Contending for the Faith is a command

This is a great extract from Owen's preface to Of the Death of Christ, which he wrote in Dublin by way of reply to Richard Baxter.

Please note the origin of what Owen calls the "bitter streams." Note also the role he attributes to Satan in this doctrinal controversy.

Finally note how Owen affirms the necessity of publicly opposing public opposition to the truth. When that happens today the sympathy too often goes with the attacker and the criticism gets levelled at the defender of the truth.

"It was in our hopes and expectations, not many years ago, that the Lord would graciously have turned back all those bitter streams which, issuing from the pride, unthankfulness, and wisdom of the carnal mind, had many ways attempted to overflow the doctrine of the grace of God, that bringeth salvation; but finding now, by experience, that the day of the church's rest from persecution is the day of Satan's main work for seducing and temptation, and that not a few are attempting once more to renew the contest of sinful, guilty, defiled nature, against the sovereign distinguishing love and effectual grace of God, it cannot but be convenient, yea necessary, that the faith once delivered to the saints be contended for and asserted from the word of truth in the like public way wherein it is opposed."

John Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works vol. 10, p. 431

The devil is in the details

Precision, clarity and consistency are always important when it comes to discerning the difference between true and false doctrine. It is never enough to accept a view as sound just so long as it is presented with the right words and phrases. The crucial issue is what those words and phrases mean, and whether they are being used in a way that they have been historically and biblically understood.

The question of motives is secondary, but still important. After all a man may be sincerely deceived in the views that he holds, or he may be a deceiver. The primary question is "but what does this teacher mean when he says that he believes in justification by faith alone?" "What does he mean when he says that he believes that God is omniscient?"

The protestation of orthodoxy, and adherence to the confessions, whilst at the same time redefining doctrines smacks of heresy. Departures from the truth are grievous. But departing from the truth by the redefinition and retaining of confessional language is insidious.

Or as Irenaeus of Lyon put it:

"Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off, even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men--because they outwardly are covered with sheep's clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different".

No Alarms and No Surprises

There are no surprises when it comes to the existence of heresy. What can take us by surprise is the subtlety of its seductive, deceptive power. It is amazing that someone can be in error but oblivious to it. But then again isn't that what it is like when you are deceived? You end up taking as truth what is, in fact, lies.

Here are two quotes from Tertullian to ponder:

"The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass; nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being "approved." Groundless, therefore, and inconsiderate is the offense of the many who are scandalized by the very fact that heresies prevail to such a degree".

Ch. 1

"But let us rather be mindful of the sayings of the Lord, and of the letters of the apostles; for they have both told us beforehand that there shall be heresies, and have given us, in anticipation, warnings to avoid them; and inasmuch as we are not alarmed because they exist, so we ought not to wonder that they are capable of doing that, on account of which they must be shunned.

The Lord teaches us that many "ravening wolves shall come in sheep's clothing." Now, what are these sheep's clothing's, but the external surface of the Christian profession? Who are the ravening wolves but those deceitful senses and spirits which are lurking within to waste the flock of Christ? Who are the false prophets but deceptive predictors of the future? Who are the false apostles but the preachers of a spurious gospel? Who also are the Antichrists, both now and evermore, but the men who rebel against Christ?

Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the church by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by the cruelty of his attacks, except that persecution makes even martyrs, (but) heresy only apostates. And therefore "heresies must needs be in order that they which are approved might be made manifest, both those who remained steadfast under persecution, and those who did not wander out of their way into heresy".

Tertullian, Prescription Against Heresies, Ch. 4

The Unpaid Debts of the Church

I have never been able to track down the origin of the phrase "heresies are the unpaid debts of the church." The phrase is of course used to account for the existence of theological aberrations and unconventional movements. And with that is the implication that if only the orthodox had done a better job then they would not be faced with such an undesirable situation. Perhaps a little hand wringing should accompany this admission in recognition of such failure. I have certainly been in situations where I have been encouraged, maybe even expected, to accept that the theological position of others, and the visible disunity accompanying it, lay at the feet of conservative evangelicals.

In fairness the phrase is a helpful explanation of what may in fact be the case. It is possible to discern in the developments of movements a reactionary spirit. Without a doubt the establishing of the NAE in 1942 was a self-conscious reaction against the hard-line separatism of fundamentalism. More than one commentator has seen in the Emerging Church Movement a reaction against the seeker sensitive mega church approach. Depending on your viewpoint (whether it is a good or bad thing) the re-installation of church furniture and the interest in the spirituality of the church (before the erecting of the evangelical big top in the late 20th century) is a reaction to the conversion of the church into a shopping mall or country club. It is an unpaid debt.

But as helpful as this phrase may be it does have two negative consequences. Because it lays the blame at the feet of one group it cannot but help give the impression that the reactionaries are the victims in all of this. Are they or are they not responsible for their own theology and practice? Can they pin the blame, like self-absorbed and badly behaved teenagers, on their theological parents. There is more than a whiff of this spirit among emergents. Just think of how many who gravitate toward the emergent approach are in fact dissatisfied ex-evangelicals in recovery. But it is the background influence of a victim culture that fixes the blame upon the home. Frankly it is embarrassing to hear grown men who left such churches long ago harping on about the damage that it has done to them. Yet one gets the impression that deep down they just want a different theology altogether.

The second negative consequence is far more insidious. If the "victim-in-recovery" posture is taken as the total, or dominant, explanation for theological approaches of dubious orthodoxy, then other explanations and factors are underplayed. Let me elaborate on them:

1. The New Testament links heresies with the influence of the devil. Ultimately the spread of destructive error is attributed to him. That at least is the apostolic interpretation of the matter. In the realm of theological confusion he is not on holiday. The devil persists in questioning God's Word and in offering alternative interpretations of it.

2. Since heresy is a matter of choice we ought to ask questions about what governs our choices. Do we sincerely desire to be in glad submission to God's Word or are we working with a basis of authority that would filter God's revelation through our own spiritual and moral criteria? Will I believe things because they are true, even when they are emotionally hard to take? Or will I let what is acceptable to me personally be the test that doctrines must pass? What we are dealing with here is the orientation of the heart and mind to God's revelation to us in Scripture.

What I am arguing is that even if there were no "unpaid debts" that would not eliminate theological aberrations. Even when the whole counsel of God has been proclaimed the choice to follow a different way will still be made.

Whether or not it looks like heresy depends on where you are standing

Heresy looks like truth until you stand in the right place and see it for what it really is.

The apostle Paul makes this point as he warns the Colossians about false teaching. He switches back and forth so that the Colossians get a good look at the appearance of false teaching and then see the reality of it.

Watch how he does it...

Appearance:

"plausible arguments" (2:4)

Reality:

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." (2:8)

Appearance:

"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." (2:16)

Reality:

"These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ". (2:17)

Appearance:

"Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind." (2:18)

Reality:

"He has lost connection with the Head." (2:19, NIV)

Appearance:

"If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations--"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body." (2:20-23a)

Reality:

"but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh". (2:23b)

So where can you stand to see clearly the difference between the two?

There is only one place and it is right here:

"the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge". (2:2b-3)

"Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving." (2:6-7)

"in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority". (2:9-10)

Colossians Redux

As strange as it may seem I came across the following snippet about the influence of the ministry of a church here in North Wales:

"...small groups of Christians are now moving into Festival and Sabbath practice as a result of what The Lord is doing through this revelation."

Isn't this what Paul warns against in Colossians 2:16-17?

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ".

By Sabbath practice it means that they meet as a church on a Saturday evening.

I wonder how they respond to a "no thanks I'd rather have Christ than those shadows."

How to protect yourself from error

Paul's approach to false teaching in Colossians appears to be a little different to that found in some of his other letters (Galatians, Titus). This may well be because the false teachers were yet to infiltrate the church. But, since they have dogged his steps wherever he has gone, Paul gets his retaliation in first. And in doing so he presents the Colossians with an awesome description of the person of Christ and his cross-work. By making much of Christ Paul aims to show up these errors for what they really are.

Now, let us be clear, compared to Christ this alternative teaching and practice appears hollow, shallow, and pretentious. It makes much of religious behaviour, ritual and mysticism. Or in other words it makes much of human performance and appearance. And it is put back into the shadows by the majesty of Christ made fully known in the apostolic gospel.

Dick Lucas captures Paul's pastoral method in dealing with the error that threatened the Colossian church:

"This positive instruction, once its implications have been grasped in terms of the sufficiency of Christ, will be the Colossians' best protection against error."

So, how can you protect yourself against error? By following Paul's prescription in 2:6-7:

"Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving."

James Buchanan summed up this pastoral approach in his classic work on justification:

"It has long been my firm conviction, that the only effective refutation of error is the establishment of truth. Truth is one, error is multiform; and truth, once firmly established, overthrows all the errors that either have been, or may yet be, opposed to it. He who exposes and expels an error, does well; but it will only return in another form, unless the truth has been so lodged in the heart as to shut it out for ever."

James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, p. 15

See to it that no one takes you captive

On Sunday evenings I am preaching through Colossians. Following a section thick with metaphor (2:6-7) Paul issues this warning in verse 8:

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ".

So the metaphors continue. The Colossians must be wary of false teaching since the alternative teaching, which is a deceptive and empty Christ-less philosophy, will enslave and imprison them. It will take them captive.

Peter O'Brien in his commentary writes that:

"...the word is used figuratively of carrying someone away from the truth into the slavery of error. The term is a vivid one and shows how seriously Paul regarded the evil designs of those trying to influence the congregation."

O' Brien, Word Biblical Commentary: Colossians, Philemon, p. 109

But whilst Paul considers this philosophy to be hollow and deceptive that is certainly not how it is going to be presented to the church. From the standpoint of the apostolic gospel concerning the person and work of Christ it is empty deceit and human tradition. But from the perspective of how it will seek to gain entry and acceptance among the Colossians it will appear as "plausible arguments" that have the capacity to delude believers (2:4).

This is worth reflecting on. Dick Lucas makes a helpful observation on the plausibility of error in his Bible Speaks Today commentary on Colossians:

"We do not learn from error if we are content merely to expose its follies. The new teaching had an immediate appeal just because it spoke to a real need."

R. C. Lucas, The Message of Colossians & Philemon, p. 86

This is the reason why error gains entry. Part of the process is the appeal that it makes. It is plausible and attractive, not necessarily obviously wrong and harmful. With a spoon full of sugar the heresy goes down.

Evangelicalism & Liberalism

"I shall never forget reading nearly forty years ago the opening sentence in a book on the subject of Protestantism. The first sentence reads thus: 'Every institution tends to produce its opposite.'"

So wrote Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in the opening address on "What is an evangelical?" that he gave at IFES conference at Schloss Mittersill, Austria, in 1971.

That quotation has left me with two thought provoking questions:

1. Will the 20th century form of evangelicalism give way in content, but not in name, to a new 21st century form of liberalism?

The relationship of church to culture, the doctrine of the atonement, and the doctrine of Scripture seem to indicate that this is happening. New advances among evangelicals are really "back to liberalism" (but of course without capitulating to the anti-supernaturalism of modernism).

2. Once a change of nature, but not name, has taken place is recovery impossible?

Will there always be a need to start over again with, for example, a new Westminster seminary? Will the testimony of reformers always be "we will keep the faith, you can keep the furniture."

If you recognise the picture you will see the point I'm making.

Errors have pastoral consequences

The following quotation is taken from Hywel Jones' chapter "Preaching sola fide Better," in Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry (ed. R. Scott Clark).

"Only a fraction of the present body of confessing Christians are solidly appropriating the justifying work of Christ in their lives. Many have so light an apprehension of God's holiness and of the extent and guilt for their sin that consciously they see little need for justification, although below the surface they are deeply guilt ridden and insecure.

Many others have a theoretical commitment to this doctrine, but in their day to day existence they rely on their sanctification for justification drawing their assurance of acceptance with God from their sincerity, their past experience of conversion, their recent religious performance or the relative infrequency of their conscious, willful disobedience.

Few know enough to start each day with a thoroughgoing stand on Luther's platform; you are accepted, looking outward in faith and claiming the wholly alien righteousness of Christ as the only ground for acceptance, relaxing in the quality of trust which will produce increasing sanctification as faith is active in love and gratitude."

Richard Lovelace, cited in CJPM, p. 310-11

I suspect that this description, anecdotal and general rather than scientific, is pretty accurate. The cause of it may well be ignorance and lack of teaching, rather than willful resistance to the truth of justification by faith alone. Or it may be a failure of applying the truth of justification by faith alone (which in itself highlights a deficient grasp of the doctrine). Nonetheless there is always a price to pay when error fills the space that truth is meant to fill. And error is never a merely intellectual matter. Error does damage to our capacity to live before God and others as he wills that we should.

Pierced for our transgressions

I heard that this was coming and am very glad to see Dave Bish heralding its arrival.

Table of contents, endorsements, and foreword (by John Piper) can be found here

Here is the blurb from the home page:

"The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

Although this is the historic Christian view, it has recently come under attack. Controversy has raged since 2003 when Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis Trust, likened the doctrine to ‘a form of cosmic child abuse’.

Pierced for our Transgressions offers a fresh affirmation of penal substitution, engaging with exegetical, theological, pastoral and historical perspectives. It is designed to be useful for pastors, theological students, and all thinking Christians."

It is a sad fact that scholars and popular preachers within evangelicalism have in recent years breathed life into the dead, and deadening, theology of the 16th and 17th century Socinians. Claiming to be the authentic good news this denial of Christ's penal substitutionary work has been passing itself off as theologically acceptable. And of course it will do that if churches are ignorant of what the Bible teaches and what orthodox churches clearly rejected on biblical grounds in the past.

It is so good to see this book.

A Surgical Mentality

I did an interview with Guy Davies, the exiled preacher, that is available here

Guy's blog is well worth frequenting.

The title of this post is an allusion to Martyn Lloyd-Jones conversation with T. T. Shields (an Englishman who ministered in Toronto and became known as the "Canadian Spurgeon").

Lloyd-Jones met Shields during a summer visit to Toronto in the early 1930s. The incident is recorded by DML-J in his Preaching and Preachers, and also by Iain Murray in the first volume of his outstanding biography of the Doctor.

Lloyd-Jones felt that the older man had ruined his ministry by becoming excessively negative and obsessed with polemics. It would not be unkind to say that temperamentally it was T. T. Shields contra mundum.

The conversation was summed up by three incisive remarks by Lloyd-Jones. In reply to the comment that the circulation of his writings went up when he dealt with polemical matters Lloyd-Jones said that two dogs fighting in the street will always draw a crowd.

Shields responded with two remarks. There was biblical precedent for his actions in Paul's denouncing of Peter. Lloyd-Jones countered this by saying that the effect of Paul's rebuke was the winning of Peter. That could not necessarily be said by Shields in his attack on opponents. Shields appealed to Lloyd-Jones' medical background. As a doctor he would see the need for radical surgery. Of course, Lloyd-Jones agreed, but there is such a thing as a "surgical mentality."

In this exchange the Welshman made a telling remark that "you can make mincemeat of the liberals and still be in trouble in your own soul".

A few reflections:

1. How can you avoid a preoccupation with error? I mean the kind of preoccupation that leads to an excessively negative ministry. What are the warning signs? Or are such men so bound by their own perspective that they are happy to justify their calcified ministry. Lloyd-Jones discerned this kind of unhelpful development in Shields. So how can you keep yourself from a "surgical mentality"?

2. Why is it that older ministers generally go in two directions? Some seem to become hardened and increasingly negative. Others become increasingly soft and indulgent.

The Cure and Keeping of Souls

This is an old post that I am putting up again for comment and consideration...

John "Rabbi" Duncan was a minister in Scotland and professor of Hebrew at New College, Edinburgh, in the 19th Century. There is an interesting anecdote about a conversation he had with Dr. Muir of Glasgow. They discussed the appropriateness of the title "Theotokos", Mother of God, for Mary. Duncan was in favour of it, Muir denounced it as "Popish blasphemy".

Moody Stuart comments that:

"Dr. Muir revered the Bible, but no authority besides, and he must have everything direct and clear, with no mystery about it".

After debating the matter for two hours Muir left. And John Duncan said:

"That man owes much to divine grace; except for grace Dr. Muir would have been a Socinian."

I take it that there was no complaint about having no authority beside the Bible. The problem is with the hidden assumption about how to read and interpret the Bible. In which case it is not really a commitment to sola scriptura at all. The appeal to sola scriptura is masking a mindset that doesn't really take God at his Word but assumes that he must speak and reveal himself in a particular way.

A few years back I gave some seminars on the Trinity at Word Alive. I chatted one afternoon with a student who believed that the Father and Son were both God, and distinct persons, but that the Spirit had no distinct personal nature. When we talked it over it became clear that he expected the Bible to explain God's triune nature in a set way (a bit like the creeds do). When he couldn't find those sorts of statements he wasn't convinced that the doctrine was really there. But he was mistaken. The Bible is a two part covenant book about the effected rescue plan of the triune God. He reveals his identity as he saves us, and in that rescue plan each person works together and distinctly as God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit.

It makes all the difference not only to submit to God's Word but to submit to it as God has given it to us without smuggling in our own assumptions about how he must reveal himself.

Or as the Westminster Confession I:vi puts it:

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture"

Evangelicals and Confessionalism

This is a short follow up post to my one entitled Minimus and Maximus on the differing approaches to statements of faith in among the subgroups that make up evangelicalism. Two extracts from Darryl Hart.

"Of course, the aim of evangelicalism was to find a lowest common denominator faith that would take members from diverse denominations and independent congregations and stitch them together in a recognizable quilt."

"...for mere Christianity to survive, wise and constant diligence needs to be directed to as complete a reflection on biblical truth as possible. In other words, to preserve the minimum, you need to defend the maximum. This is logic that those who call themselves evangelical have instinctively avoided."

D. G. Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism, p. 30-1

Heresy in the eye of the beholder

Everyone thinks that they are orthodox. No one really thinks that their theology is heretical (unless of course they are seeking to be provocative and attention seeking, but then that is a rhetorical ploy). But there is more to this than simply saying that we all think that our theology is right. Unorthodox theology has every intention of pushing orthodoxy out of its own home as if orthodoxy was the intruder. When it does so it it wages a verbal campaign against true orthodoxy by portraying it as backward, negative, defensive, critical, suspicious, unloving, harsh etc. (in point of fact plenty of this mud, in the 1920s and 30s, was flung in the direction of J. Gresham Machen).

As the following extract shows, open theism presented itself not only as a valid option for evangelicals to hold to, but also as affirming and upholding the doctrine of God's omniscience. The problem with that claim was simply that the open theist doctrine of God's omniscience had never, ever, in two thousand years of church history, ever been an acceptable version of what Christians have meant by omniscience.

"At what point...does an interpreter have a right to say, "I know you SAY you believe in omnipotence and omniscience, and you may even really BELIEVE that you do hold to these attributes, but in fact you do not. You regularly defend positions that directly challenge these terms as they have been understood and used (and isn't meaning in the use?). Even on an etymological rendering, your stated commitments to these divine attributes die the death of a thousand qualifications"?

Mike Horton

From The Nature of Evangelicalism, a dialogue between Michael Horton and Roger Olson, available online here

Why do heresies persist?

Church history tells the story of the battle between truth and error. Heresies arise, gain a following, are opposed and refuted from Scripture, and then the Church moves on and advances in the truth. Because of this we have great statements like the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon. But if these errors have been dealt with in the past why do they come back again and again? Why do people today believe old heresies? There are three reasons.

1. The devil still deceives people into believing heresies by using human instruments to promote attractive and plausible teaching. He will continue to do this until Christ returns in glory.

2. The warnings and lessons from history are ignored or unknown. If we are ignorant of the past we will fail to see that heresies that today appear new, innovative and interesting are as old as dirt. Many of the errors finding a home in evangelicalism today were tried and found wanting by our great-great-grandfathers in the faith at the bar of Scripture.

3. Throughout history those who deny the truth and choose a different gospel are limited in the options available to them. In his study of heresies Harold Brown concluded that “over and over again, in widely separated cultures, in different centuries, the same basic misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the person and work of Christ and his message reappear. The persistence of the same stimulus, so to speak, repeatedly produces the same or similar reactions.”

What are the effects of heresy?

Heresy brings confusion for unbelievers since they hear several different and contradictory voices all claiming to be telling them the authentic good news.

Heresy also brings trouble for the Church. Unless false teachers are silenced, as Paul tells Titus that they should be, they will ruin households and upset the faith of some (Titus 1:11). Genuine believers can be unsettled by the teaching of these men (2 Tim. 2:18). In addition to this damage, false teachers also drain the time, energy, and resources of churches when they are not dealt with. Drawn out conflicts with false teachers can divert and distract gospel churches from evangelism and the planting and nurturing of new congregations.

Heresy places those who embrace it, and refuse to be corrected, in danger of eternal condemnation. At the very least the salvation of those who are deceived by gospel denying error cannot be affirmed. There is hope that God may grant such people repentance. But the apostles did not shrink back from spelling out the danger of turning to a “different gospel.” Paul makes it clear that whether the “false brothers,” an angel from heaven, or even the apostles themselves preached another gospel than the one that Paul had preached then they should be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).

Harold Brown summed up the consequences of truth and error by saying that “just as there are doctrines that are true, and that can bring salvation, there are those that are false, so false that they can spell eternal damnation for those who have the misfortune to be entrapped by them.”

Why would anyone embrace heresy?

You would think that someone would have to be out of their right mind to believe heresy. Who, after all, wants to believe something that isn't true? But, to quote Lucifer in Milton's Paradise Lost, the anthem of heresy is that “it is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.” Every heresy appeals to our sinful wishes and desires, the “way that we want things to be” and not the way that God has provided in the gospel, “which is infinitely better for us” as Bishop Allison put it. Consider all the major heresies and you will find that they appeal, directly or indirectly, to our sinful reason, affections and will. Heresy appears to be beneficial, posing as good news and proclaiming Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4), but in reality like gangrene it destroys spiritual life (2 Tim. 2:17).

Heresy always presents itself as an improvement on the biblical gospel. For the Colossians it promised to overcome their struggle with sin and bring them closer to God. For the Galatians it would keep them from persecution and fuel their desire to justify themselves before God by their works.

Heresy never appears in its true colours. In his monumental work Against Heresies Irenaeus wrote that “error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself.”

Where do heresies come from?

It is vitally important to realise that heresies do not originate in the minds of men and women. Ultimately heresy originates with the devil. When the apostle Paul takes the Corinthian church to task for tolerating false teachers he compares their approach to the deception of Eve by the serpent (2 Cor. 11:3). But the deception in the Garden is more than a useful illustration. The super-apostles at Corinth are the servants of the devil disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.

Similarly Paul warned Timothy about “deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1), and of false teachers who are caught in the snare of the devil (2 Tim. 2:24-25). After all the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). The connection between other gospels and the demonic, which is integral to a biblical world view, has been largely lost. If it were regained it would keep us from ever thinking that heresies are interesting, intellectually stimulating, tolerable, or in any way benign. Cyprian of Carthage, in the third century, made this insightful comment about heresy and the devil:

“There is more need to fear and beware of the Enemy when he creeps up secretly, when he beguiles us by a show of peace and steals forward by those hidden approaches which have earned him the name of the 'Serpent'...He invented heresies and schisms so as to undermine the faith, to corrupt the truth, to sunder our unity. Those whom he failed to keep in the blindness of their old ways he beguiles, and leads them up a new road of illusion.”

Or as one writer put it “renouncing the devil means denouncing heresy.”

Secondly, it is vitally important to understand that heresy is the takeover of Christianity by an alien worldview. Paul warned the Colossians about “plausible arguments” and those who were trying to take them captive by “philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition,” (Col. 2:4, 8). Heretics often use the words of the Bible, change their meaning, and hide false ideas under them. The label may still say “Christ,” “salvation,” or “atonement” but the meaning of these words have been radically altered. The early church fathers were alert to this danger. They wrote books to expose the fact that heretics were really saying the same thing as pagan philosophers, only the heretics were dressing up these ideas in Christian language. This deceitfulness makes heresy morally as well as doctrinally wrong.

What is Heresy?

Heresy!

What do you associate that word with? Torches and pitchforks? Burning someone at the stake? The incessant barking of theological watchdogs? “Health and wealth” preachers? Unbelieving bishops who deny the gospel but stay on the payroll of the church?

What is heresy?

One writer defines it as “any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance.” Heresy is the kind of doctrinal error that is so serious that it redefines the gospel. Error is always costly. It dishonours God and damages the Church. But not all errors are heresies. A heretic is not someone who fails to explain adequately the doctrine of the Trinity, or that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, the nature of the atonement, or justification by faith alone. No, a heretic denies these truths and is fundamentally unsubmissive to apostolic doctrine and authority as it is given in Scripture.

Heresy is not a matter of opinion. We have an objective standard when we want to find out which theological view is correct or orthodox (meaning “right belief”), as Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 15, and which ones are wrong . In the end the fight against heresy is always won by the clear, patient, and thorough exposition of Scripture. Perversely, successful heretics themselves often claim to be truly orthodox and biblical.

Heresy is a matter of choice. It is the choice to believe a different gospel. Augustine said that heretics are men “who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith.”

A heretic chooses to tell lies about the God of the Bible because he doesn't want to tell the truth. And a heretic is someone who refuses admonition and is divisive (Titus 3:10-11). Putting it mathematically, heretics take away from the truth of the gospel (and adding to the truth always takes away from it), they divide true churches and aim to multiply new disciples.

Against False Foundations

Johann Friedrich Stapfer dealt with several kinds of error in his Institutiones theologiae polemicae. In identifying the basic ideas of each heresy he sought to delineate its proton pseudos or false fundamental. He then could direct the force of his argument against this primary hypothesis of each heresy.

"When he turns to heretics, Stapfer recognises...fundamental errors that mirror, like a 'bad eminence,' the fundamental articles of the true faith. Thus, papists accept revelation and reason but hold as proton pseudos the supremacy of the pope which leads to the founding of doctrine on an infallible church rather than on the Lordship of Christ. The Pelagian proton pseudos, that fallen man can adequately obey the Law, stands over against the church's insistence on the necesssity of grace."

Richard Muller, PRRD vol. 1 Prolegmena to Theology, p. 423-4

On Assessing Doctrinal Errors

"The Reformed orthodox generally also note, in connection with the idea of fundamental articles, three kinds of doctrinal error:

(1) errors directly against a fundamental article (contra fundamentum)

(2) errors around a fundamental or in indirect contradiction to it (circa fundamentum)

(3) errors beyond a fundamental article (praeter fundamentum)

The first kind of error is a direct attack--such as those launched by the Socinians--against the divinity of Christ or the Trinity. The second is not a direct negation or an antithesis but rather an indirect or secondary error ultimately subversive of a fundamental--such as a belief in God that refuses to acknowledge his providence. The third category of error does not address fundamental articles directly or indirectly but rather involves faith in problematic and curious questions (quaestiones problematicas et curiosas) that do not arise out of the revealed Word--hay and stubble!--and that, because of their curiosity and vanity, constitute diversions from and impediments to salvation."

Richard Muller, PRRD vol. 1:Prolegomena to Theology, p. 422-3

Maximus and Minimus

Evangelical statements of faith are intentionally minimalistic because they are a means of expressing unity on essential beliefs. They function for churches, individuals and organisations as a point of agreement on the things of first importance. They exist so that evangelicals can unite and make a common cause in evangelism and in society. So far so good.

But these statements are like a door on a double hinge opening in two directions.

Some evangelicals, usually Reformed ones, come at that door from the direction of valuing doctrine, theology and confessionalism.

To this group of people a minimal definition is a paring down of a larger body of doctrine that they hold to. This larger framework historically deals with:

• Theology (as expressed in the WCF, 1689 Baptist Confession, the HC, the BC, the Savoy Declaration, the 39 articles etc.)

• Piety (the Lord's prayer)

• Ethics (the Ten Commandments)

Even in a shrunk down version, the evangelical basis of faith that they are asked to agree to makes sense to them. It does not appear to them as an abstract set of statements. They can see, to borrow a phrase from a friend of mine, the "bonding glue" that holds the minimal evangelical statement together.

To another group of people a minimal evangelical basis of faith is in fact a maximal statement. These people are approaching the door from a different direction. They are not coming to it as a condensed form of a larger confession since they have no larger confession to condense. To them there is no bonding glue between the doctrines that holds them together. And that is why from this direction minimal evangelical statements of faith are often approached with suspicion, indifference, a causal air, hostility, and convenience. There is no heritage of confessionalism that they bring with them. They are starting with an experience of Christ in the life of believers, often mediated through songs, and not a confession of Christ and his saving work that is interpreted and mediated by the Word.

In the UK, mainstream evangelicalism is dominated by charismatic churches. It is interesting to note that many well known church leaders from this constituency had their roots in Brethren assemblies (where confessionalism is not valued but doctrinal distinctives are to be found in popular books and in an oral tradition).

Is it any wonder then that with such different approaches, predicated on such different mindsets, broad evangelical unity suffers from an inherent instability and constant tension?

Now let me add some important qualifiers to avoid being misunderstood.

1. Even though I am criticising the approach to minimalism from one direction I need to add that this is not a postmortem evaluation. There is a remedy. That remedy is to approach the great historic Reformed confessions with an open mind and a willingness to learn why they have been, and are, so important. If you want experiential theology with real substance then just sit down and read the Heidelberg Catechism. Being prejudiced against confessionalism is something that can , after all, be repented of. And I would also add that an appreciation for the Reformed confessions would help give solid foundations and solid joy to any and all Bible believing Christians. Read the Heidelberg Catechism and see.

2. I want, as much as I can, to make clear that young Christians who want a deeper grasp of the faith that they confess are to be treated not with disdain for a lack of knowledge but grace. We cannot help our backgrounds, and there are often things that we have to unlearn as we go along. Confessional minimalism is one of those things. I have no desire to attack people who are untaught, but who are teachable. When people ought to know better that is a different matter.

Against confessing the faith

It is never an option for evangelicals as to whether or not they will have a systematic theology. They have one. That theology is either good or bad, thought through or cobbled together without much in the way of reflection. But we ought not to think that we can lay our cards on the table and say that we don't have one. So it is with being confessional. We simply cannot be Christians at all with confessing the faith.

The following is taken from Richard Muller's address Confessing the Reformed Faith and can be found at Scott Clark's page at Westminster Seminary California. Muller is critiquing the approach of well meaning, and perhaps not so well meaning, evangelicals who contribute to confessional erosion:

"I am speaking here of the noncredal, non-confessional, and sometimes even anti-confessional and anti-traditional biblicism of conservative American religion. One recent evangelical systematic theology makes the point that confessional theology is a form of "indoctrination" that ought to be avoided-and, over the years, I have heard similar comments from students who were associated with the noncredal churches: Confessions are unnecessary at best when one has the Bible. At worst, they prevent their adherents from encountering the meaning of Scripture.

I have usually asked such students whether they believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically, the doctrine of one divine essence in three persons. When they nearly invariably respond positively, I point out to them that they are not really noncredal or non-confessional, but are in fact adherents to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed from the Second Ecumenical Council (A.D. 381).

I ask next whether, from their noncredal perspective, they view it as permissible to hold a doctrine of the Trinity according to which only the Father is truly God, and the Son, as "the firstborn of all creation" who himself confesses, "The Father is greater than I," might be viewed as an exalted creature of God. Of course, they deny such a possibility-but they have very great difficulty arguing against it in brief, without recourse to the Nicene formula: Arianism, after all, did have its scriptural proof texts.

The point is, then, quite simply made that we need creeds and confessions so that we, as individuals, can approach Scripture in the context of the community of belief. It is not that creeds and confessions stand above Scripture as norms. Not at all. They stand below, but also with Scripture as churchly statements concerning the meaning of Scripture. And therefore, they also stand above the potentially idiosyncratic individual and prevent him from becoming his own norm of doctrine even as they provide entry for him into a churchly perspective".

We have a confession to make

Evangelicalism in the UK is confessionally minimalistic. There are several reasons for this.

As a rule evangelical para-church organisations are intentionally minimalistic in their doctrinal statements in order to unite as many individuals, churches and fellow organisations as possible around a common confession of faith. With some variety those statements are sufficient for the purpose that they are used for. They provide clear summaries of central doctrines using a minimum of words (with varying degrees of precision, faithfulness and clarity depending on the organisation). They can appear to be a lose collection of abstract statements, even though they are in fact shaped by the unfolding revelation of the gospel.

My impression, and it is only an impression, is that this minimalist approach is not only a concession for the sake of a broader unity but it is also a fact of church life. Or to state it another way, the impression I have is that confessional minimalism is the rule not the exception.

And even where older, and fuller, confessional statements are adhered to, whether they ever get used in the way that they were intended to be used is another matter altogether.

Doubtless there are several contributing factors to this situation. It is stating the obvious even to mention the fact that some evangelicals need persuading that doctrine is good, true, wholesome, beneficial and necessary for the church as opposed to being dry, dusty, cerebral, and irrelevant to practical Christian living. My guess is that a neglect of the doctrine of the church has also played a part in this, and the unhelpful spin-off of regarding "secondary truths" to be of no intellectual and practical consequence for believers. But whatever the causes and contributing factors it is a situation of lowered immunity and poor health.

Richard Muller has some wise words to say on recovering this situation. You may find that his position is a world away from contemporary thought, practice and perceived wisdom in the church:

"We must do all that we can to assure the contemporary use of our confessions and catechisms in the life of the church. They must not be relegated to the status of dead standards that are brought to bear only when problems arise and are then put back on a shelf in a closed book when the crisis has passed.

It is well for us to remember that the confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were, first and foremost, declarations of faith. They were not (and, therefore, ought not to become) rules for belief imposed on the church from without: they are normative declarations spoken from within by the church itself, for the sake of pronouncing the church's biblical faith. We do justice to their contents only when we declare them—only when we confess them—as the expression of our corporate faith and corporate identity.

More confessions and varied patterns of subscription are not the solution to our problem. Only the regular use of our confessions as standards for the expression of biblical truth can render them effective and, indeed, contemporary in their significance.

Only by declaring the confessions, by using them in the contexts of preaching, of teaching, and of corporate worship, can they fulfill their intended role as positive guides, arising out of the faith of the church in its meditation on Scripture, to the ongoing work of the Reformed churches".

Against Confessional Neglect

The church has been called to speak the truth in love. Or, to put it another way, to confess the truth of the gospel, in love. When the church fails to do this she inevitably remains immature. Doctrinal immaturity leaves churches and Christians vulnerable to errors and to the influences of those who promote them. The neglect of soundness in the faith always brings unhelpful consequences.

The way to deal with this is not only to have teachers who can instruct in sound doctrine, but pastor-teachers who can both instruct in sound doctrine and oversee the flock so that it confesses the truth in love. The goal of sound doctrine is not merely the duplication of correct knowledge (a barren orthodoxy) but the outworking of the truth in all of life and in all that we are. Or as Paul says to Timothy "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" (1 Tim. 1:5).

"...the church of Christ...has a certain task to fulfill with respect to dogma. To preserve, explain, understand, and defend the truth of God entrusted to her, the church is called to appropriate it mentally, to assimilate it internally, and to profess it in the midst of the world as the truth of God."

Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, p. 30-1

"But if we are ignorant of the doctrine and glory of Christ, who from among us will be willing to suffer on their account? And how can it be otherwise but that we will be ignorant of these things, unless we are taught and instructed in them from our childhood? A neglect of the catechism is, therefore, one of the chief causes why there are so many at the present day tossed about by every wind of doctrine, and why so many fall from Christ to Anti-Christ."

Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 16

Heresy always brings loss

Other gospels always promise benefits. They are after all alternatives to the apostolic good news. But since they will always be found wanting in their conformity to Scripture, and will always be rooted out and refuted by good exegesis and theology, whatever benefits they promise will in the end prove to be unreal. They will always leave untouched the deepest problems of sin. They will always fail to present God and his great salvation on his terms. And because they do that they leave us with empty alternatives. Heresy is "make believe" theology. It is the proclamation of a thin alternative God.

Now, it never presents itself in those terms. Far from it. Heresy is always decked out in fine clothes. It perpetually comes to us bearing gifts. The advocates of heresy want us to taste and see how good it is, how much better it is for us than orthodoxy.

The following extract from John Owen's Communion With God was posted by Dan Phillips at the Pyromaniacs blog. From the time that I first read this work by Owen I was struck by the grandeur of the gospel when it is properly viewed through a Covenantal Trinitarian lens. I have an allergic reaction to superficiality. Owen's work is so solid, substantial and real, it really comes as no surprise that his writings are nurturing souls centuries after his death.

Anything else is not only wrong, it is robbery. Beware imitations, they are always sub-standard.

"And on this ground it is that if all the world should (if I may so say) set themselves to drink free grace, mercy, and pardon, drawing [Cant. v. 1; Isa. lv. 1; Rev. xxii. 17; John vii. 37, 38] water continually from the wells of salvation; if they should set themselves to draw from one single promise, an angel standing by and crying, “Drink, O my friends, yea, drink abundantly, take so much grace and pardon as shall be abundantly sufficient for the world of sin which is in every one of you;” — they would not be able to sink the grace of the promise one hair’s breadth. There is enough for millions of worlds, if they were; because it flows into it from an infinite, bottomless fountain. “Fear not, O worm Jacob, I am God, and not man,” is the bottom of sinners’ consolation.

This infiniteness of grace, in respect of its spring and fountain, will answer all objections that might hinder our souls from drawing nigh to communion with him, and from a free embracing of him. Will not this suit us in all our distresses? What is our finite guilt before it? Show me the sinner that can spread his iniquities to the dimensions (if I may so say) of this grace. Here is mercy enough for the greatest, the oldest, the stubbornest transgressor, — “Why will ye die, O house of Israel?”

Take heed of them who would rob you of the Deity of Christ. If there were no more grace for me than what can be treasured up in a mere man, I should rejoice [if] my portion might be under rocks and mountains".

Is it Living Heresy or Dead Unorthodoxy?

The following is from today's Washington Post. Rev. John Yates and Os Guinness give their reasons for leaving the episcopal church. The full article can be found here:

"First, Episcopal revisionism abandons the fidelity of faith. The Hebrew scriptures link matters of truth to a relationship with God. They speak of apostasy as adultery -- a form of betrayal as treacherous as a husband cheating on his wife.

Second, Episcopal revisionism negates the authority of faith. The "sola scriptura" ("by the scriptures alone") doctrine of the Reformation church has been abandoned for the "sola cultura" (by the culture alone) way of the modern church. No longer under authority, the Episcopal Church today is either its own authority or finds its authority in the shifting winds of intellectual and social fashion -- which is to say it has no authority.

Third, Episcopal revisionism severs the continuity of faith. Cutting itself off from the universal faith that spans the centuries and the continents, it becomes culturally captive to one culture and one time. While professing tolerance and inclusiveness, certain Episcopal attitudes toward fellow believers around the world, who make up a majority of the Anglican family, have been arrogant and even racist.

Fourth, Episcopal revisionism destroys the credibility of faith. There is so little that is distinctively Christian left in the theology of some Episcopal leaders, such as the former bishop of Newark, that a skeptic can say, as Oscar Wilde said to a cleric of his time, "I not only follow you, I precede you." It is no accident that orthodox churches are growing and that almost all the great converts to the Christian faith in the past century, such as G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, have been attracted to full-blooded orthodoxy, not to revisionism. The prospect for the Episcopal Church, already evident in many dioceses, is inevitable withering and decline.

Fifth, Episcopal revisionism obliterates the very identity of faith. When the great truths of the Bible and the creeds are abandoned and there is no limit to what can be believed in their place, then the point is reached when there is little identifiably Christian in Episcopal revisionism. Would that Episcopal leaders showed the same zeal for their faith that they do for their property. If the present decline continues, all that will remain of a once strong church will be empty buildings, kept going by the finances, though not the faith, of the fathers.

These are the outrages we protest. These are the infidelities that drive us to separate. These are the real issues to be debated. We remain Anglicans but leave the Episcopal Church because the Episcopal Church first left the historic faith. Like our spiritual forebears in the Reformation, "Here we stand. So help us God. We can do no other."

The Heidelberg Catechism & Project

This is from the Resurgence blog:

"Resurgence is starting its second podcast feed. In this second podcast feed we are going to spend the year on what we are calling the Resurgence Heidelberg Project...Each week Resurgence will podcast one of the sections typically titled as, 'Lord’s Day 1, Lord’s Day 2 and so on' for the rest of 2007, being read by professors, pastors and other godly men and women in the church. The Heidelberg Catechism has been translated into many languages and is the most influential and the most generally accepted of the several catechisms during the Reformation. This Catechism has been noted by many theologians and pastors up to our present day as one of the more practical Catechisms".

An explanation of the project can be found here and the entry for Lord's Day 1 can be found here

On the Antidote to Confessional Amnesia

The following is from Scott Clark's article "Why we memorise the catechism" (originally published in the Presyterian Banner, 2003, and available here).

"Both children and parents in Reformed congregations often ask, 'Why must we (or our children) memorize the catechism? If they must memorize anything at all, should they not memorize Holy Scripture instead?' These are fair questions, but they rest on dubious premises.

The first premise is that memorization is somehow out of date or a backward practice. Quite to the contrary, in most circumstances (there not being any significant developmental disabilities) memorization is a most valuable skill to teach our children and further, contrary to much modern educational theory it is exactly what they want at a certain stage of their development.

The second premise sounds pious but contains within it a sort of sugarcoated poison since it juxtaposes implicitly the theology and teaching of the church against Scripture. As a matter of fact, we understand our catechism to be a good, sound and accurate summary of the whole teaching of Scripture. As a matter of history, all heretics quote Scripture. What makes us Reformed is how we understand Scripture and this understanding is summarized in the catechism. This is, -why we have a catechism".

Against Amnesia

For good or ill every generation leaves a doctrinal legacy. By observing public worship, family devotions, popular books and public confessions, the next generation has a feel for what is considered authentic and valuable. Whether this is done thoughtfully and deliberately, or casually and randomly, a legacy will inevitably be passed on.

The treasures of former generations become ours to prize. We can believe, teach and confess the same truths that nurtured and comforted believers in the past. We can embrace the same truths that former generations fought for and handed on to us.

Or we can see these riches squandered. We can read only the books that our contemporaries have written. We can post doctrinal statements on our church websites but never peruse them, or teach them or live them like we ought to. We can fail to confess the truth wholeheartedly out of fear of what our culture will think of us. If we do these things we will send a signal about what really matters to us, and what by implication should matter to the rising generation. It is possible to neglect doctrines to such an extent that they become a forgotten thing.

"Like the gnostics of old, many Christians today regard the history of Christ's body and its doctrinal consensus as little more than the prison house of the soul."

Michael Horton, A Better Way, p. 167

The End of Controversies?

Toward the end of his life Richard Baxter wrote a book on the end of controversies. It was, to say the least, a somewhat premature assessment of the state of the doctrinal life of the Christian Church.

One doesn't have to look around the Christian world for long to know that not only are so called "secondary issues" as vigorously contested as they have ever been, but every major Christian doctrine is disputed, denied and debated. Gresham Machen wrote at the start of his classic Christianity and Liberalism that the things that men will fight over are usually the things worth believing.

Controversy has the capacity to bring out the best and the worst in us. Some shy away from it for personal reasons (they simply don't like confrontation), whilst others seem to thrive on exposing errors and are quick to draw strong condemnatory conclusions.

Handling controversy is a test of our godliness, a test that all too often, when we come to pray, we realise that we have failed. Defending orthodoxy and attacking error demands more from us than the use of reason and knowledge. It also demands the exercise of patience, prayerfulness, humility, compassion, faithfulness, truthfulness, fairness and so on.

Tests like these are unavoidable. But evading controversy to keep the peace when the truth demands that there be conflict is moral and spiritual failure.