The ThirtyNine Articles: 6-8, Holy Scripture and the Creeds

In this next section, the 39 articles turn to scripture as the sole volume of information sufficient for salvation.  A very important distinction should be made at this point.  The scripture is not intended to reveal all things about all subjects.  God does keep some of His secrets to Himself.  What it does mean is that all of the information required for salvation is contained within scripture.

VI. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation.

Holy Scripture  contains  all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite as necessary to salvation.

   In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. 

   Of the names and number of the Canonical Books. 

Genesis.  Exodus.  Leviticus.  Numbers.  Deuteronomy.  Joshua.  Judges.  Ruth. 
The .1. book of Samuel.  The .2. book of Samuel.
The .1. book of Kings.  The .2. book of Kings.
The .1. book of Chronicles.  The .2. book of Chronicles.
The .1. book of Esdras.  The .2. book of Esdras.
The book of Hester.  The book of  Job.  The Psalms.  The Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes. or preacher.  Cantica, or songs of Solomon.
4. Prophets the greater.  12. Prophets the lesser. 

   And the other books, (as Jerome said) the Church does read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet does it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following. 

The third book of Esdras. The fourth book of Esdras. The book of Tobias. The book of Judith. The rest of the book of Hester. The book of Wisdom. Jesus the son of Sarah. Baruch, the prophet. Song of the .3. Children. The stone of Susanna. Of Bel and the Dragon. The prayer of Manasses. The .1. book of Machab. The .2. book of Macha. 

   All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and accept them for Canonical. 

It is not my purpose to review the arguments for the Canon.  There are a couple of basic principles that can be applied.  First, the author of a particular New Testament book must either be within the original twelve, or a first circle around those twelve, such were Luke and Paul.  Clearly, other documents existed from these same sources that are not included in the Canon for whatever reason.  Some were lost to antiquity.  Some were deemed to be superfluous duplications of other Canonical material.  Still others were felt to be of dubious authorship and authority.  The point for me is that there is a specific Canon spelled out here. 

VII. Of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard in a manner that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof, ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth:  yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever, is free from the obedience of the commandments, which are called moral.

The first sentence here is absolutely huge.  The Church of England states unequivocally an adherence to a Christocentric hermeneutic.  It goes on to say that the rabbinical law does not apply, but that the Decalogue, which is moral law, is absolutely binding.  While there is nothing particularly earth shattering about the second portion, there is our first infusion of the political structure of man in this section.  The idea of commonwealth is a worldly discussion of manmade political divisions.  While no distinction is drawn in this article, it is interesting that there is being made a distinction between the theocracy of ancient Israel and the absence of rabbinical law under the New Covenant of Grace.  And at the same time, the Old Testament still informs us about Jesus.  This is truly remarkable and a good lesson for dispensationalists who came to prominence three to four centuries hence. 

VIII. Of the three Creeds.

The three Creeds: Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

Going back to the previous post on the issue of the Creeds and article 3, we have to question whether Holy Scripture does in fact support all of the components of the Creeds.  Certainly, the Nicene Creed seems to hold up better from our first inspection, but what of the rest of these creeds.  On the right column near the bottom are my favorite reference websites.  CRTA contains all of the creeds in a link on the left column of its home page called Historic Church Documents.  On that page, the creeds are at the top.

The first 27 points of the Athanasian Creed have to do with the Trinity.  The next several through 39 have to do with Christ.  40-42 are much to discuss.  40 talks about rising with our bodies.  I’ve often wondered about this section.  First, we know that some of the early martyrs were dismembered and taken asunder.  Others were burned at the stake.  Surely, this resurrection body can account for this dishonoring of the body.  When we say that we believe in a resurrected body, and the first example is an empty tomb, these parts must be gathered and reunited and healed.  I’m not taking issue with this, but rather I’m pointing out the extent of what this must mean.

However, 41-42 are more controversial.  These sound on the surface as a statement of works righteousness.  I don’t think that anyone would argue that righteousness at Judgment is based upon works, only it is the works of Jesus that matter to us, His elect.  But, this is the end of the creed.  Dangling the works righteousness theology at the end of the creed without any grounding in the vicarious nature of the atonement seems at odds with the next section of the 39 articles, wherein the Pelagian heresy is directly confronted.  This is a particularly difficult section and it would be of interest to hear where thoughts on this creed went during the Reformation.  It’s inclusion in so many of the Reformation documents remains incredible to me based upon this last section.

In the next post, we will be tackling articles 9-14, concerning sin, free will, justification and works.  In other words, the next post will cover the meat of the Gospel.

--Troll--

The ThirtyNine Articles: 1-5, the Trinity

The first five articles have to do with the Trinity.  They are direct historical refuting of the Arian heresy.  Article 3 is the most interesting on its own merit, and one to which I will take a contrary position.  But these 5 articles make a good start to the discussion.

I. Of faith in the holy Trinity.

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The first half seems straightforward on its surface.  But there is the common error of assuming that the one living and true God is the Father.  This is clearly NOT what is being said here.  The one true God is the Triune God, the Godhead being the Three in One.  The issue of one substance is very important and relates to the issue of Perichoresis that was discussed a couple of posts ago.  The main issue is that when we speak of One God, we are speaking of the Triune God, not specifically the Father unless the context of the passage in question demands such of the term.  This idea is of particular interest when applied to the Old Testament.  Often Christians will forget that Jesus, as Wholly God, was present and participated in all that transpired in that era of redemptive history.  He was, is and every will be fully God and fully part of the Trinity.

II. Of the word or son of God which was made very man.

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal GOD, of one substance with the father; He took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very GOD and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried, to reconcile his father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

Right out of the gate, we are simultaneously at Genesis 1:1 and at John 1:1.  This section deals with the idea of hypostatic union, wherein Jesus is both fully God and fully man.  The importance of Jesus being born into mankind as an infant is sometimes lost.  By entering the world as an infant, Jesus became fully man, in all parts as man.  There is no part of the experience and reality that is to be human that Jesus missed.  Therefore, Jesus is able to be a completely sufficient sacrifice for man that redeems all parts of humanity.  It cannot be said that man’s will, or man’s childhood, or any part of the life of man, or of his being, is excluded from the sufficiency of Christ.  This is a huge point.  That is what is meant by the two whole and perfect natures.  Perfect means both that Jesus was perfect in His human nature, but also that Jesus was perfectly whole in His human nature.  Simultaneously, He was Wholly and Perfectly God.

The last portion talks about the atonement.  Notice that both parts of the propitiating atonement are specifically mentioned.  Never should an Anglican church that holds to these articles edit from the scripture the word propitiation.  The purpose of the resurrection was to reconcile His Father to us.  That idea is huge.  Jesus causes His Father to be reconciled to us.  Without a full understanding of original sin, perhaps the depth of that problem is not obvious.  Luckily, the 39 Articles will go into original sin later.  In addition to reconciliation, the resurrection is a sacrifice, not only for original guilt or original sin, but also for all actual sins of men.  This statement declares that we believe in the complete sufficiency of the resurrection for all sin.  Another absolutely huge doctrinal statement comes forth right out of the gate.  Although article 2 does not state it here explicitly, this is the idea of the perfect and sufficient sacrifice that is discussed elsewhere.

III. Of the going down of Christ into hell.

As Christ died for us, and was buried: so also it is to be believed that he went down into hell.

Here we will have to say that there is much disagreement.  Many Christians do actually believe the second half of this statement.  I, along with many of the reformed, do not agree that Christ ever entered Hell.  The idea that Christ would enter Hell does great damage to Christian theology, is unnecessary according to the scripture, and is counterintuitive.  Let’s go through the applicable passages of the Gospels.

Here are the passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  There is no mention of hell.  In fact, the comments made by Jesus repeatedly talk of death, but there is never talk of Hell.  The sign of Jonah that Jesus mentions is that like Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale, He would spend three days in the belly of the earth.  But this is not Hell.  In any passage of the New Testament that deals with Hell, the reference to Jesus is always in terms of the One who passages judgment.  There is never a mention of His actually having gone there.

The descent that is discussed in the Nicene Creed is a descent or condescension of Jesus as God to become wholly man.  This descent is not required in any formation of theology to require His further descent into Hell.  The other two creeds, the Apostles and Athanasian Creeds, do specifically mention a descent into hell.  This point has been discussed in great detail over the centuries,

Calvin in his Institutes did specifically argue for the descent of Christ into Hell.  It is interesting that his arguments are actually from the creeds as opposed to from the scripture.  In this most unlike Calvin moment, he veers from his position of Sola Scriptura arguing a very Catholic argument that because it appears in some of the creeds, the word hell is an elaboration or explanation of the word death.  Theologically, not only is this not necessary, but I agree with others that this is counterintuitive. 

Calvin further argues that Christ’s descent into hell is required to fulfill the complete redemption of mankind.  Not only is this incorrect, this is a good springboard to a better conclusion.  The wage of sin is death to be sure, and all men will pay this price ultimately.  But this does not require that all men descend into hell in order to receive salvation.  On the contrary, as Christ was the Firstborn of the New Covenant in the Age to come, so too was he also not condemned to Hell.  He entered death and was resurrected, saving Himself and all whom He would elect from Hell into everlasting life.  Therefore, as we do not enter into Hell as believers, and because we follow Christ, not only figuratively, but quite literally, we should not expect that Jesus ever entered Hell.  We should, in fact, believe that Jesus’ victory over death was to deny Hell, not only of Himself, but also all of His elect.

IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ.

Christ did truly arise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sits, until he returns to judge all men at the last day.

We clearly get a glimpse at Christ’s resurrected body and its nature as citizen of the Age to Come.  Jesus sits down in the upper chamber with His Apostles and He eats food.  But while we believe that this is a real and resurrected Body, there are just as clearly aspects of this Body that are not human in nature.  We can begin with Its victory over death, a feat never accomplished by another human body.  Can we call the resurrected body of perfected humanity that we will inherit on the last day equivalent to this Body of Jesus revealed to the Apostles?  That, I believe is what is meant in this passage.

V. Of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the father and the son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the father and the son, very and eternal God.

Perichoresis and the relationship between the parts of the Trinity is exactly what is being described in this article.  Just as Jesus is One with the Father, the Holy Spirit is One with both the Father and the Son.  While each is distinct in their roles in redemptive history, each is of the same essence with the others.  We should never expect One person of the Trinity to act in a way that contradicts one of the other parts.  That would be to act in opposition to one’s self.  That idea would surely contradict our conception of the perfection and Holiness of God.

In the next post, I will discuss articles 6 and 7 concerning scripture, before returning to the Creeds.

--Troll--

The ThirtyNine Articles: Document (1572)

As the Reformation swept across Europe in the sixteenth century, England was not spared.  The 39 Articles are the confession of faith of the Church of England .  They have some peculiarities that are due to the political realities of the time.  Interestingly, the Episcopal Church USA still holds to the 39 articles, at least on paper.  The old English is hard to read, so I have tried to faithfully update the language.  In this post, I’ve listed the articles.  In the next few posts, I will go over the highlights and important doctrines.

--Troll--

I. Of faith in the holy Trinity.

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost.

II. Of the word or son of God which was made very man.

The Son, which is the word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal GOD, of one substance with the father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very GOD and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried, to reconcile his father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

III. Of the going down of Christ into hell.

As Christ died for us, and was buried: so also it is to be believed that he went down into hell.

IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ.

Christ did truly arise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sits, until he returns to judge all men at the last day.

V. Of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the father and the son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the father and the son, very and eternal God.

VI. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation.

Holy Scripture  contains  all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite as necessary to salvation.

   In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. 

Of the names and number of the Canonical Books. 

Genesis.  Exodus.  Leviticus.  Numbers.  Deuteronomy.  Joshua.  Judges.  Ruth. 
The .1. book of Samuel.  The .2. book of Samuel.
The .1. book of Kings.  The .2. book of Kings.
The .1. book of Chronicles.  The .2. book of Chronicles.
The .1. book of Esdras.  The .2. book of Esdras.
The book of Hester.  The book of  Job.  The Psalms.  The Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes. or preacher.  Cantica, or songs of Solomon.
4. Prophets the greater.  12. Prophets the lesser. 

   And the other books, (as Jerome said) the Church does read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet does it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following. 

The third book of Esdras. The fourth book of Esdras. The book of Tobias. The book of Judith. The rest of the book of Hester. The book of Wisdom. Jesus the son of Sarah. Baruch, the prophet. Song of the .3. Children. The stone of Susanna. Of Bel and the Dragon. The prayer of Manasses. The .1. book of Machab. The .2. book of Macha. 

   All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and accept them for Canonical. 

VII. Of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard in a manner that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof, ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth:  yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever, is free from the obedience of the commandments, which are called moral.

VIII. Of the three Creeds.

The three Creeds: Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

IX. Of original or birth sin. 

Original sin stands not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusts always contrary to the spirit, and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserves God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature does remain, yea in them that are re­generated; whereby the lust of the flesh called in Greek fronema sarkos (which some do expound, the wisdom, some sensuality, some the desire of the flesh) is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle does confess that con­cupiscence and lust has of itself the nature of sin.

X.  Of free Will.

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God: 

Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and accept­able to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

XI. Of the justification of man.

We are accepted righteous before God, only for the merits of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of justification.

XII. Of good works.

Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of Gods judgment:  yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and holy faith, in so much that by them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit.

XIII. Of works before justification.

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the scholar authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather for that they are not done as GOD has willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

XIV. Of works of supererogation.

Voluntary works besides, over and above Gods commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogance and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake then of bounden duty is required: Whereas Christ says plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We be unprofitable servants.

XV. Of Christ alone without sin. 

Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things (sin only except) from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the lamb without spot, who by the sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin, (as S. John said) was not in him. But all we the rest, (although baptized, and born again in Christ) yet offend in many things, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not is us.

XVI. Of sin after Baptism.

Not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism, is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God (we may) arise again and amend our lives. And therefore, they are to be condemned, which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

XVII. Of predestination and election.

Predestination to life, is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby {before the foundations of the world were laid) he has constantly decreed by his council secrete to us, to demure from curse and damnation, those whom he has chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by his spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of his only begotten son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works, and at length by god’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. 

   As the Godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of  the spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing Up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it does greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it does fervently kindle their life towards God; So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of Gods predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil does thrust them either into desperation, or into recklessness of most unclean living, no less perilous then desperation. 

   Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they are generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture; and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.

XVIII. Of obtaining eternal salvation, only by the name of Christ.

They also are to be had accursed, that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professes, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture does set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

XIX. Of the Church.

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according  to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. 

   As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome has erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

XX. Of the authority of the Church.

The Church has power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith; And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church is a witness and a keeper of holy writ; yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same, ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for the necessity of salvation.

XXI. Of the authority of general Counsels.

General Counsels may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.  Wherefore, things ordained by them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

XXII. Of Purgatory.

The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshiping and adoration as well of images, as of relics, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.

XXIII. Of ministering in the congregation.

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

XXIV. Of speaking in the congregation, in such a tongue as the people understand.

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God, and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understood by the people.

XXV. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ, be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession; but rather they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by which he does work invisibly in us, and does not only quicken, but also strengthens and confirms our faith in him. 

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. 

   Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be computed for Sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. 

   The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be guessed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only, as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; But they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul says.

XXVI. Of the unworthiness of the ministers, which hinder not the effect of the Sacraments.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief action in the ministration of the word and Sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not do the same in their own name but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. 

   Nevertheless, it appertains to the discipline of the Church, that enquiry is made of evil ministers, and that they are accused by those that have knowledge of their offences: and finally being found guilty by just judgment, are deposed.

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened:  but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby as by an instru­ment, they that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church:  the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the holy ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed; and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.  The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the life that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another: but rather it is a Sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death. Insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing, is a partaking of the blood of Christ. 

   Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of scripture, overthrows the nature of a Sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions. 

   The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner: And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith. 

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

XXIX. Of the wicked which do not eat the body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.

The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine says) the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: yet in no wise are the partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

XXX. Of both kinds.

The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people. For both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

XXXI. Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The offering of Christ once made, is the perfect redemption, propitiation, satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in which it was commonly said that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead; to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

XXXII. Of the marriage of Priests.

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s law either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

XXXIII. Of excommunicate persons, how they are to be avoided.

That person which by open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church,  and  excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a judge that has authority thereto.

XXXIV. Of the traditions of the Church.

It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like, for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to  the  diversity  of Countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s word. Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely does openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that other may fear to do the like) as he that offends against the Common order of the Church, and hurts the authority of the Magistrate, and wounds the consciences of the weak brethren. 

   Every particular or national Church has authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

XXXV. Of Homilies.

The second book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this article, does contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as does the former book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the sixth: and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently, and distinctly, that they may be understood of the people. 

Of the names of the Homilies. 

1 Of the right use of the Church.
2 Against peril of Idolatry.
3 Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches.
4 Of good works, first of fasting.
5 Against gluttony and drunkenness.
6 Against excess of apparel.
7 Of prayer.
8 Of the place and time of prayer.
9 That common prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue.
10 of the reverent estimation of God’s word,
11 of alms doing.
12 of the Nativity of Christ.
13 of the passion of Christ.
14 of the resurrection of Christ.
15 of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.
16 of the gifts of the holy ghost.
17 For the Rogation days.
18 of the state of Matrimony.
19 of repentance.
20 Against Idleness.
21 Against rebellion. 

XXXVI. Of consecration of Bishops and ministers.

The book of Consecration of Archbishops, and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, does contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering:  neither has it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore, whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the afore named king Edward, unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrates.

The Queen’s Majesty has the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes does appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction. 

Where we attribute to the Queen’s Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended: we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's word, or of Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, does most plainly testify: But that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers. 

   The bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this Realm of England. 

   The laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences. 

   It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magis­trate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

XXXVIII. Of Christian men’s goods, which are not common.

The riches and goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding every man ought of such things as he possesses, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

XXXIX. Of a Christian man’s oath.

As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle:  So we judge that Christian religion does not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requires, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the prophets teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 5

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 5 The BioLogos Forum

Oh, good grief. Now, he is promising part 6. I'm almost sorry I started following this feature. Hopefully, we will have some conclusions to discuss soon. My apologies in advance to anyone who is trying to follow this guy.

--Ogre--

Tradition in our Pews

“Bless this food to our bodies. Amen”

I grew up saying this prayer right before dinner. Luckily, punishment was mild if caught sneaking food before the prayer. That just meant you were the one who had to pray. (This is a lot of pressure when you’re a kid, but nevertheless, no real harm done.)

Millions probably say a similar type of prayer dinner. It’s tradition. It’s just what you do, right?  When I think about it, I pray that the greasy pizza is going to bless my body, but in reality, I know it really won’t. Less saturated fat please. So I guess I’m not really praying, just acting out what I’ve been taught.  And in this case, it’s harmless.  But what’s scary is that this same human pattern can get us into big trouble. Tradition for tradition’s sake.   It’s just the way things are done.  Being completely blinded to truth, honoring tradition instead of the Lord.

Jesus’ warnings of keeping empty traditions are very real in the gospels. Over the past two days, these scriptures keep finding me. So here they are….

“This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men – the washing of the pictures and cups, and many other such things you do. All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” Mark 7:6-9

“Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” – Matt. 15:6

Yikes.

I’m fine with saying grace before dinner, but today I’m very aware of the ease of mistaking our traditions for “God’s will”, and missing out on God’s will all along.

I borrowed this story from a note written last week.  Here is another story. 

I was discussing forgiveness of sin with my Bible study group.  Have you noticed that in every service on every Sunday, there is a prayer of confession that is followed by an absolution by the priest?  This is done for a reason.  We need forgiveness of our sin and God provides it.  We live in a tension between being citizens of this age and the age to come, simultaneously sinners and transformed.  Because we are aware of this tension, we recognize our imperfections and continually repent throughout our Christian lives.

The first comment about this was that one person needed more forgiveness, from friends and other people, than he felt was offered through the absolution of the priest.  This part of the service was just not sufficient for him.  There had to be more than just a prayer and an absolution.

These two stories are very similar.  There is clearly a disconnection between rote responses and the theology behind them.  In the first story, the writer clearly recognizes the problem and equates the rote behavior with Law.  In the second story, the second man not only does not recognize the problem, but insists that there is no problem by running away from the issue to a human solution.  There have been several solutions to this disconnection problem proposed, and I would like to address two of them, the second being the model of what Paul always did in these situations. 

The first solution that is often proposed is that the rote practices are a part of the rabbinical law that was eliminated by Jesus.  Since we cannot ground the responses, they must not have any value any longer.  Before going in this direction, we should first discuss whether these types of rote responses are indeed the sort of behaviors referenced by Jesus in passages above or something else.  In the first example, the question is whether a prayer over dinner is Biblically correct in terms of the New Covenant.  In the second example, the question is whether a prayer of repentance that exists within the context of a service is sufficient for the forgiveness of sin. 

The prayer at meals seems to be specifically authorized by Jesus at the last supper.  However, the writer makes a very good point.  Blessing the pizza is probably not what Jesus had in mind.  As you may recall, Jesus was more interested in our remembrance of Him than in whether or not our pizza had too much saturated fat.  So, we can say that the recognition of a problem was spot on, but perhaps the diagnosis was off the mark.  Is prayer at meal time a part of rabbinical law?  Clearly, the type and shadow of this behavior is the Seder meal at Passover as set out in Leviticus.  The question becomes one of whether Holy Communion is the fulfillment of that type and shadow and whether prayer over a meal is therefore Judaizing.  That is harsh criticism it would seem to me, but it is at least worthy of discussion.

In the second example, the issue is whether the confession of sin in the house of the Lord followed by the absolution administered by the priest or pastor as the worldly representative of Christ is sufficient to do what it says that it is doing.  The doctrine in this example is completely disconnected from the prayer.  The second man does not understand the doctrine behind the prayer and absolution, and therefore he cannot take solace in these events.  Is this doctrine a part of rabbinical law?  In this case, it would be very hard to argue that point.  Jesus was in the business of forgiving sin.  He authorized his apostles to do the same.  Subsequently, elders and others were given this calling.  The problem is not rabbinical law in this case, but a lack of understanding of the system that Jesus created.

A second solution, and a better solution in my mind, is to reconnect the action to the doctrine.  All imperatives absolutely must be grounded in the indicative, or they will only turn into Law, and Law only convicts when it is not grounded in the Gospel.  The second story bothers me far more, so let’s work it out in terms of the Law and Gospel distinction and see if we can try to reconnect the rote actions to the doctrine.

The purpose of worship is to glorify God.  I don’t’ think anyone will argue this point very much.  The issue becomes one of deciding on how to go about worship.  The doctrines that cause the components of a Eucharistic service and the order of those components come directly from the story of redemptive history as revealed in the Bible.  The doctrines line up and spell out what should happen and in what order.  The first doctrine that is important is that God is Holy.  We seem to take that for granted.  If you believe that God is the creator, regardless of how He did it, you have to believe that God is infinitely Holy as well.  The role of the creature is to worship the creator.  This was basically the only thing that was expected of Adam.  After the fall, God has to work out a rescue mission for His creatures.  His creatures have offended His infinitely just nature, and the only possible outcome is death.  This idea of original sin is so completely lost that it needs a bit more work in this brief outline.

I have already posted for your reading pleasure, Jonathon Edwards’ sermon on the Wrath of God, but I wanted to expound on the condition of sin.  We often think that our own individual sin is all that really matters.  We consider that Adam’s sin couldn’t possibly be imputed to us.  We don’t think it would be just.  Our idea of just may make some sense in a civil context, but the Bible is quite clear on what the condition of sin from Adam has done to man.  We are all dead in sin from the moment of our conception.  God knew we would be born and so we were even in sin before the moment of our parents’ conceptions.  Our situation is already dire.  This does not require that we actually do anything particularly horrible.  This situation requires a rescue, and God has that worked out already.

Next, God gives man the Law, in the form of the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments.  He spells out the types and shadows for a temple, a priesthood, a second type of sacrifice, and He establishes a royal lineage.  He gave prophets who tell of a coming King, a messiah who will be prophet, priest and king, all three in one.  Jesus comes into the world and becomes the perfect sacrifice, sufficient for the sin of the whole world.  But His sacrifice is only efficient for the sin of His chosen people.  This elect is not at first clear, but the prophets hint at the vastness of the number and that they will come from far off, presumably in both space and time.  He sends the second Paraclete, the Holy Spirit to round up His sheep.

Here is the key.  How does salvation work?  The answers to the parts of the Eucharist are given in the answers to salvation.  This is what we call the Gospel.  The Gospel is the Good News of the Salvation plan.  So, what is that plan?  Paul tells us that we are all evil and would never take the first step.  How, then, can we get started?  We don’t.  That is the key.  The Holy Spirit gives us the gift of belief.  Our first reaction to the touch of the Holy Spirit is to realize the Awesome Holiness of God.  The second reaction is to realize the depth of our despair due to sin.  Next, we repent our sin and receive absolution through Baptism.  Upon entering into the Covenant community, we hear the Word, we hear the Word preached, we receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion.  Notice that all of our steps to justification occur because the Holy Spirit enables us to do it.  We receive the gift of that ability to recognize our sin and ask forgiveness.  Then in sanctification, it is all about receiving again.  Be still, listen and receive.  Ps 46:10.

OK, now let’s go through a Eucharist.  The service begins with an invocation.  This is where we ask God to be present.  We, as a group of believers gathered together, call His name.  The manner of invocation is in the form of praise.  We are not demanding His presence.  We are in His house and we are praising His name.  Next, we confess our sins, and then receive absolution from the priest or pastor.  We then pray for the whole world.  Next, the Word is read to us.  Then the Word is preached to us.  Then we have the prayer of consecration.  Then we receive communion.  Then we are given a blessing and our marching orders for the week.

Did you notice how the service mirrors the initial sequence of transformation?  Then, the parts of sanctification are spelled out clearly in the service.  The service has been thoughtfully laid out as a renewal of our faith and an opportunity to receive God’s grace.  Our part is to show up and receive.  God is the divine waiter who serves His Grace to us.  He gives us everything that is necessary and sufficient for our salvation.  And this is the point I would make to the second man in the second story.  God’s Grace is sufficient even for you.  My question is why you would believe that it is not sufficient for you.  There is really a limited range of possibilities.  You might not understand the faith yet.  You might understand, but not believe.  No man can give you this belief; that is the power of the Holy Spirit.

One final issue, how did we get into this situation?  The blame must fall squarely on the shoulders of our priests and pastors.  If catechesis still exists in some churches, it is the last and only time lay people are taught this sort of thing.  There is an assumption that we know the doctrine and that we know the role of each part of the service.  Clearly, this assumption is faulty.   The solution to this problem is catechesis.  We need to be taught the doctrine that makes up the faith and we need to be taught the reasons for the words that we recite.  We need a return to the Reformation.  Luther told Pope Leo that there had been many calls for reformation before him and many would come after him.  But the Catholic Church would remember Luther, because while the other calls for reformation were all about morals and deeds, Luther was about reforming doctrines and understanding creeds.  When what is lost is the understanding of doctrines and the importance of the creeds, what type of reformation do we really need today?

What did Paul say to the church in Rome?  I know you are having problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  What did Paul say to Corinth?  I know that you are having problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  What did Paul say to Galatia?  I know that you are having problems, and this particular problem makes me furious, so let's talk about doctrine.  To Philippi, to Ephesus, to Thessalonia?  I know you are having some problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  That was Paul's solution.  I think it would work well here and now.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 4

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 4 | The BioLogos Forum

The meat of the topic is finally upon us. But in true hyperblogging style, this is still not the last post of the series. I'll try to keep it quiet for one more round.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 3

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 3 | The BioLogos Forum

It is clear that this guy intends to go on for at least one more post after this one. I'm biting my tongue, and a hole is developing. I'll try to wait for the last post.

--Ogre--

Building Blocks: Trinity: word study

I was speaking with my priest and friend about the Trinity last week, and the issue of the third person of the Trinity became the topic. (Yes, such conversations do happen in the real world, and yes, this really did happen.) And so, he says that I should look up the word perichoresis, a concept that he feels describes the Biblical view of the church of the Trinity.  The concept of the Trinity is Biblical, is confirmed by the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in the third century, so that all Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Reformed will agree with the concept.  Perichoresis is developed more fully in the early eighth century, in an attempt to better describe the interactions of the persons of the Trinity with each other.  Of course, there will be the theological children of Kant, Kierkegaard, Finney and Wesley with which to contend, but the historical church at least can get behind this doctrine.  And so, I looked it up.

Perichoresis is a word that describes the relationship between the three parts of the Trinity.  If we start from its opposite, that is much easier to understand, and then turn that on its head, we will get to this concept.  We need first to define some terms.  The first term is ousias, which is Greek and means natural essence.  In Jesus we have a person who is of two essences, both fully human and fully God.  This concept of two essences in one person is called hypostatic union.  Another related term is co-inherence, where two essences coinhere in the one person of Christ.

Now, for the reverse, if there is one essence called God, then He exists as three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The word perichoresis is literally a cleaving together, so that the three are cleaved together as one.  Since each is of the same substance or same essence as the other two, they would be expected to act in concordance with each other, which is what scripture suggests.

John 17 starts to unfold this relationship of the Father and Son for us in Jesus’ prayer for His elect.  21 …that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.  In this passage, we have the Father and Son in each other, and Jesus prays to incorporate His elect into this relationship. 

Moving to Matthew 28:19, the Great Commission, we are to go forth and Baptize in the name of the Trinity.  Jesus uses the phrase “in the name of” which is an Old Testament phrase that invokes God.  By listing all three together, Jesus is saying that all three parts of the Trinity are God.  In the same way that the Old Testament views God as a single person, the fullness of the Trinity is revealed by Jesus in the New Covenant.  The name of God is a big deal to Old Testament Jews.  Jesus invokes this name of God concept to include Himself and the Holy Spirit.  This would have been just incredible to hear for the first time as first century Jews.

What does Jesus say about this third part of the Trinity?  Let’s go again to John 16.  Jesus must leave so that the third person of the Trinity can come.  And when He comes, His role will be to convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.  Why would this be the concern of the Holy Spirit?  The answer is the theme of the whole Bible.  God is concerned with the reconciliation of man to Himself.  God is a just God whose just wrath for our sin must be satisfied; therefore, He has to send a part of Himself to fulfill the Law and be the perfect sacrifice.  Finally, He has to send another part of Himself to make sure we understand what has just happened on our behalf and gather those elect to Himself. 

Therefore, the word perichoresis describes the relationship of the Father and the Son as an intertwining and cleaving together of their persons with the Holy Spirit enveloping both, infusing both and interacting with both, because the Holy Spirit is of the same essence as both.

One last word to discuss today is paraclete.  Paraclete is another Greek word that is used in reference to the Trinity.  John is the one who uses the term, both in his Gospel and in his epistles.  Starting from Chapter 14 of his Gospel, we learn that the paraclete is the Holy Spirit.  The ESV translation is Helper.  Next in Chapter 15, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, who bears witness about Jesus.  Next in Chapter 16, once again, the Holy Spirit is both the Helper and the Spirit of Truth.  What is interesting at this point is a look at 1 John 2:1, in which John implies that Jesus was the first paraclete and now the Holy Spirit is the second from John 14:16 again, the difference is that now the paraclete is the Advocate.  Acts 1:5,8 talk about Witnessing to Jesus, while Acts 2:38 brings up an interesting point that I will come back and examine at the end.

So, the Paraclete is the Advocate, the Helper, Spirit of Truth, who bears witness about Jesus.  The Paraclete is both Jesus and the Holy Spirit, about whom the intertwining of references concerning judgment persist into John’s Revelations.  Jesus is our only Mediator and Advocate.  And He sends the Holy Spirit to witness about Himself.  The Paraclete is then God, the generous and merciful God who has provided the solution to our eternal damnation through Himself in His three persons.

And finally, what is this “gift of the Holy Spirit” that Luke records Peter dispensing, based upon faith?  Let’s break down that theologically dense passage.  Peter’s words as translated in the ESV are: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” This is the theology of Peter as clearly stated as it gets.  The first part is repentance.  We must turn away from our sin.  We know that this is not possible without the Helper, but Peter weaves this into the passage at the end.  The next part is to be baptized in the name of Jesus.  The reason to be baptized is to receive forgiveness of your sins.  How this is done is in the name of Jesus.  Jews knew that only God forgives sin; therefore, Peter is publically committing blasphemy in the eyes of the Pharisees.  Something must have happened to turn this once coward into such a bold proclaimer of Jesus. 

The next part is that such persons who repent and are baptized will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  There are at least two levels of looking at this phrase.  The gift might be something that the Holy Spirit gives these people such as the ability to do the first two parts, or it might be the indwelling of the Holy Spirit itself as the seal of this belief.  I would argue that it is both and I think scripture supports this view.

In the second sentence, Peter talks about the Promise.  This is referring to the promise of God to Abraham.  It is a direct reference that would have not gone missing to his Jewish audience.  What is different is how Peter will interpret the phrase “all who are far off” in just a few chapters hence.  Everyone whom the Lord calls to Himself is a lot larger group than the Apostles originally realized.  Peter and Paul are the ones who figure this out.  James confirms it.

And so in summary, the Trinity is a central doctrine of the church.  Our God is of one essence in three persons, all inseparable and yet distinct.  Their roles are clearly different, and yet they overlap somewhat in their unfolding the drama of redemptive history for us.  The Bible is the story of the greatest rescue mission of all time.  It is the story in which we are saved from eternal damnation.  The writers, producers, actors and directors are all the persons of the Trinity.  The audience is humanity.  But some of the audience will receive a back stage pass to meet and greet the company of hosts in heaven.

--Troll--

First blog milestone

I thought I would hit 100 posts before I got to 1000 page views.  This will not be the case.  The implication as to readership is interesting.  First, people are following the links, which increases page count.  Secondly, the readership has expanded on particular topics outside of the original expectation.  As this first milestone is reached with this post, I thought I would review my stated goals and self critique based upon feedback that I have received.

I stated in the first post, that I wanted to be presenting reformed positions and arguments.  I think that I have been faithful to that position.  In the discussions that have been generated off blog, there seems to have been a loss of touch with this mission statement by those whose would argue a point.  If you do not agree with a position, declaring the reformed position wrong is not particularly helpful.  What has been my hope is that by laying out the scriptural grounding of each position, there might be some understanding of why I would find the reformation thinkers appealing and correct.  Some discussions have been rather good, while others have been rather regrettable.

Therefore, as I head into the second quarter, I wanted to restate the goals of the blog and invite more direct discussion.  The topics in progress are Building blocks, which is a very broad topic into which many other topics will be nested, the five points of Calvinism, which is nearly concluded, the Heretics, which has two more rather key pieces to produce, and the BioLogos series on Calvinism and Genesis 1-2.  Topics that will be started in the near future are the Five Solas of the Reformation, and walks through the reformed documents, confessions and doctrines, looking at what being Protestant used to mean.

Finally, thanks to those who have read these pieces, and thanks to those who send emails and comment.  Ogre, Troll and I have enjoyed the first thousand looks under the bridge and we promise not to bite for the next thousand…maybe….

--Troll and Ogre--