Westminster Conference 2017 Report

Stephen Clark

When I was at the London Seminary many moons ago, students used to refer to the Westminster Conference as Back to the Future because attending was a bit like travelling back in time. Without the aid of a DeLorean. We were young and foolish then and didn't perhaps appreciate the value of what might be learned from the past. 

We tend to think that how we see things now is 'it', while years ago peoples' views were historically and culturally conditioned. The fact is, we're just as culturally situated today as people were years ago, but just in different ways that we don't always appreciate. 

Also, we can get into thinking that how we understand things now is inevitably better and more enlightened than in the past. 'This is the 21st century, you know'. You'd have hoped that in some ways, having benefited from the breakthroughs of yesteryear, that we would have more light than our forefathers. At least that is how it ought to be. But if we see further it is only because we stand on the shoulders of theological giants such as Tertullian, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Bavinck, and so on. 

It needs to be said that progress in understanding and isn't always a case of 'onwards and upwards'. Important gains can be lost, vital insights forgotten that then need to be re-appropriated. If we lack an awareness of the Great Tradition of church history, the danger is that we will read the Bible simply in the light of our own personal limits of knowledge and experience. 

We can then be blinkered to some of the things that God is showing us in Holy Scripture because they fail to resonate with where we are. That can especially be the case in the realm of spiritual experience and communion with God. We only see in the Bible the what we have thus far experienced ourselves, rather than allowing Holy Scripture be the measure of our experience of God. 

That fact is that Reformed Evangelicalism in the UK isn't exactly in the throes of a mighty revival at the moment. We may view expressions of our forefathers like, the 'felt presence of God', or 'full assurance of faith', or a 'plentiful outpouring of the Spirit' as rather quaint, or weirdly mystical. But perhaps they knew something in their communion with God that is more rare today. That is what made them better able to expound upon what it means to experience the 'joy unspeakable and full of glory' of which the Bible speaks. 

In his paper on 'The Holy Spirit and the Human Heart' Stephen Clark drew upon the wisdom of the past to show that in the Reformed tradition the Holy Spirit is said to work 'in, by and with the Word' in regenerating and sanctifying the heart. As a sovereign, divine Person, the Spirit is not so bound to the Word that Scripture read and preached always has the same unvarying effect upon its hearers. The Spirit's work may be more or less intensified and dramatic in its effects. It is therefore both legitimate and necessary to pray for more of his empowering presence. 

I spoke on Thomas Goodwin's work, A Child of Light Walking in Darkness: Knowing, Losing and Recovering a Felt Sense of the Presence of God. John Owen urged his readers to pursue a deeper experience of God, “If there are no such things, the gospel is not true; if there are, if we press not after them, we are despisers of the gospel. Surely he hath not the Spirit who would not have more of him, all of him that is promised by Christ.” Goodwin would have us, "Sue this promise out" that "Holy Ghost [may] come and fill up your hearts with joy unspeakable and glorious, to seal you up to the day of redemption." 

Andrew Young gave a paper on 'Calvin - Worship and Preaching', setting before us the Reformer's high view of the worship of the gathered church ordered according to the pattern of Scripture. It is true that the whole of life is worship, or at least should be. But there is something distinctive about the collective worship of God's people on the Lord's Day, where our God addresses his people by his Word and receives the prayers and praise they offer. 

Phil Arthur spoke on Jacob Arminius, his life and views. A warm, insightful and generous-spirited paper on a theological opponent from a good old Reformed Baptist. Benedict Bird charted the Calvinistic response to the challenge of Arminianism at the Synod of Dort (1618-19). Both papers served as a reminder that we have much to learn from the theological controversies of the past, as well as from what those who went before us knew of the presence of God in their lives.

Mark Thomas brought the conference to a fitting conclusion with his address on 'William Williams Pantycelyn (1717-91). The life of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist leader, preacher and hymnwriter was sketched out and valuable lessons were drawn out from his works. Williams embodied a combination of solid Calvinistic doctrine and deep experiences of God. Mark urged us not to allow our current experiences to place a limit on what might be know and experienced of our glorious God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

Sometimes we need to go back to the past to be stirred up to pursue more of God in the future than we have yet known of him. It is surely not unbiblical mysticism to seek what God holds out to us in his Word: full assurance of faith, our Father’s smile and loving embrace, joy unspeakable and full of glory in Christ, and the direct witness of the Spirit. As Goodwin would say, let us ‘sue this promise out’ of a ‘more plentiful communication of the Spirit’ than we have hitherto known or experienced.  

Times of discussion followed all addresses bar the final one. The papers will be published sometime in 2018. 

1. Speak, I pray Thee, gentle Jesus!
O, how passing sweet Thy words,
Breathing o’er my troubled spirit
Peace which never earth affords.
All the world’s distracting voices,
All th’enticing tones of ill,
At Thy accents mild, melodious,
Are subdued, and all is still.

2. Tell me Thou art mine, O Savior,
Grant me an assurance clear;
Banish all my dark misgivings,
Still my doubting, calm my fear.
O, my soul within me yearneth
Now to hear Thy voice divine;
So shall grief be gone for ever

And despair no more be mine. 

(William Williams)

Westminster Conference 2017

I'll be off to the Westminster Conference bright and early tomorrow morning. Early anyway.

I'm due to give a paper on A Child of Light Walking in Darkness: The Felt Presence of God. The Child of Light... bit in the title refers to a work by the Puritan Thomas Goodwin. It's essentially a series of sermons on Isaiah 50:10, with some extra 'box set' material thrown in for good measure.

My brief is to reflect on what Goodwin has to say on knowing, losing and then recovering a felt sense of God's presence and favour. Also interacting with the views of Goodwin's old pal, John Owen.

Getting hold of Owen's stuff is easy enough. Banner of Truth published his 16 Volume Works decades ago and they are still in print today. I purchased my set when a student at the London Seminary (1988-90).

Goodwin ain't so easy to obtain. Banner has only published Volume 8 of his Works. Odd titles are available as e-books, but not A Child of Light Walking in Darkness. Only realised that after I'd agreed to speak at the conference. Something of a problem. 

Handily, my old church history lecturer at the seminary, Robert Oliver lives nearby.  He is also a member of our local Ministers' Fraternal. Robert kindly lent me Volume 3 of Goodwin's Works, which includes A Child of Light...

Goodwin's piece isn't too long. Owen on Psalm 130 takes up most of Volume 6 of his Works. Took a while to wade through. But, as ever with Owen, was worth the effort. 

I was a bit unwell towards the end of September and into October, which slowed me down when it came to writing up the paper, but I got there in the end. 

I'm looking forward to hearing the other speakers (see here for the programme) and also to meeting up with some old friends at the conference. 

Standing Firm - Still Protestant? 2010 Westminster Conference Papers

The 2010 Westminster Conference Papers have now been published, £5.95 including UK p&p.

Contents:

The English Reformation Today: Revise, Reverse or Revert?, Garry Williams

Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome Revisited, Guy Davies

The 1611 English Bible: An Unlikely Masterpiece, David Gregson

Repentance and Sola Fide: Various Reformation Approaches, Sam Waldron

Doomed From the Start? The Edinburgh Conference of 1910, Daniel Webber

Andrew Bonar, Malcolm MaClean

Copies can be ordered from:

Conference Secretary,
Rev. J. F. Harris,
8 Back Knowl Road, Mirfield,
West Yourkshire. WF14 9SA.

Westminster Conference Report #6

Malcolm MacLean on Andrew Bonar

This paper is available online, so I won't be providing a detailed report. But here are some notes on Bonar's preaching and prayer life that will hopefully serve as an aperitif that will whet your appetite for the main course. Go ahead, read the whole thing here. You will be humbled and challenged by Bonar's example of prayerful godliness and ministerial fruitfulness.

Preaching

1. Verses not Books

Bonar was a very ordinary preacher with a peculiar preaching style. He was not an orator, but built up his churches by the preaching of the Word.

He preached from Bible verses, rather than working his way through Books of the Bible, seeking his texts from the Lord. He always preached Jesus. A sense of the presence of God accompanied his preaching.

His sermons would last 1/2 hour.

Bonar preached for conversions.

He prayed for more freedom and power in preaching.

His preaching was imaginative. His people got the point of his message, which was not soon forgotten.

2. Simplicity

Bonar used a straightforward style, preaching not to scratch heads, but pierce hearts.

3. Christian life

He emphasised holiness of life in his preaching, urging his congregation to follow biblical examples of godly living.

4. Enraptured with the Saviour

He preached Christ in every sermon.

Bonar's preaching made the Bible seem like a new book. Unseen things became real.

Prayer life

Bonar kept a diary in which he recorded his private prayers. He once spent three hours in prayer before first sermon. For him the Lord's day was a day of prayer. He regarded prayer as the Minister's chief work. In his private devotions he always read the Bible before prayer. He viewed prayer as a letter to Jesus.

Concluding thoughts on Westminster 2010

Having to give an address made attending the conference a little scary, but I enjoyed hearing the other papers, which were helpful and stimulating. Each paper (apart from the one on Bonar) was followed by a period of discussion. It was good to renew fellowship with old friends and also to speak with some people for the first time. I was encouraged to hear from a LTS student that one of the reasons he chose to study at the Seminary was reading my blog interview with the current Principal, Robert Strivens.

When attending conferences It has been my habit to make notes with pen and paper. A bit retro, I know. An old fashioned hack amongst the geeky laptop set. The trouble with that method is that even at the best of times, my handwriting is virtually illegible. Speed-writing to make fullish notes meant that I couldn't always make out what I had written, which rather defeated the object. But for Westminster I made notes on my X10 Mini-Pro mobile phone, which has a nifty slide-out QWERTY keyboard. I downloaded a 'Documents to Go' app, which enables me to create and edit Word documents. Now I can acutally make some sense of my notes. Cool, eh?  

Next year's Westminster Conference will be held on 6-7 December at Regent Hall, Oxford Street. The change of venue will be good as the PA and acoustics at the Whitefield Memorial Church were pretty poor, especially on the first day.  

2011 Papers:

1. Christian Liberty and the Westminster Assembly

2. The covenanting experience

3. Obadiah Holmes

4. Socinianism then and now

5. Puritanism - where did it all go wrong?

6. John Eliot

The 2010 papers will be published in the Spring. Audio recordings are available now. Order via the Westminster Conference website.

Westminster Conference Report #5

Daniel Webber on 'Doomed from the start? The Edinburgh Conference of 1910'

The Edinburgh Conference generated a huge sense of expectation. It was not a church conference, but an event for Missions and Missionaries. It is now remembered as the precursor of the World Council of Churches, rather than for its missionary vision.

1. Roots

A concern for world mission was inspired by the Evangelical revivals of 18th century. Similar gatherings had met since since 1854, dedicated to the evangelisation of world. Later meetings were more ecumenical in character, although the word "ecumenical"  not used of the 1910 Conference as it was a Protestant event to the exclusion of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

2. Leaders

Student leader, John Mott, who later helped to found of the World Council of Churches.

Organiser and scholar, with a gift for diplomacy, Joseph Oldham.

Edinburgh 1910 was a conference like no other. A kind of business meeting for missions. Its focus was not on  education and inspiration, but the study of missionary policy. Reports were commissioned and discussed. Evangelistic action was to be based on analysis of factual reports. A new science of missiology was in the making.

Eight comission papers were prepared for discussion on subjects like 'The Gospel to the World', 'Preparation of Missionaries', 'Unity and Mission'. The decision was made that there was to be no discussion of doctrinal and church differences. In the USA contingent there were high  hopes for church unity. Provision made to discuss this matter.

 There were 1215 official delegates.

3. Conference sessions

Scottish Minister Alexander Whyte attended the opening session, which  began  with Lord Balfour reading a message from the King. This led to the spontaneous singing of the National Anthem. Quite what the American delegates made of singing "God save our gracious King", I don't know.

Balfour hoped that the desire for unity on the mission field might lead to greater unity at home.

Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson raised the expectation of a new era of worldwide evangelisation. He hoped that the centrality of mission might lead to coming of kingdom with power.  Missionary conquest of world was within the grasp of the churches.

Commission reports were discussed, with Mott chairing the meetings in Napoleonic style. Responses were limited to 7 minutes. There were also times of prayer.

A resolution was made to set up continuation committee to consider whether an international missionary was to be body formed. The Conference closed with the singing of the Doxology.

Mott acted as chairman of the continuation committee, with Oldham as secretary. A framework of ecumenical structure was set up, which led to the founding of WCC in 1948.

Edinburgh 1910 was doomed from the start to be remembered as catalyst for ecumenism rather than for its vision for mission.

4. Factors

1) Divergence of views

When it came to the Commission Reports there were differences over  the self-government of indigenous churches and the issue of cultural sensitivities. The world was divided between Western Christendom and Eastern Heathendom. It was not regarded as legitimate to evangelise in predominantly Roman Catholic or Orthodox countries. This reflected the Anglo-Catholic influence on the Conference.

There was a naive optimism on the part of Mott. He wanted to get things done with little thought of the cost in terms of doctrinal faithfulness. The scope of mission was changed from all the world to the non-christian world. There was no clarity on the gospel or on what it means to be a Christian in the New Testament sense.

2) No consideration of theological matters.

The Ango-Catholic delegates insisted that the Conference would involve no doctrinal discussion. In Comission 2 on Native Churches, dependence on Western Creeds and Confessions was deprecated in favour of  'self- theologising'. Conference leaders were theological liberals. John Mott was a 'Liberal Evangelical'.

Theological indifferentism was the order of the day. This was not a distinctly  Protestant  Conference, holding to the 'Solas of the Reformation'. Evangelicals attended, but non-Evangelicals controlled the event.

3) Preoccupation with unity

The key sub-plot of 1910 was a call for unity, which featured in each Commission. Commission 8 was devoted entirely to unity. Evangelicals wanted more interdenominational co-operation, but the leaders of the Edinburgh Conference wanted a broader approach, with the  inclusion of Anglo-Catholics. Leaders went to great lengths to keep the Anglo-Catholics on board. Objection was made to regarding Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches as non-Christian. It was said that 1910 could not be a truly ecumenical gathering without without RC and EO delegates. There was no room for the evangelisation of RC's and EO's.

The New Testament has a lot to say on Christian unity, but not at expense of gospel. We must face the questions: What is the gospel? What is a  Christian? What is a Church? What is our mission to world? Edinburgh 1910 offered a new vision for ecumenical mission. With its focus on institutional unity, it was doomed from the start to be remembered as the forerunner of the WCC, rather than for its missionary vision.

5. Conclusion

The assembly was not sufficiently focused on mission. It was sidetracked by the ecumenical agenda. With the involvement of Anglo-Catholics and theological liberals there was no agreement on the gospel. This diverse theological outlook was reflected  in the commission papers. Evangelicals who participated did not stand out against this, or threaten to withdraw. But  within decades, most Evangelicals would separate themselves from WCC-style ecumenism.

The 1910 Edinburgh Conference led to two developments. The founding of the WCC in 1948, and the specifically Evangelical assemblies for world mission, beginning with the  Lusanne Conference in 1974.

Westminster Conference Report #4

Sam Waldron on 'The Uneasy Relationship of Repentance

and Sola Fide in the Reformed Tradition'

I. Reactions to Legalism

A. Sola Fide and Repentance in Calvin

Calvin followed Luther on justification.  The double benefit of justification and sanctification is received on the believer's union with Christ. (See diagram below, click for a clearer view). In Calvin, repentance is an aspect of regeneration, by which the Reformer meant progressive sanctification.  Repentance follows faith and is born of faith. Repentance and regeneration = progressive sanctification, which is the fruit of saving faith. John 1:13. However, in Psalm 130:4 repentance, involving conviction of sin seems to precede faith.

The tensions in Calvin on repentance and faith were due to his concern to uphold sola fide, that justification is by faith alone, apart from works.

B. Faith and Then Repentance in the Marrow Men

1. The Marrow Controversy and the Marrow Men

Church of Scotland minister, Thomas Boston 'discovered' The Marrow of Modern Divinity by Edward Fisher. The book helped to clarify his thinking on the free offer of the gospel over and against Hyper-Calvinist tendencies. The Marrow of Modern Divinity was condemned by the Church of Scotland. Church authorities disliked the free offer of gospel. In their teaching the gospel in effect became a new law.

2. The Distinctive View of Faith and Repentance of the Marrow Men

Faith takes logical, causal and experiential precedence over repentance. The gospel is freely offered to all, not just 'sensible sinners' or the consciously penitent. Faith will lead to repentance. Once again, the concern is to safeguard sola fide.

C. Faith and Then Repentance in the Sandemanians

An extreme concern to safeguard sola fide. No will or affections in saving faith. Faith is intellectual assent. Faith precedes repentance. Andrew Fuller wrote against Sandemanianism. He emphasised that faith cannot exist apart from repentance.

II. Reactions to Easy-Believism

A. Repentance and Then Faith in R. L. Dabney, A. W. Pink, and M. Lloyd-Jones.

According to Dabney, we believe because we have begun to repent. Pink taught that in conversion, there is both a  turning from sin and turning unto God. Repentance comes first. Also, in Lloyd-Jones' early teaching, repentance come first, Acts 20:21.

B. Repentance and Sola Fide in Norman Shepherd

Shepherd was extreme in his opposition to antinomianism. He pointed out that the Westminster Confession does not use the formula 'justification by faith alone'. For Shepherd, Luther's teaching on justification by faith alone is problematic. Repentance includes good works and new obedience, so justification is by believing good works.

III. Resolution: Repentant Faith and Believing Repentance

A. Historical Representation: Spurgeon, Ryle, Gerstner, and John Murray

Repentance and faith are inseparable, neither has priority. Like Siamese twins.

B. Relational Considerations

1. Response to Calvin

Calvin  protected sola fide, but his deficiency is that he included repentance in transformative sanctification.

2. Response to the Marrow Men

There is no need to make repentance follow faith if repentance is properly defined.

3. Response to the Sandemanians (and Easy-Believism)

Easy believism leads to spurious professions of faith and is a gospel of cheap grace.

4. Response to Dabney, Pink, and Lloyd-Jones

Teaching that repentance is prior to faith can be a from of neonomianism - making the gospel into a new law.

5. Response to Shepherd

Shepherd  imports good works into repentance and a makes repentance a condition of justification.

Conclusion

Faith and repentance are inseperable. Sola fide is preserved when faith is held to be repentant faith that turns from sin, and repentance is understood to be believing repentance that turns to God for the mercy and salvation  that are freely offered to sinners in the gospel.

Westminster Conference Report #3

David Gregson on 'The 1611 English Bible: An Unlikely Masterpiece'

 1. A 1000 years of the Bible in Latin in England.

Pre-Tyndale there was no complete Bible in England. According to John Wycliffe the main problem facing the English Church of his day was lack of faith in the Bible. He translated portions of Scripture from the Latin Vulgate into English. Even that was regarded as an act of sedition.  

The Constitustions of Oxford 1409, made reading the Bible in English a crime punishable by death.

The ad fontes emphasis of the Renaissance saw a renewed interest in the original Bible languages, Hebrew and Greek.

The invention of Caxton's printing press in 1476 would enable the easy dissemination of the Bible in English.

The Reformation, beginning 1517, with the posting of Luther's 95 Theses, stimulated Bible translation, giving the Word of God back to the people of God.

2. Revolution brought about by Tyndale's translation of Bible into English

William Tyndale was persecuted by the authorities for wanting to translate the Bible into English. He fled to Europe, where he was  translated the New Testament and a large part of the Old Testament into English before his arrest and execution in 1536.  

Today we have a plethora of translations. We should be grateful that we live after 1611.

3. Other English translations of the Bible into English

Miles Coverdale completed Tyndale's work, finishing the translation of the Old Testament into English. The Matthew's Bible incorporated the work of Tyndale and Coverdale. As Tyndale died he prayed, "Lord open the king of England's eyes". His prayers were answered when Henry VIII proclaimed that a copy  of The Great Bible, largely based on Tyndale's translation should be placed in every parish church in England.

 The Geneva Bible was produced by English Protestants taking refuge in Geneva  during the reign of Queen Mary. It was a study Bible, containing diagrams, maps and a commentary on the text of Scripture. It became the Bible of the Puritans. The Bishop' s Bible, an Anglican translation was a failure.

4. Hampton Court conference that led to 1611 translation of the Bible

The Puritans lobbied King James I for Church reform. The king chaired conference. Bishops were against further reform. It seemed that there were to be no gains for the Puritans. Then John Reynolds suggested a new translation of the Bible. The king agreed. The best Hebrew and Greek scholars in the land were tasked with making a fresh translation.

5. The six companies of translators and the rules they had to follow

The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge supplied two companies each.  Another two were based in London.

The translators had to work in accordance with the King's rules - 15 instructions, including:

The Bishop's Bible was to be followed unless Hebrew or Greek demanded revision.

No marginal notes. James  disliked the Geneva Bible because its notes seemed to legitimise the overthrow of kings.

Old ecclesiastica words like 'church'  rather than 'congregation' and 'bishop' rather than 'overseer' were to be retained from the Bishop's Bible.

6. Some of the translators

Lancelot Andrews was a learned man, but a poor pastor. The Seperatist Henry Barrow was executed after being  interrogated by Andrews.

 Lawrence Cheriton was president of Emmanuel College, Oxford. He was a powerful preacher. Once, after speaking for almost two hours, he proposed to stop, but was urged, 'for God's sake, go on'.

7. Final touches to 1611 English Bible

The translation was carefully checked. According to Miles Smith's preface, the aim was to 'Make a good translation better.' His Bible quotes were from the Geneva Bible, not 1611 translation.

8. Use of the Received Text

Based on Erasmus' Greek New Testament.

9. The English used by translators on 1611 Bible

The translators were experts in Classical Greek, hence the elegance and excellence of the 1611 Bible. But the New Testament was in the more common koine Greek. The translators' literary style included many Latinisms. The words 'church' and 'charity', were used rather than 'congregation' and 'love'. The use of 'thee' and 'thou' was declining by 1575, but the translators retained these archaic forms over 'you'.

10. How 1611 replaced Geneva Bible.

James I banned the printing of the Geneva Bible. Archbishop William Laud suppressed the Geneva translation. By the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, the 1611 Bible had surged ahead of the Geneva Bible.  USA settlers took the 1611 version with them to the New World.

11. 1611 Never authorised

The word 'authorised' was  not used in relation to the 1611 Bible until 1824.

12. An unlikely masterpiece

Despite its origins in the failed (from the Puritan point of view) Hampton Court Conference, and the doubtful character of some of the translators, the 1611 Bible was a masterpiece that had a massive impact on the religious life of the English speaking peoples of the world and  English language. It's phrases are now part of everyday speech,  'Am I my brother's keeper?',  'sown the wind, reap the whirlwind', 'signs of times', 'looking unto Jesus'. Interestingly, most of these examples derive from Tyndale.

With next year marking the 400th anniversary of the publication of the 1611 Bible, we should certainly thank God for this landmark translation of his Word into English.

Westminster Conference Report #2

Guy Davies on 'Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome Revisited'

I won't try and summarise my own paper, but here is an excerpt.

II. ‘A very naughty business’: John Owen’s ‘Guide in differences of religion between Papist and Protestant’ 

I have chosen John Owen as my exemplar of Puritan attitudes towards Rome partly because he devoted a considerable amount of time and energy to the controversy. Besides, I think that it might be best to interact in some depth with one Puritan thinker rather than take a more diffuse approach. Owen’s basic attitude to controversy with Rome is almost as instructive as what he actually had to say.

i. Background

Owen’s main anti-Roman writings may be found in Volume 14 of his Works. The majority of that volume is taken up with Animadversions on Fiat Lux and its sequel, Vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat Lux. Volume 14 also includes a shorter piece, The Church of Rome no Safe Guide. In the Animadversions Owen engages in controversy with John Vincent Cane, a Franciscan Friar. In 1661 Cane published his Fiat Lux . It was a blatant attempt to take advantage of the recent upheavals in Protestant England in order to try and win the country back to Rome. His argument ran something like this: “Just look at what has happened to your once peaceful land since leaving the Roman Catholic fold. You Protestant Christians have divided into mutually hostile camps. The nation has been torn apart by religious unrest, Civil War, revolution and regicide. Come back to Rome and all will be well. You know it makes sense.”

The restoration of the monarchy, with Charles II returning to England in 1660, did not succeed in healing old wounds. In the aftermath of the Civil War there were bitter recriminations for the Puritans. The newly installed pro-king, pro-Church of England authorities set about mercilessly persecuting their Puritan fellow Protestants. Cane chose his time well. The opportunity seemed right for his Roman propaganda.

In a sense, Cane’s Fiat Lux was the English equivalent to Cardinal Sadoleto’s Letter to Geneva. Sadoleto sought to exploit the troubles and tensions in Geneva that led to the banishment of John Calvin to woo the city back to Rome. Famously, the exiled Calvin was prevailed upon to answer the Cardinal on behalf of Protestant Geneva. It is a mark of John Owen’s recognised theological clout that the Lord Chancellor, Lord Clarendon sent him a copy of Cane’s Fiat Lux, requesting that the divine answer it on behalf of Protestant England.

ii. John Owen’s Reformed Catholic Attitude Towards Rome

Although he was willing to take on John Vincent Cane , the veteran Puritan minister was no anti-Roman sectarian. In common with many Puritan polemicists, Owen regarded Protestants as the true Catholics. It is instructive that early Puritan, William Perkins’s anti-Roman work was entitled A Reformed Catholique.

Richard Sibbes expressed the typical Puritan thinking on catholicity,

Then, if the question be, which is the catholic truth – Popery or our religion – I say not Popery, but our religion. That which ‘without controversy,’ all churches have held from the apostles’ time…that is catholic.

The problem was that Rome had added its own inventions to the Catholic faith and had therefore become less than Catholic in its teachings. Not for the Puritans what seems to be the view of many contemporary Evangelicals that after the close of the New Testament era, church history all but ground to a halt, only to begin again in 1517 at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Owen was steeped in the creedal heritage of the church. His Trinitarian theology was unashamedly that of the Council of Nicaea. His understanding of the Person of Christ was shaped by the Definition of Chalcedon. Owen was well read in the Church fathers, especially Augustine.

It is sometimes suggested that John Calvin and those who were faithful to his legacy rejected wholesale medieval scholastic thought. However, while Calvin was critical of the speculative excesses of the schoolmen, he drew freely on the resources of scholastic theology in developing some of his key ideas. Similarly, John Owen engaged with scholastic theology and made eclectic use of medieval Catholic literature in his own constructive theological work. In opposing Arminianism he deployed the anti-Pelagian arguments of great medieval schoolman, Thomas Aquinas and others in the Dominican tradition.

In addition, Owen knew what was going on in the world of 17th century Roman Catholic theology. He made a careful study of the controversy between the Augustinian Jansenists and the Semi-pelagian Jesuits. One of the foremost defenders of post-Tridentine Roman Catholicism was Robert Bellarmine. Owen’s extensive library contained a well thumbed set of Bellarmine’s works. In short, he knew what he was talking about when it came to controversy with Rome. Carl Trueman rightly argues that John Owen,

deserves to be taken seriously as a leading proponent not simply of English Puritanism…nor simply of Reformed Orthodoxy, but of the ongoing Western anti-Pelagian and Trinitarian tradition that stretched back from the seventeenth century, past the Reformation, though the Middle Ages, and back to the writings of the early church Fathers.

Accordingly, Owen carefully scrutinised Roman doctrine in the light of Scripture. But also he endeavoured to out-Catholic the Roman Catholics by appealing to the church fathers in order to show that distinctive Roman doctrines such as the universal authority of the pope were not in fact Catholic teachings, that is doctrines that Christians everywhere and at all times had believed. He argued that the Roman Catholic Church was divisive and schismatic in its attempt to foist its distinctive dogmas on all Christian churches.

In his interaction with Cane, Owen does not adopt the stance of a bitter Protestant polemicist, gleefully exposing Romish errors almost for the fun of it. Sometimes he betrays a little irritation with his interlocutor, but on the whole his tone is calm and reasoned. On occasion the great divine even permits himself a little ironic humour. Remarking on this William Goold, editor of Owen’s Works writes in a Prefatory Note to the Vindication, “he reminds us in his humour of the cumbrous gambols of the whale.” In dealing with Cane’s claim that the Roman Catholic Church had never fallen into error he summarises his opponent’s argument like this,

The Roman church did never at any time adhere to any opinion, but what the Roman church at that time adhered unto.

If you will forgive the mixed metaphors, in his dealings with Cane Owen resembles an indulgent cat toying with an overconfident mouse. But this feline divine has sharp teeth and pointed claws. When roused the old Puritan could be devastatingly incisive in dealing with his opponent’s weak arguments.

Westminster Conference Report #1

  Garry Williams on 'The English Reformation Today: Revise, Reverse or Revert?'

Here are some notes on Garry's paper.

Revisionists historians such as Eamon Duffy and Christopher Haigh wish to overturn the traditional Protestant view of the English Reformation. Some Evangelicals seem to want to reverse the Reformation for the sake of unity with Rome. Protestants might wish that we could revert to English Reformation, but that is not without its problems.

I. Revise

Duffy and Haigh

1. Re-examination of the state of church

Anticlericalism in England not as popular as once thought. There was no great cry for reform of the pre-Reformation English Church. The Church was part of everyday life for most people.

2. Slow speed of the English Reformation

The Reformation took time to settle in because it was  not generally embraced by the masses.

3. Mary's reign was more successful that thought

Mary was a competent monarch. England was more conservative than once believed. People were happy to revert to Rome under Mary's reign.

Responses

1. The traditional Protestant view was not necessarily right. The Whig school of history suggested that the English naturally embraced Protestantism, gladly throwing off the Roman yoke for the sake of the liberty of England. The idea that the English were 'naturally' Protestants, embracing the gospel and wanting reform is based on an overly optimistic view of human nature.

After the reign of Mary, the Elizabethan Act of Settlement, which made the country Protestant once more was won by only 21-18 votes in Lords. Unlikely victory for Protestantism more an act of God than historical inevitability due to the essential English character.

Older Protestant views of the Reformation  are distorted by the revisionists. The older writers did not exaggerate poor state of church prior to Reformation.

Anticlericalism was present prior to the Reformation, but there was no universal outcry against the Church as such. Anticlericalism did not amount to Protestantism - witness Erasmus.

The Roman Catholic Church was part of the fabric of people's everyday lives. Some parishes were conservative, others were more reformist.

Desire for reform was disproportionately represented in the political power base of England.

2. The historical study of wills made during the period of the English Reformation can lead to misleading conclusions. It is possible to tell whether a person was Catholic or Protestant by their will, whether Mary and saints mentioned or not etc. Wills underestimate the progress of the Reformation movement amongst young.

The impact of Bible. According to Duffy, the Roman faithful  had Harmonies of the Gospels. They knew Bible stories through stained glass windows. But the harmonies were more about Mary than Christ. It has also been pointed out that it is difficult to explain the message of   Romans in a stained glass window. 20,000 English Bibles were printed in 1534. As people read their Bibles they began to notice discrepancies between the Roman dogma purgatory and the teaching of Scripture. Also the Bible does not have Rome's great focus on Mary. 

Preaching. In  1570 not many clergy could preach. By 1584,  400 or more preachers were produced by Cambridge University. The Oxbridge Universities were rapidly becoming seminaries for preachers who proclaimed the Protestant message.

English  Protestant identity was reinforced by events like the Spanish Armada of 1588. Defeat of the Armada was widely celecrated. Charles I attempts at  re-Romanising England were strongly resisted. One of the factors that led to the Civil War.  All this indicates that the English Reformation went deeper than the revisionists suggest.

3. Mary's attempt at Re-Romanising England was a model counter-Reformation experiment. It is no defence that Mary may have been a competent ruler. She could have been wrong, but competent. Archbishop Pole made massive efforts to re-Romanise England. Roman propaganda, coercion and  persecution of Protestants. The Reforation was too deep deep seated to be easily reversed. Elizabeth may have put dissidents to death, but Mary oversaw the most intense religious persecution in the 16th century. Elizabeth had dissidents put to death for political subversion. Mary had Protestants martyred for their faith. The grim industrial efficiency of her reign of terror does not count in her favour.

At the heart of the revisionists' attempt re-rewrite the  English Reformation is a theological disagreement.  Mary's actions were sinful. She took a stand against gospel.

II. Reverse

Is the Reformation Over? by Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom. Their argument is that Rome has changed. Differences remain, but not so serious as to prevent co-operation between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals.

Claimed that 2/3 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is agreeable to Evangelicals. But we must respond to Rome as a complete system, not just cherry pick the bits with which we agree. Evangelicals and Catholics Together fudges justification by faith alone. No alone. Debates on justification not regarded as too important.  J. I. Packer says that we are not justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. That is true in a sense, but what might be true on individual level is not true of Roman church as a whole. The Reformation is not over.

ECT is ecumenism of trenches. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics  against secularism. But our enemy's enemy is not our friend. The gospel must define with whom we have fellowship on an ecclesial level.

ECT gives little attention to the Mass. Seen as a  mistake and irrelevance, not for what it is, an act of idolatry.

III. Revert

Simply reverting to the English Reformation of the 16th century is problematic

1. It was Reformation by Parliamentary Statute.

2. The Church of England was only church allowed and Protestant dissent was stamped out.

3. The Reformation in England was unsatisfactory. Cranmer wanted to further revise the Prayer Book to make worship more like the Genevan pattern, but did not succeed. Puritans wanted dynamic reform, but they were blocked.

4. The situation in modern day UK is not like the 16th century, but more like 1st - paganism, pluralism etc.

5. Beware of an unhealthy Reformation antiquarianism. We must be concerned for gospel witness today.

6. The English Reformation spread by preaching. Consider the need to identify and prepare ministers, 2 Timothy 2:2.

Westminster Conference musings

Well, it's all over and done with now. I'll probably post some more detailed reports over the next few days, but here are a few thoughts on the conference.

It's difficult to know how my paper on Puritan Attitudes to Rome went, but the discussion that followed was quite lively and afterwards people made some encouraging comments. It was good to get it out of the way on Tuesday afternoon so I could sit back and enjoy the rest of the conference.

The theme was Standing Firm: Still Protestant?, and the need to be clear on the issues that divide Evangelicals from Rome was emphasised in a number of papers. Daniel Webber highlighted Evangelical weakness in this area at the 1910 Edinburgh Missionary Conference, where Ango-Catholics were allowed undue influence over proceedings. Garry Williams' address on revisionist readings of the Reformation also brought the controversy with Rome into the picture. Sam Waldron gave a stimulating paper on sola fide and repentance.

But it wasn't all about the Reformation vs. Rome. David Gregson gave a delightful paper on the "unlikely masterpiece" that is the 1611 English Bible. The conference was brought to a fitting conclusion with Malcolm MacClean's heartwarming talk on Andrew Bonar.

Some might wonder whether concentration on the centuries old battle with Rome is relevant to contemporary Evangelical churches. But as the controversy is about getting the gospel right, it is doctrinal indifferentism to pretend that the sole authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone are no longer worth fighting for. We can do no other.

Westminster Conference

I'm off to London for the Westminster Conference, where I'm due to give a paper on Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome. I'm looking forward to hearing the other addresses, but the thought of delivering my own paper is a bit scary. Saying "yes" when invited to speak seemed like a good idea at the time.

2010 Westminster Conference

You can download the conference brochure here.

Tuesday 7th December

THE ENGLISH REFORMATION TODAY: REVISE, REVERSE, OR REVERT?

GARRY WILLIAMS

What are we to make of the revisionist rewriting of the history of the English Reformation? Can we now conclude that the causes that necessitated the Reformation in the sixteenth century no longer merit separation from Rome? What would it mean not to revise or reverse, but to revert to the English Reformation? How can we learn from the English Reformation despite the obvious distance in time and difference in circumstance?

PURITAN ATTITUDES TOWARD ROME REVISITED

GUY DAVIES

Some Evangelicals have suggested that the old controversy between Rome and Protestantism has been all but resolved. It might seem like a retrograde step to look to a more bitterly sectarian age for help on engagement with the Roman Catholic church today, but Guy Davies will suggest that the Puritans have something to teach contemporary Evangelicals on the serious and abiding nature of the doctrinal differences between Rome and Evangelical Protestants.

THE 1611 ENGLISH BIBLE: AN UNLIKELY MASTERPIECE

DAVID GREGSON

With the accession of James I to the English throne in 1603, a new version of the Bible was proposed. Many translators were involved in ecclesiastical politics; the language looked backward; the monopoly acquired in the seventeenth century was through flawed theological prejudice and for commercial reasons. David Gregson considers these factors, and shows how the 1611 English Bible has nevertheless become accepted as a masterpiece of amazing longevity.

 

Wednesday 8th December

 

REPENTANCE AND SOLA FIDE: VARIOUS REFORMED APPROACHES

SAM WALDRON

The Bible teaches that there are two things people must do to be saved. The Reformed tradition, committed from its beginning to justification sola fide, has also taught the necessity of repentance. Sam Waldron will survey some of the Reformed approaches to those truths in sometimes uneasy tension, suggesting an approach to repentance which maintains its necessity for salvation while safeguarding sola fide.

DOOMED FROM THE START? THE EDINBURGH CONFERENCE OF 1910

DANIEL WEBBER

A sense of expectation attended the World Missionary Conference of 1910. Many participants believed that the Church was on the brink of the global expansion of Christ’s cause. One hundred years on, this event is more readily remembered as the forerunner of the establishment of the World Council of Churches. Daniel Webber will investigate these events and their outcomes and consider whether the conference’s aspirations were not doomed from the start.

ANDREW BONAR

MALCOLM MACLEAN

Andrew Bonar is best known today for the memoirs and remains of his friend and colleague, Robert Murray McCheyne. They began their ministries during a period of divine blessing, but Bonar lived long enough to see a vast change in the spiritual outlook of the church in Scotland. He maintained a fragrant Christian character and an effective pulpit ministry despite the general decline. There are many lessons from his work that are useful for Christian leaders today.

2010 Westminster Conference

Next year's Westminster Conference will meet on December 7 and 8, 2010. Details of exactly who'll be speaking to be confirmed, but the subjects have been announced:

1. Rewriting the Reformation (response to Duffy, Starkey, Sansom, etc)
2. Puritan attitudes to Rome
3. AV 1611
4. Preaching for repentance
5. The 1910 Edinburgh Missionary Conference
6. Andrew Bonar (born 1810)

I'll be speaking on 'Puritan attitudes to Rome'. By way of prep, I'm working my way through Anthony Milton's fascinating study, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600-1640, Cambridge University Press, and the Works of John Owen Volume 14, which contains Owen's anti-Roman writings. Much to my surprise his unpromisingly entitled, Animadversions on the Fiat Lux is a great read. The prince of Puritan theologians adopts the stance of a longsuffering cat toying with an overconfident mouse. He engages his Roman opponent, John Vincent Cane with ironic good humour. Yet when Owen bares his claws, he cuts the Franciscan Friar's arguments to shreds with some devastatingly incisive theological analysis. With the new attitude of Evangelicals to Rome signalled by Evangelicals and Catholics Together and the controversy over the Manhattan Declaration, it looks like this may be a good time to consider what we have to learn from Puritan attitudes towards Rome.

2009 Westminster Conference Report (3): Stephen Clark on 1859 - A Year of Grace

1859 - A Year of Grace
Stephen Clark

It fell to Stephen Clark to break the Conference's concentration on Calvin to give an account of the 1859 Revival.

USA

The Revival began in America in the wake of a severe financial crash in October 1857. In the September of that year the famous Foulton Street prayer meetings began. These meetings began in a small way, but soon 100's of prayer meetings had been set up throughout New York. Churches were revived and many lost sinners were saved.

Ireland

Similarly in Ireland, four concerned believers started praying and soon large crowds of 3,000 people gathered for outdoor prayer meetings in all weathers. Many were prostrated under deep conviction of sin. Notorious sinners in Protestant and Roman Catholic camps were converted. Sectarianism waned as converted Protestants showed a new love for their Roman Catholic neighbours.

Scotland

The 1859 Free Church of Scotland's annual assembly made mention of a remarkable work of grace. Many were converted under the preaching of Brownlow North.

Wales

'Land of Revivals' since the 1730's. There were around fifteen powerful revivals from 1735 to the early 1850's. Clark sketched out the course of the 1859 revival in Wales, but I won't recount that here. See this earlier series of posts.

Leading characteristics

1. Remarkable conversions.

Many people from 'Hell Corner' in the USA converted. T. C. Edwards converted under David Morgan's preaching in Wales. Sceptical intellectuals as well as prostitutes saved.

2. Powerful preaching

Preachers were empowered by the Spirit to preach with great effect. For example, see David Morgan here.

3. Consequences

Revival of the church. Awakening and conversion of sinners. Social impact - crime and drunkenness cut. Some areas pronounced crime free. Magistrates were presented with white gloves as they had no cases to try. Prostitution outlawed. The poor helped. Beginning of Dr. Bernardo's orphanages. Spiritual impact: In the wake of the 1859 Revival there was a work of the Spirit amongst students in Oxford and Cambridge that led to the eventual founding of the IVF (now UCCF) and via IVF the publishers, IVP . Hudson Taylor was joined by converts of the '59 Revival when he returned to China in 1865 - start of China Inland Mission.

4. Aftermath

Churches damaged by Liberalism in the 1880's

5. Lessons

1) The work of God's kingdom is advanced by 'special seasons of mercy' like the 1859 Revival. Jonathan Edwards, “It may here be observed, that from the fall of man, to our day, the work of redemption in its effect has mainly been carried on by remarkable communications of the Spirit of God. Though there be a more constant influence of God’s Spirit always in some degree attending his ordinances; yet the way in which the greatest things have been done towards carrying on this work, always have been by remarkable effusions, at special seasons of mercy”.

2) We need to pray for such 'special seasons of mercy' - 2 Thessalonians 3:1.

3) We should not be parochial, but have a world-wide vision. The '59 Revival led to renewed interest in mission.

4) We should not confuse results with causes. Trying to replicate the prayer meetings of the 1850's will not guarantee revival. Those special meetings were themselves the result of an outpouring of the Spirit. God is sovereign and revival cannot be created on demand. Beware of old Plymouth Brethren teaching that since the Spirit was given at Pentecost we need not pray for further outpourings of his grace. Views of Moore College similar. Danger of overreaction against Charismatic excesses. The risen Jesus is able to pour out the Spirit in fresh power and we should urgently seek him for this.

5) ? - skipped due to time constraints

6) Our contemporary situation is different to that of 1859. Religious pluralism, the presence of other faiths, strident atheism. We must engage in apologetics, 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, Acts 17:22-34. But what we need above all else is the demonstration of the Spirit and power in our preaching - 1 Corinthians 2:1-4.

I didn't stop for the discussion as I had a train to catch and the paper ran a little over time. I thoroughly enjoyed my first visit to the Westminster Conference for many years. Stimulating papers. Good discussion. Nice to have fellowship with old friends. The event was spolied a little by a poor, muffled sound system and some strange noises off. The papers for both days will be made available in printed form - keep an eye on the website for details.

I was only presnet at the Conference on Tuesday so that's it for my reports. But my good friend, Gary Brady has posted some notes on Wednesday's papers:

Elizabeth and Calvin - Robert Oliver

Darwin Before and After - Ken Brownell

The Moravians and Missionary passion - Bruce Jenkins

2009 Westminster Conference Report (2): Don Carson on Calvin as commentator and theologian

Calvin as commentator and theologian
Don Carson

Carson is famed a New Testament scholar rather than a Calvin specialist. As he approached his subject he reminded us of the words of the 'famous American theologian', Clint Eastwood, "A man's got to know his limitations." But he suggested coming from his specialism he might be able to offer some fresh perspectives on the matter in hand.

Introduction

Calvin was remarkable in that he was a systematician and a Bible commentator. Today's commentators are not often systematic theologians and many systematicians are not too hot on biblical exegesis. Much of what passes for systematic theology today is in fact historical theology where the views of figures from the past are compared and contrasted. Some systematics is more akin to philosophical theology, others give attention to prolegomena, but there are few biblically informed systematic theologies. Calvin however was a systematiser in the Institutes and a prolific biblical commentator. The Institutues and the commentaries fed off each other. In his preface to the Institutes, Calvin made it clear that his systematic work and the commentaries needed to be read together. He did not dilate on doctrinal points in his commentaries because he had dealt more fully with theological issues in the Institutes. As the Institutes expanded from the modest 1536 edition to its 1559 definitive form, it is possible to trace the impact of Calvin's exegetical work on his overarching theological system.

The term 'Biblical Theology' was first used in 1604 of a book full of proof texts for Lutheran orthodoxy. By the 18th century Biblical Theology denoted the study of the theology of the Bible in historical sequence. Under the influence of the Enlightenment, Biblical Theology fell under the spell of the history of religions school of thought. Today Biblical Theology tends to focus rather narrowly on the theology of John, Luke, Peter or 'Q' rather than looking at whole Bible Biblical Theology. Calvin was a 'whole Bible biblical theologian' and a systematic theologian.

Calvin criticized both Melanchthon and Bucer's approach to writing commentaries. 1) In his commentaries Melanchthon gave attention to the theological loci found in the text rather than the whole textual unit. 2) Melanchthon's loci were determined by Aristotelian philosophy. He did not follow the flow of the biblical text. Calvin's expositions followed the text wherever it led. 3) In Bucer we find both the loci approach and an exegesis of the text, making his commentaries massive, unreadable tomes. Calvin aimed at 'clear brevity' in his commentaries. Many of his commentaries were transcripts of his lectures on the Bible. He dealt with the loci in the Institutes.

The development of Calvin's thought can be noted as the Institutes expanded over the years. Material was added to sections on the knowledge of God and ourselves, justification, repentance, the likeness and dislikeness of Old and New Testaments, predestination, providence, the Christian life and monastic vows. His exegetical work influenced and enriched his treatment of these subjects.

Case Studies

Genesis 1 & 2

In the 1536 Institutes there is a lengthy discussion of the image of God under the heading of the knowledge of God and ourselves. In his Commentary of Genesis, he gives scant attention to the image of God.

Genesis 1:2 & 26

From the start the Institutes was thoroughly trinitarian, but Calvin was cautious about seeing the Trinity in the text of Genesis 1. In his commentary he does not draw trinitarian conclusions from the plural divine name Elohim or the use of "us" in Genesis 1:26. He knows very well that God is Trinity, but did not wish to dump his wider theological conclusions into every text of Scripture. Calvin was accused of being a Judaizer because of his reluctance to read truths only fully revealed in the New Testament back into the Old.

Calvin was a master of grammatico-historical exegesis. He eschewed Luther's more explicitly Christological approach to the Old Testament, refusing to read the Old Testament anachronistically.

Genesis 3

In the 1536 Institutes, Calvin spoke of the cancellation and effacement of the image of God due to the fall. As his work expanded he gave more attention to the matter of living for righteousness, with large a sections of Book III of the 1559 Institutes becoming in effect "A Little Book on the Christian Life". He has little to say about this in his commentary on Genesis 3.

Ten Commandments

Calvin wrote a Harmony of the last four books of Moses, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Here he follows a more loci-based approach rather than straight exposition. He gives a more lengthy discussion of the purpose of the law than we find in the Institutes. Unlike in his Harmony of the Gospels, his work on the Pentateuch does not follow the original order of events. The order is changed for the sake of theological emphasis. This more complex approach is partly due to the fact that the work was written rather than being based on his lectures.

In the Harmony his treatment of Exodus 20:1-17 is very much like that of his exposition of Deuteronomy 5 in his commentary on the last Book of Moses. But he comments on Exodus 20:18 first in order to set the scene. In the Harmony Calvin was attempting to provide a biblical theology of the Pentateuch.

1 Peter 2

In the 1536 Institutes, Calvin argued that there are three marks of a true Church, the right preaching of the Word, the proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline. Thereafter, while he emphasizes the importance of discipline, only the Word and sacraments are mentioned as the marks of the church. Calvin was willing to adapt his material for the sake of emphasis.

1 Corinthians 1

In the categories of systematic theology, 'justification' is a once-for-all forensic declaration that a sinner is right with God by faith in the finished work of Christ. 'Sanctification' is defined as the progressive transformation of the believer. Calvin recognised that sanctification does not always carry that meaning in the Bible. Paul described the Corinthians as "saints", 1 Corinthians 1:2. But as the rest of the letter shows, that does not mean that they were living holy lives. Calvin saw that in this case sanctification simply meant being set apart to God. In a similar way, the instruments used in the temple were described as "holy", without implying moral change. Calvin did not use the later language of definitive or positional sanctification in contrast to progressive sanctification. But he was aware that the discourse of systematics is often different to the vocabulary of the biblical text. We need to be sensitive to this too. In systematic theology, we speak of the 'effectual call' to salvation, but in the Synoptics 'call' means invitation. It is in Paul that 'call' means 'effective call'. Philippians 3 is all about progressive sanctification in the sense intended by systematic theology, but the word 'sanctification' is not used once. Preachers need to be aware of the differences between the discourse of systematics and the way language is used in the text of Scripture, so that we do not simply read the categories of systematic theology into the Bible.

Those who read a lot of systematic theology need to compliment that study by reading commentaries that give serious attention to the text of Scripture. Those who read lots of commentaries also need to engage with systematic theology to gain a holistic and coherent view of biblical truth. Biblical theology helps systematic theology to consider texts in their proper redemptive-historical setting. Systematic theology helps biblical theology to locate individual texts in the context of the whole counsel of God. The fact that Calvin was a fine systematiser and a model of clear and concise biblical exegesis makes his God-given gifts seem all the more remarkable.

Discussion

The ensuing discussion mainly ranged around the issue of Christ-centred hermeneutics. Is Calvin Christ-centred enough in his Old Testament commentaries, especially compared with Luther? Carson said that Calvin got it right. When we take his ministry as a whole, he was thoroughly Christ-centred. But he did not read Christ into every Old Testament text. Carson argued that a simplistic "this points to Jesus" approach to the Old Testament is unhelpful. For example, Psalm 69, quoted several times in the Passion Narratives is firstly about David. We understand it as Messianic due to God's covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7, and the expectation of a Davidic Messiah in the prophets - Isaiah 9:6-7 etc. We need to show how the Old Testament Scriptures speak of Christ by making these redemptive-historical links clear. Calvin did this. But still some were unhappy with the apparent lack of Christ-centeredness in Calvin's OT commentaries. His work on Genesis was cited as a case in point. This is also a complaint that might be levelled against many contemporary conservative Old Testament commentaries. The text is expounded in accordance with the rules of grammatico-historical exegesis, but very seldom is an attempt made to show how the passage points to Christ. This is out of kilter with what Jesus said about his place in the Old Testament, Luke 24:46-47 and also 1 Peter 1:10-12. On its own, a grammatico-historical approach to the Old Testament is not sufficient for the Christian expositor. We also need to be sensitive to the redemptive-historical and Christological pattern of biblical revelation.