This was a training course I ran in September 2007 for i.d, the young adults’ ministry of St John’s, Sutherland.

• Week 1 – Why I am a protestant Christian
• Week 2 – Why I am a reformed Christian
• Week 3 – Why I am an evangelical Christian

I presented a series of sermons along the same lines in July 2010:

• What is a protestant Christian?
• What is a reformed Christian?
• What is an evangelical Christian?

Introduction

On Sunday the 3rd of February, 1788, Richard Johnson preached the very first Christian sermon on Australian soil. Johnson had been appointed as chaplain for NSW and travelled with the First Fleet. His appointment was in no small part due to the influence exerted by two remarkable and influential men, William Wilberforce and John Newton, who believed it very important that the chaplain for this important expedition should be a committed evangelical Christian.But why were Wilberforce and Newton so keen to have an evangelical presence in NSW? And why was Johnson willing to up and transplant himself from a comfortable life in England for the sake of enduring the privations of sailing to the other side of the world?

This week we will explore these questions and more.

However, the evangelical story does not begin with Johnson, nor even with Wilberforce or Newton. Unlike the protestant and reformed innovations, the evangelical movement cannot really be linked to one man in particular. There were so many great leaders: Jonathan Edwards in America; Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine in Scotland; Howel Harris in Wales; and George Whitefield, William Wilberforce and John Newton in England. However, if I were to select one person as being representative of the movement as a whole, it would be John Wesley.

John Wesley

Toward the end of January 1736, the good ship Simmonds, bound for Savannah, Georgia, sailed into a series of violent Atlantic storms. The wind roared; the ship cracked and quivered; the waves lashed the deck.

A young, slightly built Anglican minister on board was frozen in fear. John Wesley had preached the gospel of eternal salvation to others, but he was afraid to die. He was deeply awed, however, by a company of Moravian Brethren from Herrnhut. As the sea broke over the deck of the vessel, splitting the mainsail in pieces, the Moravians calmly sang their psalms to God.

Afterward, Wesley asked one of the Germans if he was frightened.

“No,” he replied. “Weren’t your women and children afraid?” Wesley asked.

“No,” said the Moravian, “our women and children are not afraid to die.”

“This,” Wesley wrote in his Journal, “was the most glorious day I have ever seen.”

At that “glorious” moment Wesley was a most unlikely candidate for leadership in a spiritual awakening soon to shake England to its moorings. He had a form of godliness, but had yet to find its power.¹

John Wesley was born in Epworth, England. He was the fifteenth of nineteen children. At the age of five, John was rescued from the burning rectory where he lived. This escape made a deep impression on his mind; and he regarded himself as providentially set apart, as a “brand plucked from the burning.”² The Wesley children’s early education was given by their parents in the Epworth rectory. Each child, including the girls, was taught to read as soon as they could walk and talk. In 1713 John was admitted to the Charterhouse School, London, where he lived the studious, methodical, and (for a while) religious life in which he had been trained at home.

At seventeen he was off to Oxford University where he studied first at Christ Church and later at Lincoln College. He found little there to stimulate either mind or soul, but took the opportunity to read widely, including such books as Jeremy Taylor’s Holy Living, Thomas à Kemipis’ Imitation of Christ and William Law’s Serious Call to a Holy Life. These men, he said, “convinced me of the absolute impossibility of being half a Christian. I determined, through His grace, to be all devoted to God.” So he listed his weaknesses and developed rules to overcome them.

In 1726 Wesley was elected a fellow of Lincoln College. This gave him not only academic standing at the University but assured him of a steady income. Two years later he was ordained to the Anglican ministry and returned to Epworth for a time to serve as his father’s assistant.

When he resumed his duties at Oxford, he found that his brother, Charles, alarmed at the spread of deism at the University, had assembled a little band of students determined to take their religion seriously. John proved to be just the leader they needed. Under his direction they drew up a plan of study and rule of life that stressed prayer, Bible reading, and frequent attendance at Holy Communion.

The little group soon attracted attention and some derision from the lax undergraduates. Holy Club, they called them; Bible moths, Methodists, and Reforming Club. The Methodist label is one that stuck.

The members of that little society were ardent but restless souls. They found fresh enthusiasm when a townsman or new student joined them, such as the bright and brash undergraduate from Pembroke College, George Whitefield. But they were constantly in search of ways to make their lives conform to the practice of early Christians. They gave to the poor and they visited the imprisoned. But John was quick to confess that he lacked the inward peace of a true Christian. God must have something more in mind.

Then came the invitation to Georgia. A friend, Dr. John Burton, suggested that both John and Charles could serve God in the new colony led by General James Oglethorpe. Charles could be the General’s secretary and John a chaplain to the colony. John welcomed a chance to preach to the Indians so the brothers boarded the Simmons in October with youthful idealism and missionary zeal, totally unaware of the storms on sea and soul just ahead.

The whole Georgia episode proved to be a fiasco. John discovered that the noble American savages were “gluttons, thieves, liars and murderers.” And his white congregation were not fond of his strict high church ways and his prohibition of fancy dresses and gold jewelry in church.

John’s frustrations were compounded by his pitiful love affair with Sophy Hopkey, the eighteen-year-old niece of Savannah’s chief magistrate. Wesley was so mixed up emotionally and spiritually that he didn’t know his own mind. Sophy finally resolved the affair by eloping with John’s rival. The jilted lover then barred her from Holy Communion, and her incensed husband sued John for defaming Sophy’s character. The trial dragged out and after six months of harassment, Wesley fled the colony in disgust.

On his way home, he had a chance to ponder the whole experience. “I went to America,” he wrote, “to convert the Indians, but, oh, who shall convert me?”

Wesley returned to England depressed and beaten. On the night of May 24, 1738, at a Moravian meeting in Aldersgate Street, London, in which he heard a reading of Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans, and penned the now famous line “I felt my heart strangely warmed.” This completely changed the character and method of his ministry.

Though his understanding of both justification and assurance matured, he never stopped preaching the importance of faith for salvation and the witness of God’s Spirit with the spirit of the believer that they were, indeed, a child of God. His unorthodox teachings, however, meant that he was excluded from preaching in most parish churches.

Wesley’s Oxford friend, the evangelist George Whitefield, was also excluded from the churches of Bristol. In February of 1739, he went to the neighbouring village of Kingswood and preached in the open air to a company of miners. Wesley hesitated to accept Whitefield’s invitation to copy this bold step. Overcoming his reservations, he preached his first sermon in the open air, near Bristol, in April of that year.

He was still unhappy about the idea of field preaching, and would have thought, “till very lately,” such a method of saving souls as “almost a sin.” These open-air services were very successful, however, and he never again hesitated to preach in any place where an assembly could be gotten together. More than once he used his father’s tombstone at Epworth as a pulpit! He continued for fifty years — entering churches when he was invited, and taking his stand in the fields, in halls, cottages, and chapels, when the churches would not receive him.

Wesley travelled constantly, generally on horseback, preaching two or three times a day. In fact, by Wesley’s own estimate, he averaged 8000 miles of travel per year, most of it on horseback! He rose at four in the morning, lived simply and methodically, and was never idle if he could help it. He formed societies, opened chapels, examined and commissioned preachers, administered aid charities, prescribed for the sick and superintended schools and orphanages. He received at least £20,000 for his publications, but used little of it for himself. His charities were limited only by his means, and he died a poor man.

All of this activity had one cause: Wesley’s renewed understanding of the importance and preeminence of the Gospel.

The Gospel

The partnership between Wesley and Whitefield was a strange one. Although they had similar backgrounds, their theological viewpoints were wildly different. On the one hand, Whitefield was a staunch Calvinist, subscribing to all of the beliefs we learned about last week; on the other, Wesley was an Arminian, believing, for example, that man is capable of overcoming their own sinfulness enough to be able to turn to God – anathema to a Calvinist. They put aside these differences, however, in order to preach the Gospel.

This renewed Gospel focus led to one of the great missionary movements of all time. The Society for Missions to Africa and the East (later renamed the Church Mission Society) was formed in 1799 by a group of activist evangelicals. Other voluntary societies, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children were also established by evangelicals. Much of the social work that was done by these societies was accompanied by Christian witness and evangelism. In this, they followed Christ’s example – he who preached God’s kingdom come and then worked to see that fulfilled here on earth by caring for the sick, the poor and the outcast.

One of the big battles that evangelicals had to overcome was the perception in society that Christianity was only useful for the purpose of teaching morals (this idea is known as moralism). Most people were baptised as infants, and so considered themselves to be Christians by default. As a result, so it was thought, the Church needed only to preach morality. Wesley, perhaps largely because of his own experience, held to the importance of all people undergoing ‘conversion’ and being born-again.

Assurance of Salvation

Wesley believed that all Christians have a faith which implies an assurance of God’s forgiving love, and that one should feel that assurance, or the “witness of the Spirit”. This understanding is grounded in Paul’s affirmation, “…ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father. The same Spirit beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God…” (Romans 8:15-16, Wesley’s translation). This experience was mirrored for Wesley in his Aldersgate experience wherein he “knew” he was loved by God and that his sins were forgiven.

I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation, and an assurance was given me that He had taken my sin, even mine.³

The Bible

Broadly speaking, there are 4 categories of belief about the source of authority for the church:

• The Bible
• Tradition
• Personal Experience
• Reason

Different groups have different emphases on each of these – for example, as we learned when looked at protestantism, the Catholic church emphasises the role of tradition, and the teachings of the church, to be equal with Scripture. Other churches see the personal experience of the Holy Spirit’s work in your life as being the determining force for that life; hence you are encouraged to always seek the Spirit’s leading before taking action.

John Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture, Wesley argued, is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’ For Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional “sources” for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible. Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, Tradition forms a “lens” through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience. Reason is the means by which we may evaluate and even challenge the assumptions of Tradition.

But for Wesley, the chief test of the “truth and nothing but the whole truth” of a particular interpretation of scripture is how it is seen in practical application in one’s Experience. Always the pragmatist, Wesley believed that Experience formed the best evidence, after Scripture, for the truthfulness of a particular theological view. He believed Scriptural truths are to be primarily lived, rather than simply thought about or merely believed. Thus, how a particular interpretation of scripture is lived out is the best and most viable test of our theology.

This primacy of Scripture is one of the central tenets of evangelical belief.

Conclusion

John Wesley was one of many leading the evangelical charge in the 18th Century, and many have followed in his footsteps since. His great contributions to Christianity were a renewed emphasis on Scriptural authority, and an appreciation for the need for conversion.

Richard Johnson faced a great struggle as the first chaplain of NSW. Governor Phillip demanded that Johnson should teach the convicts and soldiers good morals; Johnson wanted to preach the gospel… and so that is exactly what he did. And that is why Wilberforce and Newton fought so hard to have an evangelical aboard the First Fleet.

And that is why I am an evangelical Christian.

Endnotes

1. Shelley, “A Brand from the Burning” in Church History in Plain Language (2nd Edition, Thomas Nelson, 1995) p. 331.
2. cf. Zech 3:2.
3. Wesley’s Journal

Introduction

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?¹

With these words, Queen Elizabeth II was entrusted with the responsibility for preserving the Church and the Gospel within the boundaries of her domain. But what do those words mean – “the Protestant Reformed Religion”?

We looked at what it means to be a protestant last week, and religion seems fairly straightforward, but what does it mean to be reformed?

No, it’s not like being a “reformed prisoner” or a “reformed alcoholic”.

Instead, the word ‘reformed’ in this context has to do with being an heir of the teachings of John Calvin.

John Calvin

When Gerard Calvin and his wife Jeanne became parents of a little boy in northern France in 1509, they could not have known that he was destined to become one of the truly great men of all time. They named him Jean. In French his name is Jean Calvin; in the Latinized form, Joannes Calvinus; but we know him as John Calvin.

John Calvin was born July 10, 1509 in Noyon in Picardy, 60 miles northeast of Paris. Upon reaching his teenage years, he began formal studies towards becoming a Roman Catholic priest. He studied theology at Paris from 1523 to 1528, and did quite well. But he became increasingly disillusioned with the corrupt Catholicism of the day, and decided to study law instead. So he transferred to Orleans and Bourges for studies towards becoming a lawyer (1528 to 1532).

But his heart was still restless, until at last it found its rest in God through true conversion in 1533. He left Roman Catholicism forever. But these were dangerous days for those who left Rome. Heavy persecution dogged the French Protestants, and Calvin himself was imprisoned for a short time from 1534 to 1535. So he decided to leave France.

His goal was to move to Basel, Switzerland, and take up a quiet and secluded life of study and writing. It was never to be. Passing through Geneva, he met the leader of, the Swiss French Reformation, Guillaume Farel, who was immediately so impressed with young Calvin that he cautioned him with God’s punishment if he did not stay in Geneva to preach and teach. Calvin stayed.

In 1536 Calvin published the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. It was immediately hailed throughout Europe as the finest systematic theology by a Protestant Reformer. It was to be his literary masterpiece and he later edited and expanded it several times through his lifetime.

Calvin and Farel immediately began the reformation of the church in Geneva. They proposed a confession and oath for the city and its citizenry. All citizens were required to take the oath of faith or leave Geneva. Virtually all Genevans accepted. But when in 1538 Calvin called for the church to have authority to fence the Lord’s Table by excommunicating all those living in public sin, both he and Farel were exiled by the City Council.

So Calvin went to Strassbourg in southern Germany near France. There he pastored the French-speaking congregation and lectured in the theological academy. He became a close friend of Martin Bucer, who would have a profound influence on Calvin’s theology. Calvin would stay in Strassbourg for 3 years until the Geneva City Council changed its mind and agreed that Calvin and Farel were right after all. Yet it would be nearly 20 years until the church formally had the right to excommunicate citizens living in known sin.

It was in Strassbourg that Calvin met his wife. Actually, Bucer and Farel had twice tried to match Calvin with a prospective wife, unsuccessfully. A certain Anabaptist had converted to Reformed thinking under Calvin’s theology, but he soon caught and died of the Plague. Some time later, his widow would become Mrs. John Calvin. Her name was Idelette de Bure. She brought 2 children with her, a teenage boy and a young girl. John and Idelette had only one child themselves, but he died shortly afterwards. Idelette herself was constantly in ill health, and she died in 1549 after only 9 years of marriage. Calvin never remarried. And he too was in continual ill health.

From 1541 Calvin spent almost all of his life in Geneva. In addition to his preaching and teaching duties he organized a school system for the children of Geneva, a system of charity for the poor and elderly; Calvin even designed the public sewer system of Geneva when the City Council couldn’t agree on a plan.

One of his main goals was a truly godly society. He viewed the Church and State on equal levels – separate in some areas, related in others. Before Calvin, Geneva was notorious throughout Europe for its profligacy; after Calvin, it became one of the godliest cities the world has ever known. Calvin’s theology of the godly society gave rise to the modern ideas of the democratic republic, the Free Enterprise economic system popularly called Capitalism, and the Protestant Work Ethic. They were put into practice in Geneva. The plan worked.

In 1555, Geneva became the refuge of Protestant refugees from all around Europe, particularly Great Britain. These English and Scottish leaders sat under Calvin’s teaching and brought that theology back with them when they returned to solidify the English and Scottish Reformations. Another major milestone in Calvin’s life was the establishment of the Academy of Geneva in 1559, which later became the University of Geneva. But for all this, his main calling was to be a pastor and a theologian.

The ‘Five Points’ of Calvinism

Whilst he never formulated them in these words, John Calvin’s most famous teachings are traditionally remembered using the mnemonic TULIP: Total Depravity; Unconditional Election; Limited Atonement; Irresistible Grace; and Perseverance of the Saints.

Total Depravity

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.²

Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity teaches that people are by nature not inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, as he requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are destructive to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passions, and will.

Therefore, in Reformed Theology, God must predestine individuals for salvation since man is incapable of choosing God.

Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. As Wayne Grudem points out:

Scripture is not denying that unbelievers can do good in human society in some senses. But it is denying that they can do any spiritual good or be good in terms of a relationship with God. Apart from the work of Christ in our lives, we are like all other unbelievers who are “darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Eph. 4:18).³

This may seem like a harsh call, but Calvin nevertheless taught optimism concerning God’s love for what he has made and God’s ability to accomplish the ultimate good that he intends for his creation. In particular, in the process of salvation, it is argued that God overcomes man’s inability with his divine grace and enables men and women to choose to follow him. After all, “with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”⁴ And this brings us to the idea of election.

For further reading, see:

• Genesis 6:5: “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.”
• Psalms 51:5: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
• Jeremiah 13:23: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”
• Mark 7:21-23: “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evil things come from inside and make a man ‘unclean’.”
• John 3:19: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”
• John 6:64-65: “[Jesus said,] ‘Yet there are some of you who do not believe.’ (For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe, and who would betray him.) He went on to say, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.'”
• John 8:34: “Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.'”
• Romans 3:10-11: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one understands, no one who seeks God.”
• Romans 8:6-8: “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.”
• 1 Corinthians 2:14: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
• Ephesians 2:1-3: “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.”

Unconditional Election

As Scripture, then, clearly shows, we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction.⁵

In Protestant theology, election is considered to be one aspect of predestination in which God selects certain individuals to be saved. Those elected receive mercy, while those not elected, the reprobate, receive justice.

In Calvinism, this election is called “unconditional” because his choice to save someone does not hinge on anything inherent in the person or on any act that the person performs or belief that the person exercises. Indeed the influence of sin has so inhibited our ability to act righteously that no one is willing or able to come to or follow God apart from God first regenerating the person’s heart to give them the ability to love him. Hence, God’s choice in election is and can only be based solely on God’s own independent and sovereign will and not upon the foreseen actions of man.

The Reformed position is frequently contrasted with the Arminian doctrine of conditional election in which God’s eternal choice to save a person is conditioned on God’s certain foreknowledge of future events, namely, that certain individuals would exercise faith and trust in response to God’s offer of salvation.

For more:

• John 15:16: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last.”
• Romans 9:15-16: “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
• Ephesians 1:4-5: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.”
• 2 Timothy 1:9: “[God] has saved us and called us to a holy life – not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.”

Limited Atonement

The doctrine of the limited scope (or extent) of the atonement is intimately tied up with the doctrine of the nature of the atonement. It also has much to do with the general Calvinist scheme of predestination. Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory (also known as punishment theory) of the atonement, which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory states that the atonement of Christ literally pays the penalty incurred by the sins of men — that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for specific sins and thereby cancels the judgment they had incurred. Since, Calvinists argue, it would be unjust for God to pay the penalty for men’s sins and then still condemn them for those sins, all those whose sins were propitiated must necessarily be saved.

The Calvinist view of predestination teaches that God chose a group of people, who would not and could not choose him, to be saved apart from their works or their cooperation, and those people are compelled by God’s irresistible grace to accept the offer of the salvation achieved in the atonement of Christ. Since in this scheme God knows precisely who the elect are, Christ needn’t atone for sins other than those of the elect.

The Calvinist atonement is thus called definite because it certainly secures the salvation of those for whom Christ died, and it is called limited in its extent because it effects salvation for the elect only. Calvinists do not believe the power of the atonement is limited in any way, which is to say that no sin is too great to be expiated by Christ’s sacrifice, in their view.

On a practical level, this doctrine is not emphasized in Calvinist churches except in comparison to other salvific schemes, and when it is taught, the primary use of this and the other doctrines of predestination is the assurance of believers. To that end, they apply this doctrine especially to try to strengthen the belief that “Christ died for me,” as in the words of St. Paul, “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me“⁶. In fact, contrary to what one might expect on the basis of this doctrine, Calvinists believe they can freely and sincerely offer salvation to everyone on God’s behalf since they themselves do not know which people are counted among the elect and since they see themselves as God’s instruments in bringing about the salvation of other members of the elect.

The classic Bible passage cited to prove a limited extent to the atonement is the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John in which Jesus uses Ancient Near Eastern shepherding practices as a metaphor for his relationship to his followers. A shepherd of those times would call his sheep from a mix of flocks, and his sheep would hearken to his voice and follow, while the sheep of other flocks would ignore any but their own shepherd’s voice (John 10:1-5). In that context, Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me,…and I lay down my life for the sheep” (vv. 14-15), and he tells the Pharisees that they “do not believe because [they] are not [his] sheep” (v. 26). He continues, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” (vv. 27-28). Since Calvinists and nearly all Christians believe that not all have eternal life with God, Calvinists conclude that either Jesus was wrong in saying that he would lose none of his sheep (a conclusion they reject) or that Jesus must not have died for everyone.

Irresistible Grace

According to Calvinism, those who obtain salvation do so, not by their own “free” will, but because of the sovereign discriminating grace of God. That is, men yield to grace, not finally because their consciences were more tender or their faith more tenacious than that of other men. Rather, the willingness and ability to do God’s will, are evidence of God’s own faithfulness to save men from the power and the penalty of sin, and since man is so corrupt that he will not decide and cannot be wooed to follow after God, God must powerfully intervene. In short, Calvinism argues that regeneration must precede faith.

Calvin says of this intervention that “it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant,”⁷ and John Gill says that “this act of drawing is an act of power, yet not of force.

See, for example:

• John 6:37,39: “All that the Father gives me will come to me…. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up on the last day.”
• John 6:44–45: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.”
• John 6:65: “[N]o one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

Perseverance of the Saints

The perseverance of the saints means that all those who are truly born again will be kept by God’s power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives, and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly born again.

The Reformed tradition has consistently seen the doctrine of perseverance as a natural consequence to its general scheme of predestination in which God has chosen some men and women for salvation and has cleared them of their guilty status by atoning for their sins through Jesus’ sacrifice. According to these Calvinists, God has irresistibly drawn the elect to put their faith in himself for salvation by regenerating their hearts and convincing them of their need. Therefore, they continue, since God has made satisfaction for the sins of the elect, they can no longer be condemned for them, and through the help of the Holy Spirit, they must necessarily persevere as Christians and in the end be saved.

Traditional Calvinists also believe that all who are born again and justified before God necessarily and inexorably proceed to sanctification. Indeed, failure to proceed to sanctification in their view is evidence that the person in question was not one of the elect to begin with. The suggestion is that after God has regenerated someone, the person’s will cannot reverse its course. It is argued that God has changed that person in ways that are outside of his or her own ability to alter fundamentally, and he or she will therefore persevere in the faith.

On a practical level, Calvinists do not claim to know who is elect and who is not, and the only guide they have are the verbal testimony and good works (or “fruit”) of each individual. Any who “fall away” (that is, do not persevere unto death) must not have been truly converted to begin with, though Calvinists don’t claim to know with certainty who did and who did not persevere.

• John 6:37-40: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
• John 10:28-29: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.”
• Romans 5:9-10: “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”
• Romans 8:31-39: “What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:
  “For your sake we face death all day long;
  we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
  No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
• Romans 11:29: “[F]or God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.”
• 1 Corinthians 1:4-9: “I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way – in all your speaking and in all your knowledge – because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.”
• Ephesians 1:13-14:”And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession – to the praise of his glory.”
• Philippians 1:6: “[B]eing confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”
• 1 Peter 1:5: “[The elect] are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.”
• Jude 24: “[God] is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy.”

The Lord’s Supper

The Roman Catholic Church of Calvin’s day (and indeed to this day) had 7 ‘sacraments’ – that is, rites, first implemented by Jesus, which are sacred. They were: baptism; confirmation; the eucharist (what we would call communion or the Lord’s Supper); confession; ordination; anointing of the sick (for those who are terminally ill, you may have heard this referred to as ‘last rites’); and marriage.

Martin Luther, John Calvin and other reformers argued that there was only biblical evidence for 2 of these – baptism and the Lord’s Supper. However, they were by no means in total agreement about what these actually meant. Luther and Calvin, for example, disagreed about what happens when we take communion: Luther believed that, whilst not actually being Christ’s body and blood (as Catholics believe), the bread and the wine by which we celebrate the Lord’s Supper somehow mystically link us to his body and blood, allowing us to participate in his death and thus in his life; Calvin, on the other hand, argued that the bread and the wine were rather a symbol, giving a visible sign of the fact that Christ himself was truly present. This latter view is the one that is held in the Anglican Church:

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.⁸

Conclusion

Few men other than the Lord Jesus himself have had a more significant impact on Christian thinking than John Calvin. His influence can be felt every time we take communion. His understanding of God’s Sovereignty was a precious gift to a church infatuated with its own sense of control; it reminds us that the world exists around God, not God around the world. Some of his teachings are hard to understand or accept – yet they ring true with Scripture over and over again.

And that is why I am a reformed Christian.

Endnotes

1. Archbishop of Canterbury to Queen Elizabeth II at her coronation, 1953
2. Westminster Confession of Faith
3. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (IVP, 1994) p. 497.
4. Matthew 19:26
5. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion III.xxi.7.
6. Gal. 2:20, emphasis added
7. Calvin, Commentary on John’s Gospel 6:44.
8. Article 28 of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.

Introduction

Next year, 2008, the Roman Catholic church will celebrate World Youth Day here in Australia. As a part of this, we can expect to see a massive influx of young people from around the world¹, drawn towards Sydney in particular; the event will climax in an open-air Mass at Randwick Racecourse, conducted by Pope Benedict XVI. On the whole, we can expect the event to be full of life and energy, and no doubt a great witness to Christ… and yet many Christians will feel unable to attend.

It is a fact that no Anglican Archbishop of Sydney has ever attended mass. At the installation of Cardinal Pell as a cardinal, the service was planned with a deliberate pause midway through to allow Archbishop Peter Jensen to withdraw before the commencement of the mass part of the service.

The question must be asked, of course, what kind of issue or issues could be worth splitting the Church over? How can we justify one Christian parting ways with another? Didn’t Christ command unity? Wasn’t Paul’s vision for one Body, rather than many smaller bodies?

In this course it is my aim to explore some of the issues that have split the Church over the years, and tonight we start with the issue of the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide.

History

Martin Luther

In the summer of 1520 a document bearing an impressive seal circulated throughout Germany in search of a remote figure. “Arise, O Lord,” the writing began, “and judge Thy cause. A wild boar has invaded Thy vineyard.”

The document, a papal bull – named after the seal, or bulla – took three months to reach Martin Luther, the wild boar. Long before it arrived in Wittenberg where Luther was teaching, he knew its contents. Forty-one of his beliefs were condemned as “heretical, or scandalous, or false, or offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds, or repugnant to Catholic truth.” The bull called on Luther to repent and repudiate his errors or face the dreadful consequences.

Luther received his copy on the tenth of October. At the ened of his sixty-day period of grace, he led a throng of eager students outside Wittenberg and burned copies of the Canon Law and the works of some medieval theologians. Perhaps as an afterthought Luther added a copy of the bull condemning him. That was his answer. “They have burned my books,” he said, “I burn theirs.” Those flames in early December, 1520, were a fit symbol of the defiance of the pope raging throughout Germany.²

Martin Luther (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) was a German monk, theologian, and church reformer. He is generally considered to be the founder of Protestantism.

Luther’s theology challenged the authority of the papacy by emphasizing the Bible as the sole source of religious authority and all baptised Christians as a general priesthood. According to Luther, salvation was attainable only by faith in Jesus as the messiah, a faith unmediated by the church. These ideas helped to inspire the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western civilization.

Luther’s translation of the Bible into the vernacular, making it more accessible to ordinary people, had a tremendous political impact on the church and on German culture. The translation also furthered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation, and influenced the translation of the English King James Bible. His hymns inspired the development of congregational singing within Christianity. His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage within Protestantism.

Early life

Luther was born to Hans Luder (or Ludher, later Luther) and his wife Margarethe (née Lindemann) on November 10, 1483 in Eisleben, Germany, then part of the Holy Roman Empire. He was baptised the next morning on the feast day of St. Martin of Tours. His family moved to Mansfeld in 1484, where his father was a leaseholder of copper mines and smelters, and served as one of four citizen representatives on the local council. Martin Marty describes Luther’s mother as a hard-working woman of “trading-class stock and middling means,” and notes that Luther’s enemies would later wrongly describe her as a whore and bath attendant. He had several brothers and sisters, and is known to have been close to one of them, Jacob.

Hans Luther was ambitious for himself and his family, and was determined to see his eldest son become a lawyer. He sent Martin to Latin schools in Mansfeld, then Magdeburg in 1497, where he attended a school operated by a lay group called the Brethren of the Common Life, and Eisenach in 1498. The three schools focused on the so-called “trivium”: grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Luther later compared his education there to purgatory and hell.

At the age of seventeen in 1501, he entered the University of Erfurt — later describing it as a beerhouse and whorehouse — which saw him woken at four every morning for what Marty describes as “a day of rote learning and often wearying spiritual exercises.” He received his master’s degree in 1505.

In accordance with his father’s wishes, he enrolled in law school at the same university that year, but dropped out almost immediately, believing that law represented uncertainty. Marty writes that Luther sought assurances about life, and was drawn to theology and philosophy, expressing particular interest in Aristotle, William of Ockham, and Gabriel Biel. He was deeply influenced by two tutors, Bartholomäus Arnoldi von Usingen and Jodocus Trutfetter, who taught him to be suspicious of even the greatest thinkers, and to test everything himself by experience. Philosophy proved to be unsatisfying, offering assurance about the use of reason, but none about the importance, for Luther, of loving God. Reason could not lead men to God, he felt, and he developed what Marty describes as a love-hate relationship with Aristotle over the latter’s emphasis on reason. For Luther, reason could be used to question men and institutions, but not God. Human beings could learn about God only through divine revelation, he believed, and Scripture therefore became increasingly important to him.

He decided to leave his studies and become a monk, later attributing his decision to an experience during a thunderstorm on July 2, 1505. A lightning bolt struck near him as he was returning to university after a trip home. Later telling his father he was terrified of death and divine judgment, he cried out, “Help! Saint Anna, I will become a monk!” He came to view his cry for help as a vow he could never break.

He left law school, sold his books, and entered a closed Augustinian monastery in Erfurt on July 17, 1505. One friend blamed the decision on Luther’s sadness over the deaths of two friends. Luther himself seemed saddened by the move, telling those who attended a farewell supper then walked him to the door of the Black Cloister, “This day you see me, and then, not ever again.” His father was furious over what he saw as a waste of Luther’s education.

Luther dedicated himself to monastic life, devoting himself to fasts, long hours in prayer, pilgrimage, and frequent confession. Luther tried to please God through this dedication, but it only increased his awareness of his own sinfulness. He would later remark, “If anyone could have gained heaven as a monk, then I would indeed have been among them.” Luther described this period of his life as one of deep spiritual despair. He said, “I lost hold of Christ the Savior and Comforter and made of him a stock-master and hangman over my poor soul.”

Johann von Staupitz, his superior, concluded that Luther needed more work to distract him from excessive introspection and ordered him to pursue an academic career. In 1507, he was ordained to the priesthood, and in 1508 began teaching theology at the University of Wittenberg. He received a Bachelor’s degree in Biblical studies on March 9, 1508, and another Bachelor’s degree in the Sentences by Peter Lombard in 1509. On October 19, 1512, he was awarded his Doctor of Theology and, on October 21, 1512, was received into the senate of the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg, having been called to the position of Doctor in Bible. He spent the rest of his career in this position at the University of Wittenberg.

Indulgences

In 1516-17, Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar and papal commissioner for indulgences, was sent to Germany by the Roman Catholic Church to sell indulgences to raise money to rebuild St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In Roman Catholic theology, an “indulgence” is the remission of punishment because a sin already committed has been forgiven; the indulgence is granted by the church when the sinner confesses and receives absolution. When an indulgence is given, the church is extending merit to a sinner from its Treasure House of Merit, an accumulation of merits it has collected based on the good deeds of the saints. These merits could be bought and sold.

On October 31, 1517, Luther wrote to Albert, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, protesting the sale of indulgences. He enclosed in his letter a copy of his “Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences,” which came to be known as The 95 Theses. Hans Hillerbrand writes that Luther had no intention of confronting the church, but saw his disputation as a scholarly objection to church practices, and the tone of the writing is accordingly “searching, rather than doctrinaire.” Hillerbrand writes that there is nevertheless an undercurrent of challenge in several of the theses, particularly in Thesis 86, which asks: “Why does not the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”

Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel that “[a]s soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs,” insisting that, since forgiveness was God’s alone to grant, those who claimed that indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances.

According to Philip Melanchthon, writing in 1546, Luther nailed a copy of the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg that same day — church doors acting as the bulletin boards of his time — an event now seen as sparking the Protestant Reformation, and celebrated every October 31 as Reformation Day.

The 95 Theses were quickly translated from Latin into German, printed, and widely copied, making the controversy one of the first in history to be fanned by the printing press. Within two weeks, the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months throughout Europe.

On June 15, 1520, the Pope warned Luther with the papal bull (the one about the boar in the vineyard, already mentioned) that he risked excommunication unless he recanted 41 sentences drawn from his writings, including the 95 Theses, within 60 days.

That fall, Johann Eck proclaimed the bull in Meissen and other towns. Karl von Miltitz, a papal nuncio, attempted to broker a solution, but Luther, who had sent the Pope a copy of On the Freedom of a Christian in October, publicly set fire to the bull and decretals at Wittenberg on December 10, 1520, an act he defended in Why the Pope and his Recent Book are Burned and Assertions Concerning All Articles.

As a consequence, Luther was excommunicated by Leo X on January 3, 1521, in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem.

Reformation Teachings

Whilst Luther’s objection to the sale of indulgences was the initial spark that set the flame of the Reformation, it was not the most significant of his teachings. This distinction, in my view, belongs instead to what are referred to as the five solas.

Five Solas

The five solas are five Latin phrases (or slogans) that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarise the Reformers’ basic theological beliefs as compared to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. The Latin word sola means “alone” in English. The five solas were what the Reformers believed to be the only things needed for Christian salvation. They were intended to highlight the absolute (and only) essentials of Christian life and practice.

The five solas are:

• Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
• Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
• Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
• Solus Christus (“In Christ alone”)
• Soli Deo gloria (“Glory to God alone”)

Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)

Salvation comes by God’s grace or “unmerited favor” only — not as something merited by the sinner. This means that salvation is an unearned gift from God for Jesus’ sake.

During the Reformation, Protestant leaders and theologians generally believed the Roman Catholic view of the means of salvation to be a mixture of reliance upon the grace of God, and confidence in the merits of one’s own works performed in love. The Reformers argued instead that salvation is entirely found in God’s gifts (that is, God’s act of free grace), dispensed by the Holy Spirit according to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ alone. Consequently, they argued that a sinner is not accepted by God on account of the change wrought in the believer by God’s grace, and indeed, that the believer is accepted without any regard for the merit of his works—for no one deserves salvation. The responsibility for salvation does not rest on the sinner to any degree.

Sola fide (“by faith alone”)

Justification (interpreted in Protestant theology as, “being declared guiltless by God”) is received by faith only, not good works, though in classical Protestant theology, saving faith is automatically accompanied by good works. Some Protestants see this doctrine as being summarized with the formula “Faith yields justification and good works” and as contrasted with the Roman Catholic formula “Faith and good works yield justification.” However, this is disputed by the Roman Catholic position as a misrepresentation; it might be better contrasted with a comparison of what is meant by the term “justification”: both sides agree that the term invokes a communication of Christ’s merits to sinners, where in Protestant theology this is seen as being a declaration of sinlessness, Roman Catholicism sees justification as a communication of God’s life to a human being, cleansing him of sin and transforming him truly into a son of God, so that it is not merely a declaration. This doctrine is sometimes called the material cause or principle of the Reformation because it was the central doctrinal issue for Martin Luther and the other reformers. Luther called it the “doctrine by which the church stands or falls”. This doctrine asserts the total exclusion of any other righteousness to justify the sinner other than the “alien” righteousness (righteousness of another) of Christ alone.

Sola fide is different from Sola gratia because faith alone is considered either a work or is insufficient for salvation which can only be granted freely by God to whom He chooses. This doctrine is especially linked with Calvinism’s unconditional election and predestination, which we will explore more next week.

Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)

The Roman Catholic church teaches, to this day, that the Bible can only be authoritatively interpreted by those members of the church in direct apostolic succession (called the Magisterium), ultimately embodied in the Pope himself. They take this one step further, holding that the teachings and interpretations of the Magisterium are themselves authoritative and infallible, and a Christian must obey them as the very Word of God.

Luther and the Reformers, however, took issue with this. Instead, they taught that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative Word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all believers. They held that to add to the Gospel is actually to subtract from it.

Solus Christus (“In Christ alone”)

Some of you will be aware of Pope Benedict’s recent comments to the effect that any church that is not Roman Catholic is not truly God’s church. Because other churches, in his view, are not based upon apostolic succession – that is, they cannot trace a line of successive bishops all the way back to the apostles – their priesthood is invalid, and thus they cannot truly be a part of the Church. This includes the Anglican church, of which we are a part.

According to the Reformers, however, Christ is the only mediator between God and man, and there is salvation through no other. This principle rejects sacerdotalism, which is the belief that there are no sacraments in the church without the services of priests ordained by apostolic succession under the authority of the pope. Martin Luther taught the “general priesthood of the baptized,” which was modified in later Lutheranism and classical Protestant theology into “the priesthood of all believers,” denying the exclusive use of the title “priest” (Latin, sacerdos) to the clergy.

Soli Deo gloria (“Glory to God alone”)

All glory is due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through his will and action—not only the gift of the all-sufficient atonement of Jesus on the cross but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The reformers believed that human beings—even saints canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, the popes, and the church hierarchy—are not worthy of the glory that was accorded them.

Summary

These teachings can be summarised as follows:

Category	Roman Catholic Church	The Reformers
Salvation is offered…	by grace to those who do good works.	by Grace alone.
Justification is received…	by faith and good works.	by faith alone, but leads to good works.
Authority is found…	in the Scriptures and the (Roman Catholic) Church.	in Scripture alone.
Access to God is obtained…	through Christ and his appointed Church.	through Christ alone.
Glory is due…	to God, Mary and the saints.	to God alone.

Endnotes

1. The official World Youth Day website estimates that “500,000 participants are expected to attend at least one event during the World Youth Day week.”
2. Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (2nd Edition, Thomas Nelson, 1995).

Searching the Scriptures is a training course in reading and understanding the Bible. I initially developed it in May 2007, to be run over 3 x 1.5hr sessions.

Printable notes available here (NB: may not be as up to date as pages here).

Week 1 (Handout)

• Why read the Bible?
• How to read the Bible
• How to read a narrative
• How to read an epistle

Week 2 (Handout)

• How did we get the Bible?
• How to read a psalm
• How to read an apocalypse
• How to read wisdom literature

Week 3 (Handout)

• How to read law
• How to read prophecy
• How to read the Gospels

Understanding the Gospels

The Gospels are roughly divided up into Jesus’ teachings and narratives, and so it would seem appropriate to follow the principles already set out for epistles and narratives respectively. Indeed, this is true, but the Gospels offer us a few additional challenges, born out of their nature.

For example, where the teachings of Paul, Peter, James etc. were written down by the authors themselves, the words of Jesus were not written down by Jesus himself. In fact, Jesus’ native language would most likely have been Aramaic, and so the fact that the Gospels were originally written in Greek means that his teachings have already been interpreted for us. What’s more, there are 4 of them, each written by a different author, each with a unique perspective on Jesus and his significance. Together, these two factors combine to force us to consider the author of each Gospel (the evangelist), their context, their personality, their interests etc.

Let’s consider an example. Church tradition suggests that Mark’s Gospel records Peter’s memoirs, and that it appeared in Rome shortly after Peter’s martyrdom. It was initially received by the church in Rome, who were then facing the prospect of great suffering at the hands of the Romans. In this light, Mark’s repeated descriptions of the Messiah as being Isaiah’s Suffering Servant¹ are significant in suggesting to the suffering church in Rome that they should expect suffering, for their Master did. Similarly, Luke was a Gentile, and so much of his message is given over to explaining that the Messiah/Christ was equally significant for Gentiles as for Jews.

Another complication is that the contents of the Gospel were not recorded as they happened, but were instead most likely passed down as individual stories and sayings. As a result, many of Jesus’ sayings and teachings were transmitted without context. The evangelists, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, placed them in the contexts in which we now have them. In doing this, they usually followed one of two practices:

• The teaching was placed adjacent to narratives illustrating the teaching.
• The teaching was placed in a group of similar teachings. Matthew in particular seems to have followed this practice, with 5 groupings of teachings: life in the Kingdom²; instructions for ministers of the Kingdom³; parables of the Kingdom at work in the world⁴; teaching on relationships and discipline in the Kingdom⁵; and the consummation of the Kingdom⁶.

Some things to remember when reading the Gospels:

• Think horizontally: Consider the parallel accounts in the other Gospels. The point here is not to ‘flesh out’ the account being considered, but rather to get a feel for the distinctive characteristics of the Gospel you are looking at.
• Think vertically: Consider the passages both before and after the one you are looking at to get a feel for context in which the evangelist has placed it.
• Target audience: Jesus frequently switches between talking to his disciples, to the crowds, and to his opponents. You need to be alert for the evangelist’s clues as to when this has taken place.

Jesus made use of many different teaching methods:

• Parables: (More on this in the next section.)
• Hyperbole: e.g. Mt 5:29-30.
• Proverbs: e.g. Mt 6:21; Mk 3:24.
• Similes & Metaphor: e.g. Mt 10:16; 5:13.
• Poetry: Mt 7:6-8; Lk 6:27-28.
• Questions: Mt 17:25.
• Irony: Mt 16:2-3.

Most of these have already been covered in the notes on psalms, wisdom literature and prophecy. The main exception is parable, which we glossed over in the notes on prophecy, but will consider in more detail here.

Understanding parables

Since parables are such a significant (and frequently misunderstood/misapplied!) I thought it important that we consider them on their own.

There are actually 3 types of parable:

• True parable: True parables are characterised by having a clear beginning and end, with some sort of ‘plot’ in between. e.g. the Good Samaritan⁷, the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin and Lost Son⁸.
• Similitude: An illustration taken from every day life. e.g. the Yeast in the Dough⁹.
• Metaphor: e.g. the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth¹⁰.

The following comments mostly apply to true parables, although some will apply also to the other two categories.

The purpose of a parable is always to get a response. For this reason, it is very important to identify the people to whom the parable is directed – otherwise how will you understand the response that is being sought?

Each true parable has a number of points of reference, which are what the listener/reader is expected to identify with and hence be drawn into the story. Unless you first understand the points of reference, you will not understand the impact of the unexpected twist found in most parables.

For example, consider the story of the money-lender¹¹. The points of reference are the money-lender and the 2 debtors. These are expected to be identified with God, the woman and Simon respectively. Each of these people would have been expected to ‘see’ themselves in the story being told.

The process for reading a parable, then,is as follows:

1. Identify the points of reference
2. Work out how the original hearers would have identified with each of the points of reference.

Applying the Gospels

Again, applying the Gospels is a combination of the principles for application of epistles and narratives. For example, as for an epistle, we must consider cultural relativity. e.g. we are unlikely to be forced to go the “extra mile”¹², but we can readily identify comparable situations to which it might apply.

Some of Jesus’ imperatives (commands) seem to us a lot like law – and an impossible law at that¹³! This is a misconception. Jesus’ words are intended as a description of what our lives should be like because of God’s acceptance, not a formula for gaining entrance into the Kingdom.

When reading Jesus’ teachings and considering application, you need to pay attention to the surrounding narratives. As already mentioned, sometimes a story is included especially to illustrate a particular teaching. For example, the story of the Rich Young Ruler¹⁴ is not intended to teach that everyone needs to give away all of their possessions, but rather how difficult it is for the rich to enter heaven.

The final note about applying the Gospels (and in fact the entire New Testament) is this: they are drenched with the tension of the transition between this kingdom and God’s Kingdom. The coming of Jesus signalled the “beginning of the end.” We now live in a time where both kingdoms are present: the consummated Kingdom will bring full and free forgiveness, but this is not yet perfected¹⁵; we have victory over death¹⁶ and yet we will still die¹⁷; we can live in the Spirit, yet Satan still attacks us¹⁸. When we pray “Your Kingdom come,” therefore, it is first of all a prayer for the consummation of the Kingdom, but it also has implications for us today.

Further reading

• Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, “The Gospels: One Story, Many Dimensions” and “The Parables: Do You Get the Point?” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (3rd Edition, Zondervan, 2003) pp. 127-162.

Endnotes

1. Is 8:27-33; 9:30-32; 10:32-45
2. Mt 5-7
3. Mt 10:5-42
4. Mt 13:1-52
5. Mt 18:1-35
6. Mt 23-25
7. Lk 10:25-37
8. Lk 15
9. Lk 13:20-21
10. Mt 5:13-14
11. Lk 7:36-50
12. Mt 5:41
13. Consider for example Mt 5-7.
14. Mt 19:16-30
15. Phil 3:10-14
16. 1 Cor 3:22
17. Phil 3:20-21
18. Eph 6:10-17

The latter part of the Old Testament records the works and words of the prophets. There are 4 ‘major’ prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel) and 12 ‘minor’ prophets (the last 12 books of the OT). The words ‘major’ and ‘minor’ refer only to the length of each book, not the significance of the prophet’s message. Some of the most memorable and powerful phrases of Scripture come from the so-called ‘minor’ prophets e.g “The righteous will live by his faith”¹ and “In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.'”². These books were written between about 760 and 460 B.C.

Prophecy can be difficult to understand, because it is so different to what we come into contact with day by day – second only to apocalypse, in my opinion. Let’s explore together what the role of the prophets was in Old Testament Israel, and then how their message extends to us today.

Understanding the prophets

The first thing we need to be aware of when considering the words of the prophets is the role that the prophet had in Israel.

The role of the prophet

Contrary to popular opinion, prophecy is not primarily about telling the future. Less than 2% of prophecy was messianic³; less than 5% describes new covenant times⁴. In most cases, the prophets spoke of the immediate future of Israel, Judah and their immediate neighbours.

This is because the primary role of the prophet was to act as God’s spokesman. Specifically the prophets were responsible for reminding Israel of the covenant they were in with God, and pronouncing the enforcement of the covenant, either positive of negative. Sometimes they were called to pronounce blessings (life, health, prosperity, agricultural abundance, respect or safety) such as in Amos 9:11-15. Other times, such as in Hosea 8:14 and again in 9:3, they were required to speak God’s words of judgment and punishment (death, disease, drought, dearth, danger, destruction, defeat, deportation, destitution, disgrace).

It is important to note that their message was not their own. This is reinforced by the frequent use of phrases like “This is what the LORD said to me…”⁵ and “The LORD Almighty has declared in my hearing…”⁶. Their role was similar to that of a modern ambassador: they were appointed by God to go and speak on his behalf⁷. If a prophet presumed to take the office of prophet upon themselves, that was a good indication they were a false prophet⁸.

Equally important, the prophets’ message was not original. It may have used new words, it may have been presented in a new way, but the message was always a reminder of the original covenant. Consider, for example, Hosea 4:2: “There is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery.” Whilst the words are different, this is a reference back to what we call the Ten Commandments. Although it only mentions 5, and not in the usual order⁹ people would have been prompted to think about the others, and to assess for themselves whether they were living up to them.

How to read prophecy

The first step in reading any of the prophets is to understand the background of the prophecy. Check out the introduction to the book in your Bible, or consult a Bible Dictionary, to get a feel for the historical circumstances surrounding the prophet’s message and ministry. Other information might include an outline for the book, special features of form, issues of interpretation etc.

It can sometimes be difficult to read the prophets in one sitting, particularly the longer ones like Isaiah and Jeremiah. Whilst this is still a valuable exercise, a better approach is to identify individual ‘oracles’ within the overall message of the prophet. An oracle is a specific word or judgment from God. It may be tied to a specific occasion¹⁰, or may occur over a period of time¹¹. Each oracle is complete in and of itself, but also needs to be understood in terms of the overall message.

There were several types of oracle:

• Lawsuit: God (through his prophet) takes the subject of his judgment to ‘court’, with God himself as plaintiff, prosecutor, judge and bailiff. Each lawsuit includes the following elements: summons; charge; evidence; and verdict¹².
• Woe: An announcement of distress, followed by the reason for that distress and a prediction of doom¹³.
• Promise/salvation: This kind of oracle is one of comfort and hope. It is characterised by: a reference to the future; mention of radical change; and a promise of blessing¹⁴.
• Enactment prophecy: The prophet is instructed to ‘act out’ some aspect of the prophecy, in order to reinforce the words¹⁵.
• Messenger speech: This is a word-for-word relay of God’s words¹⁶.

The words of the prophets were often presented in the form of poetry. Refer to the notes on reading a psalm for more details on this.

Applying the prophets

As with all of the different types of Bible literature, applying the words of the prophets is a matter of first understanding what they were saying to their original audience. When we do, even if our situation is quite different, we will often hear it afresh in our own setting.

The majority of future events described by the prophets are immediate, although some look all the way forward to the end of history. And sometimes the two are mixed, and that’s where it gets a little more difficult to understand. It’s kind of like looking at 2 disks (see image below). When you look at the 2 disks from the straight-on view, they appear to be close together, and perhaps even the same object. When you look from the side-on view, however, you understand that they are actually a long way apart.

To the prophets, looking forward in history, their view was like the straight-on view, and so everything appears as though happening at the same time. We, however, have more of a side-on view, allowing us to distinguish between those things which were events immediately following the prophet’s ministry, from those which refer to much later times. Some things that a prophet says may well belong to the end-times¹⁷ but be careful not to push temporal events into the future as well.

More generally, my advice is to avoid looking for ‘fuller meanings’ for the words of prophecy. Where the prophet’s words may be applied to events immediately surrounding his time, that is the most likely meaning. The exception to this is where NT writers have done so¹⁸.

Finally, remember that the prophets consistently encourage not only correct belief, but also correct action.

Further reading

• Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, “The Prophets: Enforcing the Covenant in Israel” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Third Edition, Zondervan 2003) pp. 181-204

Endnotes

1. Hab 2:4
2. Hos 1:10
3. i.e. foretelling Jesus
4. i.e. times after Jesus
5. Jer 27:2
6. Is 5:9
7. Is 6; Jer 1; Ezek 1-3
8. Jer 14:14
9. ‘cursing’ refers to the 3rd commandment, about using the Lord’s name in vain; ‘lying’ to the 9th; ‘murder’ the 6th; ‘stealing’ the 8th; ‘adultery’ the 7th
10. e.g. Is 5, which probably occurred at a harvest festival
11. e.g. in Is 20, Isaiah went around “stripped and barefoot” for 3 years!
12. e.g. Is 3:13-26
13. e.g. Hab 2:6-8
14. e.g. Amos 9:11-15
15. e.g. Is 20, Ezek 4:1-4
16. e.g. Is 38:1-8; Jer 35:17-19
17. e.g. Joel 3:1-3; Zeph 3:8-9
18. e.g. in 1 Cor 10:4, Paul explains the ‘fuller meaning’ of the Rock of Ex 20 and Num 21.

Most of us understand the concept of a law – it tells you what you are and aren’t allowed to do, and usually specifies the consequences if you transgress. We have laws covering many aspects of our lives, and particularly the way that we relate to one another. Everyone knows what is expected of them, and what is likely to happen if they don’t live up to those expectations. As a result, where laws are fairly come by, most will respect them. Experience shows that, without law, civilisation quickly descends into anarchy.

All of this is true of the laws we have preserved in the Bible. But there is more than that. To an Israelite, the Book of the Law (i.e. the first 5 books of our Bible, also known as the Pentateuch) is representative of the relationship between God and the nation of Israel. In a sense, it is the Law which distinguished Israel from all of the nations around them, for God had chosen to reveal himself to them alone. The Law formalises the relationship between them. In fact, the Law was a gift from God to establish the ways they should live in community with one another, and in relationship with God. It also established boundaries for the relationships between Israel and the surrounding nations.

This was a source of great rejoicing to the Jews:

He has revealed his word to Jacob,
his laws and decrees to Israel.
He has done this for no other nation;
they do not know his laws.
Praise the LORD.¹

Unlike our laws, however, the only way we are able to understand the biblical laws is to read them in the context of the narratives in which they are embedded.

Understanding the law

The Law as a whole constitutes a covenant between God and Israel. A covenant is a binding contract between two parties, usually an overlord or ruler and a vassal or servant. By agreeing to the covenant, the vassal would receive various benefits: protection, provision etc. In return, the vassal was expected to be exclusively loyal to the overlord – often on pain of death. Should the vassal transgress, it was expected that the overlord would act to punish them.

Ancient covenants follow a rigid structure:

• Preamble: This spells out the parties involved in the covenant. e.g. “I am the LORD your God”².
• Prologue: A brief description of how the parties came to form the relationship being formalised. e.g. “… who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”³.
• Stipulations: The individual laws and commands to be followed.
• Witnesses: Those who will enforce the covenant. e.g. usually “the LORD” but occasionally “heaven and earth”⁴ indicating the global importance of honouring this covenant.
• Sanctions: Blessings and curses pronounced upon those who honour or don’t honour, respectively, the terms of the covenant. These were the incentives for compliance⁵
• Document clause: A provision for regular review of the covenant⁶.

The individual stipulations generally come in 2 forms:

• Commands (apodictic): Explicit, generally applicable instructions⁷. It is important to note that not all situations are described. It is instead intended that the laws be read as a paradigm (model) upon which to base ones actions. That is to say it was expected that people follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter of it.
• Case-by-case (casuistic): These were usually conditional laws, describing how to act in a particular situation⁸.

The Law was sufficiently important to Israel that it not only got stated twice⁹, each king was instructed to make a copy of the entire law upon taking the throne, and then to keep it with him and read it every day¹⁰.

Applying the Law

The first thing to understand about the Law is that it is not our covenant. Paul makes quite clear that a Christian is no longer bound by the covenant established in the Old Testament, but is instead an heir to a new covenant established in Christ. Indeed he refers to the old covenant as “the law of sin and death”¹¹, referring to the fact that nobody except Jesus was able to honour the entire spirit of the covenant. As a result, all were guilty and worthy of death according to the Law. The gospel is that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). The sanctions of the covenant have all been borne by Jesus on our behalf.

So, if it is not our covenant, does that make the Law irrelevant to us? No, not at all. What we need to remember is that the Law is God’s Word for us, but not necessarily to us. There is still plenty to be learned from it.

Some of the stipulations of the Law, particularly the ‘ethical’ ones, are reinforced in the New Testament. (As an aside, testament is another word for covenant.) For example, the gospels explicitly and implicitly reference the 10 commandments, and so we can reasonably expect to be bound by those instructions.

Interestingly, none of the case-by-case laws are referenced in the NT. We can, however, still learn much of the character of God through their provision. For example, God is the kind of God who cares about the safety of guests on rooftops¹², purity¹³ etc..

Ultimately, however, it always comes back to Jesus. God’s standard is beyond us. The Pharisees of Jesus’ day thought they could overcome this difficulty by observing the letter of the law, but Jesus is emphatic that much more is required¹⁴. Jesus is the only one able to live up to God’s standard – but because he did, and because he dealt with the penalty of our sins on the Cross, we are able to be declared righteous.

The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.¹⁵

Praise God.

Further reading

• Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, “The Law(s): Covenant Stipulations for Israel” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (3rd Edition, Zondervan, 2003) pp. 163-180.

Endnotes

1. Psalm 147:19-20
2. Ex 20:2
3. Ex 20:2
4. e.g. Deut 4:26; 30:19
5. e.g. Lev 26, Deut 28-33.
6. e.g. Deut 17:18-19; 31:9-13.
7. e.g. Lev 19:9-10.
8. e.g. Deut 15:12-17.
9. Ex 20 – Lev 27 and again in Deuteronomy
10. Deut 17:18-19
11. Rom 8:2
12. Deut 22:8
13. Deut 22:9-11
14. See, for example his interpretations of many of the OT laws in Matt 5-7.
15. Gal 3:24-25

Wisdom literature was a common form of writing in the ancient world – everybody was keen on searching out the ‘right’ way to live, and documenting their findings for everybody else to follow. They were very much focused on teaching how to make correct choices.

The difference between other literature in the ancient world and that found in the Scriptures is the idea that wise choices are godly choices – or more precisely, godly choices are the only wise choices. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom”¹. Only when wisdom is subordinated to obedience to God does it achieve its proper ends.

Wisdom therefore has nothing to do with IQ. According to James, God gives wisdom to all those who ask for it².

Reading wisdom literature

There are 3 main types of wisdom literature in the Bible:

• Proverbial: These were sayings to be memorised, focused on practical attitudes and behaviour. The book of Proverbs is the chief example.
• Speculative: This type of wisdom literature involves either a monologue (e.g. Ecclesiastes) or a dialogue (e.g. Job) that explores the nature of wisdom.
• Lyric: Lyric wisdom is the most abstract of the wisdom literature types. The main biblical example is the Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon), which is a love song looking at the “wise choice” of marital and sexual fidelity.

Here are some guidelines for approaching wisdom literature:

• Read in context. For example, Ecclesiastes 3:2 contains the famous line “a time to be born and a time to die.” By reading the surrounding verses, we understand this to be a comment on the fleeting and transitory nature of life. It is not a comment on God setting a particular time for birth and death.
• Follow the argument. This is closely related to the previous point – where there is an argument being presented, you need to keep on top of who is saying what, and what their argument is based on. For example, if you read “All their days the wicked suffer torment, the ruthless through all the years stored up for them,”³ you might be inclined to think that it is a teaching that wicked people cannot be truly happy. However by reading more carefully we find that Job vigorously refutes this view, and that God vindicates him for doing so.
• Understand the terms. For example, the verse “Stay away from the foolish, for you will not find wisdom on their lips,”⁴ is not a warning against people with intellectual disabilities but those who live selfish and indulgent lives.

To aid in memorability, wisdom literature often employs the same poetic techniques found in psalms. See the section on “How to read a psalm” for more detail.

Applying wisdom literature

Application of wisdom literature is mostly a matter of common sense. Some things to remember when doing so:

• Proverbs often employ parables and thus may point beyond themselves.
• Proverbs are usually practical, rather than theoretically theological.
• Proverbs are written to be memorable, rather than precise. Consider our proverb “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Then have a look at Prov 21:22, 15:19, 31:10-31 etc.
• Proverbs are not intended to support selfish behaviour, although reading them in isolation might cause you to think they do.
• They may need to be ‘translated’ into modern equivalents. Consider Prov 22:11, 25:24 etc.
• They are not guarantees from God, but poetic guidelines for good behaviour. See Prov 29:12, 15:25.
• They may use exaggeration or literary devices to convey a point.
• They give good advice, but are not intended to be exhaustive.

As for all Scripture, your best safety guard is to interpret in the light of Scripture i.e. make sure that whatever application you are taking away lines up with the rest of the Bible.

Further reading

• Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, “Wisdom: Then and Now” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Third Edition, Zondervan, 2003) pp. 225-248

Endnotes

1. Prov 9:10
2. Jas 1:5
3. Job 15:20
4. Prov 14:7

From the Greek word αποκαλνψις (apokalypsis) meaning a disclosure or revelation, an apocalypse is a prophetic look at the end of the world. It is generally concerned with the coming judgment and salvation – looking forward to the end of history. The primary biblical example of apocalypse is the book of Revelation, although portions of the prophets¹ and portions of Matthew’s gospel² might rightly be considered apocalyptic.

Unlike the OT prophets, whose words were spoken first and then remembered and written later, an apocalypse was primarily a literary (i.e. written) form from the beginning. Compare, for example the instruction to John, “write, therefore, what you have seen,”³ to the instructions to the prophets to speak God’s word⁴. As a result, they generally had a particular, formally stylised, structure.

Apocalypse was usually in the form of visions and dream, often using fantasy images (e.g. a dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns⁵, a woman clothed with the sun⁶ etc.).

One big difference between biblical apocalypse and secular was that secular writers often wrote in the name of some historically important person (e.g. Enoch, Baruch), who was told to “seal it up” for a later day. John, on the other hand, feels no need to follow this formula in the writing of his apocalypse – perhaps because he knew that there were to be no “later days” because the end had already begun in Jesus.

Understanding an apocalypse

Here are some things to consider when reading an apocalypse:

• What was the author’s original intent? For example, John wrote Revelation to comfort those who were facing, or were about to face, suffering and persecution under the Romans.
• When the author interprets his own images, use these as a starting point for understanding the other images. There are several images in Revelation which John interprets for us: the Son of Man⁷ who is Jesus; the lampstands⁸ which are the churches; the stars⁹ which are the angels of the churches; the dragon¹⁰ who is Satan; the 7 heads of the beast¹¹ which are the seven hills; and the prostitute¹² who is Bablyon etc.
• Read to see the whole, rather than allegorically pressing details – much as you would a parable. Where details are included, they are generally done so for a) dramatic effect¹³; or b) to make sure readers will not miss the reference¹⁴.
• Be aware of Old Testament references. John references or echoes the Old Testament some 250 times in Revelation, so that every significant moment in his narrative is described almost exclusively in Old Testament language¹⁵. The OT context gives us clues as to how John’s images and pictures are to be understood.
• Apocalypse is seldom intended to give chronological details of the end of history.

Application

• Pictures of the future are just that: pictures. They express a reality, but are not to be confused with reality, nor is every detail necessarily to be ‘fulfilled’. For example, we should not necessarily expect a literal pouring out of the four disasters described in Rev. 8:6 – 9:16. Instead it is more likely that this is a reference back to the plagues inflicted upon Pharaoh, and the judgment that went along with them.
• Even where events described seem to mirror temporal (either present or past) events, be aware that there may be a “not yet” dimension.
• As already mentioned, John’s intention is almost certainly not to give literal details about the end of history. Don’t spend your time worrying about whether current events are the fulfillment of events described in apocalypse – instead, understand John’s message that God is in control, and will bring history to a close on his terms.

Further reading

• Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, “The Revelation: Images of Judgment and Hope” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Third Edition, Zondervan, 2003) pp. 249-264

Endnotes

1. See, for example Dan. 7-12.
2. e.g. Matt. 24
3. Rev 1:19
4. See, for example, Is 6:9 and Jer. 1:7
5. Rev. 12:3
6. Rev. 12:1
7. Rev. 1:13
8. Rev. 1:20
9. Rev. 1:20
10. Rev. 12:9
11. Rev. 17:9
12. Rev. 17:18
13. e.g. Rev. 6:12-14
14. e.g. Rev. 9:7-11
15. e.g. Rev. 1:5b-6 refers back to the sacrificial imagery of Ex. 19:6.