Archbishop Cranmer on those pesky Evangelicals

Our favourite Tory blogger, the pretendy dead Archbishop Cranmer, recently commented on the Evangelical Alliance's report, 21st Century Evangelicals: Does belief touch society? He has some nice things to say about the document, but can't resist having a swipe at those pesky Evangelicals. His somewhat condescending tone is reminiscent of the words of the current real Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who opined,

It is something that I think became very important to me at one or two points when I needed it as a kind of corrective to what can be a slightly precious and elitist anglo-catholicism. Sometimes you just need to sing Blessed Assurance and hit a tambourine. You just need to know that there is something profoundly simple about what an evangelical would rightly call a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and that nothing substitutes for that. (See here). 

That's it, you see. You don't look to Evangelicalism for theological depth.  It is all about banging tambourines and singing rousing old hymns. Here is Cranmer's own verdict, 

In His Grace’s experience, they [Evangelicals] are almost universally kind and hospitable; sing an awful lot of Shine, Jesus, Shine; believe the Canon of the Bible was handed down by God; praise the Lord when they find a lost saucepan; rejoice in Middle-East bloodshed and social breakdown, ‘for these things must be’; and their view of Church history begins with Acts and then jumps straight to Amazing Grace. Certainly, His Grace has never yet met an evangelical who grasps the Patristics, understands Chalcedon or appreciates the historical significance of any of the early Ecumenical Councils.

Looks like Cranmer's 'unworthy right hand' is at it again. The trouble is that there is more than an element of truth in what he says. There's no point in denying it. Evangelicals tend to be a bit patchy when it comes to church history and they often have little grasp of the nuances of the confessional heritage of the church. Evangelical preachers will say things like "Jesus became a human person", when, according to Chalcedon, what happened at the incarnation was that the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity took a human nature. But such a theological misstep is usually due to carelessness rather than deliberate heresy. The Roman Catholic Church is wilfully sub-Chalcedonian when is teaches that the humanity of Jesus is present on every altar at the Mass. Chaldedon explicitly rules out the communication of divine properties such as omnipresence to the human nature of Christ.

But on the whole Evangelicals have held consistently to the biblical teaching reflected in the historic creeds and confessions of the church. We worship the Triune God of the gospel and proclaim that Jesus is fully God and fully man in accordance with the Nicea and Chalcedon. Our vision of salvation is thoroughly Augustinian. We declare that only the grace of God in Christ can rescue human beings from sin. A glance at Evangelical confessions of faith such as the Westminster Confession and the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, and even the more succinct FIEC Basis of Faith will readily bear this out. 

In stead of taking his few happy clappy Evangelical chums as representative of the movement as a whole, perhaps the pseudo-Archbishop Cranmer should invest some time in reading up on some of the classic works of Evangelical and Reformed theology. I recommend The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, Communion with God by John Owen and Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Bavinck. As far as contemporary Evangelical literature, is concerned, His Grace is already aware of the writings of John Stott. Perhaps he should also get acquainted with The Gagging of God by Don Carson and The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, by Robert Letham, to give a couple of examples. I think he'll find that the best representatives of Evangelical theology have a deeper understanding and respect for the theological heritage of the church than he might expect. 

Anyway, that's me done.

Right then, where did I leave my tambourine? Altogether now...

"Shine, Jesus, shine...." 

Living for God's Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism by Joel R. Beeke

Living for God's Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism,

Joel R. Beeke, Reformation Trust, 2008, 416pp.

When Joel Beeke gave the main addresses at the Evangelical Movement of Wales' Aberystwyth Conference a few years ago, he was asked which of his many books he would most like people to read. He opted for this one. I've profited from Beeke's ministry on number of occasions and I've frequently found his writings helpful, so with his commendation in mind I toddled off to the conference bookshop and invested in this tome.

Despite its size (a hefty 400-pager) and title, the book isn't at all heavy going. I read it through on Sunday evenings, when I'm often feeling a little weary and brain dead.

Beeke's aim is to show that Calvinism isn't simply a set of doctrines. As the title shows, it is all about living for God's glory. The writer devotes a chapter to the history of Calvinism and then endeavours to define what he calls "Calvinism in the Mind",  by which he means Calvinistic theology. Somewhat stereotypically he defines Calvinistic theology in terms of the good ol' "Five Points of Calvinism". Now, I'm all in favour "TULIP" theology, but as Beeke himself acknowlages, the "Five Points" were never meant to be a handy summary of Calvinistic teaching in the round. They were simply the Reformed response to the Arminian five point Remonstrance at the Synod of Dort. So, why allow Arminians to set the agenda? It makes Calvinists seem defensive and obsessively polemical. Besides, it is reductionistic to discuss "Calvinism in the Mind" mainly in terms of the Five Points. Whence Calvin's emphasis on divine self-revelation, or union with Christ, or justification by faith alone? Beeke's treatment of the Five Points is helpful enough, but we really do need to be more imaginative in our attempts to commend Calvinism in all its breadth and depth to the wider Evangelical movement.

However we define it, Calvinism isn't all in the mind. In the next section Beeke turns to "Calvinism in the Heart". This is better, especially Michel Haykin's chapter on Cultivating the Spirit. Beeke's own explorations of Calvin's God-exalting piety and sanctification in Puritan thought and practice give a real insight into the Reformed faith's robustly biblical and deeply practical teaching on the Christian life. Beeke's essays are informed by his wide reading of Puritan authors, but on pursuing the chapter endnotes I was a little disappointed that some of his choice quotes had been culled from books of quotations like John Blanchard's Gathered Gold. I might be getting overly fussy and cantankerous in my old age, and this is a meant to be a popular rather than scholarly work, but please!

The Reformation was all about the re-formation of the church along scriptural lines so it is good that a major part of the book is devoted to "Calvinism in the Church". Useful material here on church government and discpline by Derek Thomas, worship by Ray Lanning and preaching by Robert Oliver and Beeke. Essays on Calvin's evangelism and Puritan evangelism are a reminder that the Reformed faith when properly understood is not at all inimical to evangelistic zeal. Au contraire.

"Calvinism in Practice" includes essays on marriage, the family, work, politics and ethics, showing that Calvinism offers a theology for the whole of life. Good stuff.

Sinclair Ferguson's excellent piece on doxological Calvism concludes the book. He relates an anecdote from the writings of B. B. Warfield. There was violent rioting in an American city. A man spied a stranger walking calmly up the road. As the stranger passed by the man turned  and asked him, "What is the chief end of man?" To which he replied, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever." They had recognised from each other's unruffled demeanor that each was a "Shorter Catechism boy". That is doxological Calvinism - living for the glory of God and knowing the peace that comes from resting in a sovereign God.

Catholic and Reformed by Anthony Milton

Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches
in English Protestant Thought 1600-1640,
by Anthony Milton, Cambridge University Press, 1995, 599pp

I came across this book in a footnote in John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man by Carl Trueman (p. 18 n. 44 - reviewed here). Trueman commended Milton's detailed study of Protestant attitudes towards Roman Catholicism in the period before Owen's public ministry. When invited to give a paper on Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome at this year's Westminster Conference I thought I had better get hold of Catholic and Reformed for some background reading. Some background reading! Milton has carefully researched the voluminous anti-Roman writings published in England during 1600-1640. Part I of the book is devoted to the controversy with Rome.

Anti-Catholicism was not the preserve of hot headed Puritan radicals. There was a broad consensus amongst English Protestant divines that the Roman Catholic Church was a corrupt church and that the Pope was the Antichrist. Establishment figures such as Archbishop Abbot were as virulently anti-Catholic as Puritans like William Perkins. However there were differences of nuance amongst Protestant polemicists and some issues required careful handling. Was the Roman Catholic Church in any sense a true Church? What was the status of the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Reformation? Was there enough residual truth in Roman Catholicism for at least some Catholics to be saved? Milton gives attention to all these matters and more.

The basic anti-Catholic consensus was shattered by Archbishop William Laud and those who agreed with his views. For Laud the main enemy was not so much Rome, as the 'enemy within' in the shape of the Puritans. Laudians acknowledged that there were serious errors in the Roman Catholic system, but they regarded Rome as a member of the true Catholic Church. Under Laud's tenure identification of the Pope as the Antichrist was discouraged and robust anti-Catholic polemics were suppressed in favour of a more irenic approach. Some Laudians such as Richard Montagu even hoped for reunion with Rome and worked towards that end.

In Part II Milton gives attention to the Reformed Churches, discussing the relationship between English and Continental Protestantism. While there was a good deal of confessional harmony between English Protestants and their European cousins, there were also tensions and difficulties. For a start Protestantism was divided between Lutherans and the Reformed, the two parties eyeing one another suspiciously. To make matters worse, Lutheran dislike of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination seemed suspiciously similar to the Arminianism that was vexing the Reformed Churches in the early 1600's. The Church of England was moderately Calvinistic rather than Lutheran in its confession, but it differed from the European Reformed Churches on the issue of Presbyterianism. An earlier generation of Anglican leaders regarded episcopalian church government as a 'thing indifferent' that should not be allowed to disrupt harmonious relations between English and European Calvinists. But when Laud and his followers began to assert the 'divine right' of episcopacy, casting doubt on the validity of Presbyterian orders, the fragile united front began to break down. The Laudian doctrine of "No bishop, no church!" was hardly calculated to further the cause of Protestant unity. Indeed, with his rigid episcopalianism and dislike of Calvinistic theology, Laud actively distanced the Church of England from the European Reformed Churches. European Presbyterians seemed too much like those pesky homegrown Puritans for his liking.

What might be the relevance of all this for Evangelicals today? For one thing, Milton's work helps to provide a welcome historical perspective on current Evangelical engagement with Roman Catholicism under the auspices of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Were our Protestant forefathers right to be so hostile to Roman Catholic teaching? Have the issues that divided Protestants and Roman Catholics in the sixteenth century such as papal authority, justification by faith alone, transubstantiation, and purgatory really been resolved? I think not. But that is not the only thing that strikes me. Another is the bitter divisions within Protestantism which left the movement badly fragmented and therefore weakened. Serious and irreconcilable differences emerged between Lutherans and the Reformed. The rise of Arminianism shattered the unity of the Reformed Churches. The divisive Laudian assertion of the 'divine right' of episcopacy is another case in point. Regrettably, even Protestants who were in basic agreement on theological issues managed to fall out over finer points of doctrine and church polity.

Now, I'm not trying to argue for the maintenance of pan-Evangelical Protestant unity at any price. The 'lowest common denominator' approach of modern day ecumenism is not one we should adopt at the expense of our Reformed confessional integrity. But still the challenge remains; how can we hold to our cherished distinctives as Reformed Baptists, Westminster Standard Presbyterians, Savoy Declaration Independents, or Calvinistic Episcopalians and yet give expression to our essential unity in the gospel? What more can be done to encourage confessionally Reformed Churches and Church groupings to affiliate and work together for the sake of the Kingdom? Yes, we still need to face up to enemies without such as Rome and theological liberalism. We also have to combat numerous enemies within what passes for Evangelicalism today. Take open theists and those who deny penal substitutionary atonement as a couple of examples. But in our tendency to fragment over secondary issues we don't exactly do ourselves any favours. We cantankerous Calvinists don't always have to be our own worst enemies, now do we?

Evangelical unity: 1966 and today

It is not often that one single address has the power to shape the direction of Evangelicalism for a generation. Such a distinction must go to D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' 1966 message, Evangelical Unity: An Appeal. Much ink has been spilt in discussing exactly what Lloyd-Jones hoped to achieve in that address. What is certain is that his appeal for unity left the Evangelical movement more divided and fragmented than ever before. The issues he raised exacerbated divisions over how Evangelicals should relate to theologically mixed denominations. Lloyd-Jones argued that Evangelicals should separate from the denominations and come together in church-based affiliation. On the other hand John Stott, who chaired the Evangelical Alliance meeting at which Lloyd-Jones spoke feared his address would trigger a mass exodus of impressionable Evangelical Anglican clergy. Stott used his position to publicly dissociate himself from what the preacher had said. He favoured an integrationist stance where were Evangelicals were encouraged to be more actively involved in the Church of England. This policy was formally adopted by Evangelical Anglicans at the watershed Keele Conference in 1967.

Meanwhile in 1970 J. I. Packer co-authored Growing into Union together with Anglo-Catholic theologians, minimising doctrinal differences in order to make common cause against theological Liberalism. His actions led to the disbandment of the Puritan Conference in which Packer had played a prominent role along with Lloyd-Jones. A fissure had opened up between Lloyd-Jones and those who followed his his separatist line and integrationist Evangelical Anglicans like Stott and Packer.

It isn't always easy to separate issues from personalities when it comes from deciding who was right and wrong in church history. This is especially the case when it comes to considering very recent history. But our aim in discussing 1966 and its relevance for the contemporary scene should not be the vindication of Lloyd-Jones or the vilification of Stott/Packer, or visa versa. It is the issues not the personalities that matter.

In this case the nub of the matter is whether Evangelicals ought to withdraw from theologically mixed denominations and come together on a church-based level? Should loyalty to one's denomination be placed before ecclesal fellowship with other Evangelicals, especially when the possibility of reforming the denomination is remote? Should we opt for separation or integration? If, as I've argued elsewhere, Lloyd-Jones was basically right to urge Evangelicals to separate and come together, then we need to ask how we might apply this principle to today's situation? Here are some proposals:

1) Separation from the theologically mixed denominations is still a live issue that needs to be faced. Evangelicals cannot be content simply with being a tolerated "wing" of a denomination where serious heresy is allowed to remain unchecked. Such a stance relativises the gospel.

2) Evangelicals should endeavor to unite in church-based fellowship. Co-operation at the para-church level while remaining in mixed denominations won't do.

3) How Evangelical churches come together as an expression of unity in the gospel isn't easy to figure out given that Evangelicals differ over ecclesiology, baptism etc. We need a little dose of realpolitik, or realecclesiastik here. All Reformed Evangelicals are not suddenly going to become convinced Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Grace Baptists or Calvinistic Episcopalians. But this does not mean we should be indifferent to the biblical doctrine of the church. Evangelicals need to give fresh and urgent attention to this matter. For my money a form of interdependent independency would amount to a pretty good expression of the New Testament's teaching. But given the current lack of consensus amongst Reformed Evangelicals on church government and baptism, perhaps an affiliation of individual Evangelical churches and church groupings is the best we could hope right now. How can Affinity be made to fulfil this role more effectively?

4) Separated Evangelical Churches will want to support Evangelicals in the mixed denominations who are fighting for reform rather rather than seeking integration. (Gospel Partnerships anyone?)

5) Should the grouping of Evangelical churches (under the umbrella of Affinity or whatever) be distinctly Reformed or merely Evangelical? I think we should work towards a fellowship of confessional Reformed Churches that is generous enough to allow for differences on ecclesiology, baptism etc. This does not amount to "doctrinal indifferentism" as the affiliation would be clearly Reformed in its agreed confession.

Carl Trueman responds to Iain Murray on Packer and Lloyd-Jones

In the March edition of the Banner Magazine Iain Murray takes Carl Trueman to task for his contribution to J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: The Impact of his Life and Thought, (Baker Academic, 2009). Murray, Lloyd-Jones' official biographer charges Trueman with supporting slander against "the Doctor". Over at Reformation 21, Trueman responds to Murray's strictures, here.

Lloyd-Jones was one of the towering figures in 20th century Evangelicalism and his ministry did much to stimulate the recovery of Reformed doctrine in the UK and beyond. His writings had a massive effect on my own theological development. I believe that he was right to force Evangelicals to face up to the issue of ecumenical integration in 1966. But he was no infallible oracle whose every utterance may be quoted to end all argument almost 30 years after his death. One task that faces us is the critical appropriation of Lloyd-Jones' legacy. We need to learn what we can from him and press on to face the challenges of the present time. If the discussion between Murray and Trueman helps us to do that, all well and good.

Reformed Baptists, whatever next?

William Kiffin (1616-1701) - A Reformed Baptist?

Stateside some of the big beasts of the Calvoblog jungle have been clashing over whether Baptists can can justifiably identify themselves as 'Reformed'.

James White says, yes!

R. Scott Clark says, no!

Michael Haykin says, yes!

For what it's worth, I say "yes" too.

Baptists subscribing to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith are Reformed Baptists, especially so since we reject paedobaptism on biblical grounds. Being Reformed involves a commitment to semper reformanda. We should be continually reforming our beliefs and practices in the light of Holy Scripture. On that basis the Independents were correct to revise the Westminster Confession of Faith in their Savoy Declaration. And Baptists were justified in further reforming the teaching found in Westminster and Savoy.

I commend Henri Blocher's essay, Old Covenant, New Covenant in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, A. T. B. McGowan (ed). Baptism is not his primary focus. But his discussion of the relationship between the old and new covenants is highly relevant to the subject. Following Blocher's reasoning it can be convincingly argued that unlike circumcision, baptism as the sign of the new covenant is applicable only for those believe in Christ. In other words, when properly understood, the key tennet of the Reformed faith that is covenant theology is baptistic. Reformed Baptists? Oh yes!

The Synod of Dort

In a previous post (here) we looked at the life and teaching of Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). When he died the system of theology that bears his name did not perish with him. In 1610 forty Dutch theologians who championed Arminius’ views gathered at Gouda for a conference under the leadership of Simon Episcopus (1583-1643). They set forth their views in a five point Remonstrance:

1. Predestination is conditional on God foreknowing who would believe.
2. Christ died for all, although only believers will be saved.
3. Human beings are sinners and cannot believe apart from the grace of God.
4. Saving grace may be resisted.
5. The doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints needs further investigation.

There was much heated discussion over the Remonstrant Articles. It was perceived that the proposed five points constituted a direct threat to the Calvinistic basis of the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1618 a Synod was convened in Dordtrecht to decide whether the position of the Remonstrants was in accordance with the Word of God and the Reformed Confessions. At stake was nothing less than the glory of God in the salvation of lost sinners by free and sovereign grace alone.

Although occasioned by theological controversy in Holland, the Synod had an international flavour with delegates from Reformed Churches in Great Britain, Germany and Switzerland meeting alongside their Dutch brethren. Simon Episcopus and a group of his supporters were invited to represent the Arminian agitants.

From the deliberations of the Synod of Dort emerged what are popularly called the “Five Points of Calvinism”, usually set out under the mnemonic TULIP. These points do not represent a complete account of Calvinistic theology. They were simply intended to be a blow by blow rebuttal of the five point Remonstrance. The original order of the points has to be reworked for TULIP to fit.

Total Depravity

On the face of it, the Arminians agreed with the orthodox Calvinists that all human beings are sinners and that we are saved by grace. But they redefined grace to mean that God gives all people the ability to be saved if they so wished. We must cooperate with the grace of God and decide to accept his offer of salvation. Thus man is only partially depraved by sin. He is able to exercise a choice to believe and be saved. The Synod of Dort rightly smelled a rat. According to Scripture, man in sin is totally depraved. That does not mean that we are all as bad as could be, but that every human faculty has been radically affected by sin. The mind is incapable of receiving God’s truth (Romans 8:7), the heart is deceitful and wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), the will is enslaved by sin (John 8:34). Scripture teaches that man in his fallen state is not damaged, but dead (Ephesians 2:1-4). There is no possibility that a sinner in such a state could ever choose to be saved (Jeremiah 13:23). We don’t need “grace” that will simply facilitate our choice to believe but a gracious act of God that will bring us back from the dead.

Unconditional Election

Jacob Arminius taught that election is rooted on God foreseeing who would believe and be saved. In that sense election is conditional on the sinner’s response to the gospel. However, if human beings are in fact totally depraved and incapable of choosing to be saved, then conditional election is an impossibility. The Cannons of Dort insist that God chose to save certain sinners from condemnation, not because of anything in themselves, but because of his sheer love and free grace (Ephesians 1:4, 2 Timothy 1:9). The elect were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, redeemed by Christ in the fullness of time and are called to saving faith in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Repentance and faith are the fruit of election, not its cause (Acts 13:48).

Regrettably, the doctrine of predestination has often been a cause of angry discussion and unhelpful speculation in the church. We should guard against such an attitude, “this teaching must be set forth with a spirit of discretion, in a godly and holy manner, at the appropriate time and place, without inquisitive searching into the ways of the Most High. This must be done for the glory of God's most holy name, and for the lively comfort of his people.” (First Main Point of Doctrine, Article 14).

Reflection on unconditional election should cause the believer to cry out, “Why, O Lord such love to me? Glory to God in the highest!”

Limited Atonement

This is probably the most difficult and controversial of all the “Five Points of Calvinism”. I’m not sure that “limited atonement” is the best way of describing the Reformed view of the cross. “Definite atonement” is probably more appropriate. The Arminians claimed that Christ died for all, although only believers will be saved. However, if Christ died for all, but not all are saved, then his death was limited in its effectiveness. Some for whom he died will nevertheless go to hell if they perish in unbelief.

Arminians seem to have Scripture on their side when they say that Christ died for the “world” or for “all men” (1 Timothy 2:5 & 6, 1 John 2:2). True Calvinists should have no problem with such texts. Christ did die for a world of guilty sinners. He laid down his life for all kinds of human beings. But we should also bear in mind another strand of biblical teaching that reveals that Christ laid down his life for his “sheep” (John 10:11). Sheep who will most certainly be saved (John 10:27-30). Consider also that Jesus gave himself for the “church” (Acts 20:28, Ephesians 5:25-27).

Christ’s atoning death did not make salvation a possibility should anyone choose to be saved. Rather he actually saved us by his blood (Ephesians 1:7). The Canons are careful to point out that Christ’s death was of infinite value because he who died for sinners was the eternal Son of God in the flesh (Second Main Point, Articles 3&4). He died as a substitute, bearing the penalty of sin specifically for those whom the Father had given him in eternity. Those for whom he died will most certainly be saved by the power of the Spirit. With definite atonement we see all three Persons of the godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit united in a single purpose, to redeem a great multitude that no man can number. The definiteness of the atonement is no bar to the free offer of the gospel,

“Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.” (The Second Main Point of Doctrine, Article 5).

Are you trusting in finished work of Christ to put you right with God?

Irresistible Grace

Again, while TULIP may be a handy aid to memory, “irresistible grace” may not be the best way of putting it; “effective grace” is more accurate. As Stephen pointed out, the offer of grace may certainly be resisted, Acts 7:51. But the Father effectively calls all those whom he has given to Christ for salvation (John 6:37, Romans 8:29).

In the Arminian scheme, saving grace is synergistic. Man must co-operate with God in order to be saved. But this is contradicted by the Bible’s teaching on regeneration or the new birth. This is a monergistic act of divine grace. God alone can breathe new life into those who are dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:4&5). Grace is effective because it is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit by whom sinners are born again (John 3:8).

Effective grace does not mean that God does violence to the human will when he savingly unites a sinner to Christ. Rather, he liberates the enslaved will from the shackles of sin to enable his people freely to repent and believe the gospel. As Jesus said, “You must be born again.” (John 3:7). And only the Spirit of God can give you new life in Christ.

Perseverance of the Saints

Initially the Remonstrants suggested that this doctrine needed further investigation. They did not reject it outright. But by the time of the Synod of Dort their position had hardened. Now they argued that it is possible for a genuine Christian to loose his or her salvation. This not only flies in the face of Scripture and the Reformed Confessions, it is also detrimental to the believer’s assurance. The Canons acknowledged that even the best Christians fall into sin, but God will not allow any of his lovingly chosen, blood-bought people to perish. We are kept by the power of God unto salvation. None can pluck us from the mighty hands of the good shepherd. But the assurance of divine preservation should not induce spiritual carelessness. Without holiness no one will see the Lord. It is the saints, God’s holy people who will persevere to the end. We can be certain that nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:39).

Conclusion

Arminianism represented a serious challenge to the Reformed Churches and the subtle arguments of the Remonstrants had to be met with clear scriptural answers. It is often the case that controversy helps to clarify the teaching of the church. We see this with regard to the Trinity and the Person of Christ at the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon. The Synod of Dort delivered the definitive Reformed response to Arminian error (see the complete Canons here). The biblical Calvinism of the Synod offers a coherent and compelling vision of the sovereign grace of God in salvation. To him alone be the glory!

* An edited version of this article was published in November's Evangelical Times.

The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel by Boice & Ryken

The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel
by James Montgomery Boice & Philip Graham Ryken, Crossway, 2009, 240pp

The basic thesis of this book is that Evangelicalism needs a good dose of Calvinism. Evangelicalism has been at its best in those periods when it has been in the grip of Calvinistic theology. That is because Calvinistic theology is the theology of the Holy Scripture. Contemporary Evangelicalism has largely abandoned the doctrines of grace and is the worse for it. Despite apparent numerical success, the movement seems to be imploding and is often characterised by theological confusion, worldliness and lack of effectiveness in reaching the masses for Christ.

But if at least part of the answer to the present malaise is a recovery of the doctrines of grace, then what are those vital doctrines? Boice and Ryken describe what they mean in terms of the “Five Points of Calvinism”, popularly summarised under the mnemonic TULIP, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints. The authors quibble a little about the appropriateness of some of the traditional TULIP terminology and make a few adjustments in wording. For example, they rightly prefer ‘Particular Redemption’ to ‘Limited Atonement’. But all the same, the writers follow the familiar five-point schema in their exposition of the doctrines of grace. What they have to say is helpful and well argued, but I can’t help thinking that reducing Calvinism to the stereotypical five points is slightly reductionistic. The “five points of Calvinism” were never intended to be a handy summary of Reformed teaching as a whole. As the book says, they were simply the Reformed response to the Arminian five point Remonstrance at the Synod of Dort in 1618. Calvinistic teaching certainly includes a commitment to TULIP theology, but it is much bigger in scope than that. Greater breadth and creativity is needed in commending the riches of Reformed theology to the wider Evangelical world.

With the above thoughts in mind, last couple of chapters are probably the best in the book. In The True Calvinist, Boice and Ryken devote attention to a Calvinistic view of the Christian life. They show that when properly understood the doctrines of grace will lead to God-centred holy living. The Calvinist will seek to bring every area of human existence under the authority of the sovereign God of all grace. Just how this comprehensive vision of life plays out in practise is detailed in Calvinism at Work. The writers demonstrate that the Calvinistic vision of God’s sovereignty has a positive impact on the mission of the Church and has powerful implications for the relationship of the Christian to the wider culture.

The book is dual-authored because it was completed by Philip Graham Ryken, as James Montgomery Boice died in June 2000, leaving the work unfinished. Their joint-effort offers a convincing introductory argument that Evangelicalism needs Calvinistic theology and a gripping conclusion on the practical implications of Calvinism. But it is marred by a slightly stodgy and unimaginative middle section. Let's stop using TULIP as shorthand for the doctrines of grace in their totality.

* An edited version of this review will appear in a forthcoming edition of Protestant Truth.

More than a TULIP

Should the Reformed faith be defined first and foremost in terms of the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism": Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints? I'm not so sure that it should, but it often is. I'm reading The Doctrines: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel by J. M. Boice & Philip Ryken. The book is an attempt to re-Calvinise evangelicalism. Calvinism is defined by reference to the "Five Points". Similarly, on my "to-read" shelf I have Joel Beeke's Living for God's Glory: An introduction to Calvinism. Once again doctrinal Calvinism is described in the language of the TULIP acronym. Now, I'm sure that the authors of these books would say that Calvinism is bigger and broader than the "Five Points". But they instinctively press TULIP into service when they want to define and defend the key teachings of the Reformed faith.

"What's the big deal?" you might ask. It's not that I have issues with any of the "Five Points". I hold unswervingly to the Canons of Dort. But the Synod of Dort was called to give the Reformed response to the Arminian five point Remonstrance. Defining Calvinism simply in terms of TULIP gives the impression that the Reformed faith is a reaction against Arminianism, "They say election is conditional and we say it isn't". This can make Calvinism seem touchy and rather negative. Besides, to say that Calvinism = TULIP is hopelessly reductionistic. Where does Calvin's teaching on the knowledge of God and ourselves come into it? Is justification by faith alone given sufficient emphasis in TULIP-based accounts of Calvinism? Eschatology barely gets a look-in.

Another problem is that some Christians (often with former Arminian leanings) grasp the "Five Points" in a rather simplistic way and can end up as hyper-Calvinists. They won't have got this from the carefully nuanced Canons of Dort, which insist on the free offer of the gospel, but I have known it to happen in several instances. For them Calvinism is anti-Arminianism and they devote themselves to sniffing out "free-willers" with the same zeal and attention to duty as the Child Catcher looking for kids in Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang. I commend a thoughtful study the Canons of Dort, which give the definitive response to Arminianism. But the Reformed faith is much more broad, rich and deep than can be summarised in any five points. It is nothing less that a commitment to the whole counsel of God as revealed in Holy Scripture.

*Having said all that, look out for my pieces in Evangelical Times on Jacob Arminius - it's the 400th anniversary of his death (October's ET) and the Synod of Dort (November's ET).

Rabbi Duncan was a catholic and so am I

In our Wednesday night Bible Studies we've been looking at the famous statement in the Nicene Creed (325 AD) regarding the Church:

"And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

I've been taking each adjective in turn 'one', 'holy' and this week we came to 'catholic'. Do Evangelical Protestants habitually think of themselves as belonging to the catholic Church? The 19th century Scottish Minister, Rabbi Duncan certainly did, saying,

"I'm first a Christian, next a catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a paedobaptist, and fifth a Presbyterian. I cannot reverse this order."

I'd want to change that somewhat and substitute 'Baptist' for 'paedobaptist', and 'Indepedent' for 'Presbyterian', but otherwise I could happily go along with Duncan's expression of his Christian identity. The Reformed churches, of whatever ecclesiological stamp are fully paid up members of the catholic or universal church - the people of God of all nations and times. We are catholics holding to the faith once delivered to the saints.

We explored the biblical basis for the catholicity of the church:

1) Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:3, 22:16-18)
2) Prophetic expectation (Isaiah 42:1, 6 & 49:6)
3) Messianic fulfilment (John 10:16, Matthew 28:18-20)
4) Church practice (1 Cor 1:2, Acts 15, Galatians 2:11-21 & 3:28-29)
5) Eschatological expectation (Rev. 7:9-10, 21:24)

And discussed how we might give expression to biblical catholicity:

1) We must welcome believers from all nations, ages and backgrounds and genders into the church.
2) We should not allow doctrinal distinctives that are not essential to the gospel to define who belongs to the catholic church. Sectarianism is the enemy of catholicity.
3) All believers with a credible profession of faith should be admitted to the Lord’s Table.
4) We should sing hymns composed by believers from all times and places.
5) We should engage in meaningful fellowship and co-operation with other gospel churches.
6) We should take an interest in the global church, and especially remember those who suffer for Jesus' sake. When one part of the body suffers, we all suffer.
7) We will not seek to target only one group or strata of society in our evangelism. The "homogeneous unit" principle of church growth is a denial of biblical catholicity.

Update: In the original version of this post I quoted Duncan as saying, "I'm first a Christian, next a catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth an evangelical, and fifth a Presbyterian. I cannot reverse this order." A comment pointed out that the fourth designation should be 'peadobaptist' not 'evangelical' - see the Free Church of Scotland website here.

Young, Restless, Reformed by Colin Hansen

Young, Restless, Reformed: a journalist's journey with the new Calvinists,
Colin Hansen, Crossway, 2008, 160pp

Colin Hansen, a journalist with Christianity Today spent two years of his life mixing it with some of the top movers and shakers in Reformed Christianity in America. He had begun to notice a resurgence of interest in Reformed theology in some unexpected places and set out to investigate some of the reasons for this theological and spiritual renewal. It seems that a new generation of believers has grown tired with bog standard evangelicalism. They want depth, truth, and reality. And they are looking to Reformed theology, or more precisely, the sovereign God of biblical revelation to satisfy their longings and transform their lives.

Large conferences such as Passion, New Attitude and Together for the Gospel have exposed a new generation of believers to the Reformed faith. The ministry of John Piper is another factor. Piper's preaching (freely broadcast on the internet) and his books such as Desiring God have had a huge impact. Many cite Piper as the reason why they embraced the Reformed faith. But the Minneapolis pastor is certainly not the only influential figure. The long and faithful ministry of R. C. Sproul has had an effect. Al Mohler has been busily taking the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary back to its Calvinistic roots. Thousands of men are now leaving the seminary with Reformed convictions. As well as preachers with a more traditional Reformed stance like John MacArthur, leaders usually associated with the Charismatic movement are helping to spread the word. C. J. Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries is both Charismatic and Reformed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem have also helped to introduce Charismatics, who are sometimes a little light on doctrine to the wonders of Reformed theology. The controversial Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll is reaching the unreachable with a combination of missional engagement with the culture and good old Calvinistic theology.

There are several key features of this renewed fascination with Calvinism. It seems to be a movement comprising mainly of the up and coming generation of believers who are weary with seeker sensitive megachurches. Reformed student missions are having a real impact on American campuses. It is young people who gather in their thousands at the large conference meetings.

The resurgence of the Reformed faith has crossed the dividing line between traditional Calvinistic churches and the Charismatic movement. This has had an impact on the worship style adopted at Together for the Gospel and other big conferences. Perhaps we can see something similar happening in the UK at the New Word Alive events. New Frontiers Charismatics who have embraced Reformed doctrine gather with Free Church and Anglican evangelicals to hear the likes of Don Carson against the backdrop of Charismatic style worship. It is surely a good thing that Charismatics are being drawn to the doctrines of grace. We should rejoice in that. But there are still some differences between the traditional Reformed Churches and our Reformed Charismatic brethren. The use of noisy music groups, song leaders and other accouterments of Charismatic worship is one of them. Then there is the issue of the continuation or not of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Charismatic theology sometimes does not give enough emphasis to the fact that the Holy Spirit is active in the church in, by and with the Word. I'm not saying that fellowship with Calvinistic Charismatics should be curtailed, not at all. We stand united by the gospel of sovereign grace, but real differences should not be swept under the carpet.

The name of John Piper seems to pop up again and again in the book. I hope there isn't a danger of the new Calvinism becoming overly reliant on one man. In the second half of the 20th century Reformed evangelicalism in the UK was dominated by Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his death left a huge hole in the movement. Still today discussion in fraternals and conferences can be brought to a shuddering halt when an old timer recalls something that "the Doctor" said on an issue. Leadership of the Reformed resurgence in the States seems to be more collegiate. Perhaps there is less reliance on one central figure than was the case with "the Doctor", but a glance at the index will show that Piper does seem to feature rather a lot in Hansen's account.

Among the new Calvinists there is an appreciation for Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans. A chapter is devoted to Edwards, the 'Big Man on Campus' at Yale university. But above all, it seems that people are embracing Calvinism because they have seen that the Reformed faith is the faith of Scripture, deep and true. And contrary to what a UK-based critic of the new Calvinism had to say (see here), I don't think that what we have here is a merger of Calvinism and worldliness. From what I can see the "Young, Restless, Reformed" aren't simply embracing a form of intellectual Calvinism. They have gathered that truth properly understood transforms lives and calls for radical obedience to Christ. Some of them have endured painful opposition from their churches as they preached the sovereignty of God in salvation. At best they are passionate for holiness and concerned to reach the masses with the gospel of grace. New churches are being planted and there is a strong desire to proclaim Christ to the nations. We should not reject this movement as "worldly" simply because of concerns over musical styles. Reformed catholicity of spirit demands that love for the truth should be recognised and encouraged wherever we find it. Worldliness cannot be defined by a list of evangelical taboos. That approach is more Fundamentalist than Reformed.

Maybe I'm not best placed to judge on this, but I think that Hansen is overstating his case in suggesting that what we have here is revival. However, we should be grateful that many in America are returning to the deep wells of Reformed theology. A recovery of vibrant Calvinism that is God-centred, Christ exalting and Spirit dependent is surely to be welcomed.

Worldly new Calvinists?

You might have thought that the resurgence of Calvinism in the States, associated with the ministry of men like John Piper, John MacArthur and Al Mohler would be the cause of joy and gladness in the Old Country. Apparently not, at least for Peter Masters, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, who accuses the "new Calvinists" of "worldliness". His first missive on the subject can be found here. News of this magisterial rant has crossed the Pond. Needless to say, some of our American friends are none too impressed with the article. Dan Phillips, recently interviewed here puts up a good fight. His post includes links to some more helpful blogs on the subject. I won't be weighing in on this one just yet, as I'm only a couple of chapters into the book that provoke Masters' ire, Young, Restless, Reformed by Colin Hansen. Suffice to say that not all UK Calvinists are so dismissive of the renewed interest in Reformed doctrine in the USA. Some of us are quite pleased about it, grateful to God, even.

Reading Masters' rather judgemental polemic put me in mind of a "more excellent way" shown by the Puritan, Thomas Goodwin,

“As for my part, this I say, and I say it with much integrity, I never yet
took up party religion in the lump. For I have found by a long trial of
such matters that there is some truth on all sides. I have found Gospel
holiness where you would little think it to be, and so likewise truth. And
I have learned this principle, which I hope I shall never lay down till I
am swallowed up of immortality, and that is, to acknowledge every truth
and every goodness wherever I find it.”

(Cited in Evangelical Spirituality, James M. Gordon, SPCK, p. 8)

Update:

Gary Benfold on Peter Masters - Firing Blanks.

Iain D. Campbell on Calvinism and Worldliness at Ref 21.

My review of 'Young, Restless, Reformed'.

Reformed heuristics

Here is my insider guide to some of the different camps within the Reformed movement:

1. Fundy-Reformed
Big Influence: Peter Masters
Bible Version: AV
Favourite Hymn Writer: Isaac Watts
Blog: What's a blog?
Likely to Say: "Beware of those who are given to change!"

2. Trendy-Reformed
Big Influence: John Piper
Bible Version: ESV
Blog: Desiring God
Favourite Hymn Writer: Stuart Townend
Likely to Say: "Hi, I'm a Christian Hedonist. Very happy to meet you, man."

3. Bendy Reformed
Big Influence: Tom Wright
Bible Version: TNIV
Blog: N.T. Wright Project
Favourite Hymn Writer: Graham Kendrick
Likely to Say: "Are you getting in, staying in, or just stopping for tea?"

4. Barthy-Reformed
Big Influence: Karl Barth
Bible Version: Why read the Bible when you have Church Dogmatics?
Favourite Hymn Writer: Martin Rinkar/Tom Waits
Blog: Faith & Theology
Likely to Say: "Being is becoming, if you know what I mean, actually. Now pass the coffee."

5. Clappy-Reformed (Suggested by Andrew Roycroft)
Big Influence: Wayne Grudem and possibly Martyn Lloyd-Jones (well...erm bits of him, maybe). [Oi!]
Bible Version: Varies, but they particularly like revelation, oh and probably the book of Revelation too.
Favourite Hymnwriter: Stuart Townend also.
Blog: adrianwarnock.com
Likely to Say: A variety of things in a variety of tongues, as long as they have an interpreter.

6. Taffy Reformed (Suggested by Martin Downes)
Big influence: The Doctor
Bible Version: AV/NKJV
Blog: Exiled Preacher [The cheek of it!]
Favourite Hymn Writer: William Williams
Likely to Say: "Oh [said with a note of sadness] what we need is re-viv-al, not what man can do". [Amen and bendigeddig to that, boyo!]

7. Dispy-Reformed
Big Influence: John MacArthur
Bible Version: Scofield Reference Bible/John MacArthur Study Bible, ideally a combination of the two in one big bumper Dispy Bible
Blog: Pyromaniacs by MacArthur sidekick Phil Johnson
Favourite Hymn Writer: J. N. Darby
Likely to Say: "If you dis premilenialism, you're gonna have to go through the Great Tribulation. So go on, punk, make my day."

8. Westy-Reformed (Downsie with a little input from yours truly)
Big Influences: The Princetonians/The Trueman Show/Waldorf and Statler
Bible Version: ESV Study Bible
Blog: Reformation 21
Favourite Hymn Writer: Forget hymns, stick a bit of Wagner/Led Zeppelin on and turn up the volume.
Likely to Say: "As for me, I'm simply going to continue sitting in that metaphorical dingy motel room, a cigarette hanging from the corner of my mouth, a glass of bourbon on the bedside table, bashing out copy on my typewriter."

9. Confessy-Reformed (Pure Downsie, well almost)
Big Influences: The Reformed Confessions
Bible Version: Reformation Study Bible
Blog: The Heidelblog
Favourite Hymn Writer: The Holy Spirit/King David
Likely to Say: "You don't get to define Reformed, the Reformed Confessions get to define Reformed. Got it?!" or "Stop calling yourself 'young, restless and reformed' you are 'young, restless and predestinarian'."

Into which category do I fit? None of them really. I don't like being pigeon holed. Like to suggest a grouping all of your own? No sloppy definitions please. Note the strict heuristic rules: All submissions should rhyme with either "Fundy" or "Trendy", or at the very least must end in "y". Got it? Oh, by the way, if I like your suggestion I'll add it to the list.

But for the Grace of God by Cornelis P. Venema

But for the Grace of God: An Exposition of the Canons of Dort
by Cornelis P. Venema, Reformed Fellowship Inc., 1994, 145pp

We've all heard of the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism", usually referred to under the acronym TULIP, meaning Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Final Perseverance. But how many of us have actually read, let alone studied the Canons of Dort that first gave expression to the "Five Points"? In this helpful little book, Cornelis Venema sets the Synod of Dort in its historical context and gives us an insightful exposition of the Canons. He works through each point of doctrine in turn, giving a clear statement of the teaching of the Calvinistic divines and then subjecting their theology to biblical scrutiny. His aim throughout is to consider whether the Canons of Dort reflect the teaching of Scripture. The book concludes with an Appendix where the Canons of Dort are reproduced in full.

Although I would claim to be a "Five Point Calvinist", I must admit that I hadn't done an awful lot of work on the Synod of Dort. What I found here was an unexpected joy and delight. Contrary to what some might suggest, the Canons are far from being a relic of Reformed scholasticism or simply a reaction to the Arminianism of the Remonstrants. While not being a comprehensive confession of faith, they set forth the biblical teaching on the areas covered with clarity, sensitivity and care. Misunderstandings are cleared up and objections to the Calvinistic doctrine are refuted graciously yet firmly.

The theology of the Canons of Dort is in no way a hindrance to evangelism. Quite the contrary. The sacrificial death of the Son is of "infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world". (Second main point, Article 3). His death effects the salvation of all those for whom he died. On that basis the promise of the gospel that all who repent and believe will not perish, but have eternal life, "ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people" (Second main point, Article 5).

The great concern of the Synod of Dort was to insist that salvation is by the grace of our Triune Redeemer alone. The one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit planned, executed and will effectively apply the great work of salvation. To him belongs all the glory for saving lost sinners. TULIP may not ammount to the the gospel in its totality, but leave out any one point and the gospel is seriously diminished.

Engaging with Barth in the USA

Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques, edited by David Gibson and Daniel Strange has now been published in the USA by T&T Clark. With Barth's theology gaining influence in Reformed circles, this really is a must read for those who wish to engage with his thinking in a critical yet constructive way. With a stellar list of contributors including Henri Blocher, Oliver Crisp, Paul Helm, Donald Macleod and Carl Trueman, this is the book for a Classic Reformed perspective on Karl Barth. You don't know what you've been missing across the Pond. This most helpful work has been out over here since early 2008! See here for an interview with co-editor David Gibson on the occasion of the book's publication in the UK by IVP/Apollos, and here for my review.

Catch the Vision by John J. Murray

Catch the Vision, Roots of the Reformed Recovery
by John. J. Murray, Evangelical Press, 2007, 191pp

The 20th century witnessed a remarkable recovery of Reformed Christianity. John J. Murray has given us a gripping account of the men and movements that were used by God to herald the gospel of sovereign grace. This is an important piece of history. We are now well into a second generation of Reformed preachers and churches who did not come under the direct influence of the likes of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. We can take it for granted that there are now literally hundreds if not thousands of Reformed preachers and congregations in the UK, not to mention what has been happening in the States. Reformed Christianity is now a well established part of the Christian landscape, with many conferences, publishers and movements seeking to strengthen the cause. But this is a relatively recent phenomenon.

In the opening chapter, Losing the vision, Murray charts the factors that led to a decline of the Reformed faith towards the end of the Victorian period. Liberalism undermined the church's trust in the Bible and preached a man-centred, anti-supernatural Christianity that was void of life transforming power. By and large Evangelicalism in the UK lost its Reformed identity and morphed into a more genteel version of American Fundamentalism. C. H. Spurgeon seemed to sense that the Reformed witness he had fought so valiantly to maintain was on the way out. He told his students,

"What is being done today will affect the next centuries, unless the Lord should speedily come... For my part I am quite willing to be eaten of dogs for the next fifty years: but the more distant future will vindicate me."

As the book shows, this prediction proved wonderfully true. Murray introduces to some of the forerunners of Reformed recovery, highlighting developments among students after WWI. He also draws attention to the work of a number of influential Ministers. Concerned about the lack of fellowship between evangelical churches who had left the mixed denominations, E. J. Poole-Connor, founded the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. A. W. Pink's magazine Studies in the Scriptures helped to create an appetite for the soul nourishing doctrines of grace. W. J. Grier of Belfast was active in promoting solid Reformed literature.

But under God, the Reformed recovery was given its greatest impetus by one man, Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. The discovery of Reformed theology through reading the works of Jonathan Edwards and B. B. Warfield transformed the life and ministry of the medic turned preacher. From his Westminster Chapel pulpit, he was able to influence a new generation of evangelical leaders. Never a great organiser, he was not one for setting up new ventures. But he was an enthusiastic supporter of the efforts of others in the Reformed cause. Douglas Johnson enlisted him in student work. He became "the theologian of the IVF" (Inter Varisty Fellowship, now UCCF) and was involved in the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. Although he left Wales in the late 1930's, he still exercised leadership in the land of his birth, giving advice and assistance to the men who began the Evangelical Movement of Wales. Through the Westminster Fellowship of Ministers he was able influence a new generation of pastors, showing them the riches of Puritan and Reformed theology and encouraging the practice of expository preaching.

Murray laments the loss of Lloyd-Jones' leadership. His passing undoubtedly left a huge hole in Reformed Evangelicalism. But I think that the desire for another big figure to lead the Reformed world is misplaced. We should not become so reliant upon one man that over twenty years after his death some people still find themselves facing the issues of today by asking, "What would the Doctor have thought about this?" It is probably just as well that the preacher was not an empire building organisational genius who was bent on imposing his every diktat on the early Reformed movement. Then over-reliance upon the man would have been tragically worse. Murray suggests that in part we have Lloyd-Jones' typically South Walian contempt for committees to thank for his lazzes faire attitude to organising the growing Reformed cause. As the great man said, "The South Walian's laziness, plus his genius, makes him despise committees. He is not concerned with carrying things out." (See Chapter 9, endnote 20 on p. 181). I don't know about being a genius, but this South Walian doesn't think much of committees either. It should also be said that Lloyd-Jones did not want to be followed slavishly. One of the great burdens of his ministry to pastors was to encourage men to think for themselves.

However, as Murray goes on to show Lloyd-Jones was not the only man who was used of God in the recovery of the Reformed faith. J. I. Packer discovered the Puritans while a student at Oxford University. He was dissatisfied with the Keswick Holiness teaching that was typical of the day. It didn't seem to speak to his experience of the Christian life. Trying to "Let go and let God" was of no help in his struggle with sin. But in John Owen, he found a biblical realism on indwelling sin and how to deal with it. He was hooked, and devoted his life to opening up the deep wells of Puritan experimental theology. He was involved in setting up the Puritan Conference, which Lloyd-Jones agreed to chair. Relations between Packer and "the Doctor" were strained over the issue of evangelical involvement in the mixed denominations. But through his writings such as Knowing God and Amongst God's Giants, Packer did much to further the Reformed cause.

Indeed, books played a large part in the rediscovery of Reformed and Puritan teaching. Murray devotes a chapter each to Geoffrey Williams, the founder of the Evangelical Library and Iain Murray, who helped start the Banner of Truth Trust. Nowadays the market is awash with good books, both reprints of older works and the writings of contemporary Reformed authors. But that was not the case in the early to mid 20th century, when sound literature was scarce. Geoffrey Williams helped to preserve some of the long neglected treasures of Reformed literature and make them available to reading public. The Banner of Truth Trust is now such a fixture in the Reformed world that it would difficult to imagine life without their publications. But it all began with the tentative circulation of a magazine and the reprint of Thomas Boston's A Body of Divinity. Iain Murray and others were told that Puritan reprints would never sell. But the doubters had failed to notice a change in the spiritual climate. Christians whose appetite for good books had been whetted by the preaching of Lloyd-Jones snapped up the new Banner titles like hotcakes.

The Scottish Presbyterian theologian John Murray also helped to boost the Reformed movement in the UK. He was professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. But although he was based in the States, he was able to exercise an influence over Reformed pastors in the Great Britain. Murray was invited to speak at some of the early Banner of Truth Ministers' Conferences in Leicester. With his winsome "old school" Highland piety and keen theological mind, he was able to demonstrate the permanent vale of Reformed teaching. Over and against Lloyd-Jones, who advocated pan-evangelical unity that included Arminiams, Murray insisted that unity should be based on an explicit confession of the Reformed faith.

But where does all this leave us now? For the first generation engaged in the recovery of Reformed theology there was the excitement and joy of new discovery. Now we are seeing men and women who have been involved in Reformed churches for the whole of their Christian lives. The present generation needs to appreciate afresh the sheer wonder and grandeur of the Reformed vision of the Triune God of sovereign grace. Let us not take for granted the advances that have been made in the last fifty years. What happened in Spurgeon's day shows that gains can be lost if we are not careful. Some revisionists within the Reformed movement are beginning to question some of the old assumptions. Andrew McGowan recently argued that we should reject inerrancy in favour of infallibility. Others are looking longingly in the direction of Karl Barth for theological inspiration that is Reformed but not as we know it. May we continue to hold to the faith of our fathers. In a final chapter Maintaining the vision, Murray sets out his prescription for the maintenance of a faithful Reformed witness in the 21st century.

Foundations Spring 2008

Foundations: a journal of evangelical theology, 59, Spring 2008, Published by Affinity

Yes, I know that it's not exactly spring time, so it's a little late to be highlighting the most recent edition on Foundations. But my excuse is that the journal wasn't published until July, and what with holidays n'all, I've only just finished reading it. The reason for delay in publication is that a new editor has yet to be appointed to replace Ken Brownell. Jonathan Stephen, head honcho at Affinity therefore acted as temporary editor for this edition. It was worth the wait though, as the journal is full of interesting articles.

Stephen Clark discusses The Doctrine of the Lesser Evil. With his lawerly mind and highly developed theological nous, he brings a welcome sharpness and clarity to a subject that is often frought with fuzzy thinking.

Anthony McRoy draws attention to The Theology of Arius. With conspiracy theorists such as Dan Brown and Muslim apologists suggesting that the church pronounced a human Jesus God at the Council of Nicaea, McRoy gives careful attention to the issues that were really at stake in 325AD. Arius did not believe that Jesus was a mere man. He accepted his pre-existence as Son of God, a divine figure, but not as divine as God the Father. Nicaea clarified the church's understanding of the relation between the Father and the Son in the godhead. Contrary to Arius' teaching that the Son had a different nature to the Father, the Council of Nicaea insisted that the Son was homoousios, consubstantial with the Father. McRoy also considers Arius' teaching on the role of the Son in salvation. He held that at the incarnation, the Son, who was less than fully God, took a human body, but not a human soul and mind. Arianism therefore gives us a Jesus who was neither truly divine or authentically human. Such a Jesus is incapable reconciling lost human beings to God. In this well-argued essay, McRoy convincingly explodes the conspiracy theories that swirl around the Council of Nicaea.

Mike Plant examines The Call to the Ministry, drawing attention to the historical debate between R. L. Dabney and J. H. Thornwell, two heavyweights of 19th century American Presbyterianism. Dabney disliked the idea of men receiving an "immediate call" to the ministry. He was given to urging men whom he thought fulfilled the biblical criterion to consider entering the ministry of the Word, whether they felt a subjective sense of call or not. Thornwell however, taught that while the church has an important role in discerning whether a man has the necessary gifts and graces to be a Minister, a sense of calling is indispensable. Versions of these two views are still around today, and Plant's foray into historical theology helps to throw welcome light on contemporary deliberations. This is no academic issue, as Evangelical and Reformed Churches in the UK are facing a serious shortfall on candidates for the ministry.

Chris Kelly helps us to get to grips with the underlying structure of the second Gospel in his article, Towards an Outline of Mark's Gospel. His five-part analysis is well worth considering.

Kieran Beville has an article on Preaching that Persuades. He wrestles with the biblical material and ponders how we can preach persuasively in the postmodern world. Beville argues that preachers need to be convinced of the truth and the gospel must be proclaimed boldly. But this must not be confused with arrogance or tub-thumping demagoguery on the part of the preacher. We need to be humble and aware of our own weakness and fallibility even as we declare the Word of the Lord. Thought-provoking stuff.

The journal is rounded off by Alistair Wilson's New Testament Literature Survey 2007-8. He offers comment on various recently published books under the headings; Introductory Issues, Biblical Theology, Gospel Studies, Pauline Studies, Commentaries, and General NT Studies. He concludes with the wise words, "I leave my readers to consider how they should spend their time and money in the face of an overwhelming array of literature. May the Lord grant that the books we read, whether in (reflective) agreement or (fair and loving) disagreement, press us to re-examine the authoritative texts of Scripture and may his Spirit lead us to the viewpoints which may truly be described as biblical."

I haven't a clue when the Autumn 2008 edition of the Foundations will be published. Be nice to get it before Christmas!