Category: Uncategorized

Calvin and Luther had many things in common. Both believed firmly that the Eucharist was a means of grace. ^a The elements nourished the believer and prepared them for their labors in the Lord. Calvin says that the Eucharist is needful because of our “dullness.” Similarly, Luther opines by stating that the sacrament, like the Word of God Almighty, has been given and ordained so that our weak consciences may be encouraged to faith and love. This common bond ought to have unified these two and their respective followers.

Though there were substantial differences, Luther and Calvin understood that the words of Christ had to be taken seriously. Zwingli’s memorial view did not do justice to the words of Christ and the Roman Catholic position relied too much on Aristotelian categories. Luther and Calvin’s level of sacramental and Biblical seriousness ought to pervade the Church of Christ today. It is a futile attempt for the church to “succeed” ^b in every area, but fail to see the essence of the apostolic church. ^c Calvin listed the proper administration of the sacraments, along with the preaching of the Word and Church discipline as the three marks of the church. The church is an unhealthy body if it does not keep and administer that mark faithfully, for in the Lord’s Supper the children of the King sit at His royal table to experience the glories of that sovereign union the King has made with His people. To deny such a glorious banquet would be to deny His children the true assurance that they belong to the King. Children ^d come because they are needy; they come because they hear the great Shepherd’s call. Indeed, the Lord’s Table is for those who labor and are heavy laden, and Christ the Lord will give them rest.

1. See Stephen Nichols’ discussion on page 124 in Martin Luther: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought.  (back)
2. The standards of “success” today are in total disagreement with God’s standards of “faithfulness,” which demands a holy reverence to His means of grace for the church.  (back)
3. Acts 2:42 –And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.  (back)
4. My reference to “children” refers to the church. “Children” is here used as in John’s address to the “dear children” in I John 2. Nevertheless, I believe that “covenant children” should be admitted to the table of the Lord. This topic is not the intent of this paper, though a logical consequence of it.   (back)

Note: This is meant to be an introductory study on Calvin and Luther’s understanding of the phrase: This is my body. This study will serve to provide a background for current controversies regarding the blatant denial of a robust Eucharistic faith in our modern Protestant Churches. The footnotes will be very helpful throughout these readings. ^a

The Reformation marked a return to the Scriptures in the area of the sacraments. This derived from a high view of Biblical authority. Throughout the Reformation, there was a conscious determination to bring all things under the authority of Scripture. Both Luther and Calvin believed that only the Scriptures would bring about true change. Though their adherence to Holy Writ led them to different interpretations on significant issues, yet their commitment to the authority of the Bible led to an unprecedented change in the European religious structure. It is with this zeal for the Word of God that Luther and Calvin approach the Lord’s words of institution. However, when great minds gather, great divisions occur. ^b
The sixteenth century was a time during which the moral collapse of the Roman Church stirred the Reformation, and other movements as well, to pursue a renewed church. ^c Indeed, John Frame’s statement reflects the Reformation’s zeal: “We must first be assured that Jesus Christ established on earth one church.” ^d The Reformation was not interested in starting a new church since Christ had already instituted His one apostolic church. Initially, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others were simply concerned, with the restoration of Rome and the purification of its doctrinal errors. ^e Of course, as the years went by they became aware that Rome was not about to change. It appears that the people too wanted change, so when Luther found that Rome did not seek a return to the authority of Scriptures, the Reformation became a separate entity; a viable alternative to the Roman Church. ^f

At that point, they began to dispute differences among themselves. This diversion ultimately led to division between the early Reformers. ^g Luther’s disciples began to concentrate on Luther’s distinctives and Calvin’s disciples on his. Among the many distinctions in the developing Reformation none caused greater division than the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, Jesus’ phrase of institution: “This is my body” ^h was the most disputed of the Reformation period. There were various understandings of this language among the Reformers. The irreconcilable differences among them led to the eventual fragmentation of the Reformation. The last chance of a united Reformation died on October 1st, 1529. That day brought Luther and Zwingli together in Marburg ⁱ to discuss their differences and try to come to an agreement. If this had happened the Reformation would have been a more effective movement. ^j

1. This is intended to be a six part series. Each reading will take 3-5 minutes.  (back)
2. This is evidently true for Luther and Zwingli.  (back)
3. The Magisterial Reformers did not initially want a departure from Rome, but a reformation of her wide corruption.  (back)
4. Frame, John. Evangelical Reunion, Volume 3, Number 23, June 4, 2001, www.framepoythress.org, Reformed Perspectives Magazine, chapter 1. Professor Frame is criticizing “denominationalism.” In personal correspondence I asked Professor Frame if “denominationalism” is a necessary evil? His response: “That depends on the source of the necessity. In the early days of the church, the evil was unnecessary. The problem of division might have been prevented and would have been if the people had followed Scripture. Of course today the prospect of complete reunion is so dim that I can understand your saying that for practical purposes at least denominations must be treated as necessary.”  (back)
5. This is fundamental to acknowledge at the outset, lest some believe that the Reformers were anti-institutional.  (back)
6. The Reformers continued to dialogue with Rome as the Colloquy of Resenberg (1541) indicates, but not as pervasively as they did in the beginning.  (back)
7. It must be noted that though there were differences (as in the sacraments) there was also a great level of mutual respect among the leaders of the 1st and 2nd generation Reformers. Calvin, for example, who was much younger than Luther, spoke very highly of Luther in many occasions.  (back)
8. Matthew 26:26 also I Corinthians 11:24. Some manuscripts read: “This Is my body broken for you.” This paper will center its attention primarily on Matthew’s account as opposed to Paul’s. Quotation is taken from the English Standard Version of the Bible.  (back)
9. For a helpful summary see: Stephen J. Nichols: Martin Luther: A Guided Tour of his Life and Thought, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002, pgs. 117-120.  (back)
10. I continually make this point clear because if the Reformers were to attack Rome’s serious errors together and united, their influence could’ve had far reaching power. Today Europe is a graveyard. The majority of Europeans are not even aware what the Reformation was. However, in God’s great providence the Reformation went beyond Europe.  (back)

I just received my Italian Pipe Angelo Smooth Polished Apple. I have had a bad experience with a couple of pipes I bought on E-Bay. So, after some research I came across this beauty from a reputable pipe company. It was fairly priced and smokes smooth just like it says. Now I am back in business.

In these last chapters of Lewis’ Mere Christianity, there are two discussions on faith. According to Lewis:

Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.  ^a

Lewis does not seem to develop this very much, therefore, we can make a few limited remarks concerning his definition:
1) The idea of treating faith as an art does not originate in the Scriptures. Art comes from man’s work and does not give proper credit to the “author” and “perfecter” of our faith. ^b

2) Even if Lewis is referring to “art” as “ability,” he is still indebted to tell us where the faith comes from.

3) What does it mean to hold on to something that reason once accepted? What can reason accept apart from God’s work? Reason accepts only what the mind can see. According to Romans 8, the covenant-breaker cannot see the things of God, much less hold on to something he cannot see.

4) This entire definition is flawed from beginning to end. What Lewis appears to be defining is the garden-variety type of faith that any human is able to act. This is certainly not Biblical faith. This concept of faith Lewis proposes can just as easily be paralleled to teenage love. ^c

5) The definition of faith is already given to us in Scriptures. Contrary to Lewis, faith is not something you hold on that your reason has once accepted, but rather it is the assurance and conviction of things you have never seen. ^d Can reason see the unseen? Notice how the author of Hebrews assumes that faith is not human-made or manipulated by human ability, rather it assumes that what we see is not made by visible hands. ^e

1. Mere Christianity, pg. 126  (back)
2. Hebrews 12:2  (back)
3. For example, continue to hold on to that love, regardless of what other feelings you may have.  (back)
4. Hebrews 11:1-2  (back)
5. So that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.  (back)

In 1978, Rousas Rushdoony wrote his influential book, The One and the Many. ^a In it, he argued that every culture is inherently religious. The makeup of a society will reflect the religious inclinations of the people. The faith of the modern age, argued Rushdoony, is humanism:

A religious belief in the sufficiency of man as his own lord, his own source of law, his own savior. Instead of God and His law-word as the measure of all things, humanism has made man the measure of reality.

No man can escape the centrality of faith in their lives. Religious neutrality is impossible. The more one avoids the question, the stronger his religiosity becomes. As with humanism, Christianity cannot avoid the consequences of its faith in contemporary society. In the words of Rushdoony, “every culture is a religious externalized, a faith incarnated into life and action.” Christianity is by its very nature an active faith, an activistic religion.

Activism can be described also by its commom assertion of pacifism. If a Christian decides to live only to self and not engage society around him, he is acting against the cultural mandate. It is always an activistic faith. Even pacifism is active in denying activism. Pacifists have a cause, and it is just as active as those who are idealists.

The result of many years of what I call “negative activism” ^b is a completely defensive tactic against humanistic faith. What the church is doing today is retreating from her call to engage, thinking that God has not called us to be active, they are by nature being active opponents of Christianity.

1. R.J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many (Fairfax, VA:Thoburn Press, 1978), 371-375  (back)
2. Negative activism is synonymous with pacifism. By retreating, some Christians are actually being active supporters of those who oppose the Christian faith  (back)

My pastor has started a series through the Lord’s Prayer. In his introductory sermon he stressed two aspects of the text:
a) Prayer is expected, not optional.
b) Prayer should be genuine.
These are clear implications in the text. Prayer becomes a necessary dimension of spiritual growth. In the words of Dean Richard Lobs, “it is the most unnatural thing we will ever do in this world.” In Psalm 50:21 we find that God lacks nothing. This entails that we depend on every element of life to come from His sovereign providence.
In verse 6 we read:

But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

This is a strange element indeed. Here in this text God makes a direct contrast with the hypocrites. This should not be seen as a proof-text for individualism. Rather, the contrast here is with the self-exalting prayer of the hypocrites. If one were to imitate the Pharisees, he would fall into the same sin, even he did not intend to do so. The Puritan Matthew Henry expounds:

Instead of praying in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, enter into thy closet, into some place of privacy and retirement. Isaac went into the field (Gen. 24:63), Christ to a mountain, Peter to a housetop. No place amiss in point of ceremony, if it do but answer the end. Note, Secret prayer is to be performed in retirement, that we may be unobserved, and so may avoid ostentation; undisturbed, and so may avoid distraction; unheard, and so may use greater freedom.

My particular practice has been to find a Catholic or Anglican church in the area. There is always an open chapel. That may be a perfect place to pray in secret, furthermore, far away from the paragons of self-exaltation. For this one thing I know, no hypocrite or Pharisee will look for a generally empty chapel to pray.

The three traditional practices to be taken up with renewed vigor during Lent are prayer (justice towards God), fasting (justice towards self), and almsgiving (justice towards neighbor). Today, some people give up something they enjoy, add something that will bring them closer to God, and often give the time or money spent doing that to charitable purposes or organizations. ^a Prayer, fasting and almsgiving; these are the three central elements of Lent. Though there is no particular obligation to maintain these elements for forty days from a Biblical view, we are to be reminded that all these elements are Biblical. The pattern of 40 days follow many examples in both Old and New Testament. Furthermore, the church has faithfully celebrated this time. We are not in need of an explicit reference in the Scriptures to celebrate something that the Scriptures itself demands.
I have been reminded of the weakness of my prayer, the poverty of my giving, and my non-existent life of fasting. This is why we need Lent. This is why we need to keep Lent Holy.
Sabbatarianism ought not to be a hindrance to Lent. I firmly believe that both can go hand in hand. In fact, as we fast weekly, the Sabbath can serve as a day of feasting from that which we have fasted. Presbyterians generally look down upon Lent. ^b Though I understand the reasoning behind it, we are to look at Lent as a Holy time to reflect upon our sinfulness and our careless endeavors to please God. These need to be days of wilderness wanderings. Even Christ himself went through the wilderness ^c and taught us that His faithfulness is our faithfulness.

1. Taken from Wikipedia  (back)
2. In their estimation Lent and other Holy Days diminish the importance of the Sabbath  (back)
3. Matthew 4  (back)

I have spent the last two days working on my final paper for Ethics. I have finally finished with the revision. My topic was on the Disobedient son ^a in Deuteronomy. The text makes it clear that the son is to be put to death. But the question that arises is: What is the disobedient son? What does he do to earn the ultimate punishment in this life? These are the questions that I tackle in my paper that I will soon publish here on this blog.

1. Deuteronomy 21:18-21  (back)

Deuteronomy is one of the most important books for modern society. It engages our minds in economic theory, ceremonialism, covenant sanctions, blessings and curses, penology, and every possible dimension for maintaining stability in our society.
Nevertheless, it falls under constant attack by those who wish to impose some form of abrogation on the validity of God’s word. But the prophet does not foresee any form of abrogation. Isaiah 46:7 tells us that the Word of our God will stand forever. Furthermore, Jesus himself confirms the eternal validity of God’s Law when He said that the law has not been abrogated. ^a
In Deuteronomy 30 we find a hard teaching for those who associate wealth and prosperity merely to the charismatics and Word of Faith Movement. ^b Verses 9 and 10 read:

The Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your cattle and in the fruit of your ground. For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers, when you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

There is no promise of perfect health or perfect wealth, but God promises material prosperity associated with the blessing that comes with repentance, obedience and restoration. God does not appeal to Platonic dualism. Stuff is not bad, in fact God takes pleasure in giving stuff to His people as a reward for covenant faithfulnes.
What most do not understand today is that these material blessings are granted to covenant keepers in the land. They will have their daily bread in the land and they will have a place to worship their God alone. The pagan idols will be destroyed and God will reign supreme in their midst. But beyond that, these material blessings and this is far greater than any riches, leads us to the Messiah Himself. In the end, He is the richness of His people. The people of God gets the spoil–they serve their God alone and receive His blessings.

1. Matthew 5:17  (back)
2. I do not agree with the way in which they have used the text of Deuteronomy to support their position, nevertheless, I believe that the text teaches what they propose, not the way and means they seek to come to that conclusion  (back)

My neighbor and I spent a few hours together watching Cinderella Man. Tom, as many may know from reading this blog, has lost his wife of 58 years a week ago. Though he does not reveal too much, I know he is suffering. We have been planning to watch this movie for about 3 days now, and last night we watched what to me is one of the greatest movies in the last five years. What makes it so great? a) The outstanding acting, b) the clear dramatization of one of the worst times in American History (Great Depression, in which Tom went through as a young boy in the 1930’s) and c) the loveliness of a committed husband and wife to their family.
Tom told stories about the Great Depression he has told me many times, but I still enjoy them because they are part of his story. The classic story I hear over and over is that during the Depression, he had spaghetti almost every day. As a result he has not eaten spaghetti in over 40 years.
Tom is hardened to the gospel. He has not been in church for many years. He seems disappointed. I offered to read the Bible with him, only to be immediately rejected. I will try again in the future.