its success on Self-Power! Interesting point.

So here we have a religion containing the features of crippling original sin, bankrupt and worthless selfhood, salvation by passive faith in the vicarious sufferings of a redeemer (actually a whole stable of them, as in the Catholic calendar of saints), and all of this derived from an infallible scripture, not from one’s own cherished intuitions. What is this religion? Buddhism. Christianity. Take your pick

If you prefer something less complex, something more self-reliant, you can always find revamped, streamlined versions of either religion. But, as they stand, neither is all that much different from the other in broad outline. When Maryanne embraced what she called Buddhism as an alternative to Christianity, she had merely exchanged six of one for half a dozen of the other, though she didn’t know about at least three of them!

“If it happened to the one [religion] it would be surprising if it hadn’t happened to the other too.“

One might contend that Mahayana is a corrupt form of Buddhism, one that has lost sight of the vision of its Founder, whereas Christianity’s corresponding doctrines are in continuity with the central vision of its Founder. But this is the worst kind of special pleading. If it happened to the one, it would be surprising if it hadn’t happened to the other, too.

Max Scheler thought that both religions inevitably suffered the same fate because of the ever-recurrent pattern of religions that exalt a charismatic founder. The founder is first lionized because of his summons for all to follow him in the heroic path. He dies, and the followers form a sectarian community, living out his heroic ethic, necessarily in alienation from the conventional world around them. But time passes and no one finds it any more so easy to live at such a fever pitch of piety and social radicalism.

They come to assimilate themselves to the world again, rationalizing this by means of deifying the founder. Now that the life style he taught seems so far beyond the reach of even believers, they conclude his own heroic life must have been the result of his being a superhuman god. Thus no one can be expected to emulate him, and his heroism ceases to be a role-model.

“Mediocrity, here we come!”

Instead, the believers come to regard it as an act done on their behalf so as to absolve them of the sin of not being able to do it! Mediocrity, here we come! And then Luther, Shinran, and the others start in trying to eliminate any vestige of self-effort as impious, even though at first it had been the very basis of the founder’s teaching! Such a decline, plainly recognized, at least on some level, in Buddhism, is more characteristic neither of Christianity nor of Buddhism.

Why had my wife’s friend been oblivious of all this? My guess is that, like many today, she had really adopted some form of Western pop self-realization therapy and, ironically, called it Buddhism. Harvey Cox foresaw this trivializing trend in his 1977 book Turning East. Shirley MacLaine can call it Buddhism, like Jim Baker calls his religion Christianity, but neither is fooling me.

It might be better to do what Herman Hesse advocated in his novel Siddhartha: follow the Buddha’s path not by slavishly aping him, but by striking out on your own authentic dharma just as he did. How else are you to imitate a great non-conformist except by refusing to conform to him? Have the courage of your own convictions! Don’t hide behind supposed authorities by bottling your own product and putting the Buddhist (or Christian) label on it.

©Robert M. Price

♥♥♥

Piper, John. The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. The Swans are not Silent. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000. 158pp. $17.99.

Introducing the Series

John Piper’s series The Swans are not Silent began as a series of biographical messages delivered at the annual Bethlehem Conference for Pastors which have now been compiled into a series of five books.

Piper introduces this series with the following viginette:

At the age of seventy-one, four years before he dies on August 28, A. D. 430, Aurelius Augustine handed over the administrative duties of the church in Hippo . . . to his administrative assistant Eraclius. . . . At the ceremony, Eraclius stood to preach, as the aged Augustin sat on his bishop’s throne behind him. Overwhelmed by a sense of inadequacy in Augustine’s presence, Eraclius said, “The cricket chirps, the swan is silent” (9).

By God’s grace the swan has not remained silent; his life and his theology have continued to speak and his influence heard throughout the past 1,600 years. At less than $15 a book and all of them under 200 pages in length this series presents the church with a fantastic opportunity to learn from both the lives and the theology of numerous prominent figures in church history. I will be reviewing one of these volumes in each of my next five book reviews and I hope that they prove to be as great of a benefit to you as they have been to my own life and study.

Summary

The text is divided in to five sections; an introduction, a conclusion, and a chapter each on Aurelius Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

Piper begins the introduction noting, “God ordains that we gaze on his glory, dimly mirrored in the ministry of his flawed saints. He intends for us to consider their lives and peer through the imperfections of their faith and behold the beauty of their God” (18). This is the great aim of this series, and subsequently this book, we are exhorted to begin this study with the understanding that the purpose of God’s providence in human history is to stir our hearts to worship. The introduction then briefly introduces us to these three men, the themes of their ministry and their flaws, over which God’s grace has triumphed. He then concludes where he began reminding us that we need these flawed me and we need to learn from their strengths and weaknesses because “there are life-giving lessons written by the hand of Divine Providence on every page of history.

The chapters on Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all follow a similar outline they begin with a brief biography, the majority of the chapter is focused upon explaining the particular theme in their theology after which the chapters are entitled, and then the chapter concludes with a brief exhortation. The chapter titles and subsequent themes are “Sovereign Joy: The Liberating Power of Holy Pleasure in the Life and Thought of St. Augustine,” “Sacred Study: Martin Luther and the External Word,” and “The Divine Majesty of the Word John Calvin: The Man and His Preaching.”
The concluding chapter provides us with “four lessons from the lives of flawed saints” (143).

Evaluation

Strengths

One of the greatest strengths of this series is their brevity and clarity. Volumes on church history and biography are often so dry and cumbersome that their benefit to the Church is rarely felt. This series reverses that trend and presents the church with a profound opportunity to listen to and learn from these men.

I also appreciate Piper’s emphasis upon God’s grace over human achievement as he notes, “[this] is a book about grace, not only because the faithfulness of God triumphs over the flaws of me, but also because this was the very theme of their lives and work. Paired with this is his exploration of their weaknesses in hopes that we will learn from them; Piper does not view these men through rose-colored glasses.

Finally, this series is profoundly practical. Not only does Piper allow history to speak but he allows it to speak for our benefit and practical instruction. There is much in this volume for the pastor and his study but there is much the whole church can learn as well. Piper has written these volumes with a wider audience in mind and that is a great strength of this work.

Weaknesses

The only complaint I have about this volume is that while Luther’s language was certainly a weakness his position towards the Anabaptists, while briefly mentioned by Piper, proved to be, in my estimation, a far greater detriment to both Luther and the Reformation. Because of this I wish he had given this a lengthier treatment.

Conclusion

“By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks” (Hebrews 11:4). Though dead these men continue to speak, the swans are not silent; I pray that you will take the time to listen and be blessed by what they have to say.

Resources for Further Study

Books

• The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.  The Swans are not Silent Book One
• The Hidden Smile of God: The Fruit of Affliction in the Lives of John Bunyan, William Cowper, and David Brainerd.  The Swans are not Silent Book Two 
• The Roots of Endurance: Invincible Perseverance in the Lives of John Newton, Charles Simeon, and William Wilberforce.  The Swans are not Silent Book Three
• Contending For Our All: Defending Truth and Treasuring Christ in the Lives of Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen.  The Swans are not Silent Book Four
• Filling Up the Afflictions of Christ: The Cost of Bringing the Gospel to the Nations in the Lives of William Tyndale, Adoniram Judson, and John Paton.  The Swans are not Silent Book Five

Conference Messages

The Legacy of Sovereign Joy

• The Swan Is Not Silent: Sovereign Joy in the Life and Thought of St. Augustine (1998)
• Martin Luther: Lessons from His Life and Labor (1996)
• The Divine Majesty of the Word John Calvin: The Man and His Preaching (1997)

The Hidden Smile of God

• To Live Upon God that Is Invisible: Suffering and Service in the Life of John Bunyan (1999)
• Insanity and Spiritual Songs in the Soul of a Saint: Reflections on the Life of William Cowper (1992)
• Oh, That I May Never Loiter On My Heavenly Journey!  Reflections on the Life and Ministry of David Brainerd (1990)

The Roots of Endurance

• John Newton: The Tough Roots of His Habitual Tenderness (2001)
• Brothers, We Must Not Mind a Little Suffering: Meditations on the Life of Charles Simeon (1989)
• Peculiar Doctrines, Public Morals, and the Political Welfare: Reflections on the Life and Labor of William Wilberforce (2002)

Contending For Our All

• Contending for Our All: The Life and Ministry of Athanasius (2005)
• The Chief Design of My Life: Mortification and Universal Holiness: Reflections on the Life and Thought of John Owen (1994)
• J. Gresham Machen’s Response to Modernism (1993)

Filling Up the Afflictions of Christ

• Always Singing One Note—A Vernacular Bible: Why William Tyndale Lived and Died (2006)
• How Few There Are Who Die So Hard!  Suffering and Success in the Life of Adoniram Judson: The Cost of Bringing Christ to Burma (2003)
• You Will Be Eaten by Cannibals! Lessons from the Life of John G. Paton: Courage in the Cause of Missions (2000)

Other Biographical Messages by John Piper

• The Pastor as Theologian: Life and Ministry of Jonathan Edwards (1988)
• A Passion for Christ-Exalting Power: Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the Need for Revival and Baptism with the Holy Spirit (1991)
• Charles Spurgeon: Preaching Through Adversity (1995)
• George Mueller’s Strategy for Showing God: Simplicity of Faith, Sacred Scripture, and Satisfaction in God (2004)
• Holy Faith, Worthy Gospel, World Vision: Andrew Fuller’s Broadsides Against Sandemanianism, Hyper-Calvinism, and Global Unbelief (2007)
• Evangelist Bill Piper: Fundamentalist Full of Grace and Joy (2008)
• “I Will Not Be a Velvet-Mouthed Preacher!”  The Life and Ministry of George Whitefield: Living and Preaching as Though God Were Real (Because He Is) (2009)
• Lessons from an Inconsolable Soul: Learning from the Mind and Heart of C. S. Lewis (2010)

[As stated in my About, I want to tell the world about the Orthodox faith. Up to this point, my blogs have somewhat unorganized to do that. Now God has given me a more coorinated way to do that.  I will be sharing articles from the Orthodox Faith.  

This will be a long series, but I trust it will be profitable to you in learning about the Orthodox faith. From time to time, I will also provide addition blogs of interest.  – Herman Art]

Sixteeth Century

Russia during the Reign of Ivan the Terrible

In Russia, in the sixteenth century, the “third Rome” theory became apolitical reality. The monk Philotheus of Pskov informed the Muscovite Tsar Basil III (1505-1533) of his vision based on the book of Daniel that the Russian tsardom was to be the final earthly reign of God’s People. The first Rome had fallen through heresy. The second Rome, Constantinople, had fallen through sin. The third Rome, Moscow, was standing. There was to be no fourth Rome.

Tsar Ivan III the Terrible (1533-1584) established his reign on this foundation. He was crowned tsar in 1547 as the successor to the Byzantine emperor. He ruthlessly persecuted his enemies as he subjected both church and state to his personal control. Among Ivan’s many victims was Metropolitan Philip of Moscow. He was strangled by the tsar’s henchmen in 1568 for his open opposition to the actions of the mad ruler. Philip has since been canonized by the Church as a saint.

In 1547-1549 the Church of Russia formally canonized many saints from different parts of the country, utilizing the national veneration of these holy people – who were previously honored only locally – as a means toward national unification. In 1551, the Council of a Hundred Chapters – the Stoglav Sobor – further asserted the supremacy of Russian Orthodoxy over the other Eastern Orthodox churches.

After the Russian defeat of the Turks in Kazan in 1551, Ivan built the famous Church of St. Basil in the Moscow kremlin in honor of St Basil, the Mosocw fool for Christ (d.1552). This church building is known for its combination of Christian and Oriental styles.

During the early part of Ivan’s reign his spiritual father was the priest Sylvester. Many of Ivan’s early reforms were guided by this simple pastor. Sylvester was the main contributor to a book called Domostroi or Home-builder which taught Russian Christian families how they should arrange their lives according to the ritual and ethical practices of the Orthodox Church. The Domostroi was a very popular book which influenced generations of Russian families. Ivan exiled Sylvester in 1559.

Also during Ivan the Terrible’s reign, Metropolitan Makarii of Moscow (1542-1563) wrote twelve volumes called Monthly Readings. It was a vast collection of commentaries on the Bible, the lives of the saints, sermons, and other material for spiritual reading. At this time, the “non-possessor” Saint Maxim the Greek (d.1556) was imprisoned and tortured for his attempts to revise and correct the liturgical books of the Russian Church. Saint Gury (d.1563), the bishop of Kazan, was carrying on his mission among the Siberian tribes.

Russia during the Reign of Theodore

During the reign of Ivan’s son, Theodore, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremiah II, came to Moscow in quest of aid. The patriarchal church of Constantinople was under the power of the Turks. So, under the obvious pressures of that situation, the patriarch recognized the Muscovite bishop, Job, as the first Patriarch of All Russia in 1589. The installation document of the new patriarch was almost a repetition of the prophesy of Philotheus about Moscow as the third Rome. Thus the theory, which had become practice under Ivan III, was now officially affirmed by the highest prelate in the Orthodox Church. In 1593 the Russian Church received the approval of its status as a patriarchate from the bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch. Thus, it was officially recognized as the fifth in honor among the Orthodox patriarchates.

The Union of Brest-Litovsk

The sixteenth century saw the development of the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom on the Western boundary of Russia. By 1569 Poland and Lithuania had become one under Sigismund. The kingdom had taken segments of the Russian lands as far east as Kiev – territory populated almost exclusively by Orthodox Christians. Jesuits had entered this territory earlier, bringing Latin learning and practices. The result was the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596 through which the Orthodox bishops of the area effected a union with the Roman Church on the foundations agreed to in Florence a century earlier. The rites and customs of the Church for the masses of Orthodox faithful taken into the “unia” remained the same. The ecclesiastical hierarchy, clerical, and academic leadership of the Church was totally subjected to the Latin discipline and doctrine of the Roman papacy. This union of 1596 remained in effect in the territories which have continued to be ruled by non-Orthodox governments such as Poland, Austro-Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. From its inception, the uniate movement was always confronted with substantial opposition. Opposers were mainly Orthodox laymen who were organized into brotherhoods and blessed by Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople to defend the Orthodox faith, as early as 1588. In the beginning the anti-uniate movement was helped by the use of the printing press of Ivan Fedorov. This man was expelled from Muscovy with his “diabolical invention” by Ivan III.

The East

In the second half of the sixteenth century, the Eastern patriarchs were in contact with the Protestant reformers in the West. Josaphat II (1551-1565) sent representatives to Wittenberg and Tubingen. They returned highly displeased with what they found. Jeremiah II, after a careful study of the Augsburg Confession – which was sent to him for his inspection – soundly declared the Lutheran teachings to be heretical.

During this same period, Saints George and John the New (1526) were added to the Church’s list of saints for their martyrdom under the Moslems. Other Greek saints at this time were Saint Vissarion, Bishop of Larissa (d.1541) and Saint Philotheas of Athens (d.1589).

The West and the Protestant Reformation

The West in the sixteenth century went through the Protestant reformation and the counter-reformation of the Roman Church. Martin Luther (d.1545), John Calvin (d.1564) and Ulrich Zwingli (d.1545) led the reformation movement on the European continent. They attacked the practical abuses of the Roman Church as well as its official teachings. King Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church by the Act of Supremacy in 1534 and John Knox (d.1572) brought the Calvinist faith to Scotland.

The Roman Church held the Council of Trent (1561-1563) which officially formulated the doctrines of purgatory, indulgences, transubstantiation of bread and wine in the eucharist and other positions attacked and denied by the Protestants. The Protestant position is based on the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. The Bible is the sole churchly authority, interpreted directly by each believer under the inspiration of God. The sacramental life of the Church is reduced to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which is understood primarily as a memorial meal, in no sense a sacrifice. The Council of Trent reinforced the doctrines of the supremacy of the pope of Rome and the authority of the church hierarchy. Both these doctrines were main targets of the Protestant attack.

The West and the Counter-reformation

The Roman counter-reformation was led by the Jesuits. The Society of Jesus was founded in 1534 by Ignatius of Loyola (d.1556) for the specific purpose of defending the Roman papacy. Francis Xavier (d.1552) was the famous Jesuit missionary who reached the Far East during this period. The Dutch Jesuit, Peter Canisius (d.1597) led the counter-reformation in Germany, writing his famous Catechism which became a standard text of post-reformation Catholicism.

In Spain the mystical writers, Teresa of Avila (d.1582) and John of the Cross (d.1591) were leading the reform of the religious life of the Roman Church. In Geneva, the Roman bishop of the city, Francis de Sales (d.1622) was writing his works about the spiritual life. During this same time the artist Titian (d.1576) was painting and the musician Palestrina (d.1594) was producing his grandiose musical compositions which were used in the Roman Church.

http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=149

Here.

Are Sovereignty and Free Will opposites?

Those who are trained to think of God’s sovereignty in the Calvinistic sense insist that men have no free will. To think a man can choose to repent and follow Christ negates God’s sovereignty, they think. They think if a man can choose one way or the other, then that man has control rather than God.

If God is completely all powerful (sovereign), is He not then able to apportion a measure of control to his human subjects? I say that to deny God’s right to do so is to attack the sovereignty of God; it is to say that He is not able to control a universe unless He micromanages every decision of His subjects. The truth is that God is more sovereign than Calvinists think.

There are many biblical truths illustrated in life for our learning, if we are observant and careful to compare everything to the Word of God (so that we don’t stray from it in our reasonings.)  In using parables, Jesus Himself often used natural things to teach spiritual principles.

I believe the tension between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man can be seen in two examples in nature: natural parental sovereignty, and the synergism between God and man in growing crops.

Natural Parental Sovereignty

Let’s say I have 10 children. I might say to my children, “I want you to get your chores done on time. Please be obedient. If you get your chores finished on time, you will have dessert. If you don’t get them done on time, you will be denied any dessert at all.”I am completely in control of whether they get dessert or not. If I decide to give them ice cream, they will enjoy some ice cream–and if I decide they get no dessert, there is nothing they can do about it. Since I have all the power on my side (sovereignty), I could even go back on my word and deny them dessert even after they finish their chores in time–but for the sake of argument, in our example I am a loving and just parent/ruler (as God also is), and I will always keep my word.

As a good parent, I have a high purpose in teaching them to do what is right with diligence–my rules are not arbitrary. They may not understand the importance of finishing their chores on time; nevertheless they have a choice to make, and an obedience to fulfill. They will reap exactly what they sow, and what they sow is THEIR choice, not mine. I am not going to force them to do their chores; neither will I hinder their efforts to obey. They have freedom to choose to disobey (which is contrary to my will). But they are not free to choose to have the dessert ANYWAY if they disobey. If they disobey me, I will keep my word and allow them no dessert. That part has been “predestined,” if you will, by their parent. They are free to choose, but their free-will is limited by my sovereignty.

Suppose a child were to say, “My parents are sovereign, and it is their sovereign choice whether or not I get dessert. There is nothing I can do to change my future one way or the other. There is no point in my doing chores or anything else; everything has been decided for me.”  Or suppose a child were to examine the history of his siblings, and notice that a few were routinely getting dessert, while others were routinely denied dessert. Should he then decide that his parents have predestined some for dessert and others to go without dessert completely apart from anything they might do? Hopefully you see the folly of such thinking. Yet this is exactly what the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty declares about God’s relationship with men, and using this distorted view of sovereignty, many attempt to shirk the responsibilities God has given to men.

Application

God has made His will known–it is His will that all men repent of their sins and come to Him through faith in Jesus Christ. He desires men to love Him with all their hearts, and to love their neighbors as themselves (doing no evil to any man.) He has said that all men will be judged by their works (Matt. 16:27; Rev. 2:23; Rev. 20: 12-13), and will reap either death or everlasting life depending on what they “sow” in this life (Gal. 6:7-8).  We are free to choose whether we will sow to please our flesh or the Spirit of God (free will), but we are not free to choose a reward that is contrary to what we have sown–God  in His sovereignty will make absolutely sure that we reap according to how we have sown–He will not be mocked. We will get our just desserts.

Growing Crops

Nevertheless, God is the one who put life inside a seed. God is the one who sends rain, and the one who either sends or withholds bad weather. What happens beneath the soil is a wonderful miracle, and no farmer–no matter how brilliant or diligent–has control over what takes place there. No farmer can reap anything in a field God devastates by floods or other natural disasters. No farmer can grow anything apart from God, because God is in the process from beginning to end–He is the Author and Finisher. That is sovereignty.  

Now suppose a farmer were to say, “God is sovereign. It’s all up to God, so I will just sit here and watch good fruit appear in my garden all by itself.” We know that this would not happen–this foolish man would starve to death with his family! God has taught men to sow and expects them to do their part. “Doing their part” to cultivate the soil and plant good seed in no way steals glory from God; rather it honors God by properly stewarding the gifts God has given to men.  This is called synergism.    

Application:

In salvation, repentance is the plowing of the soil. Even good seed simply won’t grow in rocky, hard soil. Jesus said unless you repent you will perish (no repentance, no life). God does not command what a man has no power to do (that would make Him unjust.)

Faith in Jesus Christ is the receiving of the Good Seed (Jesus, the Word) into the soil.  Endurance or perseverance must happen next, as Jesus taught you must not only hear the Word, but keep it and “bring forth fruit with patience.” (Luke 8:15)  

While God is both the Author and Finisher of Salvation/Eternal life (as He also is the creator of the life in the seed, and the one who controls the weather in our former example), He still commands our participation in the salvation He offers. He allows us to CHOOSE whether we will:  

-Repent (plow),
-Believe (receive the Seed), and 
-Endure (bring forth fruit with patience).  

We are told that we have a choice to sow to please the Spirit or sow to please the flesh (Gal. 6:7-9). Please note in this verse that the CONSEQUENCES of this sowing are out of our control, though the sowing itself is in our control. We will reap “destruction” or “life everlasting” depending on what we CHOOSE to sow. (Everlasting life is at stake here, friends, not just heavenly rewards.) We can choose to sow to our flesh, but we are not free to still reap everlasting life if we do so. “Be not deceived . God is not mocked. WHATEVER a man sows [by his own choice] that shall he also reap.”  

“Whatever a man sows…” denotes free will choice.
“That shall he also reap.” denotes God’s sovereign and predetermined decision to give to every man according to his works (Matt. 16:27; Rev. 2:23; Rev. 20: 12-13.)

God bless you!

“I pray the Lord to keep you in His holy protection, and so to direct you that you may not go astray in that slippery path whereon you are, until He shall have manifested to you His complete deliverance.”

This is an interesting note for a Calvinist.

John Calvin is believed to have written the above in a letter dated 1/31/1538.  He was born 7/10/1509 at Noyon, Picardy, France.  He died 5/27/1564 at Geneva, Switzerland.

Unitarians, as far as I can tell, don’t believe in miracles.  At least, they don’t believe in the kinds of miracles recorded in the Bible, including Christ’s Virgin Birth and resurrection.

However, while spending a bit of time exploring the beliefs and practices of Unitarians, I came across a rather extraordinary statement which, if true, would certainly have to be regarded as evidence for the miraculous.

I was reading the transcript of a sermon recently preached by Unitarian minister Rev Sarah Tinker.  The sermon caught my eye, because its subject is ‘Unitarian Views of Jesus.’

In the course of her address, Rev Tinker played around with various ideas about the historical Jesus: maybe he didn’t even exist; or, if he did exist, maybe only 20% of the words attributed to him in the Gospels are actually authentic.

Rev Tinker went on to inform her hearers that modern Unitarianism has precursors in the teaching of Arius (3rd century CE) and Faustus Socinus (16th century).  Regarding the latter,

Socinus ‘taught that Jesus was fully human and saved people, not through atonement through his death on the cross, but by teaching people how best to live through his life and example.’

Next comes the following assertion:-

Socinus lost his life for this heresy – burnt at the stake in Geneva by Calvin.

If this were true, it would constitute a rather remarkable miracle.  Because Faustus Socinus died of ‘natural causes’, some 30 miles from Cracow in Poland, in 1604, forty years after Calvin died!

Seriously, though, such an elementary factual error doesn’t incline me to take very seriously Rev Tinker’s opinions about the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ.

[See the relevant entries in Dictionary of the Christian Church (ed F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone), Hendrickson.]

“The second requirement of our reconciliation with God was this: that man, who by his disobedience had become lost, should by way of remedy counter it with obedience, satisfy God’s judgment, and pay the penalties for sin.  Accordingly, our Lord came forth as true man and took the person and the name of Adam in order to take Adam’s place in obeying the Father, to present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to God’s righteous judgment, and, in the same flesh to pay the penalty we had deserved.”  Institutes 2.12.3

Transcript of the Intro:

Ken Silva: In AD  1517, Protestant Reformation was begining.

The Pope: What happen ?

Cardinal: Somebody set up us the Church Door.

Bishop: We get 95 theses. The Pope: What !

Bishop: Main thing turn on.

The Pope: It’s you !!

LUTHER: How are you gentlemen !!

 LUTHER: All your Papacy are belong to us.

LUTHER: You are on the way to destruction.

The Pope: What you say !!

LUTHER: You have no chance to survive make your time.

LUTHER: Ha Ha Ha Ha ….

Bishop: Pope!! 

The Pope: Take off every ‘IquiZig’!!

The Pope: You know what you doing.

The Pope: Move ‘InquiZig’.

The Pope: For Counter-Reformation.

Brian McLaren’s worthless book:

Our Book—Priceless:

Just like we were not happy with Brian McLaren’s book A Generous Orthodoxy….we are not happy with his new  book either….eventhough it is yet released….We Know it is full of heresy especially because we are a discernmentalist ministry and stand for true Absolute biblical truth. This is why we’ve gotten John MacArthur and Todd Friel to write our version of  his new book before it even comes out after using Eric Barger’s time machine to spot all the heresy in Brian’s book .

Also, you may have heard of this phrase from the Reformation: “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda—The Church should be reformed and always reforming.” Well using Eric Barger’s time machine again—we’ve found that  none of the Reformers said that. This is why we must oppose Brian’s new book with a Holy Angry Passion as those Emergents are always trying to reform our Absolute Truth, our Pure Churches and our Pure Doctrines. We also believe that Reformed Emergent/Emerging House Churches do not exist. Reformed  and Emergent  are oxymorons as Ken Silva teaches therefore there are no such creatures as Reformed Emergents because Ken Silva is always right. This is always why we stand by our reformatted Reformation motto: “Semper 1600’s—Always 1600’s always”—that’s right because we’ve discovered all the Truth we need to know about God in the 1600’s. There is nothing else about God that needs to be revealed to us—the Reformers and the King James Bible revealed everything about God to us—so we must always stay in the 1600’s and think like they did in the 1600’s as well.

Dr. Don Jobson, Dr. Truthslayer and Dr. I. Todyaso—Sola 1600’s (1600’s alone).