Conclave

I forgot to mention that I'd been to see Conclave in the cinema the other day. Based on a Robert Harris novel, it takes the entirely factual idea of a papal conclave as the backdrop to an entirely fictional inside account of one where, after various occurrences a new Pope is chosen. Without giving too much away it confirms modern liberal prejudices as it works its way through the story. Some very good acting, I guess.

Engaging With Thomas Aquinas

On Monday we met at the Pastors Academy in Finchley once again for our reading group. Our subject was Leonardo De Chirco's book on engaging with Aquinas. I was leading so I'll reproduce the questions I prepared below. About ten of us met. We were all quite favourable towards the book which we found helpful though not essential. We decided next time to look at a couple of C S Lewis books.

Questions

How much did you know about Aquinas before reading the book? Have you read any of his work? What did you think of de Chirico's book? Who would benefit best from it?

Introduction 1-11 Are you aware of the evangelical love story with Thomas? (5) How would you answer the five questions on page 6? (“What should we make of this entire discussion? … ie sifting what is good and rejecting what is deviant?”) Also a sixth question as we move on to page 7?

1 The life and work of Thomas Aquinas 12-31 How do you tend to think of the Middle Ages? Is your ultimate goal to see God or to love him? Which is most important - the true or the good? (18) Why is Thomas better remembered than Bonaventure? (19-21) What do you make of Thomas's 1273 mystical experience? (25) How impressive is 8 million words? (26) [Dickens – 4.6m, Shakespeare – 884,000, Bible – 780,000]

2 Sources and synthesis of Thomas Aquinas's thought 32-67 Does a good theologian need a good knowledge of science? (33) Was Thomas's use of Aristotle a theologically compromised use of the Christian faith? (34) Is Aristotle of any use to us? Are some truths of faith accessible to reason? (38) What do you think of Thomas's five attitudes to the Word? (42) Have the inspired apostles and prophets ever said anything contrary to the dictates of natural reason? (44) Did Thomas understand justification by faith? Did he understand total depravity? Is the exitus-reditus motif of any use? (55-57) How do we relate nature and revelation? (59) What do you make of Thomas's five arguments for God? (62) Was Thomas too optimistic? (65-67)

3 Roman Catholic appropriations: from veneration to magisterial affirmation 68-93 Should the accrued venerations of medieval spirituality towards Thomas affect our attitude to him? Is there a Protestant equivalent to Thomas ie someone accepted as the standard representation of Protestantism? How important is the difference between Thomas and Thomism? What is the significance of the legend of the Summa and the Bible? (76) Is Thomas useful to Protestants in proving the incompatibility of Rome and the Reformation? (78) What is wrong with John of St Thomas's approach to Thomas? (80) Why did Thomistic trends from Trent onwards provide the best apologetics for the Roman status quo intellectually and symbolically? (81) What can you learn from Rome's opposition to modernism? (84) What is the significance of Pope Pius XI's 1923 encyclical? (85) “The irony was… neo-Thomism... built a… system that, to fight against the Enlightenment, ended up assimilating the rationalistic outlook of its plausibility structures.” Discuss. (86) What about Thomas's “theological guide” status? (89) Is de Chirico right to note the lack of reference to Protestant theologians in FR? (91) Is the reference to Thomas's Mariolatry significant? (92, 93)

4 Protestant readings of Thomas: circling around evangelical eclecticism 94-124 What are the implications of Schaff's statement? (94) Which approach to Thomas is best – that of Luther (95-100) Calvin (101) Zanchi, Dorsche (102, 103) Bucer, Vermigli (105ff) Melanchthon, etc (109) Turretin and Owen (110ff)?? What about Kuyper's approach? (114) and Bavinck (116ff) and Van Til and Schaeffer (119ff)? How about A Vos and Geisler (121ff)? Can and should evangelicals learn a great deal from Thomas? (123) Was Thomas a Proto-Reformer? (123)

5 Legacy and critical issues… contours... trajectories of Thomas's architectural thought 125-158 Are people naturally open to God? (125ff) Does grace scrap nature or bring it to perfection? (128) How important is it to distinguish common and special grace? (131, 135) How important is what is said about the development of the understanding of nature and grace by Rome? Where does general revelation sit in your theology?Any remarks on what is said about Vatican II? (145-149) Does Christianity need Greek philosophy? Is Bavinck's comment helpful? (150-153) “Updating without changing” – how well does that seem to sum up Romanism? (157)

6 Thomas Aquinas for evangelicals today 159-172 What colour hat for Thomas? (159) Can an evangelical be a Thomist? (160) Thomas on the doctrine of God: Frame or Trueman? (161-164) Can de Chirico's principles be improved, modified, increased? (165-172) Have you been avoiding conversation with Thomas? What is the significance of his having an integrated system? (169) Did you expect more reference to Sproul and apologetics? (171) Are you being mature about this?

Repackaging Christianity by Andrew Atherstone

This is a very thorough write up of the whole Alpha story and its various twists and turns. It is good to have it all written down in black and white. Atherstone tries to be balanced, reporting various criticisms at times and seeking to be candid. It is very useful therefore although it does tend to toe the party line rather insted of being more critical.

A number of things struck me. John Wimber, who died in 1997, had quite an influence on the whole HTB/Alpha world. Atherstone describes a meeting at HTB where Wimber claimed a word of knowledge that revealed that ten people in the room had athletes foot! Nine stood but Nicky Gumbel resisted at first, rather embarrassed. It is an amusing story in some ways yet for HTB's John Collins it was as though for an hour or two they were back in New Testament days seeing the disciples at work. This is utter nonsense. How the devils must be laughing to know this story.

More seriously still, there are claims of miraculous healing in the book. Most of it is the relief of aches and pains and unverifiable. But then there is a claim that someone was healed from blindness! A woman called Jean Smith from Cwmbran (where I am from) was the person supposedly healed in 1997. So I looked this up and saw that Dr Peter May mentions the case in a paper on the subject. He points out that this claimed healing was never validated by an ophthalmologist. And so it is mere hearsay. For Andrew Atherstone to repeat it in this unqualified way is irresponsible.

Another sad thing that is part of the story is the way that although Alpha originally had a good statement on the priesthood of all believers and the fact that sacrificing priests are not needed today. French RC bishops objected, however, when Catholic version so Alpha were made and so Gumbel deleted such statement from his Questions of Life.

It is not difficult to see good in the Alpha story but again and again there are things that are very unhelpful and so it still has to be avoided by right thinking Christians.

10 Orders of Monks or Such like

I forget why I was thinking about this but here they are
1 Augustinians
2 Benedictines
3 Cistercians
4 Carthusians
5 Dominicans
6 Franciscans
7 Gilbertines

8 Capuchins
9 Cluniacs
10 Trappists

Leonardo de Chirico

I was at the London Seminary once again today for two sessions. The first was a mini-conference with Leonardo de Chirico from Rome, the author of Same words; different worlds. He very helpfully described Roman Catholicism and spoke of the way to reach such people. It was a master class. So much in Catholicism seems to be the same as Protestantism but there are aubtle differences we need to understand. This meeting was organised by AGBCSE as a shop front for their group and was much appreciated. Jim Sayers chaired and Andrew King spoke about the association. Our churh does not belong to an association but if we did join one this would be the obvoous move.

Dracula and the Saints

I have recently read and enjoyed two quite different books by Giles Morgan in the Pocket Essentials series. The one on Siants usefully takes you through the various well known "saints" and gives some of the background to the subject. The one on Dracula foocusses on Bram Stoker's work but gives the background and brings things up todate with a history of Dracula in the cinema. Fascinating books both.

Waterstones humour

Spotted at my local Waterstones. B B Warfield wrote that the Reformation was the triumph of Augustine's doctrine of th grace (Whichch Protestants love him for) over his doctrine of the church (which Romanists love him for). [The book on Augustine is by Robin Lane Fox].

Carey Conference Final Day Session 1

Our final session from Dr Chirico was a powerpoint presentation on Vatican II. He very helpfully took us through the deceptive and equivocal approach of the Roman church since Vatican II. He went through some of the various documents and pointed out the yes no approach that blurs the whole scene. These three messages have been very helpful.

Carey Conference 2017 Session 2

Our second session was given by Italian pastor and theologian Leonardo de Chirico. We began with an interesting interview which included reference to a statement on the matter of whether the Reformation is over that can be accessed here.

The gist of the message is reproduced below from another address given elsewhere but containing similar material. (See here).

The evangelical understanding of the gospel stands on two pillars: the authority of Scripture as God’s word written (the formal principle) and justification by grace alone through faith alone (the material principle).

Scripture is the norm of the Christian life; justification is the ground of it. Without the norm of Scripture, our lives are shaped by false standards and deceived by false narratives. Without the ground of justification, our lives are built on sinking sand and will ultimately collapse under the righteous judgment of God.

In J.I. Packer’s lucid way of condensing Biblical teaching, justification is “God’s act of remitting the sins of, and reckoning righteousness to, ungodly sinners freely, by his grace, through faith in Christ, on the ground not of their own works, but of the representative righteousness and substitutionary blood-shedding of Jesus Christ on their behalf”.

Historically, justification has been the landmark of the evangelical faith since the times of the Apostles. The Church Fathers maintained it, and while it was not their main concern, they fully endorsed it. The Reformation did not invent it. Simply it restated it in more biblical and coherent terms, in times in which it had been obscured by medieval opacity. Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxies embraced it wholeheartedly.

Giants like Jonathan Edwards and the British Puritans preached it with full conviction. German Pietism shaped its spirituality around it. Great preachers like C.H. Spurgeon made justification by faith central to their preaching and that pattern continued up to the times of John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Even Billy Graham’s message fully stands within the parameters set by justification by faith. The sinner is saved by grace alone through faith alone, apart from good works without any merit on our part. This has been a fundamental mark of the biblical faith throughout the centuries because it lies at the heart of the biblical gospel.

Reactions Against Justification

However, there have been two strong reactions against justification. One the one hand, the Roman Catholic Church violently rejected it at the Council of Trent (1545-1562). Trent continued to use the word justification but filled it with a completely different meaning. For Trent, justification was a process rather than an act of God; a process initiated by the sacrament of baptism where the righteousness of God was thought to be infused; a process nurtured by the religious works of the faithful and sustained by the sacramental system of the church; a process needing to go through a time of purification in purgatory, before perhaps being enacted on judgement day.

Rome reframed and reconstructed justification in terms of a combination of God’s initiative and man’s efforts, grace and works joined together resulting in an on-going journey of justification, ultimately dependent on the “clay and iron” of human works and ecclesiastical sacraments. What was missing was the declarative, forensic act of justification, the exclusive grounding in divine grace, the full assurance of being justified because of what God the Father has declared, God the Son has achieved, and God the Spirit has worked out. Trent came up with a confused and confusing teaching on justification that has been misleading people since.

The other objection to the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith alone came from theological liberalism since the XIX century. In this case, too, the word justification was maintained but the meaning of it was totally undermined and eventually redefined. By rejecting the biblical doctrine of sin as a tragic separation from God and rebellion against God, liberalism objected to the need for justification. According to liberalism, our problem is not so much us being sinner in the hands of a righteous God, but our call to be righteous people as human beings. Christ is the perfect righteous man whom we need to imitate if we want to become righteous. No atonement is needed, no sin is to be forgiven, no judgement is previewed. The liberal vision is to create a world where self-defined righteous people attempt to build a would-be righteous society marked by universal human brotherhood. This culture of self-righteousness has been damaging Western churches and society to the point of making them implode under the weight of unrealistic and false illusions.

While Evangelical Protestants have always advocated for justification, making it central in their preaching, pastoral practices and missionary endeavours for centuries, there have been contrary accounts of justification that have offered alternative accounts of it. Despite their differences, both the Catholic and liberal versions of justification significantly converge in presenting an inflated view of man’s abilities to do something for one’s own salvation (whatever salvation means for them), a defective view of sin, a rejection of Christ’s substitutionary atonement, and an uneasiness towards everything related to God’s justice and judgement.

It is no surprise that in 1999 these Catholic and Protestant liberal accounts of justification merged together into the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (between Rome and the Lutheran World Federation). They were already close enough to finally come to the point of drafting a joint statement. The non-tragic view of sin is shared by both Catholic and liberal views; the necessity of the sacramental system of the church is what the Catholic part insists on while the liberal emphasis is on the universalist scope of justification. All are and will be justified because in the end God will have mercy on all. This is the present-day common understanding of justification shared by both the Roman Catholic Church and the liberal churches.

In 2017, these two bodies will celebrate the fact that the Reformation is over! And if justification is what they say it is, they are right! It is over indeed.

Church Planting and Justification by Faith

How are we then to plant churches in such a context? The church will continue to be founded on the authority of Scripture and justification by faith. There is no other recipe available for a healthy gospel church. There is no other gospel than the biblically attested message of Jesus Christ that saves unworthy sinners like us on the ground of his one-and-for-all work on the cross. We may and should be creative to find new and better ways to convey justification, to preach it, to apply it, to witness its living reality, but the Bible is crystal clear that we are either justified by God’s grace or we fall into a kind a self-justification that is a tragic deception. This is a false gospel.

Any accommodation to the idea that we are ultimately capable of saving ourselves, any accommodation to the fact that salvation is not God’s gift from beginning to end is a slippery slope towards a false gospel. Do not think that justification is a theological relic of a distant past. It is indeed key to grasping the good news of Christ.

May all church planters wholeheartedly embrace what the apostle Paul wrote: “I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ - the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith” (Philippians 3:8-9). Let us plant churches in Europe that faithfully and passionately reflect and embody this gospel!
Dr Chirico commended this article by Mike Reeves here on the 1999 document.

New Antichrist in Rome

Apparently the new man in the Vatican is the first Jesuit, the first Latin American (he is from Argentina). He has taken the name Francis (I).

His real name is Mr Jorge Mario Bergoglio. He was born December 17, 1936. He has been Archbishop of Buenos Aires since 1998. He was made a cardinal in 2001.

His views (according to Wikipedia) are conservative.

Liberation theology

Bergoglio is an accomplished theologian who distanced himself from LT early in his career. He is thought to be close to Comunione e Liberazone, a conservative lay movement.

Abortion and euthanasia

Cardinal Bergoglio has invited his clergy and laity to oppose both abortion and euthanasia.

Homosexuality

He has affirmed church teaching on this, though he teaches the importance of respecting individuals who are gay. He strongly opposed legislation introduced in 2010 by the Argentine Government to allow same-sex marriage. In a letter to the monasteries of Buenos Aires, he wrote: "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gays and lesbians is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".

Church and AIDS

His doctrinal orthodoxy emphasises Christ's mandate to love: he is well remembered for his 2001 visit to a hospice, in which he washed and kissed the feet of twelve AIDS patients.

Social justice

He consistently preaches a message of compassion towards the poor, but some observers would like him to place a greater emphasis on issues of social justice. Rather than articulating positions on matters of political economy, Bergoglio prefers to emphasise spirituality and holiness, believing that this will naturally lead to greater concern for the suffering of the poor. He has, however, voiced support for social programs, and publicly challenged free-market policies.

Relations with the Argentine government

On April 15, 2005, a human rights lawyer filed a criminal complaint against Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the junta in 1976 to kidnap two Jesuit priests, whom he, as superior of the Society of Jesus of Argentina in 1976, had asked to leave their pastoral work following conflict within the Society over how to respond to the new military dictatorship, with some priests advocating a violent overthrow. Bergoglio's spokesman has flatly denied the allegations. No evidence was presented linking the cardinal to this crime.

 

So apparently mortally wounded, Antichrist once again rises, this time in the guise of a simple, poor, conservative and holy man. Many will be fooled. More on the subject here.

Christ the Heretic

In a letter of the Essex martyr William Timms he writes

 

And they then may as well call Christ a heretic, for he never allowed their dirty ceremonies. He never went a procession with a cope, cross, or candlestick; He never censed an image, nor sang Latin service; He never sat in confession; He never preached of purgatory, nor of the pope's pardons; He never honoured saints or prayed for the dead; He never said mass, matins, nor evensong; He never commanded to fast on Friday or vigil, Lent nor Advent; He never hallowed church nor chalice, ashes nor palms, candles nor bells; He never made holy water nor holy bread, with such like.

Hodge to the Pope

This masterful letter appears in the current Banner and here. One wonders if anyone today is capable of writing such a letter with such lucidity and theological acumen.

The text of a letter written by Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary on behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, explaining why the Pope's invitation to Protestants to send delegates to the first Vatican Council of 1869-70 was being declined.

To Pius the Ninth, Bishop of Rome,
By your encyclical letter dated 1869 you invite Protestants to send delegates to the Council called to meet at Rome during the month of December of the current year. That letter has been brought to the attention of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Those Assemblies represent about five thousand ministers and a still larger number of Christian congregations.
Believing as we do, that it is the will of Christ that his Church on earth should be united, and recognizing the duty of doing all we consistently can to promote Christian charity and fellowship, we deem it right briefly to present the reasons which forbid our participation in the deliberations of the approaching Council.
It is not because we have renounced any article of the catholic faith. We are not heretics. We cordially receive all the doctrines contained in that Symbol which is known as the Apostles' Creed. We regard all doctrinal decisions of the first six ecumenical councils to be consistent with the Word of God, and because of that consistency, we receive them as expressing our faith. We therefore believe the doctrine of the Trinity and of the person of Christ as those doctrines are expressed in the symbols adopted by the Council of Nicea AD321, that of the Council of Constantinople AD381 and more fully that of the Council of Chalcedon AD451. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are the same in substance and equal in power and glory. We believe that the Eternal Son of God became man by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, and so was, and continues to be, both God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. We believe that our adorable Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the prophet who should come into the world, whose teachings we are bound to believe and on whose promises we rely. He is the High Priest whose infinitely meritorious satisfaction to divine justice, and whose ever prevalent intercession, is the sole ground of the sinner's justification and acceptance before God. We acknowledge him to be our Lord not only because we are his creatures but also because we are the purchase of his blood. To his authority we are bound to submit, in his care we confide, and to his service all creatures in heaven and earth should be devoted.
We receive all those doctrines concerning sin, grace and predestination, known as Augustinian, which doctrines received the sanction not only of the Council of Carthage and of other provincial Synods, but of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus AD431, and of Zosimus, bishop of Rome.
We therefore cannot be pronounced heretics without involving in the same condemnation the whole ancient church.
Neither are we schismatics. We cordially recognize as members of Christ's visible Church on earth, all those who profess the true religion together with their children. We are not only willing but earnest to hold Christian communion with them, provided they do not require, as conditions of such communion, that we profess doctrines which the Word of God condemns, or that we should do what the Word forbids. If in any case any Church prescribes such unscriptural terms of fellowship, the error and the fault is with that church and not with us.
But although we do not decline your invitation because we are either heretics or schismatics, we are nevertheless debarred from accepting it, because we still hold with ever increasing confidence those principles for which our fathers were excommunicated and pronounced accursed by the Council of Trent, which represented, and still represents, the Church over which you preside.
The most important of those principles are: First, that the Word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The Council of Trent, however, pronounces Anathema on all who do not receive the teachings of tradition pari pietatis affectu (with equal pious affection) as the Scriptures themselves. This we cannot do without incurring the condemnation which our Lord pronounced on the Pharisees, who made void the Word of God by their traditions (Matt. 15:6).
Secondly, the right of private judgement. When we open the Scriptures, we find that they are addressed to the people. They speak to us. We are commanded to search them (John 5:39), to believe what they teach. We are held personally responsible for our faith. The apostle commands us to pronounce accursed an apostle or an angel from heaven who should teach anything contrary to the divinely authenticated Word of God (Gal. 1:8). He made us the judges, and has placed the rule of judgement into our hands, and holds us responsible for our judgements.
Moreover, we find that the teaching of the Holy Spirit was promised by Christ not to the clergy only, much less to any one order of the clergy exclusively, but to all believers. It is written, 'Ye shall all be taught of God.' The Apostle John says to believers: 'Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things . . . but the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him' (1 John 2:20,27). This teaching of the Spirit authenticates itself, as this same apostle teaches us, when he says, 'He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself (1 John 5:10). 'I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth' (1 John 2:21). Private judgement, therefore, is not only a right, but a duty, from which no man can absolve himself, or be absolved by others.
Thirdly, we believe in the universal priesthood of all believers, that is, that all believers have through Christ access by one Spirit unto the Father (Eph. 2:18); that we may come with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16); 'Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water' (Heb. 10:19-22). To admit, therefore, the priesthood of the clergy, whose intervention is necessary to secure for us the remission of sin and other benefits of the redemption of Christ, is to renounce the priesthood of our Lord, or its sufficiency to secure reconciliation with God.
Fourthly, we deny the perpetuity of apostleship. As no man can be an apostle without the Spirit of prophecy, so no man can be an apostle without the gifts of an apostle. Those gifts, as we learn from Scripture, were plenary knowledge of the truth derived from Christ by immediate revelation (Gal.s 1:12), and personal infallibility as teachers and rulers. What the seals of apostleship were Paul teaches us, when he says to the Corinthians, 'Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds' (2 Cor. 12:12). As for prelates who claim to be apostles, and who demand the same confidence in their teaching, and the same submission to their authority, as that which is due to the inspired messengers of Christ, without pretending to possess either the gifts or signs of the apostleship, we cannot submit to their claims. This would be rendering to erring men the subjection due to God alone or to his divinely authenticated and infallible messengers.
Much less can we recognize the Bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ on earth, clothed with the authority over the Church and the world which was exercised by our Lord while here in the flesh. It is plain that no one can be the vicar of Christ who has not the attributes of Christ. To recognize the Bishop of Rome as Christ's vicar is therefore virtually to recognize him as divine.
We must stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. We cannot forfeit our salvation by putting man in the place of God, giving one of like passions with ourselves the control of our inward and outward life which is due only to him in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead.
Other and equally cogent reasons might be assigned why we cannot with a good conscience be represented in the proposed Council. But as the Council of Trent, whose canons are still in force, pronounces all accursed who hold the principles above enumerated, nothing further is necessary to show that our declining your invitation is a matter of necessity.
Nevertheless, although we cannot return to the fellowship of the Church of Rome, we desire to live in charity with all men. We love all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We regard as Christian brethren all who worship, love and obey him as their God and Saviour, and we hope to be united in heaven with all who unite with us on earth in saying, 'Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen' (Rev. 1:6).
Signed on behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the US of America
Charles Hodge

Satan blunders

Satan is not omniscient. Sometimes he makes mistakes, especially when different plans run up against each other. The above picture purports to be of Zimbabwe's President Mugabe receiving communion in Vatican City yesterday. Despite being banned from most European countries for human rights violations, Mugabe was present in the Vatican at the so-called beatification of Karol Woytila, better known as Pope John II. The evils of the late pope are not the same as Mugabe's, of course, but that Satan has used both for evil ends is not something there should be any doubt about. I notice that a certain Cardinal Dziwisz told AFP recently concerning th late Pope's blood and hair "these are from of the pope's body, so these are relics of the first degree". Utter paganism. 

Westminster Conference 2010

So a pretty good and well attended conference. Next year's conference is on December 7 and 8. Not all speakers have been finalised yet but the subjects are as follows.

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)

We will use the American Church again despite some drawbacks. The rearrangement of the chairs this year was a great help.
Website here.

Westminster 09 1a

And here we are again at the Westminster Conference in Tottenham Court Road. The first paper was given
by Garry Williams of the John Owen Centre and was on "John Calvin's Agenda: Issues in the separation from Rome".
We looked first at Calvin's writings (the three central texts are The Reply to Sadoleto (1534), On the necessity of reforming the church (1543) and The Antidote to the Council of Trent (1547). These reveal that Calvin grasped the necessity of urgent reformation. He uses the image of the church having been rocked to sleep.
"What then? When we saw idolatry openly and everywhere stalking abroad, were we to connive at it? To have done so would have just been to rock the world in its sleep of death, that it might not awake."
"call to mind the fearful calamities of the Church, which might move to pity even minds of iron. Nay, set before your eyes her squalid and unsightly form, and the sad devastation which is everywhere beheld."
He saw temporal as well as eternal consequences for rejecting the gospel. "Even now, while your own eyes behold, it is half bent, and totters to its final ruin."
He would quote 1 Corinthians 11 and its reference to temporal judgements.
"But if we reflect how slight the error by which the Corinthians had vitiated the sacred supper was? If contrasted with all the defilements by which, in the present day, it is sullied and polluted amongst ourselves? It is strange not to perceive that God, who so severely punished them, is justly more offended with us."
"I admit that there cannot be too much dispatch, provided, in the meantime, the consultation which ought to be first, the consultation how to restore the church to its proper state, is neither neglected nor retarded. Already delays more than enough have been interposed. The fuel of the Turkish war is within, shut up in our bowels, and must first be removed, if we would successfully drive back the war itself."
We tend to avoid this sort of analysis but Calvin did not.
For Calvin then worship and doctrine were priorities. He was very concerned about the mode of worship "I would say, that rule in the church, the pastoral office, and all other matters of order, resemble the body, whereas the doctrine which regulates the due worship of God and points out the ground on which the consciences of men must rest their hope of salvation, is the soul which animates the body, renders it lively and active, and in short, makes it not to be a dead and useless carcase" (He was a Hebrew thinker not a Greek one).
He has a particularly high view of justification. "The safety of the church depends as much on this doctrine as human life does on the soul. If the purity of this doctrine is in any degree impaired, the church has received a deadly wound."
Beza "Seeing that the city stood greatly in need ... regular presbytery ..."
He had a deep posthumous disagreement with Zwingli who denied the instrumentality of external things for grace to be built up. Outward things can only affect the mind and do not have a direct impact on faith. It can only negatively restrain Zwingli thought.
Calvin had a higher view of things such as the sacraments to build up faith.
We are quick today to defend justification but we are not so concerened about the mode of worship. Calvin was vey much concerned over public worship. It is not simply a matter of being constant and serious. Are we actively engaged in thinking this through. Calvin kept reforming worship.
Garry then quoted a letter to Knox connecting baptism with the promise. This was rather lost on the Baptists present but the point was that he was a man carefully thinking about things.
Surely Calvin's approach was similar to the NT. Worship has an important public role and is also pedagogical. We then moved on to Calvi2. His practice - seeking unity. Calvin, of course, worked worked prolifically hard - preaching, teaching and in pursuing unity. He saw it as very important and poured himself into this in the 1540s, meeting with Bullinger, etc. Some remarkable agreements were drawn up.
Calvin wrote, regretfully, of "the vehemence of Luther's natural temperament, which was so apt to boil over in every direction," even to the point of "flashing his lightning upon the servants of the Lord."
Certainly this is a serious matter. The importance of fraternal realtions with other Bible believing Protestants. We should sit down and talk rather going in all guns blazing (sometimes we are not even as good as Luther).
Garry sought to apply this to Anglican/Nonconformist realtions.
Certainly many things we deplore in Anglicanism (eg Gafcon). The issues we disagree on do matter but we must still try to have relations with genuine believers. There is not that much hostility but there is ignorance and distance at times. What is our disposition?
Finally, we looked at the centre of Calvin's vision. Calvin was a great user of metaphors and similes. One pervasive metaphor he uses is to see everything in relation to the physical body of Christ. This is a lesser known feature of Calvin. What the Spirit unites does is to unite us to Christ's body.
"The flesh of Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain that pours into us the life springing forth from the Godhead into itself” (Institutes 4)
Calvin thought in very concrete terms. He spoke of unbelievers in these terms too.
"Let our opponents, then, in the first instance, draw near to Christ, and then let them convict us of schism, in daring to dissent from them in doctrine."
"Are we, then, to be silent when the peculiar dignity of Christ, the dignity which cost him such a price, is wrested from him with the greatest contumely, and distributed among the saints, as if it were lawful spoil?"
"he hesitates not to strip Christ in order that he may deck his Pope with the spoils."
"poor souls, which ought to have been ruled by the doctrine of Christ, are oppressed by cruel bondage; that nothing is seen in the Christian Church that is not deformed and debased; that the grace of Christ not only lies half-buried, but is partly torn to pieces, partly altogether extinguished. "
Surely this is again something that we do find in Scripture in several places. Every human being stands in some relation to the body of Christ. Let's avoid the fuzziness of today's feminised church.
The split with Rome was all about being near to Christ or far from him. The irony is that Romanism claimed to be able to do it but could not for that is by faith.
The discussion that followed focused on worship, including the Sydney view.

LTS etc

I'm just back from a morning in LTS. I went with Rhodri to the open day which had been arranged, chiefly for possible students. About 50 were present and I guess half or more were people thinking of studying there perhaps. We began with coffee and then the new principal, Robert Strivens, introduced things and then the new Vice-Principal, David Green, also spoke. It was possible then to see around the premises. After that, a number of lecturers and students spoke giving an outline of the course. A number of changes are being implemented at present. There was also opportunity for questions. It all sounded very positive and interesting. One hopes that it will encourage those thinking of the ministry to study there.
I count it a great blessing to have LTS on the doorstep. Its proximity means I can reasonably be there quite often. This was my second trip over this last week as I was present last Tuesday when about a dozen of us gathered to study Habakkuk in the Hebrew under the capable leadership of David Green. My Hebrew is still not great but I have enough to see that there are things in the book that are simply not possible to see without reading the Hebrew. A very profitable time.
Afterwards I was able to join one of the students and read a little more from Lloyd-Jones's Preachers and preaching. For me it was a refreshing change from the Hebrew whereas he had been listening to Stuart Olyott all afternoon on homiletics. He seemed eager for more, nevertheless.
On Monday I was lecturing at EMF, chiefly on Catholicism - a rather hot Prot approach I guess. No problem for the Pole or the Ulsterman or the East Europeans I guess but one student found my stance difficult to accept but we talked about it and hopefully he'll come to see that I'm right!
Wednesday was mostly meetings with services at my two homes for older folk and the midweek meeting in the evening.
Yesterday and Thursday were easier, though I was present for the children's meeting and the young people's, which went off okay.

Hats Z

 Zucchetto. More here.

Menorca Hoodies

I'll explain why again but I spent Good Friday on the lovely Mediterranean Island of Menorca, in Mao. Most things were closed, understandably, but in a church we spotted these hooded figures before they headed out in procession. Traditionally, these were penitents who wished to remain anonymous. They would also beat themselves or carry heavy crosses on their backs, pleading for forgiveness from God. Today it is part of the traditional Easter Week processions in many parts of Spain and Italy. I wonder if there is any evangelical witness in Mao.