A Simple Prayer

A Simple Prayer I leave for you today. "Lord, fill the hearts of your people with love for Your Word. Thy Word Alone is the Truth. Fill us with thy Truth, and with hatred for the Pope." Amen

Luther and Calvin

Greetings,

THis is once again something from the Trinity foundation. This is not intended for you to read the entire thing. You may print it or save it to your computer. This is about how the Reformers viewed the Bible.:

Luther and Calvin on the Authority of the Bible
John W. Robbins
All acquainted with the sixteenth century Reformation know that the watchword was Sola Scriptura—"Scripture alone." This assertion was made against the pope, the church "fathers," and church councils. Luther and Calvin’s "Scripture alone" meant at least four things:
the necessity of Scripture;
the authority of Scripture;
the sufficiency of Scripture; and
the perspicuity of Scripture.

The Necessity of Scripture
Negatively, Scripture is necessary because, first, man is a creature, and second, man is a sinner. The blindness and darkness of the human heart, the hold that Satan has over his miserable subjects, and the inability of men to desire truth on their own part make an objective revelation most necessary. Scripture is necessary for the preservation of God’s Word for mankind in an objective and self-attesting form. Luther said that among God’s people the rule is not to be a smart aleck or a know-it-all, "but to hear, believe and persevere in the Word of God, through which alone we obtain whatever knowledge we have of God and divine things. We are not to determine out of ourselves what we must believe about him, but to hear and learn it from him."
The Bible is a necessity. Sola Scriptura must be seen as both a denial and an affirmation. It is a denial of man’s ability to know God as he ought apart from Scripture, and it affirms that the Bible is the only place where definite knowledge of God is to be discovered. Man is wholly bankrupt of that knowledge which is able to save him. If he is desirous of salvation, he must turn to the written Word of Scripture.
Calvin takes great pains to stress that under both the old and new dispensation God committed his Word to writing in order to ensure a correct knowledge of himself apart from any priestly interpretation. When the Reformer speaks of the apostles being authorized to teach what Christ commanded, he says: "Let this be a firm principle: No other word is to be held as the Word of God and given place as such in the Church than what is contained first in the Law and the Prophets, then in the writings of the apostles; and the only authorized way of teaching in the church is by the prescription and standard of his Word." Calvin makes it clear that Christ limited the mission of the apostles "when he ordered them to go and teach not what they had thoughtlessly fabricated, but all that he had commanded them." Without the Bible we have no revelation from God which is able to save us from sin and death. Sola Scriptura means the necessity of Scripture.
The Authority of Scripture
The authority of the Bible is implicit in its necessity. The Scriptures are necessary because an authoritative self-revelation of God is necessary for men. However, we need to distinguish between authority and necessity. Martin Luther’s contemporaries admitted the necessity of the Bible, but it was his insistence upon its authority which brought them into serious conflict with the Reformer. Luther’s sola Scriptura was revolutionary because it attributed to the Bible absolute authority—over pope, "fathers," and councils. The offensive concept was sola Scriptura—Scripture alone. Luther was not content with belief in the relative necessity of Scripture. For him the Bible was the only authority:
In the empire of the church the ruler is God’s Word.
We must judge according to the Word of God.
We must judge and consider all wonders and miracles in the light of God’s Word, to ascertain whether they are in accordance and agreement with it.
Whether in opposition to Rome or the enthusiasts, Luther never tired of asserting Scripture alone.
Likewise, Calvin would not tolerate the subjection of the Word to human authorities. The mark of the church—indeed the sine qua non of the true church—was the rule of the Word. Calvin declares: "Since the church is Christ’s Kingdom, and he reigns by his Word alone, will it not be clear to any man that those are lying words by which the Kingdom of Christ is imagined to exist apart from his sceptre (that is, his most holy Word)?"
Both Reformers were all too aware that sinful man seeks to be autonomous. He seeks to set himself up as a judge over that which presents itself to him as revelation. The Word of God does not come to man in such a way as to recognize his self-claimed autonomy. Rather, it comes challenging his authority and overthrowing his conceited attempt to have the final word. Calvin saw as blasphemous impiety the attempt to maintain the precedence and priority of the church over the Word. As Paul declares, the church is founded on the doctrine of the apostles and prophets. We must not speak as though the mother owed her birth to the daughter. Calvin understood that to reject the rule of the Word was to reject the very rule of Christ himself.
Modern views on authority do not echo the sentiments of Luther and Calvin. Yet interestingly enough, many of these views are anticipated in the defense of truth made by these two sons of Paul. As previously stated, some today wish to speak of Christ being the final authority while they reject the authority of the Word. However, Calvin sees the authoritative reign of Christ in and through, not apart from, the Word. So also with those who would claim direct governance by the Spirit. Governance by the Spirit without or instead of the Word would be too vague and unstable. Christ has joined the Spirit to the Word to avoid such a vague, unstable government. Word and Spirit belong together—inseparably together.
Those who wish to propound a multiple source concept of authority would do well to hearken to the sola of Luther. He, like Calvin, repudiated the notion that the Scriptures are created by the church and not vice versa:
The Church is built on the word of the Gospel which is the Word of God’s wisdom and virtue.
The Word of God preserves the Church of God.
Indeed, the church owes her existence to the Word and is maintained by the same means. Nor would Luther be patient with the argument by the sophists, who deduced the superiority of the church over the Word because of the supposed creation of the canon by the church. The inimitable response of Luther cannot go unquoted:
What a splendid argument! I approve Scripture. Therefore I am superior to Scripture. John the Baptist acknowledges and confesses Christ. He points to him with his finger. Therefore he is superior to Christ. The church approves Christian faith and doctrine. Therefore the church is superior to them.
Surely no more needs to be added. For Luther and Calvin, sola Scriptura meant the absolute authority of the Bible. Their position is but the reflection of Paul’s and ought, therefore, to be ours.
The Sufficiency of Scripture
We come now to the sufficiency of Scripture. Once again, this attribute is involved inextricably with the previous two. The notions of man are not partly but wholly bankrupt. There is need for no additional ideas from man to supplement the divine revelation. The necessity of the Bible has reference to all men; the authority of the Bible has particular reference to the autonomous pretensions of Rome and the fanatics; and the sufficiency of the Word challenged the attempted supplements of the philosophers and Romanists.
Sola Scriptura was the denial of any admixture of the word of man with the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is present in the revelation of the Word. Any teaching that does not agree with Scripture is to be rejected, Luther said, "even if it snows miracles every day." Luther did not despise the creeds of the church, but accepted them simply because they had Biblical content. Fidelity to the Word was the criterion for Luther, not only for the creeds of the church but for the theologians also. Though he, like Calvin, appealed time and again to the early theologians, he would not bow to them when their teachings conflicted with that of Scripture. Declared the Reformer: "I will not listen to the church or the fathers or the apostles unless they bring and teach the pure Word of God." The Scriptures are sufficient. In so far as theologians help us to understand those Scriptures, Luther was happy to appeal to them. However, he never had any notion that Scripture had to be supplemented.
A Council has no power to establish new articles of faith, even though the Holy Spirit is present. Even the apostolic council in Jerusalem introduced nothing new in matters of faith . . ..
A council has the power—and is also duty- bound to exercise it—to suppress and condemn new articles of faith in accordance with Scripture and the ancient faith . . ..
Calvin takes the same position when he speaks as follows:
Furthermore, those who, having forsaken Scripture, imagine some way or other of reaching God, ought to be thought of as not so much gripped by error as carried away by frenzy. For of late, certain giddy men have arisen who, with great haughtiness, exacting the teaching office of the Holy Spirit, despise all reading and laugh at the simplicity of those who, as they express it, still follow the dead and killing letter.
These fanatics, who appealed to the Spirit instead of the Word, showed contempt for that Word. They denied the all-sufficiency and perfection of the Word. However, the Spirit is recognized in his agreement with Scripture, for the Word and Spirit belong inseparably together.
Today many claim authority for charismatic experiences and others posit authority in some philosophy or psychology other than the Word. It needs to be stated again that the Word is sufficient. It needs no supplementation from popes, theologians, councils, or bureaucracies. It needs no supplementation by enthusiastic fanatics who entertain their own private revelations and visions. It needs no supplementation by scientists, psychologists, or philosophers. The Scripture is sufficient.
The Perspicuity of Scripture
We have considered the necessity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture. Now we come to the perspicuity, or the essential clarity, of the Bible. If necessity is aimed at rationalism, authority at Romanism and fanaticism, and sufficiency at eclecticism, then the perspicuity of the Scriptures is aimed at clericalism and professorialism. Rome confined the Word to ecclesiastical experts. Luther and Calvin broke the chains that held the Bible to the scholars’ bench and gave the Word of God to the humblest peasant. In his comment on Psalm 37, Luther said: "There is not on Earth a book more lucidly written than the Holy Scripture; compared with all other books it is as the sun compared with all other lights." Luther accused the papacy of beclouding the inherent radiance of the Word and keeping the people from its unambiguous truth. He objected: "they take from the Scripture its single, simple, and stable meaning; they blind our eyes, so that we stagger about and retain no reliable interpretation. We are like men bewitched or tricked while they play with us as gamblers with their dice."
Erasmus was no better. He erred greatly in Luther’s eyes in asserting that, apart from "the precepts designed to regulate our existence," the Bible is, in many places, obscure and impenetrable. In his Bondage of the Will, Luther complains: "It is with such scarecrows that Satan has frightened away men from reading the Sacred Writings and has rendered the Holy Scriptures contemptible . . .."
It must not be thought that the perspicuity of Scripture is inconsistent with the Protestant emphasis of the diligent exposition of the Word. Notice these pertinent remarks of Calvin:
Since we ought to be satisfied with the Word of God alone, what purpose is served by hearing sermons every day, or even the office of pastors? Has not every person the opportunity of reading the Bible? But Paul assigns to teachers the duty of dividing or cutting, as if a father in giving food to his children, were dividing the bread and cutting it in small pieces.
The minister of the Word must strive to be a scholar. Declares Calvin: "None will ever be a good minister of the Word of God, unless he is first of all a scholar." It is as if Calvin were speaking of our day when he says: "how many [ministers] does one see who have only superficially glanced at Holy Scripture and are so pitifully poorly versed in it that with every new idea they change their views." Further, not only must the perspicuity of Scripture not lead us into academic indifference, but it must not lead us to think that, unaided by the Spirit, we can fathom the true intent of God’s Word. Finally, in reference to the perspicuity of Scripture, it must not be thought that the total clarity and comprehensibility of the Word are here being advocated. The perspicuity of Scripture refers to the basic or essential clarity. There are things in the Word that the best of God’s children have not been able to fathom. However, by the gracious ministry of the Spirit, that which is necessary for salvation and godliness is clear.
The Reformers’ Approach to the Bible
Generally speaking, contemporary theology posits supreme authority in some sort of god and gives the Bible only a relative authority. Contemporary theology bluntly refuses to give absolute authority to the Bible, for it claims to fear that to do so is to rob God of his absolute authority. But we have seen that, for Luther and Calvin, sola Scriptura meant nothing less than the absolute authority of the Bible. Both Reformers saw the Scriptures as deserving the attribute of absolute authority—not in the place of God but as the expression of the very mind of God. Hence, Luther and Calvin call the modern church back to the absolute authority of the infallible Bible as the Word of God in the church and the world.
If contemporary theology posits supreme authority in a god to the detriment of the Bible, present day "evangelicalism" posits supreme authority in the experience of the worshiper to the detriment of the Word. Luther and Calvin constantly fought against Rome’s pretensions to direct contact with the Spirit in and through the pope and church councils. Rome admitted that the Spirit spoke in and through the Bible, but claimed this was not the final locus of the Spirit’s working. As pointed out earlier, Luther attacked the right of councils to establish new articles of faith. In addition, Luther and Calvin had to defend the absolute authority of the Bible against the fanatics, who boasted of immediacy of revelation by the Spirit.
Today, the miraculous, the unusual, the pragmatically "helpful" govern the approach of many to the Word so that what they find is only the confirmation of their experiences. The slogan, "The man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument," is highly dangerous and anti-Christian. A miracle, a "changed life," may be used as the final "proof" which closes all argument and brings down charges of resisting the Spirit upon those who wish to exercise reserve. But if a position is not in accordance with the Bible, it is wrong—irrespective of experience. Luther insisted that that which does not agree with Scripture is to be rejected "even if it snows miracles every day."
Luther and Calvin challenge both contemporary theology and "evangelicalism" in their practical demonstration of commitment to the authority of Scripture. Witness the truly prodigious labors of these Reformers in expounding the Word in preaching, teaching, and voluminous writings. This provides a stark contrast to most theology and preaching today. The Bible is shamefully neglected in modern theology and preaching. Consider so-called evangelical preaching. One may encounter pseudo-dramatism. He may hear the imperatives pulverizing the people of God. He may listen to sickeningly glib cliches rolling off the preacher’s tongue with the greatest of ease. But where is that careful exegesis of the text? Where is that great concern to represent the message of the passage of Scripture? Ultimately, is not our view of the Word seen more in what we do with it than in what we say about it? Have we not separated the Spirit from the Word in our foolish notion that scholarship on the part of the minister of God is to be subordinated to emotional attachment, which we call "spirituality"? If we really believe that the Word and Spirit are inseparable, would this not be shown in a high quality of exegesis and exposition? The truly scholarly labors of both Luther and Calvin call the quality of all modern ministries into question. The Bible is absolutely necessary, the only authority, completely sufficient, and, under the ministry of the Spirit, essentially clear.
May 1995

Aonther good resource material for you to use. This is rhetoric on the Biblical principal of Sola Scriptora. I would like to say that I do not believe everything the Trinity Foundation say. I do not think that they arte infallable. I am just posting some scholarly essas for the use of other peoples.

Sola Scriptora,
TheReformer

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Greetings,

This is a brief interuption of the current study on reformation thought to bring an interesting tib bit of history. I believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace, I prefer to call it that and some like to call it "Calvansim". Be that as it may this is an interesting article on Spurgeon and how he view the area of Grace in his theology:

Spurgeon, the Forgotten Calvinist
Godwell Andrew Chan

"Calvinism IS the Gospel, and nothing else."
(C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. I: The Early Years)
"The longer I live, the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection."
(The Forgotten Spurgeon, by Iain Murray)
"Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater than John Calvin."
(C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. II: The Full Harvest)
These three quotations should be sufficient to establish incontrovertibly that Spurgeon was a Calvinist. Unfortunately, there have been many attempts to sweep this fact under the rug. For example, the Kelvedon edition of Spurgeon’s sermons removed all his criticism of Arminianism with no warning to the reader of any abridgement.1 The result of such censorship is that today, while many know Spurgeon to be the "Prince of Preachers," few know that he was a staunch Calvinist. Let us, therefore, hear Spurgeon’s own testimony–from his own autobiography–and from his biographer and historian, Iain Murray, what his convictions were.
Testimonies
Charles Haddon Spurgeon began his ministry at the age of nineteen. Right from the start, he was a staunch Calvinist. In a letter to his friend, Charles Spiller, a fellow Baptist minister, he described his chief task as a preacher as follows: "[M]y daily labour is to revive the old doctrines of Gill, Owen, Calvin, Augustine and Christ."2 He equated Calvinism with historical and Biblical theology: "The doctrine which I preach is that of the Puritans: it is the doctrine of Calvin, the doctrine of Augustine, the doctrine of Paul, the doctrine of the Holy Ghost."3
One critic of Spurgeon’s was Silas Henn. In his book, Spurgeon’s Calvinism Examined and Refuted (1858), Henn said: "[C]omparatively few in these times, amid such enlightened views of Christianity, dare to proclaim, openly and without disguise, the peculiar tenets of John Calvin. Even in many professedly Calvinistic pulpits, the doctrines are greatly modified, and genuine Calvinism is kept back. But there are some who hold it forth in all its length and breadth, and among these, the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, the notorious preacher at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens, is the most prominent."4
Spurgeon’s convictions brought along plenty of enemies and critics, even from within the church. He lamented, "We are cried down as hypers; we are reckoned the scum of creation; scarcely a minister looks on us or speaks favourably of us, because we hold strong views upon the divine sovereignty of God, and his divine electings and special love towards his own people."5 John Anderson of Helensburgh, a friend of Spurgeon, said of him, "Mr. Spurgeon is a Calvinist, which few of the dissenting ministers in London now are. He preaches salvation, not of man’s free will, but of God’s good will, which few in London, it is to be feared, now do."6
Were these the convictions of an immature preacher of nineteen who would later renege? In 1877, during a picnic at the Pastor’s College at which Dr. A. A. Hodge was present, Spurgeon said, "The longer I live, the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection."7 In his mature years, in fact, near the end of his life, he testified, "In theology, I stand where I did when I began preaching, and I stand almost alone."8 Of the articles of faith of the church he founded, the Metropolitan Tabernacle, he said, "As for our faith, as a church, you have heard about that already. We believe in the five great points commonly known as Calvinistic. . . . Against all comers, especially against all lovers of Arminianism, we defend and maintain pure gospel truth."9
During a vacation to Geneva, Switzerland, to recover from bad health, Spurgeon visited the various sites associated with the great Genevan Reformer. Afterward he wrote a moving eulogy to Calvin in his journal:
Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater than John Calvin; no age before him ever produced his equal, and no age afterwards has seen his rival. In theology, he stands alone, shining like a bright fixed star, while other leaders and teachers can only circle round him, at a great distance–as comets go streaming through space–with nothing like his glory or his permanence. Calvin’s fame is eternal because of the truth he proclaimed; and even in heaven, although we shall lose the name of the system of doctrine which he taught, it shall be that truth which shall make us strike our golden harps, and sing. . . . For the essence of Calvinism is that we are born again, "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13, emphasis added).10
Testimonies from Spurgeon himself, and from friends and foes alike all agreed: Spurgeon was indeed a true, full-blooded five-point Calvinist. It takes extreme ignorance to overlook, and extreme prejudice to cover up, this fact.
Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism
As Spurgeon himself has lamented, hyper-Calvinism is a label gummed to Calvinists like the scarlet letter, regardless of whether they actually were or not. This misrepresentation is to a large extent due to an ignorance of what hyper-Calvinism actually means. What is hyper-Calvinism? Gordon Clark, quoting from Donald Dunkerley’s article, "Hyper-Calvinism Today," defines the term as follows:
"the view of Calvinism which holds that "there is no world-wide call to Christ sent out to all sinners, neither are all men bidden to take him as their Savior." Hyper-Calvinists . . . maintain that Christ should be held forth or offered as Savior to those only whom God effectually calls.11
The hyper-Calvinist makes the blunder in logic that since faith is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8) and not of man’s free will (true premises), therefore, there should be no evangelism, calling, and commanding men to believe (false conclusion). The fallacy of the Arminian is that since men are indeed commanded to believe (true premise), therefore, faith cannot be a gift of God but must be from man’s free will (false conclusions). Spurgeon refuted the hyper-Calvinist and said: "They have said, ‘God has a purpose which is certain to be fulfilled, therefore, we will not budge an inch. All power is in the hands of Christ, therefore, we will sit still’; but that is not Christ’s way of reading the passage. It is, ‘All power is given unto me, therefore go ye, and do something.’ "12
The Arminians misquote these statements of Spurgeon’s to attempt to oppose him to Calvinism. But it is hyper-Calvinism, not Calvinism, which Spurgeon opposed. It is a slander, or just plain stupidity, to call a Calvinist a "hyper-Calvinist" and vice versa. No Calvinists believe that the doctrine of eternal election in any way hinders evangelism. Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism are two different theologies.
Two Extreme Sides of the Same Truth?
The modern theological cliche is that while Calvinism upholds the sovereignty of God, Arminianism upholds the responsibility of man; these are but two sides of the same Biblical truth. You hear this repeated so often that after a while, like a hypnotic suggestion, you begin to believe it. But nothing can be further from the truth. It is a blatant caricature to view Calvinism as upholding the truth of the sovereignty of God while neglecting the responsibility of man. Calvinism upholds both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Arminianism upholds neither.
Spurgeon recognized that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not one of "balance." Spurgeon himself preached the doctrine of the responsibility of man vigorously, as only a Calvinist can do. Murray puts it succinctly: "The error of Arminianism is not that it holds the Biblical doctrine of responsibility, but that it equates this doctrine with an un-Biblical doctrine of ‘free-will’ and preaches the two things as if they were synonymous." The doctrine of free will is a foundational tenet in Arminianism. Murray further contends: "That man must be able to believe and repent in order to be responsible for unbelief and impenitency is a philosophical conception nowhere found in Scripture; in fact, it is directly contrary to Scripture."13
Calvinism and Arminianism are not two sides of the same truth. The difference between them is not one of balance or emphasis. The difference between them is one of truth and heresy. William Tyndale condemned the free will doctrine of the Arminians: "[T]hey go and set up free will with the heathen philosophers, and say that man’s free will is the cause why God chooseth one and not the other, contrary unto all of Scripture."14 Because Arminianism is a heresy, condemned as such by the Synod of Dort, 1619, there can be no middle ground, no compromise, between them. Listen to what Spurgeon said: "The Word of God says they [sinners] cannot come, yet the Arminian says they can."15 "When some of us preach Calvinism, and some Arminianism, we cannot both be right; it is of no use trying to think we can be–‘Yes,’ and ‘No,’ cannot both be true. . . . [Spurgeon is applying the law of contradiction.] Truth does not vacillate like a pendulum which shakes backwards and forwards. . . . One must be right; the other wrong."16 In a sermon titled "Free Will–A Slave," Spurgeon preached that "Free will has carried many souls to hell, but never a soul to heaven yet." In the same sermon, Spurgeon quoted Martin Luther: "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."
In a sermon titled "All of Grace," published a few years before his death, Spurgeon said: "The man believes, but that belief is only one result among many of the implantation of divine life within the man’s soul by God Himself. Even the very will thus to be saved by grace is not of ourselves, but it is the gift of God."17 In Arminianism, this Scriptural order is reversed, placing the man’s decision before the divine act. Preaching to the unconverted in another sermon, Spurgeon said: "Sinner, unconverted sinner, I warn thee: thou canst never cause thyself to be born again, and though the new birth is absolutely necessary, it is absolutely impossible to thee, unless God the Spirit shall do it."18 That is the point of John 3. Nicodemus saw clearly that it was impossible to be born again. Jesus does not answer and say, "Oh, I was talking about spiritual rebirth, which can be done, and not physical rebirth, which cannot be done." Jesus says the new birth is by the Spirit, and the Spirit gives it to whomever He wants, just like the wind blows to wherever it wants. Regeneration is in the hands of the Spirit, not under the control of the will of man.
For Evangelism or for Mature Audiences Only?
There is a prevalent opinion that says that Calvinism should be, if it is discussed at all, reserved for more mature Christians, not taught to new converts, and certainly never ever preached to the unbelievers in an evangelistic message. This is one result of the idea that Calvinism is somehow incompatible with evangelism. From the several sermons quoted, it is obvious that Spurgeon did not believe that Calvinism should be hidden from the unconverted nor the new believer. Why? Because Calvinism is the Gospel:
[T]here is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called . . . , after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.19
Those who preach a gospel devoid of the five points commonly called Calvinism are not preaching the Gospel at all, but a false gospel.
If Calvinism is appropriate for the unconverted, certainly it is fitting for all Christians. Condemning the preachers who want to censor Calvinism, Spurgeon said: "There has sprung up in the Church of Christ an idea that there are many things taught in the Bible which are not essential . . . that provided we are right in the fundamentals, the other things are of no concern. . . . It becomes an awful thing . . . for men to leave a single mandate unstudied, lest we shall lead others astray, while we ourselves are acting in disobedience to God. . . ."20 Spurgeon said: "It were better for me that I had never been born than that I preach to these people carelessly, or keep back any part of my Master’s truth. Better to have been a devil than a preacher playing fast and loose with God’s Word, and by such means working ruin of the souls of men. . . . It will be the height of my ambition to be clear of the blood of all men."21 He was, of course, referring to Acts 20:26-27, where Paul, in a farewell address to the Ephesian elders, says he was cleared of the blood of all men because he has not kept back any doctrines in his evangelism and preaching. Those who avoid the doctrines of predestination and the inability of man’s will, and who censor others from teaching them, have blood on their hands.
Separation, Not Schism
Did Paul not condemn following any human system? Is Calvinism not a divisive human system in the order of the Corinthian slogans, "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos"? Well, if Calvinism were indeed merely a human system, then there might be some merit to the charge of being divisive. But Calvinism, as we have seen already, is not a human system.
Truth is by nature controversial. Jesus says he came not to bring peace, but a sword. Jesus and his disciples were not persecuted because they were non-controversial. Spurgeon saw as much. He declared, "Controversy for the truth against the errors of the age is, we feel more than ever convinced, the peculiar duty of the preacher."22 Therefore he was not at all surprised by the enmity toward his proclamation of Calvinism, or the doctrines of grace, as he sometimes called it. The reason, he said, is this: "The fact that conversion and salvation are of God is an humbling truth. It is because of its humbling character that men do not like it."23 And because they do not like it, they controvert it.
As for unity, Spurgeon said, "I am quite sure that the best way to promote union is to promote truth. It will not do for us to be all united together by yielding to one another’s mistakes."24 Spurgeon said something that would not sit well with modern day churches: "I glory in that which at the present day is so much spoken against–sectarianism. . . . Success to sectarianism; let it live and flourish. . . . When we cease, each of us, to maintain our own views of truth, and maintain those views firmly and strenuously, then truth shall fly out of the land, and error alone shall reign."25 What Spurgeon meant was that once debates are censored and hushed up, error alone will reign. But if everyone would maintain their views of truth strenuously, there will be debates, and truth will always triumph in any conflict. Error thrives in the environment of "No controversy" and "Don’t talk about it."
Spurgeon eventually broke away from the Baptist Union at the height of the Down-Grade Controversy, October 28, 1887. Murray says, "The Union was preferring denominational peace to the duty of dealing with error and thus, by tolerating sin, they made the withdrawal of Christians unavoidable."26 False rumors and "What is said of us is nothing; but shall truth be sold to keep up a wider fellowship?" "Long ago I ceased to count heads; truth is usually in the minority." As for disunity, Spurgeon, in his magazine, The Sword and the Trowel, 1888, wrote, "As to a breach of unity, nothing has ever more largely promoted the union of the true than the break with the false." In another article titled "Separation, not Schism," Spurgeon wrote, "Separation from such as connive at fundamental error . . . is not schism, but only what truth, conscience, and God require of all who would be found faithful."
No Compromise
Spurgeon withdrew from the Baptist Union precisely because he would never compromise the truth. The Down-Grade Controversy was not about Calvinism in particular, but about the equivocation of terms. This naturally brought in Calvinism, since Calvinism insists on precise definition of terms. Spurgeon wrote of the Baptist Council, "Whatever the Council does, let it above all things avoid the use of language which could legitimately have two meanings contrary to each other. Let us be plain and outspoken. . . . Right is safe, and compromise by the use of double meanings can never in the long run be wise."27
One example of equivocation is on the doctrine of justification by faith. Spurgeon charged Arminianism of leading to legalism by their doctrine of free will. He said, "Do you not see that this is legality–that this is hanging our salvation upon our work–that this is making our eternal life to depend on something we do? Nay, the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by the Arminians, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works, after all; for he always thinks faith is a work of the creature, and a condition of acceptance. It is as false to say that man is saved by faith as a work, as that he is saved by the deeds of the Law. We are saved by faith as the gift of God. . . ."28 To Spurgeon, to equivocate is to compromise. To agree to ambiguous terms is to compromise. Therefore, he made a stand and broke away. Of the one who compromises, Spurgeon said, "[H]e has, in truth, gone over to the enemy."29 Like the weeping prophet Spurgeon prophesied, "We are going down hill at breakneck speed." And like a voice calling in the wilderness, Spurgeon cried and warned: "Let all who love the Lord, and hate evil, come out of this more and more apostatising church, lest they be partakers of the plague which will come upon her in the day of her visitation."30
Conclusion
The Calvinism of Spurgeon brought him nothing but success in his evangelism, seeing his congregation grew from less than twenty to over six thousand. At the same time, it brought him nothing but controversy. Slanders and false reports dogged him all his life long. Through it all Spurgeon never gave way. He stood his ground despite suffering the mental agony from theological antagonism, which was, no doubt, aggravated by physical pain from his chronic illness of gout. To those who are going through the same struggles, Spurgeon gives his consolation: "We need not be ashamed of our pedigree, although Calvinists are now considered to be heterodox." The situation is the same today, if not worse, as in Spurgeon’s day. Calvinism is labeled as "extreme," and worse, "heterodox," while the real heresy, Arminianism, is hailed as orthodoxy. In Spurgeon’s bedroom, Mrs. Spurgeon hung the text, "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in Heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you" (Matthew 5:11-12). It is an indication of how pressed Spurgeon was from all sides to have to be constantly reminded by that verse every night before he went to bed. He was faithful to the Gospel until death.
Let all who would be true to the Gospel declare with Charles Haddon Spurgeon:
If all men that live or ever shall live should throw up the old Calvinism, there remains one that will hold it, for the reason–that he could not hold any other. I must be crushed out of existence before my convictions of the truth of the doctrines of grace in the old-fashioned form can ever be taken from me.31
Notes
1. Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon, 52.
2. Murray, 58.
3. The Early Years, 364.
4. Murray, 54.
5. Murray, 59.
6. The Early Years, 339.
7. The Early Years, 79.
8. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. II: The Full Harvest, 393.
9. The Full Harvest, 12.
10. The Full Harvest, 29.
11. Gordon Clark, The Atonement, 136.
12. Murray, 49, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 42.
13. Murray, 61-62.
14. Murray, 9.
15. Murray, 90, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 53.
16. Murray, 57.
17. Murray, 84.
18. Murray, 87, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 3.
19. The Early Years, 168.
20. Murray, 56, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 6.
21. Murray, 39, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vols. 19 & 27.
22. Murray, 13.
23. Murray, 60, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 6.
24. Murray, 65, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 6.
25. Murray, 66.
26. Murray, 144.
27. Murray, 147, quoting from The Sword and the Trowel, 1888.
28. Murray, 81, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 9.
29. Murray, 161-162.
30. Murray, 133, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 15.
31. Murray, 168, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 30.
August 1996


This comes from the archives of www.trinityfoundation.org which is an excellent website. I would throughly suggest you go an look around their. Granted there is a good bit of things I do not agree with them on, but there theology is for the most part Biblical and sound. Hope this gives some insight of blessing to at least on reader, but whither it be so or not the so the Lord's Will be done.

In Christ,
TheReformer

saving faith

Greetings,

This is a brief interuption of the current study on the Reformed theology. This is an excerpt from Gordon H. Clark's Book What is Saving Faith? This is an excellent book. Granted I do not believe with everything that Clark says he is ,for the most part, and excelent reformed theologian.

What Is Saving Faith?
Gordon H. Clark...
Some deny that Christ earned anything for his people, because, they say, contradicting Scripture, God never deals with his creatures in terms of merit or justice, but only in terms of grace, which is unearned.Some say faith alone is not enough; that one must also work (obey, remain faithful) in order to be justified, or to stay justified. These claim James as their authority, twisting his words to contradict Paul and to fit their works-religion. Some deny that Christian faith is knowledge, asserting that it is a personal encounter, or a personal relationship, or membership in a covenant community. They say that those who think we are saved by knowledge, such as the Apostle Peter, are Gnostics. Those attacking Christianity and the Gospel of Jesus Christ fail to consult Scripture to see what faith is and does. But one theologian has: Gordon H. Clark. More than 30 years ago Clark examined hundreds of passages of Scripture about faith and published his findings in two seminal books, Faith and Saving Faith and The Johannine Logos. More than three decades later the pseudo-scholars and theologians who now pass as Christian thinkers remain ignorant of Clark’s work. Clark’s exegesis exposes the theology they have fabricated in their books and schools as Romantic fables.1Logos means a sentence, a proposition, a doctrine, an object of intellectual apprehension.
John 7:36, 40 are similar. In the first of these the logos is the assertion, “You will search for me, but you shall not find me.” In the second, the plural occurs: “Some of the crowd, when they had heard these words, said, ‘This man is indeed the prophet.’”
Restricting this section to instances where a definite sentence or sentences define the logos, we come next to John 10:19. Here Jesus had just said that he lays down his life voluntarily; no one can take it from him. “Then the Jews, because of these words [logoi], were again divided.” The words referred to are roughly all of the first eighteen verses.
Here then is a long list of cases where the meaning of the term logos is determined by quoting it. It is always an intelligible proposition. At this point, and before continuing with the list of instances of logos, the reader might want to know what the connection is between the sentences or propositions just given and the Logos of verse 1 who cre-ated the universe and enlightens every man who comes into the world. How did the argument get from Christ to sentences? The connection is this: The Logos of verse 1 is the Wisdom of God. To him his worshipers erected the architectural triumph Hagia Sophia, the church in Constantinople dedicated to the Holy Wisdom of God. To purloin Heraclitus’ phrase, this is the Wisdom that steers the universe. But this steering, the plan on which the universe is constructed, the providential governing of all creatures and all their actions, is based on wise counsel. God does not work haphazardly. He acts rationally. Some of this wisdom is expressed in the propositions of the previous list. They are the mind of Christ: They are the very mind of Christ. In them we grasp the holy Wisdom of God. Accordingly, there is no great gap between the propositions alluded to and Christ himself. The Platonic Ideas, as interpreted by Philo, and by him called Logos, are the mind of God. Some of these Ideas are given to us in the words of John, or in the words of Christ recorded by John. This is how Christ communicates himself to us. Is it completely ridiculous to suggest that this is why John uses the term logos for these two superficially different purposes? But now to continue the list of instances.
The meaning of the term logos is determined by quoting it. It is always an intelligible proposition.
If the listing of these verses seems tedious, it is at least overwhelming and leaves no defense for those who deprecate words and doctrine.
Since some fundamentalists also have accepted the anti-intellectualism of the liberals, we must patiently plod through the list. John 15:3 is, “You are already clean because of the theology I have spoken to you.” John 17:6 and 14 hardly need to be quoted. Verse 17 says that God’s word is truth. And in verse 20 of the same chapter the logos referred to is the future preaching of the disciples.
To make this a complete list of all the occurrences of the term logos in the Gospel of John, we have only to add John 1:1 and 14. In the beginning was the Logos, the logic, the doctrine, the mind, the wisdom of God. The wisdom of God is God. This Logos became flesh and we saw the glory of his grace and truth.
Contemporary theology frequently distinguishes between the Logos and the rheemata: the Word and the words.The Word is in some sense divine. If it is contained in or somehow mediated by the Bible, the Bible is “authoritative,” though not infallible. Just how false statements can be “authoritative” the liberals do not explain. Reception of the Word for them is a sort of mystic experience without intellectual content. The words, on the other hand, are human, fallible, and mythological. The supernatural truth of God is so different from human truth that they do not coincide at a single point and not even omnipotence has the power to express it in human language; therefore the words, the concepts, are mere pointers to an unknowable object.
They conclude from the meagerness of their thinking that thinking and believing are inadequate.
There is no antithesis between believing Jesus as a person and believing what he says.
6:69 says, “We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” John 8:24 says, “You do not believe that I am [Jehovah, or, the one I claim to be].” John 9:18, “the Jews did not believe that he had been blind.” John 10:25-26, “I told you [that I am the Christ] and you do not believe [that proposition]; the works I do…testify of me [that I am the Messiah], but you do not believe [the propositions they assert].” John 11:26-27, “Everyone who is alive and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this [proposition]? Yes, Lord, she said, I have believed that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who comes into the world.” In John 11:42 Jesus spoke out loud “so that the crowd would believe that you did send me.” But why tediously quote in addition 12:38, 47; 13:19; 14:10-11, 29; 16:27, 30; 17:8, 21; 19:35; and 20:31?
äubigen.” But in English the connection between the Greek verb believe and its Latin noun is obscured by translating the noun as faith instead of belief.
This Latin anti-intellectualism, permitted by the noun fides, undermines all good news and makes Gospel information useless.
This part of the study pays no attention to the grammatical object of the verb. Reliance is now placed on the conclusion already drawn that noun and pronoun objects are linguistic simplifications of the intended propositional object. To believe a person means precisely to believe what he says.
The Apostle John never mentions a mystic experience. He repeatedly says, if you believe, you are saved. Belief is the whole thing.
10:25-28 say, “You do not believe because you do not belong to my flock. My sheep listen to my voice…. I give them eternal life.” This states what is essentially both the negative and the positive proposition; and the negative is clearly implied in 16:9: “He will convict the world of sin…because they do not believe on me.” Then if one supposes that God granted the petitions of the high-priestly prayer, the positive statement is implied in 17:8-10, 16-17, 20-22, and 26.
Editor’s Note:

Truth Cont.

Greetings,

Now this has been a very long blogg thus far. As a refresher course, this all started by talking about the major premise of the Reformation that is Sola Scriptora (Scripture Alone). This discussion about the Bible and science is a very brief example of the nature of the Truth contained in the Holy Scriptures. This will conclude the final portion on science, there may also be some Bloggs on how the Truth of the Bible played out in The Arts and other areas affected by the Biblical reformation.

Last time I made the proposition that only the God of the Bible could sustain scientific invention. Now why would this be? The earlier proofs set the other gods against the God of the Bible in that they were impersonal, limited, and illogical. Whereas the God of the Bible is by definition a personally infinite logical Creator. The God of the Bible created the universe based on the logical Person that He is. Why is this important, and why am I rambling on about it for so long? The fact that science only developed in Europe is no coincidence. Science developing only in Europe and therefore not being developed anywhere else is because Europe had the advantage of having the Christian consensus that the other geographical regions of the world did not. In other cultures the gods that were considered the creators were not very logical, and if they were not why should anyone try to understand the world? It is not that the other cultures did not have the intelligence or the opportunities to develop science, its just they had not reason to. The gods of the Greeks and Romans were not Divine, they were amplified humans. They were so arbitrary and illogical why should anyone try to understand the world. As before stated the Greeks did have empiricism, but they never applied there knowledge to anything and never attempted to develop their thoughts. The Romans even had steam power, but the inventors never did anything with it. The Islamic countries never could have science because it would establish law that would hinder Alla. The Chinese had impersonal deities and were encouraged to meditate. Meditation will only obtain a few moments of silence. It will never render any truth facts about the world we live in. In opposition to this the Christian man has not only the opportunity but a reason to discover the world around him. In order to understand more and therefore praise more the Almighty God one should investigate His handiwork. Can we not learn of the excellences of His Reason by seeing how this universe is put together? The fact that the Christian man believes God to be the God of reason suggest that His creation will reflect this Heavenly wisdom. This is why the world could not have been created by chance. It is far to complex and intricate to be formed by random chance. The evolutionist cannot account for this fact, but to the Christian this is just one more evidence of the greatness of our God. Who but the LORD could form such a wondrous world? This is how the Christian world view lead to the rise of modern science. Man not only wanted to study the world (research) but wanted to apply rhetorical thought so that he may , "Not only understand that something works, but also know how and why it works".

This is what the Reformation drew forum its Biblical basis. The fact that the Reformers saw the Bible as the written Word of God gave them a source of knowledge and understanding. The Bible gave them a concrete foundation to understanding all of life.

By Christ Alone,
The Reformer

Truth

Ah ha, I said I would blogg today, and I have. Well, rather am now, so it is not a completed action the past yet. Oh well, I was never very good at grammar anyway.

Greetings and salutation,

The point that was made yesterday is that the Reformers hold a high view of Scripture because it is the written Word of God. This makes the Bible Truth. Now Before I go on I would like to reentered a point that I made in yesterdays blogg. That the Bible is not exhaustive in Truth. Not all things that are true are contained in the Scriputres. Some might say that science is not in the Bible, and in a direct way this is quite true. The Bible does not speak of some scientific truth like how many lightyears away is the closest star from our solar system. In some areas it is not that the Bible gives us specific instruction on all things. It may give a simple black and white Truth, then in other times it gives us concepts or a framework with which to find more truth. For instance I am reading this book called The Victory of Reason. Now this book was written by a man who is very pro-Catholic and Obviously I am not to thrilled about that. Once you pick out the Catholic propaganda it has some really good information. The book is describes how having a Christian basis in Europe lead to logical and scientific discovery. This is a perfect example of how the Bible does not necessarily gives specifics, but it does give the frame work.

The Bible puts forth the world as being created by God. The Bible clearly states that God is a God of reason and knowlegde. The Greek word given to Christ is logos which is a word that means a doctrinal/intellectual proposition. The Bible over and over again states that God is a God of knowledge. "...The LORD is the God of Knowledge; and by Him actions are weighed."(I Sam. 2:3) The Proverbs continually say that one should seek wisdom, and that, "The Fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge"(Prov. 1:7) Another great passage from Proverbs is chapter eight, particularly verses 12-36. This passage deals with wisdom and how wisdom seeks out knowledge and understanding. That at the time of creation Wisdom was with God and God took delight in wisdom. (Some say that the "Wisdom" in this chapter refers to Christ, but that is for another time) So the Bible does not only give man truth about Himself, but it also reveals truth about the world that we live in. Now, before we forget why all this matters, I ws going to make the point that even when the Bible does not give exhaustive truth on a topic, it does give at least a frame of reference. Science proves this point quite well. Science is made up of theorizing and research. The cultures outside of Europe never engaged in science. The Greeks were nothing more than empiricist. Whenever they did theorize, it was never researched or proven. Aristotle said that the heavier an object is the faster it will fall to the ground. A quick trip to the nearest cliff would disprove this as false, but that never happened. Chinese and Islamic cultures fell to the same fate. They could have discovered science, but why didn't they? It was because their gods were not personal nor were they logical. The impersonal deities of the East focused mainly on meditation to find truth, but this will render you nothing more than a few hours of science or repetitive noise. The Islamic teachers forbade rules of nature from being formulated because they thought that they would interfere with Alla's freedom in the world. Only the personal infinite God of the Bible gave men reasons to inquire into their world. Now this has been a long blogg, so it will be finished tomorrow.

In the Fear of Christ,
Reformationman

Sola Scriptora Cont.

Well Greetings everyone (that is if any still is looking at this),

I thought that I would wait a long time before I put on the continuation of the last blog. Ok, maybe I didn't mean for it to be this long, but you know how time flies. Anyway, I said last time that the concept of Scripture Alone is one of the five most important points of the Reformation. This is the first and the most important point. Form this point all other doctrines of the Reformation flow. The Catholic Church of the Middle ages had strayed away from the early form of Christianity. Many of the erroneous ideas of the Catholic Church come from the fact that over about one thousand years the church view the Scriptures less and less. It was so bad that at the time of Luther the Pope's words were more important than the Bible. The Catholic's had kept the Bible from the common people by only letting it be translated in Latin, a language which only church officials and highly educated people could comprehend. This resulted in the people having to depend on the Priests and the Pope to tell them what the Bible said. Of coarse the Pope never twisted the Words of Scripture(Yea right).

So when the Fathers of the Reformation found the Truth of the Bible, they were overjoyed. They held a high and exalted view of the Scriptures. This came oyt in the Reformation art. Hence the statue of Farrell, he is standing there holding his Bible up high. Almost like he is saying to you and to me, "Look, see, come and read the Word of the living God". This statue epitomizes the heart of the Reformation, namely that the Word of God alone contains the Truth. Notice I did not just say truth, I said the Truth. Now don't mistake me, the Bible does not contain exhaustive Truth about life, But what it does contain is the Truth. The Truth that the Bible contains works as a frame for the rest of life. More on this will follow tomorrow.

By Grace Alone
Reformationman