An Introduction to John Owen: A Christian Vision for Every Stage of Life, by Crawford Gribben

Crossway, 2020, 190pp

Crawford Gribben has written a full scale biography of John Owen entitled, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat. This is something different. Here Owen's story is interwoven with his teachings on how the Christian faith casts light on every stage of life, from childhood to death and eternal life. Novices will find this a useful way of getting into Owen and will be stimulated to dive deeper. Seasoned Owen readers will discover fresh insights into some of his key writings. 

Childhood 

John Owen was a particular favourite among early Particular Baptists such as Nehemiah Cox. They valued his account of the relationship between the old and new covenants, which they saw as tending in a Baptist direction. Owen was an Independent and a paedobaptist, however. He wrote in defence of infant baptism, but he had a cordial relationship with the Particular Baptists.  Unlike other contemporaries he did not accuse them of being schismatic Donatists because they insisted on baptising believers who had been 'baptised' as babies. 

Owen's advocacy of infant baptism made for tensions in his ecclesiology. He acknowledged that in the apostolic church "all baptized initiated persons, ingrafted into the church" were recognised as "sanctified persons" (p. 57). Further, "the proper subjects of baptism" are "professed believers... and their infant seed" (p. 58). But this did not mean children of believers should be admitted to church membership, at least not until they had made a credible profession of faith. Admitting unconverted people into the church would have compromised the Independents' vision of churches as a gatherings of visible saints. 'Well, quite', Owen's Baptist friends may have been tempted to say. 

Issues of baptism aside, Owen firmly believed that the children of believers needed careful instruction in the faith. To that end he penned The Primer and The Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, Unfolded in Two Short Catechisms. These texts were intended to supplement the teaching children will have received in church meetings.   

Youth

The rise of William Laud not only made church life difficult for Puritan-minded types. It also made things rather challenging for godly students at Oxford and Cambridge. Certainly for Owen, whose dreams of pursuing an academic career at Oxford were dashed. 

Owen's university days had given him a good grounding in theology, but it was through the ministry of an unknown preacher in London that he was converted. Now he had an experiential knowledge of the truths he had studied so diligently at Oxford. 

Owen returned to the city in 1651, where he was appointed dean of Christ Church and then vice-chancellor of the university.  He took the opportunity to preach to the young people in his charge. Knowing the danger of having only an intellectual knowledge of the truth, the laid great emphasis on  practical godliness. John Locke was among Owen's students, but he didn't take kindly to the Puritan's attempts at fostering reformation among the student body.  

Two of Owen's sermon series preached to students at Oxford later became the basis of some of his most celebrated works, On the Mortification of Sin and Of Communion with God. In the second title, Owen sought to show how the believer may enjoy distinct communion with each person of the Holy Trinity. He wanted his students not only to have a clear understanding of orthodox theology, but also to deep delight  in the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

Middle Age

The Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 spelled the end of Owen's role as a prominent public figure. He was dismissed from Oxford and had to keep a low profile, giving himself to pastoral ministry among Independent congregations. Owen now had to plead with the authorities to grant toleration to Puritans who would not conform to the Church of England. He argued that Nonconformists were law abiding citizens who sought to contribute to the common good of England. They were no threat to the established order and should therefore be accorded liberty to practice their faith free from persecution. Owen's ideas were later taken up by his old student, John Locke, in An Essay Concerning Toleration, which is often regarded as a key text in the development of classic liberalism. 

For Owen, middle age involved an experience of painful defeat that followed the collapse of Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth. But if this world often meant suffering for the godly, Owen consoled himself, "It is but yet a little while before it will be no grief of heart unto us for to have done or suffered any thing for the name of the Lord Jesus." (p. 116).

Death and Eternal Life

John Owen looked forward to better days for Christ's 'peaceable kingdom' on earth. Jesus would not, he believed, "leave the world in this state, and set up his kingdom on a molehill." (p. 128). But in later life he lost confidence in his ability to understand what God was doing in history. Gone was the old certainty that the Lord was on the side of Parliament, showing his approval by granting the Ironsides victory over the Royalists at Naseby and Marston Moor. After all, the Charles II was now King, and those identified with the Good Old Cause found themselves on the losing side. He reflected, "I do not know... a greater rebuke, in the whole course of my ministry, than that I have been labouring in the fire to discover the causes of God's withdrawing from us without any success." (p. 130). 

John Owen died on 24 August 1683. He knew that death is not a kindly friend, but an unnatural rending of body and soul due to sin. But death could be welcomed, none the less. For the believer death means the end of a lifelong struggle with sin and a departure from this world to be with Christ. Despite the disappointments and reversals he experienced of his earthly life, Owen did not die a broken, disillusioned man. One of his final works was Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ, in which he sought to set forth his view of the supreme glory of the Lord Jesus. The believing soul, which has glimpsed the glory of Christ by faith will at last see him by sight. "the sight of God in Christ, which is intellectual, not corporeal; finite, not absolutely comprehensive of the divine essence, is the sum of our future blessedness." (p. 139). 

In his conclusion the author reflects on Owen's lasting impact on society and the the church. The old Puritan's ideas on religious toleration helped to sow the seeds of classic liberalism. His theological writings are the subject of renewed attention in the contemporary Evangelical world. 

Crawford Gribben has ably opened up John Owen's Christian vision for every stage of life. An excellent read. 

* I am grateful to the author for kindly sending me a free copy. 

'The Mystery of Providence', by John Flavel

Banner of Truth Trust, 1976 reprint, 221pp 

The other Friday was a bit crazy. On the way to dropping one family member off at the railway station and then taking another to the Doctors, my car had a puncture. I managed to get to the station on time, but had to change the tyre before driving to the surgery. The car jack was bolted down so tightly that I struggled to get it free. It was raining and cold, but the spare tyre was duly fitted. Thankfully the Doctors honoured the appointment, although by now we were running late. 

Later that morning I went to get a new tyre fitted. As I returned home, I found my key wouldn't open the front door. Apparently, the end had snapped off in the lock. Someone was home and was able to let me in, but now the lock wouldn't work on the outside, which was no good. A locksmith was called and the lock was replaced within hours. Great. But I needed cash to pay the tradesman and none of the cashpoints in town were working. Thankfully, my wife returned from work just at the right moment and we had to plunder her unspent Christmas money. 

Oh, and we also found out our boiler needed replacing on that day . 

Meanwhile I was trying to prepare a sermon for our Sunday evening service. 

As a good Calvinist I couldn't put all that down to 'bad luck'. It was part and parcel of what the Puritan John Flavel called 'The Mystery of Providence'. At one point in his work he counsels believers on how to bear up under 'dark and doubtful providences'. My experiences a few weeks ago were hardly Book of Job territory, but the feeling that whatever I did was going to go wrong left me wondering what weird stuff Providence might have in store for me next.

Well, since starting this post a few weeks ago and then putting it on the back burner, the coronavirus pandemic has blown a massive hole in everyday life. Including bringing regular church meetings and activities to a juddering halt. And I thought my 'freaky Friday' was bad. 

How can an old 17th century book help us come to terms with the ups and downs of life?

What is probably Flavel's most famous work is an an extended meditation on Psalm 57:2 His basic thesis is that 'The Church is [Christ's] special care and charge. He rules the world for its good, as a head consulting the welfare of the body' (p. 27). He divides his treatment into three main parts.

• The evidence of Providence 
• Meditation on the Providence of God 
• Application of the Doctrine of Providence 

Flavel urges believers to consider the Lord's dealings with them. Our birth, conversion, employment, family life, and sanctification are all subject to the Lord's overruling providence. Meditating on providence will foster an attitude of gratitude in believers.

The Puritan preacher writes with great pastoral sensitivity, but not of the 'there, there, never mind' variety. He is tremendously robust in dealing with afflicted saints. Flavel will not leave us wallowing in self-pity when everything seems to be going wrong.

His sovereignty is gloriously displayed in His eternal decrees and temporal providences. He might have put you into what rank of creatures he pleased. He might have made you the most despicable creatures, worms, or toads: or, if men, the most vile, abject and miserable among men; and when you had run through all the miseries of this life, have damned you to eternity, made you miserable for ever, and all this without any wrong to you. And shall this not quieten us under the common afflictions of this life? (p. 130).

Yes, COVID-19 may have upset our holiday plans, disrupted our work and made us anxious for our health, but it could be worse, and deservedly so. You could be a despicable toad, or a damned soul in hell.

We don't know for how long coronavirus will mean restrictions on everyday life, or when we will be able to gather for worship once more with God's people. We can become impatient for the Lord to bring this horrid virus outbreak to an end. But Flavel won't let us off the hook. We who delayed repenting from sin and believing in Christ cannot complain if the Lord requires us to wait upon him a while before he answers our prayers.

Directives are given on how believers may know that 'afflictive providences' are being used for our spiritual good.

It is a good sign that our troubles are sanctified to us when they turn our hearts against sin, not against God. (p. 201) 

Never does a Christian take a truer measure both of his corruptions and graces, than when under the rod. (p. 203)

Flavel urges the practice of recording the Lord's providential dealings with us, for our own benefit and for the encouragement of others. Let me say that today we had a new boiler fitted. Seems to be working well. More efficient than the old one. Doesn't leak. Although the government's measures to deal with coronavirus means all our church meetings and activities have been suspended, Providence is opening up new ways of ministry and fellowship via phone and social media. We can still serve our local community. Our people are reaching out to elderly neighbours with offers of practical help and support. The Lord is good and his steadfast love endures for ever.

When reading The Mystery of Providence, I was often reminded of the hymn 'Great Providence of Heaven' by David Charles (1762-1834) translated from the Welsh by Edmund Tudor Owen. It's almost a sung version of Flavel's work. A hymn for our times. Listen here.

Here's a concluding thought from John Flavel for us to meditate on in these uncertain and anxious days:

How Providence will dispose of my life, liberty and labours for time to come, I know not; but I cheerfully commit all to Him who has hitherto performed all things for me (Psalm 57:2). 

John Owen and English Puritanism by Crawford Gribben

John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat, 

by Crawford Gribben, Oxford University Press, 2016, 401pp

'By their books you shall know them'. If the shelves of someone's study are adorned by sixteen white and green volumes, The Works of John Owen, they are likely to be 'Reformed' types. The kind that attend Banner of Truth Ministers' Conferences, and the like. Whether those hefty tomes have been plucked from the shelf and read is another thing. For John Owen (1616-83) is a difficult man to read. Only a few brave souls have ventured beyond Volumes 1 and 2, possibly 6 at a stretch. But the set serves as an identity marker. Merely to posses it is enough. Perhaps the proud owners hope that the wonders of Puritan divinity will infiltrate their souls by osmosis?

For those who wish to make more of a determined effort actually to read Owen, the green and white volumes are both a help and a hindrance. We must salute the efforts of W. H. Goold in gathering Owen's writings together and the Banner of Truth Trust in reprinting them, but Goold's orangising system was a little haphazard. He tended to group Owen's writings thematically rather than chronologically. It is difficult, therefore, to trace developments in his thinking over time. Oddly, Volumes 1 and 16 include some of the divine's posthumously published final works, Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ (1684) and The True Nature of a Gospel Church (1689). 

That is one of the reasons why Crawford Gribben's biography is an indispensable guide for serious readers of Owen. He sets our man's literary output against the backdrop of his life and times so we can see the political and religious contexts in which he operated. Situating Owen's writings in this way helps to serve as a reminder that he was no ivory tower theologian. His pen was often directed to responding to some of the pressing controversies of the day such as Arminianism, Socinanism, and, of course, Roman Catholicism. In addition, Owen sought to explain and defend his Independent churchmanship against both Presbyterian and Anglican antagonists. While we would hardly call him a social libertarian by today's standards, the Puritan argued for religious tolerance. At least as far as orthodox Protestants were concerned, whatever their ecclesiastical stamp.  

Owen is a difficult man to read. While the details of his public career are known, his inner thoughts are hard to fathom. Owen rarely made autobiographical remarks in his writings. He left behind no journal to which he bared his soul. You will search his works in vain for references to how Owen felt on the death of his first wife, or the loss of all ten of his children. Notwithstanding these constraints, Gribben manages to piece together a life of Owen that helps us get under the skin of the public figure. 

Owen's career began as a pastor of small congregations in rural Essex. He accompanied Oliver Cromwell on his Irish campaign. Owen was often asked to preach to Parliament, including the day after the execution of Charles I. He became Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, defending that great place of learning against radicals who had little time for the world of letters. I hadn't realised before that the English philosopher John Locke studied under Owen at Oxford. With the return of Charles II Owen, fell out of favour. He was removed from Oxford and returned to pastoral ministry, serving  Independent congregations until the end of his life. 

The Restoration brought new challenges for Owen. His writings had to be published anonymously, with different emphases for different audiences. He warily sought to defend his Independent convictions against those who labelled him a dangerous sectarian and Republican rebel. Meanwhile, the Puritan preacher who criticised Cromwell's Protectorate for its love of worldly grandeur now celebrated Charles II as a paragon of Protestant piety. He knew that the King rather than parliament would be more likely to extend toleration to nonconformists. 

The work is a salutary study of what happens when the godly get what they so often wish for; political power. Puritanism could not be imposed on the population of the British Isles by parliamentary decree, or through Cromwell serving as Lord Protector with the support of the army. England was not the New Jerusalem after all. Parliamentary victories at Marson Moor and Naseby did not mean, as Owen and others argued, that political Puritanism had divine sanction. Christians function best as a counter-culture within society, rather than as the Establishment using its power to foist the highest standards of godliness upon a largely unregenerate nation. We are meant to function as  'salt' that preserves meat from decay, not fillet steak. 

As the subtitle suggests, the author sees 'experiences of defeat' as key to understanding Owen's character. It could be argued that the whole Puritan movement, of which Owen was a leading light ended in defeat. The Church of England was not lastingly reformed along Presbyterian or Independent lines. Episcopal church government was re-imposed on the restoration of the monarchy. In 1662 around two thousand Puritan Ministers were ejected from the church. This was a massive 'experience of defeat' for Owen, but it was not the only one. As a young man he had to leave Oxford University due to the anti-Puritan policies promoted by Laud. He became an Independent when Presbyterians dominated national life. In first pastorate, Owen bemoaned the poor spiritual state of his congregation. In his last phase of ministry, he mourned over own lack of pastoral effectiveness. Yet despite all this, it would be wrong to see Owen as a dejected and defeated character come the final period of his life. In his Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ, Owen turned his eyes away from this vain world and its vicissitudes to Christ. He confessed,  

There is no glory, no peace, no joy, no satisfaction, such a foretaste in this world, to be compared with what we receive by that weak and imperfect view which we have of the glory of Christ by faith; yea, all the joys of the world are a thing of nought in comparison of what we so receive. (Works Volume 1, p. 415). 

As Gribben suggests in his Conclusion, while Owen's public life may have been characherised by a series of reversals, his published Works would afford him a kind of victory in later generations. Evangelicals turned to his writings for their theological depth, practical piety and experimental warmth. George Whitefield commended Owen to his fellow-Methodists in the 18th Century. C. H Spurgeon ensured he had an audience among Calvinistic Baptists in the Victorian era. Owen's writings played an important role in the resurgence of Reformed theology associated with the ministries of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J. I. Packer in the 20th Century. Renewed attention is being given to Owen in the contemporary globe-spanning Reformed movement. If his Works were read by those who posses them beyond the familiar Volumes 1, 2 & 6, that would save John Owen from yet another 'experience of defeat'. Yes, he is a difficult man to read, but for those who persevere through the thickets of complex sentences and strange neologisms, there is theological gold in them there white and green tomes.   

Stephen Charnock on Christ and the theodrama

I know that posting quotations isn't proper blogging, which should involve at least some original writing. It's just typing stuff out. But I couldn't resist this one, which I came across when reading A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life, by Joel Beeke and Mark Jones. Puritan divine, Stephen Charnock sounds a bit like a seventeenth century version of theodramatist-in-chief, Kevin Vanhoozer (interviewed here). Charnock places Christ at the dramatic centre of the communicative action of God,  

Christ is the stage wherein all the attributes of God act their parts. (From Charnock, The Knowledge of Christ, in Works; 4:139). 

As Vanhoozer more recently put it,

Thinking of doctrine in dramatic rather than theoretical terms provides a wonderfully engaging and in integrative model for understanding what it means to follow – with all our mind, heart, soul and strength – the way, truth and life embodied and enacted in Jesus Christ. (From Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, p. 16.)

Admittedly, for Charnock  drama is a one-off handy metaphor, rather than the key idea that shapes his theologizing, but is is interesting to note this Puritan precedent for Vanhoozer's  theodramatic proposals.

Kevin Vanhoozer's follow up to Remythologizing Theology is  Divine Action and Providence, his contribution to Zondervan's promising looking 'New Studies in Dogmatics' series. 

The Grace of Law by Ernest F. Kevan

The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology,

Ernest F. Kevan, Soli Deo Gloria, 1993, 294pp.

A confession. I'm something of a chronological snob. Not a full blown one, mind you. I count Augustine, Calvin, Owen and Bavinck among my favourite authors. But I'm a chronological snob none the less. Unless it's stuff that's over, say, a hundred years old, I have difficulty in reading anything other than recent publications.  This year's titles and last year's, yes. The year before that, maybe. But anything before 2009 is so out of date. It's an unfortunate quirk, I know, but there we are.

What to do, then with a book originally published in the 1960's and reprinted in 1993. That's neither decently old or fresh and up to date. Best leave it gathering dust on the shelf. But then I was sent a copy of the author's biography to review, Ernest Kevan: Leader in Twentieth Century Evangelicals, by Paul E. Brown (Banner of Truth, 2012) . How could I do a proper review of the subject's life  if I wasn't acquainted with his key book? Time to crucify my chronological snobbery, swallow hard and dust off The Grace of Law. Glad I did too. 

In their historical context the Puritans had to engage with three divergent, yet erroneous views on law of God.  They had to avoid the Scylla of the legalists, who taught salvation by law and the Charybdis of the antinomians, who rejected the law as a rule of life for believers. To make things more complicated, they also had to resist the Siren voices of the neonomians, who turned the gospel into a new, easier-to-keep version of the law. That all sounds very seventeenth century. But like the poor, legalists and antinomians are always with us in one form or another. And there is more than a passing resemblance between Richard Baxter's neonomian conception of the law and the position advocated by Tom Wright and his 'new perspective' fellow-travellers. The Puritans provide us with the theological resources to respond to contemporary versions of  the heterodox views on the law with which they had to battle.

Kevan ransacked the works of the Puritans in order to recover their thinking on the law of God. He provides a richly  detailed and nuanced study of the Puritan view of the law as an expression of God's commanding authority. Amongst other things he discuses the law and sin, the place of the law in the covenant purposes of God, the law and justification, and grace-enabled Christian law keeping. The Puritans did not regard the law of God as a burden on the believer. Rather, they taught that the joyful keeping of  the law is the authentic expression of  Christian liberty from the bondage of sin. In the words of William Perkins, "The more we are bound to obedience, the freer we are: because the service of God is not bondage, but perfect libertie." (Cited on p. 247-248). 

The Grace of Law, Kevan's Phd thesis makes for a demanding, yet rewarding read. If nothing else, his work has helped liberate me from my chronological snobbery against books that either aren't new enough or old enough to warrant my usual attention. Now I'm ready to make a start on the author's biography. 

Edward Taylor on the Rose of Sharon

I've been dipping into The Poems of Edward Taylor, edited by Donald E. Stanford, University of North Carolina Press. Taylor (c. 1642-1729) was a Puritan Pastor who served in the small frontier town of Westfield, Massachusetts. He was a prolific poet in the metaphysical style of John Donne. The true value of his poems was not properly appreciated until the 1940's.

One poem is a meditation on Song of Solomon 2:1, "I am the rose of Sharon". Taylor, in common with his contemporaries saw this as a depiction of Christ. I'm aware that The Hebrew indicates that this is probably the Shulamite's self-description, rather than a reference to her Beloved. Also, while I think that the relationship between the Shulamite and her Beloved is a wonderful example of married love and is therefore typical of the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33), I'm a little wary of allegorising the details in the manner of some Puritan exegetes of the Song of Solomon. Be that as it may, Taylor's poetic meditation on Christ as the Rose of Sharon is a wonderful piece of devotional literature. Have a read of this verse and note the remarkable play on words in the penultimate line (p. 13).

But oh! alas! that such should be my need

       That this Brave Flower must Pluckt, stampt, squeezed bee,

And boyld up in its Blood, its Spirits sheed,

       To make a Physick sweet, sure, safe for mee.

       But yet this mangled Rose rose up again

       And in its pristine glory, doth remain.

See here for an earlier posting of one of Taylor's poems, which includes a link to more of his work.

2009 Westminster Conference

Calvin, Geneva & Revival

The Programme of the 2009 Puritan Conference:

Tuesday, 8th December, 2009
10.30 am - John Calvin’s agenda: Issues in the separation from Rome
Garry Williams
1.15 pm - Calvin as commentator and theologian
Don Carson
3.40 pm - 1859 - A Year of Grace
Stephen Clarke

Wednesday, 9th December, 2009
10.30 am - Elizabeth and Calvin
Robert Oliver
1.15 pm - Darwin Before and After
Ken Brownell
3.40 pm - The Moravians and Missionary passion
Bruce Jenkins

See website for more info and brochure.

Christmas theology according to the Westminster and Baptist 1689 Confessions

I know that the Puritans who drew up the Westminster Confession and the Second London Baptist Confession weren't too keen on the idea of Christmas. But here are some thoughts on what those confessions (both Chapter VIII:2 - here) had to say on the incarnation of the Son of God. Where the LBC differs from the WCF, I have highlighted slight differences in wording in blue and more significant differences in red. In both the Confessions the relevant Chapter is headed, "of Christ the Mediator". The interest is not in exploring Christology for its own sake, but on setting out what the Son of God is for us.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)
The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.

The Savoy Declaration of Faith, the Independent's revision of the WCF makes no alterations to this section at all (see here). But the Baptists were clearly not content to leave the Presbyterian confession untouched. The Baptist version of VIII:2 is longer with 157 words to the WCF's 110. They add "Holy" to Trinity and were clearly unhappy with a reference to the "Holy Ghost", which they render "Holy Spirit". The first main addition, "the brightness of the Father's glory", is clearly an allusion to Hebrews 1:3. The statement that Jesus is equal with "him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made" brings God's works of creation and providence into the frame. Where the WCF concentrates on the being of God, the LBC also emphasises his mighty acts.

The LBC omits the words "of her substance" from the clause "conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary of her substance" (WCF). This is a pity as it destroys the parallelism of the opening proposition, "The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father" (WCF). Also, the statement that Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary of her substance bears witness to two important truths: 1) Mary was not a 'surrogate mother' who simply bore in her womb the humanity of Jesus which was created ex nihilo by the Holy Spirit. She was his true genetic mother. Hopefully without trespassing on the mystery of the Virgin Birth we can say in the light of modern genetics that Mary contributed the unfertilized egg, replete with her DNA. It was from that egg that the Holy Spirit created the human nature of the Son of God. The Spirit contributed the remainder of Jesus’ genetic code including his Y chromosome that made him male. Jesus really was the Son of Mary - of her substance. 2) That Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit of the substance of his mother means that he is genuinely one of us. At the incarnation, the Son of God identified himself fully with the humanity he came to save. As the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he himself shared in the same, coming in the likeness of sinful flesh (Hebrews 2:14, Romans 8:3). Undoubtedly there is also something new here. Jesus was sinless, being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin. He was not 'shapen in iniquity and born in sin' as a son of Adam. He is the head of God's new humanity. As the risen Lord he is the last Adam, who gives resurrection life to those who were dead in trespasses and sins. Of course the LBC insists that Jesus was "made of a woman" and so none of this is denied. But perhaps the phrase of her substance makes the reality of our Lord's enfleshment and identification with humanity a little more clear. The Person of Christ is of one substance with God and of one substance with us, fully God and fully Man. The Baptist confession also alludes to Luke 1:35 in its description of the virginal conception of Christ, saying, "the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her." The LBC sets his incarnation in salvation-historical context by saying that Jesus "was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures"

Both confessions conclude with language that very much resembles the Definition of Chalcedon (here). It is worthwhile noting that the Puritans were not radical revisionists, who wanted to jettison the traditions of the Church in order to start again from scratch, aided by the Bible alone. For all their emphasis on sola Scriptura, they valued the theological heritage of the Church and were wiling to work within the parameters of earlier creedal theology. Where they had new light from Scripture, they revised - the WCF was a revision of the Anglican 39 Articles, and the LBC revises the WCF on baptism and other issues. But the Puritans were Catholic and Orthodox Christians, not sectarian hotheads. They believed in the historical dimension of the communion of the saints. Apart from details of punctuation, the WCF and LBC are in complete agreement in the final statement,

"So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man."

Here we have the two natures, one person Christology that is characteristic of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Also included are several safeguards against misunderstanding. The incarnation does not involve the conversion of the divine nature into another substance. The Son did not become man in the sense that he ceased to be God. After his enfleshment he was fully God and fully Man. Jesus' incarnate humanity is not a composition of the divine and human. For example, the Logos did not take the place of Jesus' human soul. If the Son did not assume a true humanity, with a real body and rational soul, then he cannot save us. Neither is there a confusion of natures in the person of Christ. For example, the humanity of the Son did not take on the attribute of omnipresence (even at his glorification - contrary to the Luther!). We are not to think that the whole person of Christ died on the cross. The Son died in his humanity. There was no confusion of natures at Calvary.

So, the WCF and LBC give us some clear headed Christmas theology. It seems that the Baptists preferred to express their teaching in the language of Scripture whenever possible, although they were not totally adverse to extra-biblical language such as "substance", "nature" and the Chalcedonian negations at the end of the statement. The reluctance of the Baptists to follow the Presbyterians and Independents in saying that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit of the substance of the Virgin Mary is regrettable. But the Baptist revision adds welcome reference to God's works of creation and providence, and roots the incarnation of the Son of God in the flow of redemption history.

Sometimes we Evangelicals are guilty of speaking quite inadvisedly about what happened at the first Christmas. In the Christmas edition of a respected Evangelical newspaper I read these words, "It was a great and mighty miracle for God (who made us in his own image and likeness) to add our nature to his divine nature in one new person - the God-man." What's the problem with that statement? Well, if we are thinking in terms of the Church's historic confession, the union of the divine and human natures in Christ did not constitute a new person. What happened was that the Person of the Son took a human nature. Both the WCF and LBC make it clear that the second Person in the Trinity was the subject of the incarnation. The words "person", "nature" etc have been carefully defined over centuries and we need to use them with great care. Study of the great Puritan confessions of faith will help to save us from such blunders.

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Mark Jones

This is the sixth in our series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today is...

Mark Jones

GD: Hello Mark Jones, and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

MJ: Thanks, Guy, for the chance to share something with your readers. I am 28 years old; I am married (five years to Barbara) and have two children (Katie [3] and Joshua [1]). Currently I am finishing up my PhD thesis on Thomas Goodwin’s Christology at Leiden University (hope to be done by May 09) and I also Pastor a PCA church in Vancouver, Canada. Other than that, I’m a huge Liverpool F.C fan!

GD: Your surname implies a Welsh origin. Are you a member of the great Welsh diaspora?

MJ: Unfortunately, I am not. My father was adopted, so the name is by adoption; I think I’m part Irish, but I try to keep that hidden, if possible ;)

GD: Ah well. Your can trust me with your Irish secret, I'm a Pastor. Your blog is called "Thomas Goodwin". What made you start blogging?

MJ: Crawford Gribben suggested to me that I start a blog devoted to Goodwin during the course of my PhD studies; he’s responsible, then.

GD: So he's to blame. What are the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for theological reflection?

MJ: I’m not really an expert on blogs, but as far as I can tell there are basically two sorts: ones that share news and others which try to say something meaningful. On the whole, the “news sharers” are where I frequent most often, just to stay up-to-date on the latest news; the blogs, like my own, that try to say something meaningful (i.e. original thought) are made up of more bad than good, in my opinion. I think the weaknesses of blogs have been well-documented; all I will say, however, is that they can be an incredible waste of time for both the blogger and reader; I would hate to cause someone else to sin!

GD: Maybe we should call this to a halt right now. But then again, which blogs have you found most helpful?

MJ: I don’t really have any favourites; I do, however, enjoy reading anything Carl Trueman (see his Blogging in the name of the Lord interview here) writes at Reformation 21; he’s by far the most interesting of that gang!

GD: Why are you so drawn to the Puritan Thomas Goodwin?

MJ: Because he’s not John Owen! Actually, to be honest, it was Crawford’s fault; I was supposed to do my PhD under him at Manchester (until he decided to move to Trinity College) and he suggested Goodwin; I went for it and I haven’t regretted the decision at all. Goodwin hasn’t received the attention that Owen has in last ten years; I think in many ways Goodwin was Owen’s superior, not just in age!

GD: Goodwin was famously one of the five Indy "dissenting brethren" at the Westminster Assembly. Have his Independent views on Church government made you re-evaluate your Presbyterianism?

MJ: Actually, I’ve never been the most convinced Presbyterian; Presbyterians make Acts 15 say a lot more than it does – I hope no one from my Presbytery reads this – and then there are different types of Presbyterianism. I’m quite comfortable with the “Congregationalism” of the 17th Century, which is quite close to modern-day Presbyterianism. Modern-day “Congregationalism”, however, is not what I think Goodwin or Owen envisaged.

GD: Interesting answer. I tend to be olde Indy as in John Ownen's The True Nature of a Gospel Church - Works Volume 16) rather than new Congie. Right, what is Thomas Goodwin's distinctive contribution to Christology?

MJ: Hmmm ... you can read my book when it comes out next year in September! It would be hard to identify a “distinctive” contribution in Goodwin; I would say his understanding of the glory of Christ in both his divine and human natures, especially in light of Christ’s heavenly reward, is something that Goodwin devotes a lot of attention to in a way that brings out the richness of his Christology.

GD: Do you agree with Goodwin's exegesis of Ephesians 1:13 - that the sealing of the Spirit is a post-conversion experience of assurance?

MJ: No. I think Goodwin misinterpreted Eph. 1:13; part of the problem is the KJV translation; part of the problem was Sibbes influence; and part of the problem was Goodwin’s own conversion experience, I think.

GD: Do you accept Goodwin's view that the witness of the Spirit is the highest form of assurance, over and above faith in the promises and the evidence of grace in the heart (see here)?

MJ: Well, this is a complex issue in Goodwin; I commend to everyone Michael Horton’s study on Goodwin’s doctrine of assurance. Goodwin wrote: “I have come to this pass now that signs will do me no good alone; I have trusted too much in habitual grace for assurance of justification; I tell you Christ is worth all”. The subjective element of assurance had overshadowed the objective aspect in Goodwin’s day. I think he’s trying to bring a corrective here; but, I don’t think he succeeds because even the witness of the Spirit can be subjective. There’s lots to say on this issue, but I think Calvin basically got it right and Goodwin didn’t!

GD: I think it’s the other way round, but there we are. How would you advise a believer struggling with assurance of salvation?

MJ: As a Pastor, I know that every case must be judged on its own merits. That said, I think that the Scriptures are clear that the subjective and objective aspects of assurance are helpful. I think the Psalms need to be read and re-read; it’s amazing how often the Psalms will speak to our spiritual state in a way that no other portion of Scripture does. Plus, singing the Psalms leaves a Christian with little doubt which side he/she is on! Prayer, too, is immensely helpful in terms of assurance. But, Goodwin is right; Christ is worth all; and so I would say the objective work of Christ must be uppermost in one’s heart and mind.

GD: What do contemporary Evangelicals have to learn from the Puritans regarding the danger of identifying a political party or cause with the kingdom of God?

MJ: I think we need to be careful with our eschatology; the Puritans, Goodwin especially, had horrible eschatology. Goodwin thought he was living on the verge of eschatological glory (1650-1700s); he thus interpreted a lot of the political events in light of the book of Revelation. A lot of the madness among certain evangelicals today is basically a re-run of the seventeenth century, most of them just don’t know it! In light of history, we need to be very cautious with our ideas of how politics relate to the kingdom of God.

GD: Wise words. Now, if time travel were possible, which figure in post-biblical church history would you like to meet (apart from Goodwin!), and what would you say to him?

MJ: Wow, what a question. I think I’d like to meet George Whitefield and ask him to preach! He must be one of the greatest preachers who has ever lived.

GD: No arguments there. The great Puritan preachers like Thomas Goodwin and John Owen were pastor-theologians. Today, the Reformed churches are blessed with theologians and pastors, but there seem to be few pastor-theologians. What can be done to rectify this?

MJ: Owen and Goodwin were operating with incredible “hard drives”. I really don’t like the present understanding that the scholars in the Seminaries are the experts! Seminary profs are like warm-up drivers; Pastors are the ones who do the formula one racing; the best theologians in the church, historically, have been Pastors. The problem is that for Pastors it is so incredibly hard to keep up-to-date with all the relevant scholarship. I don’t know how some of these Pastors write so many books AND care for their flock. Of course, if one is simply a “Teaching Pastor” (though, I don’t understand how anyone can really preach effectively to their congregation if they don’t know them) then it may be possible to be a Pastor-Theologian. So, I guess my answer is that maybe we should get rid of Seminaries ... but that’s perhaps too bold an idea!

GD: Maybe. Now, you recently advised your readers, "Master at least one systematician; but if you decide to take my advice, I would say that Bavinck's your man!" Why is Bavinck the best for systematic theology?

MJ: I think Bavinck combines systematics with historical theology better than anyone. He’s not always exegetically rigorous, but he gives you a good sweep of the history of doctrine. I like being able to read ST and HT in one go! Saves me time.

GD: There is no doubt lots of time to be saved reading by Bavinck’s four volume dogmatics. Who is your favourite contemporary Reformed theologian?

MJ: I think Richard Gaffin is probably the best Reformed theologian we have right now; he’s influenced me a lot; the Reformed world is lacking high calibre systematicians; where are the Warfield’s or the Hodge’s? I really enjoy Carl Trueman’s work, too. But he’s a historian, not really a theologian.

GD: I’ve a lot of respect for Gaffin’s rich exegetical approach to theology. With him you don’t just get a dollop of doctrine followed by a string of proof texts. Trueman is a very stimulating and provocative church historian. What is the most helpful theological book that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because...

MJ: I’ll go for two: Goodwin’s “The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth” is one of the very best books I’ve ever read; it really is a “must-read”, and I don’t say that lightly. What amazing Christology; and Goodwin combines rich theology with pastoral care for his readers. I also think that Willem van Asselt’s book on Cocceius is probably the best book I’ve ever read in the field of Historical Theology. His book has an uncanny ability to humble anyone in the field of HT. It was worth the $200 I paid!

GD: Care to name your top three songs or pieces of music (not necessarily Christian)?

MJ: I like African music (Johnny Clegg and Savuka) because of my African roots (I was born in South Africa). Other than that, I really like listening to my congregation sing, especially when they sing Acapella; there’s nothing better than hearing human voices praise God.

GD: What is the biggest problem facing Reformed Evangelicalism at this time and how should we respond?

MJ: Our preaching is boring; I’m a huge fan of Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his view of preaching; we’ve become too academic and so many Reformed “sermons” are lectures. We are also very bad at application; many of our preachers couldn’t convict a fly. We need to pray that God will raise up great preachers, not young Reformed guys who know their so-called “five-points”.

GD: Amen to that, brother! And thanks, Mark for dropping by for this enjoyable conversation.

Only one more Blogging in the name of the Lord interview to go in this set. Who will grace the hot seat for the series grand finale? You'll have to wait and see....

Thomas Goodwin's perspective on assurance of salvation

Thomas Goodwin's teaching on assurance of salvation might be helpfully to analysed using John Frame's tri-perspectival approach to theology. For Goodwin, there are three aspects to assurance of salvation: 1) Faith in the promise of the gospel. 2) The testimony of grace- transformed life. 3) The direct witness of the Spirit.

The first point corresponds to John Frame's normative perspective. Saving faith places its trust in the authoritative promise of God found in Scripture, the 'norming norm'. The second point is in the realm of the situational perspective. With grace in his heart, the believer seeks to practice the gospel in every given situation. The third point brings in the existential perspective. It is about the believer's experience of the direct and personal witness of the Spirit, assuring him that he is a child of God.

Now, as Frame insists, while his three perspectives may be distinguished, they should not be divided. So with assurance, a profession of faith alone, apart from a changed life is no basis for assurance. Faith without works is dead. On the other hand, to focus on searching for grace in the heart, while loosing sight of the objective promise of salvation in Christ, is introspective and dangerous. We must also say that the Spirit will not give experiential assurance to those without genuine faith that works by love. All three perspectives must therefore be brought into play when seeking assurance of salvation, the normative - faith in Christ. The situational - the evidence of new life. And the existential - the witness of the Spirit. Yet, as assurance is about Christian experience, the most vital aspect is the direct witness of the Spirit, Romans 8:15-16.

Westminster Confession of Faith XVIII:II

"This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption."

For more on Goodwin and assurance see my Thomas Goodwin: His Life, Times, and Quest for Assurance, under Articles About Goodwin, here.

John Owen; Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man by Carl R. Trueman

John Owen; Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man by Carl R. Trueman,
The Great Theologians Series, Ashgate, 2007, 132.

There has been a resurgence of interest in the Puritans over the last fifty years or so, encouraged by the ministry of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and fuelled by the reprinting of Puritan works by the Banner of Truth trust and other publishers. At their best, Puritan writers give us great theological wisdom wedded to a concern for practical and experiential godliness. One of my first major investments in Christian literature was the Banner's 16 volume Works of John Owen. I have read large chunks of Owen, but by no means have I finished working my way through the set. Owen's On Communion with God in Volume 2 of the Works showed me more of what it means to have fellowship with the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit than anything else I have read. If those green and white volumes are simply gathering dust on your shelves, remember that books are not status symbols. They are for reading. Why not start with On Communion with God?

As Trueman notes, however, post-Reformation orthodoxy is often dismissed on account of its supposed "scholasticism". Writers like R. T. Kendall have tried to drive a wedge between John Calvin and the Calvinists who followed in his wake. But scholars such as Richard Muller and Paul Helm have shown that Calvin was happy to build on the best aspects of Medieval scholastic theology. Later Reformed Orthodoxy simply followed in his steps. One of Trueman's aims in this book is to show that theologians like Owen made critical use of sophisticated scholastic methodology in order to respond to the fresh challenges posed to the Reformed faith by the twin threats of Arminianism and Socinianism. He also repeatedly nails the myth that post-Reformation theology adopted a wooden proof-texting approach to Scripture. John Owen was a careful exegete of the biblical text. His exegesis was often characterised contextual sensitivity, a nuanced understanding of the original languages and deep theological insight.

Owen was one of the greatest, if not the greatest Puritan theologian. Indeed Trueman insists that such was the breadth of Owen's theological vision that it is too constricting simply to view him as a Puritan. His concerns transcended the typical Puritan desire to see a remodelled Church of England. For Trueman, "Puritan" is at the same time too fuzzy a category, as it embraces semi-Arians like the poet John Milton. I think this is a little unfair on the Puritan movement. Milton's views on the Trinity were an aberration fas far as mainstream Puritan thinking was concerned. Owen was certainly happy to identify himself with the Puritan cause, especially as a leader of the Independents. His The True Nature of a Gospel Church in Volume 16 of the Works is the classic statement of Congregationalist Church polity. His piety is unmistakably Puritan with a strong emphasis on the ongoing struggle with sin in the life of the believer. But Trueman is right to place the theologian in the broader context of European Reformed Orthodoxy. In a helpful introductory chapter he identifies Owen as a "Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man".

Owen was a true man of the Renaissance. In his studies at Oxford University he was schooled in the rigorous methods of medieval scholasticism. His thorough study of the biblical languages was the product of the ad fontes agenda of the Renaissance was well as the Reformed desire for a direct encounter with the words of Scripture. Owen's library catalogue gives evidence of his broad interests. His theological section boasted works from patristic, medieval, Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed and heretical writers. He also studied both ancient and contemporary philosophy and linguistics. He even had books on magic and warm beer. Owen hardly conforms to the culturally disengaged Puritan stereotype. This is something of a challenge to many Reformed ministers today. Our library shelves may be heaving under the ever growing weight of books published by the Banner of Truth Trust, Evangelical Press and IVP. But are we reading "outside the box", giving attention to the wider theological scene and getting to grips with contemporary cultural trends? I sometimes get the impression we are a little afraid that heresy can be caught by reading the "wrong" books. But if we fail to grapple with what is going on outside the Reformed camp, how can we meaningfully respond to the challenges of today's world? We have a lot to learn from Owen, who put his wide reading to work in the service of Reformed Orthodoxy.

In the remainder of the book, Trueman devotes attention to three important features of Owen's theology, with chapters on "The Knowledge of the Trinitarian God", "Divine Covenants and Catholic Christology" and "The Article on which the Church Stands or Falls" - on justification by faith. Owen made an important contribution to the elaboration and defence of these doctrines from a distinctly Reformed standpoint.

As a Puritan, John Owen was one of history's "loosers." His work has probably not received the attention it deserves in scholarly circles. However, to neglect Owen is to needlessly impoverish our understanding of Reformed Catholic theology. We need his rich trinitarian focus. His discussion of divine sovereignty and contingency is of help to us in formulating a response to Open Theism. Owen's remarkable insight into the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit will repay careful study. Reformed Evangelicalism would do well to reconsider Owen's carefully constructed biblical case for imputed righteousness at a time when some are questioning the validity of that important aspect of justification by faith.

This book is not to be compared with John Owen on the Christian Life by Sinclair B. Ferguson, Banner of Truth Trust, 1987. Ferguson's larger work includes a broader sweep of Owen's theology, and as the title suggests, is more practical in tone. Trueman writes with the slightly different aim of helping us to read Owen with greater historical sensitivity. Some of the theologian's writing have recently been made available in paperback with modernised English and contemporary cover designs. This development is no doubt most welcome, but we need to remember that Owen wrote from a particular historical situation. Thankfully Lessing's "ugly ditch" is in no way so deep and broad as to prevent meaningful engagement with the great theologians of the past. We still have much to learn from Owen today. Carl Trueman was served us well in placing John Owen, the Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man in his proper historical context. Above all, this book enhances our appreciation of Owen's valuable contribution to Reformed theology and so enlarges our vision of the triune God of the Gospel.

A prayer to the Trinity

Here is a wonderful expression of heartfelt Trinitarian piety,

Three in one, one in three, God of my salvation,
Heavenly Father, blessed Son, eternal Spirit,
I adore three as one Being, one Essence,
one God in three distinct Persons,
for bringing sinners to thy knowledge and to thy kingdom.
O Father, thou hast loved me and sent Jesus to redeem me;
O Jesus, thou hast loved me and assumed my nature,
shed thine own blood to wash away my sins,
wrought righteousness to cover my unworthiness;
O Holy Spirit, thou hast loved me and entered my heart,
implanted there eternal life,
revealed to me the glories of Jesus.
Three Persons and one God, I bless and praise thee,
for love so unmerited, so unspeakable, so wondrous,
so mighty to save the lost and raise them to glory.

From The Valley of Vision: A collection of Puritan Prayers & Devotions,
edited by Arthur Bennett, Banner of Truth Trust, 2007 reprint, p. 3.

Phil Arthur on the Puritan Family

At Monday's Minister's Fraternal in Honiton, Devon, we had Phil Arthur speak to us on Puritan family life. He gave us a vivid picture of the Puritan view of marriage and child rearing through the eyes of a fictional couple, Richard and Abigail Adams. The Adam's family lived in Bedworthshire, England. We catch a glimpse the newly-weds in the early 1640's prior to the turbulent years of the Civil War.

1. Husbands and wives

In medieval Christendom, marriage was regarded as a second best option for those who wished to take their faith seriously. But the Puritans recaptured the Bible's healthy and positive teaching on married life. For them, marriage could be a stimulus rather than a stumblingblock in the quest for godliness. In the Catholic view, marriage was a necessary evil for the procreation of the human race. But the Puritans stressed that God has ordained marriage for the loving companionship of husband and wife, procreation and the prevention of sexual immorality, in that order. Puritan preachers devoted a lot of attention to the marriage relationship, focusing especially on Ephesians 5:22-6:4. Richard Adam's uncle bought him a copy of William Gouge's great tome, Domestical Duties as a wedding present. Gouge gave directions for conducting family worship and offered lots of practical advice on coping the stresses and strains of married life. Contrary to their caricature, the Puritans were not at all repressed and embarrassed by sexual intimacy in marriage. They positively reveled in marital love and Gouge urged couples not to deny one another the pleasures of the marriage bed. One of their favourite texts was Proverbs 5:18-19. Puritan preachers were against sexual immorality, not sex in itself. Indeed, a Puritan wife in New England reported her husband to their pastor for neglecting his "duties" in this regard. When the man still refused to sleep with his wife, the matter was brought before the whole church, who excommunicated him! Abigail Adams was glad that Protestant teaching elevated her from being little better than a baby factory. In the Puritan vision she was her husband's beloved and honoured companion. While the Puritans stressed male headship in the home, they taught that the husband should exercise his responsibilities with tenderness and grace.

2. Parents and children

Richard and Abigail were blessed with their first child, whom they named Richard in honour of his father. The lad was fortunate as the Puritans has a penchant for quirkily biblical names like Praise-God, Barabbas and Pharaoh. Puritan teaching regarded abortion as murder. Children were to be cherished as gifts from God and nurtured in godliness. Teachers like Gouge had no illusions about the innate goodness of children. They are born in sin and need discipline and correction. The Puritans knew the wisdom of the biblical injunction, "spare the rod and spoil the child". Children were to be educated and fitted for a useful calling, whether academic or practical according to aptitude. The great aim of Christian parenting was to bring children to trust in the Redeemer. Puritan families would meet daily for times of Bible reading, prayer and instruction. The father was a prophet who taught his family the Word of God, a priest who prayed for them and a king who ruled his own household well. The mother was to guide the home and care for her children. In a very modern touch, Gouge argued that mother's breast is best and discouraged the use of wet nurses.

3. Masters and servants

Wealthier Puritan households kept domestic servants. These were to be treated fairly and with respect by their masters. The domestics were to offer loyal service to their masters. All was to be done in accordance with the biblical teaching in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 6.

The paper concluded with Abigail being awoken to breast feed little Richard one cold December night. Her husband arose from his bed to place a blanket around his wife and their baby. "I love thee, my lass!" said Richard, "And I love thee too!" responded the tired, yet happy and contented young mum.

4. Discussion

Perhaps we have taken the traditional nuclear family for granted. We would to well to recapture the Puritan vision of marriage as an ennobling and liberating institution. Their Scriptural understanding of marriage is much to be preferred to today's casual attitude to adult relationships. We need to get rid of feminist inspired suspicion of marriage and work out a truly biblical pattern of godly family life. Of course, we should not try to ape the Puritans who developed their teaching in the context of a highly stratified and deferential society. We would not expect a wife to curtsy to her husband or a husband to bow in reverence to his wife. We don't have to worry about the servants overhearing our intimate conversations. But contemporary believers have much to learn from the Puritan's wise and practical teaching on marriage. In chatting to Phil after the meeting, I suggested that he develop the fictional Adams family into an historical novel. I hope he will.

Phil Arthur originally gave his paper on Puritan Family Life at the 1997 Westminster Conference. Drop me an e-mail for more details.

2006 Westminster Conference Reports

Friend's Meeting House, Euston, London, Conference Venue

Gary "Bloggy Man" Brady has posted reports on the 2006 Westminster Conference. This year, papers were delivered on William Tyndale, The Puritan Doctrine of Just War, The Puritan Doctrine of the Atonement, The Azusa Street Revival, Thomas Cranmer and John Owen on the Trinity. See here for Gary's reflections.

Infinity, eternal punishment and the cross

Chris Tilling has initiated a debate on hell. Amongst other things, he questions whether hell need be understood as the infinite, eternal punishment of the wicked. See here & here for the posts and to follow the discussion.

Jonathan Edwards taught the eternal, conscious punishment of the wicked on this basis:
God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.

So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.- Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind, than that sins committed against any one, must be proportionably heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused; as it is also agreeable to the word of God, I Samuel 2:25. "If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him;" (i.e. shall judge him, and inflict a finite punishment, such as finite judges can inflict;) "but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?" This was the aggravation of sin that made Joseph afraid of it. Genesis 39:9. "How shall I commit this great wickedness, and sin against God?" This was the aggravation of David's sin, in comparison of which he esteemed all others as nothing, because they were infinitely exceeded by it. Psalm 51:4. "Against thee, thee only have I sinned."-The eternity of the punishment of ungodly men renders it infinite: and it renders it no more than infinite; and therefore renders no more than proportionable to the heinousness of what they are guilty of.

See here for full text of Edwards on The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.

If sin does not deserve infinte and eternal punishment, why did the Son of God have to become flesh in order to atone for sin? Only he as an infinite Person could propitiate God's holy wrath aganist our sin. John Owen reflects on the infinite value and sufficiency of the death of Christ in the following quote:

The first thing that we shall lay down is concerning the dignity, worth, preciousness, and infinite value of the blood and death of Jesus Christ. The maintaining and declaring of this is doubtless especially to be considered; and every opinion that doth but seemingly clash against it is exceedingly prejudiced, at least deservedly suspected, yea, presently to be rejected by Christians, if upon search it be found to do so really and indeed, as that which is injurious and derogatory to the merit and honour of Jesus Christ. The Scripture, also, to this purpose is exceeding full and frequent in setting forth the excellency and dignity of his death and sacrifice, calling his blood, by reason of the unity of his person, “God’s own blood,” Acts xx. 28; exalting it infinitely above all other sacrifices, as having for its principle “the eternal Spirit,” and being itself “without spot,” Heb. ix. 14; transcendently more precious than silver, or gold, or corruptible things,1 Pet i:8; able to give justification from all things, from which by the law men could not be justified, Acts xiii. 28.

Now, such as was the sacrifice and offering of Christ in itself, such was it intended by his Father it should be. It was, then, the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose; yea, and of other worlds also, if the Lord should freely make them, and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world. This sufficiency of his sacrifice hath a twofold rise:— First, The dignity of the person that did offer and was offered. Secondly, The greatness of the pain he endured, by which he was able to bear, and did undergo, the whole curse of the law and wrath of God due to sin. And this sets out the innate, real, true worth and value of the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ.

.

See here for full text of Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Puritan Prayers and the Evangelical Revival

According to Andrew Davies in The Holy Spirit in Puritan Experience:

The Puritan era was undoubtedly a time of preparation, a significant stage in the unfolding of God's purposes for that remarkable age [the 18th Century Evangelical Revival] . As such it is an encouragement for us today, for who knows but that God may be preparing the Church now for something similar in days to come? It is an incentive to pray. We cannot measure the spiritual significance of the praying of the Puritans for revival. To what extent was the coming of the Spirit in 1735 God's answer to the cries of his children in the preceding decades? Let me close with the dying prayer of Henry Dorney as he cried to God for the prosperity of the Gospel in his age. May God set us to praying like this!

.

"Oh that the days of this darkness may be blown away; and let there be a mighty coming in of truth, holiness, sincerity, and spiritual light and manifestation, that there may be a mighty childlike spirit in all thy children...Let thy good Spirit come upon all thine: Oh glorify thyself now and ever...Oh let truth and power be given. Oh God fill the world with thy Spirit; that thy work may be done tidily, tidily. Oh let there be nearness between thee and the souls of thy people...Oh that thy people may judge of their love to thee by the very out goings of their souls to thee...Oh that I might see religion to be something!!"

.

From Faith and Ferment Westminster Conference paper 1982, p 32.

Biblical Protestantism: Part 1 Definition

I want to try to suggest that to be truly biblical, evangelicals need to be Protestants. This is part 1 of a short series.

Let me begin by defining terms. The word “Protestant” has very negative connotations nowadays. The word is perceived to refer to a narrow, bigoted intransigent mindset. This is partly because the troubles in Northern Ireland have often been reported by the media in terms of the tensions between Protestant and Catholic factions.

This is unfortunate. The word did not originally mean to protest against something so much as to speak up for ones views. Word first used in the context of the Reformation, at Holy Roman Empire’s Diet of Speyer in 1529. The diet had been called to discuss the religious and political issues that had been raised in Germany by the reforming activities of Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli. The princes and city representatives who supported reform found themselves in a minority. But they united behind a “Protestatio”, affirming their shared reforming beliefs. For some years, the word “Protestant” simply meant Germans who supported the Reformation. Only later was the term applied to Reformed people in general. For that reason, Dairmaid MacCulloch, in his Reformation, Europe’s House Divided (Penguin History, 2004) prefers the word “evangelical”, arguing,

That word has the advantage that it was widely used at the time, and it also encapsulates what was most important to this collection of activists: the good news of the Gospel, in Latinized Greek, the evangeluim. (p. xx)

Macculloch makes a helpful point here. The Evangelical movement clearly had its origins in Reformation.

Words do change their meaning over time. The word “Protestant” in English usage, was redefined along nationalistic lines. The original, religious meaning of the word was gradually chipped away. As a result of the Reformation in England, the whole country was regarded as “Protestant” over and against the Catholic countries of continental Europe. This was so much so that Christopher Hill could write that, ‘After 1688, “the Protestant interest” and “England” came to be used as interchangeable terms’. (P. 56 Puritanism and Revolution, Penguin, 1990). Elsewhere, Hill recounts this anecdote to illustrate his point,

The word ‘protestant’ in this context came to have political, or nationalistic, significance. When Nell Gwynn was mistaken by a hostile crowd for King Charles IInd’s French mistress, she said reassuringly, ‘Be silent good people, I am the protestant whore’. What mattered was her patriotism, not her theology. (p. 297, The English Bible and the Seventeenth Century Revolution, Allen Lane Penguin Press, 1993)

We need to recapture the original meaning of the word “Protestant”. As Nick Needham points out, we should not ashamed to be Protestant Evangelicals,

The term “Protestant” has often been completely misunderstood as meaning simply a negative protest against Rome. Originally, however it had a far more positive meaning; to “protest” was a transitive verb which meant to declare, to affirm, to set forth a position. (It survives in this meaning when a person “protests his innocence” or a lover “protests his love” for his beloved.) The first Protestants were not only protesting against medieval Catholic errors; they were also “protesting the gospel”, declaring the positive truths of Scripture which medieval Rome had neglected, obscured, distorted, or denied. It is therefore in correct that the term “Protestant” would loose its meaning if Roman Catholicism either reformed itself or ceased to exist. As long as there is a gospel, there is something to protests – to declare, affirm, and set forth to the world.(P. 137, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power, Part Three, Renaissance and Reformation, Grace Publications, 2004)

In this sense we must be biblical Protestants, as was the apostle Paul who wrote,

Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace. (Philippians 1:7) [epmasis added]

He urged to Philippians to join in with this “protestant” ministry,

Only let your conversation be as it becomes the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel (Philippians 1:27). [emphasis added]

Jude too was a good biblical protestant,

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 3)

.

For more in Biblical Protestantism visit this website: Protestant Truth Society