Semper Reformanda

The title of this posting is part of a slogan I was taught at College. Ecclesia Reformata semper reformanda est. The Reformed Church is always reforming. This raises a few questions.
1. Is constant reformation necessary? That the Church is constantly reforming may not be the way things are supposed to be. Surely, if we have the truth and truth doesn't change, why is there any necessity to change further? To which there are at least two answers. The devil is our adversary and he does not always attack the truth the same way. As examples:
a) In the 16th Century the issue facing the Reformed Churches (on the matter of how we are saved) was whether by an exercise of free will it was possible to choose to savingly believe in Jesus Christ. In that century it was considered that the will was completely free to make choices without any influence from (say) the desires. In our century it is considered that the will is subject to the desire of the heart. We say, in contrast to the 16Th Century reformers, we are free to choose whatever we want and what we choose demonstrates what we really want. This means that the point of attack has moved from the choice to the desire which prompts the choice. So, where in the 16th Century it was necessary to prove the will is not free (being enslaved to sin), in ours we can take that for granted and show that "the desire of the heart is only evil continually" in order to achieve the same result.
b) We know that (according to the Westminster Confession) the fathers and councils have and do err continually. We still don't know all truth and so we sometimes neglect certain aspects of the truth which, by later debates, are rediscovered. God often uses differing opinions and even errors to correct our understanding of the truth. In the centuries following the Reformation there was a tendency to limit the preaching to church buildings. During the Great Awakening, God showed that this view limited the numbers who could gather to hear the gospel. George Whitefield, for example, often had to preach outdoors so all who wanted to hear could do so. In the same way we sometimes limit the application of past truths because we think what has worked in the past is the way it should always be done.

2. Does this negate the value of past confessions? Not at all. A comparison between, say, the Westminster Confession and the Apostle's Creed shows that although the former is more extensive the essential doctrine covered in both is the same, if not in language, in intent. Further, comparing the teaching of the classical Reformation Creeds with the Decrees of Chalcedon (on the issue of the divinity and humanity of Christ) shows that both groups understood the Bible teaching on this subject the same way.

One of the great preachers in London during the 19th Century was often heard to say that one thing which convinced him that he was teaching the truth of Scripture was the large number of the greatest of saints of the past who taught the same thing. Though history and tradition are not normative in Reformed thinking, only the Bible is the rule for faith and life, they do help us ensure we are not too far off the beaten track since we believe as have the saints of old.

3. But is all change good? Of course not. That why we test all things by the Scriptures. The 16th Century reformers checked the teaching of the Church of which they were members on the issue of how many sacraments God instituted, for example. The Church of their day recognized seven, which Calvin, Knox and the others reduced to two. That meant that there were only two common ceremonial rites celebrated in the Church. Was this change a good thing? We believe so, because we can show clear warrant from Scripture for these sacraments. There is still debate about how they should be administered and just how they achieve their function as signs and seals of the faith but none about the number.

One change which may not have been so good is the fairly recent idea that preaching does not need to be an exposition of Scripture. It has become fashionable to preach about subjects "suggested" by the text of the Bible. It would appear that in some cases New Testament preachers did not expound on a single text of Scripture but God blessed the method used by the Reformers of old and, unless we can be sure that the hearers will see the connection between the Bible and the subject of the sermon it is wiser (it seems to me) to use expository preaching.

4. What is the benefit of Change? Since we do not know all things, the possibility of change allows us to be more flexible in applying Scripture to our lives in the present era. It also means that, in humility, we can admit our understanding of Scripture may be right as far as our understanding is concerned and that someone else may be right as far as his understanding leads him to be. As long, therefore, as we agree on the essentials of the Christian faith we should be able to allow for expressions of difference since, in the long run, God the Holy Spirit leads us into a fuller understanding of the Word of God.

And, change also makes us constantly return to the Scriptures to make sure we are "rightly dividing the word of truth." Such an exercise is always beneficial to Church and individual. And sometimes we can even discover that what we thought were insurmountable differences are not so great after all. Sometimes, just like the different accounts of the Gospels, it turns out to be just a different way of looking at the same thing.

Footnote: Jan. 28, 2010
When I wrote this article I was not aware of a book using the same title. Edited by Dr David Engelsma this book contains a sereis of contributions which traces the history of the Reformed Churches in the Nederlands including the secession which led to the founding of the Protestant Reformed Churches. It is available via the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church bookstore on their website. This is the link.

Power of Prayer?

There are some phrases that are in common use today that (in the judgment of charity) don't really say what the speaker means. "The power of prayer" is one. The speaker usually describes a difficult, or nearly impossible, situation faced by the person or someone he (or she) knows. Sometimes, in desperation, the person turns to the Lord and prays. God hears the prayer, miraculously making everything alright again. Then the speaker reminds the hearers they should pray at all times because "there is power in prayer." Now I concede that in most (if not all) cases the speaker is trying to encourage us to pray, reassuring us that God heeds prayer and often will grant what we ask.

I remember a poem to that effect:
"Call and the Lord will answer; Even before you cry,
He will have made provision; help will be drawing nigh.
Mighty things he will show you; wonders unasked unsought,
Above, beyond and exceeding; all that you asked or thought."

Notice the difference? There is no doubt in the poem that the Lord is the one who answers the prayer. That is his will to do good to us and not the prayer which is the power which brings about our help in time of trouble. He wants us to pray and encourages us to pray. Often for our benefit to help us learn to trust his goodwill toward us. And often he answers in a way we didn't even dare to imagine he would.

Consider Abraham's dilemma: God told him he was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because the stench of their wickedness had reached all the way to heaven. Abraham's nephew Lot was living in Sodom and, thus, in immediate danger. Abraham turns to the Lord and asks if it is right to destroy the innocent with the wicked as a reason to stop the destruction. God grants the principle so Abraham slowly whittles down the number of righteous that might be destroyed if God goes ahead with his plan, until he reaches a number he hopes will be found in such a wicked city. But, in spite of this he was really only concerned about Lot and his family.

God informs him that, should he find as many as the number Abraham had given, he will not destroy the cities. In the event that number were not present and the cities were destroyed. But Lot and his family (well, except for his wife who would not obey instructions) were saved. God answered what Abraham feared to ask. And this is the real reason for being upset with the phrase "power of prayer." It implies that the result is assured - just what we ask for will be provided. Just pray and it will be ok. The prayer is what does the trick, it has little or nothing to do with God's graciousness. Again let me assure you I don't believe this is what the speaker above means to say but that's what the words imply.

Now, the fact is God never guarantees to grant everything we pray about - he does have the right to refuse our prayers should he wish it. Even the Lord Jesus said, when he asked that a way might be found to avoid the pain and suffering to come (as he faced the cross): "nevertheless, not my will but thine be done." If God could refuse to grant the prayer of his own beloved son, why should we imagine he will always grant everything we ask - merely because we ask? The phrase, however, implies it is our praying that causes the thing to happen.

Which leads to the second thing wrong with the phrase. It is insulting to God! He graciously condescends to hear our prayer (in spite of the truth that we do not pray as we ought). He grants it in a way that demonstrates his glorious divinity and power and then, when telling others about it, we say: "there's power in prayer." Not even "God's power is in prayer" or "God is the power behind prayer."

Perhaps it is time we determined to make sure that (in future) we will be more careful to ensure we put the power where it belongs. If we wish to encourage people to pray, by all means say just that: "People, God wants us to ask him to supply all our needs." Then, avoiding the commonly used slogan above, remind them that God answers prayer, often wonderfully. As the poem says - above, beyond and exceeding all that we asked or sought.

Differences of Opinion.

I ran into a group I had not heard of today: The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. As a result I am now aware of some other Reformed-thinking people in my local area (well, with 100 miles) and a few more Churches who are striving to stand for the same Gospel as I do. Two of those Churches belong to a group known as the Evangelical Presbyterian Church which has an interesting approach to the Westminster Confession and differences of opinion.

It is summed up in their motto: In Essentials ... Unity, In non-Essentials ... Liberty and in All Things ... Charity. This has let them stand firm on key issues within the framework of the Westminster Confession while rejoicing in their diversity over non-essential matters. Their history and a discussion with the two pastors of the above-mentioned churches made it quite clear that, when they said non-essential that's exactly what they meant. Here is freedom (as an example) for one congregation to sing, in the worship services, only the selections available in the Psalter while another can choose to sing other songs they consider to be honoring to God.

It reminded me that, sometimes, we can be so involved in denominational matters that we forget to encourage others of differing beliefs who hold to the same essentials. It's a little like the disciples who came to Christ and said they had seen some who were not of their group who were preaching the kingdom of heaven and had forbidden them to continue. Their rationale (though not expressed) was "whosoever is not for Christ is against him." We recognize this because, in our day and age, it is the common battle we have to confront.

Jesus response is a rebuke to us all. He said "Don't forbid them, because whosoever is not against me is for me." We confess in the Apostles' Creed that we believe "in the Holy Catholic Church" yet, so often, the only other Church groups we have real contact with are those who have passed a rigorous testing to become sister Churches. As a Calvinist I may find it difficult to agree that a Lutheran stands for exactly the same faith that I do. Yet, perhaps I should be willing to acknowledge in some way that my viewpoint may be more restrictive than that of the Lord of the Church.

We may find it impossible (as congregations) to be part of the same denomination as a Southern Baptist congregation, if we believe that born-again believers and their children ought to be baptized, yet surely there ought to be some organizational way to work together as those who stand for the same Reformed essentials. The Alliance mentioned above and similar organizations throughout the country should probably be better supported by those of us who are determined to defend the faith from modern errors. Paul, after all, saw differences of opinion (even on some pretty serious matters) as necessary for the good of the Church. Or have we forgotten that the Westminster Standards themselves do not view all their statements as having the same weight.

Oh, did I mention that the Greek word for "another opinion" is heresy - a word often translated today as faction? We really have added color to that word haven't we?

The Westminster Confession, History and Theology

One section of the Westminster Confession deals with what might be termed freedom of interpretation. It reminds the reader that councils in the past have erred and even in the present do err. For that reason, the final authority in matters of controversy is the Holy Spirit as he speaks in the Scriptures. Now, when we claim to be Reformed we are taking our stance on a historical document's formulation of the truth which may (or may not) be directly applicable to the world of the 21st Century. Still, it is an historical document and there are several principles which apply to all theology formulated in the past:
1. We understand more in detail than those of the past because of the controversies which have taken place in the intervening period. We understand the implications of "Creator of heaven and earth" differently from those of the 16th Century.
2. The main body of doctrine does not change, though its expression may. It is possible, for example, to still see the doctrine of the Apostle's Creed in the Westminster Confession.
3. The Old Testament is the "root and trunk" of the New which extends, rather than replaces, the Old. So, the rule for interpretation is what was clearly required in the Old Testament is still required in the New unless it is changed or repealed by something in the New. The sacrifices for sin are completed by the sacrifice of Christ, and no longer required while the Sabbath rest is still present in the Kingdom of God all the way to the end of the Age.
4. The Kingdom of God is established through a people who worship and serve the king - namely the Church. It is present in this age and will be extended to everyone until "at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess him Lord, to the glory of the Father."
5. Though the Westminster Confession is one of the most comprehensive expressions of Systematic Theology, it may be surpassed by later more accurate or fuller ones. The version accepted in the USA, for example, has modified one section to express the conviction of US Presbyterians that separation between Church and State is a good thing.
6. It is not arrogant to differ with great theologians of the past. They could, and did, make mistakes in their formulation of the truth. I have tremendous respect for the work of Martin Luther but, in the controversy between him and Ulrich Zwingli, I believe he was wrong to deny "hoc significat corpus meum" and to insist on "hoc est corpus meum" as the meaning of the words of institution of the Lord's Supper.
7. It is arrogant, however, to assume past theologians cannot speak wisdom to our age - yes, even Martin Luther and even in 2010. The Westminster Confession may have limitations that it has taken nearly 500 years to discover but its general principles will be true and (if changes are found to be necessary) only some details may need reviewing and altering.
Even such steps may not be required. The Confession allows for some freedom of interpretation so it may be necessary only to show that any (possibly) new insights are in agreement with the general tenor of the confession. As long as the insights do not contradict any major tenet, any adherents can legitimately still maintain their adherence to the Confession.
As far as Church courts are concerned, however, it is right in such cases (so things "might be done decently and in order") to note the variances in belief so the guiding nature of the confessional standards is maintained.

Why Reformed?

What does it mean to be Reformed? Why not just say Protestant or Presbyterian? Or, more importantly, why not just Christian?
Fair questions. I choose to be known as "Reformed" because it is a general term that is relatively unknown in the community where I live. While "Protestant" might do as well it is less specific and includes a number of possible implications which I'd have to spend time correcting. The same reasoning applies to the word "Christian." "Reformed" on the other hand is a provocative title which has a reasonably clear content to those who recognise the term and is relatively easy to explain to those who don't.
While I believe the Westminster Confession and the Three Forms of Unity contain the best summary of my beliefs they say little about attitude and that, dear reader, is very important. Attitude indicates how I approach writing, particularly, about those who differ in belief from me. Zeal for the honour of the Lord should not, in my opinion, require disrespect for those who sincerely hold different viewpoints. The Apostle Paul made the point well when he said: "There must be factions among you, that the good might be approved."
So, by all means feel free to differ with anything you see posted here, and make your views known. Be assured that, as long as your views are sincerely held, I will not ridicule or belittle you for holding those views. I may consider the viewpoint as foolish, misinformed or wrong but that will lead me to attempt to persuade you to a wiser, better informed or correct view or I may choose not to respond.
Dialogue in the comments may also lead to a new posting.