Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church (V)

The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543-1544)
There is a crying need for reforming the worship in modern churches. Much of what passes for “worship” today is little more than man-centered entertainment. It is called “seeker-sensitive” or “user friendly.” In essence, however, it does not qualify as worship but rather, what pleases man. Rarely—rarely—do modern churches ask the question: What is pleasing to God and in accordance with Scripture? regarding worship. As often as not, the modern Christian wants to know “What’s in it for me?” or “How does this make me feel?” rather than “Is this honoring to God and is it in accordance with Holy Scripture?”
In our past issues we have been examining what the Reformer, John Calvin, taught about the Church of Jesus Christ and today I want to focus our attention on his treatise, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, which was presented to the Imperial Diet at Spires in 1544.[1] The treatise itself was written at the end of 1543 so that it could be presented at the Diet.
Calvin’s desire was to present certain matters “as the common address of all who so earnestly deplore the present corruption of the Church, that they are unable to bear it any longer, and are determined not to rest till they see some amendment.”[2] In that sense, Calvin certainly reflects my sentiments with regard to our current situation. The “present corruption” of modern evangelicalism is widespread. It covers a wide gamut of modern churches ranging from those that embrace Open Theism, the “Willow Creek” experience, Bob Schuller, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, New Age Mysticism, Christian Yoga and WWF, Emergent Church prayer labyrinths and votive candles, and pastors who are poorly trained—if trained at all—theologically. The word “evangelicalism” has become so amorphous that it could include anything or anyone—if fact, it has done precisely that.
I mention this because there were three keys points that Calvin raised in his treatise that are quite applicable today. What were those three specific areas?
First, there was Calvin’s concern for the pure and legitimate worship of God.
Second, he was equally concerned about the proper administration of the sacraments.
Finally, the question of true church government was an issue for him. [3]
I want to take a few moments and examine each category. I plan to devote more time to the first point for it is foundational—I just lost all the Emergent Church, postmodern crowd!—for the rest of what he says in the treatise.

The Pure and Legitimate Worship of God
One of Calvin’s concerns was with the proper worship of God. He was convinced that God, in his Word, had given us specific commands regarding true worship and that those commands were to be taken seriously. Typical of his concern is the following quotation from his treatise: “This much certainly must be clear alike to just and unjust, that the Reformers have done no small service to the Church in stirring up the world as from the deep darkness of ignorance to read the Scriptures, in laboring diligently to make them better understood, and in happily throwing light on certain points of doctrine of the highest practical importance. In sermons little else used to be heard than old wives’ fables and fictions equally frivolous.”[4]
According to Calvin, the Reformers had encouraged the reading of the scriptures as the path out of the abysmal darkness and ignorance caused by the Roman Catholic Church. In addition, the pastors labored to insure that God’s people were acquainted with the Bible and what God revealed in his Word. Moreover, Calvin also focuses on the important place of doctrine in the fulfilling of the pastoral office.
So let’s pause just for a moment and ask about the clear parallels between the modern Church and the Roman Catholic Church in 1544. What passes for preaching today in far too many churches is topical nonsense not based primarily on the Word of God but on the latest “fad” book to come down the pike. Again, as often as not, the congregants are given a dose of pop-psychology or position thinking claptrap. Pastors are less concerned with preaching the Word than they are in keeping the “troops” happy so they’ll return next week.
In both the mega-church and Emergent Church movements rarely—if ever—is a Reformer cited, but in the ECM especially appeals are constantly being made to the value of many aspects of the Roman Catholic Church. That ought to tell you a great deal. Let me ask this: when was the last time you heard a pastor in his teaching cite one of the Reformers positively? Any yet, these men are among the “giants” in Church History.
Calvin’s statement above places preaching of the Word at the center of worship. Once again, we can notice an interesting parallel with the modern Church. What is preached is of the essence. Sermons are not to be anecdotal, but expositions of the Bible, not skirting around matters that the pastor might not like or want to preach. He is to put himself aside and to preach the Word.
But why did he place such a premium on doctrine, especially in light of the fact that some today manifest a clear and obvious disdain for it? Out here in Southern California some pastors openly ridicule doctrine from the pulpit and discourage their congregational members from learning it. “Just give me Jesus” is the nonsensical mantra of a majority of evangelicalism today. The caveat, of course, is that no one can just give anyone Jesus, but apart from that once you begin talking about Jesus—two natures, one Person—you are up to your bicuspids in doctrine. Nevertheless, some still insist that doctrine is something to avoid. That partially explains why evangelicalism is virtually amorphous and bankrupt today.
As to the key place of doctrine in the pure worship of the Lord Calvin states emphatically, “All our controversies concerning doctrine relate either to the legitimate worship of God, or to the ground of salvation.”[5] He points out that worship should be neither frigid nor careless. In summary then, “as God requires us to worship him in a spiritual manner, so we with all zeal urge men to all the spiritual sacrifices which he commends.”[6]
Notice how tightly compacted Calvin’s words are. In our day and age we hear about being “practical,” “relevant,” and “culturally aware.” Our solution is to read the latest and greatest work on culture or the culture wars and then pass that along to God’s flock. Calvin, conversely, was convinced that doctrine must be kept central in the Christian’s walk of faith to insure legitimate (lawful) worship and the proper understanding of our salvation. A couple of examples will have to suffice here. In his debate with Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto, Calvin made these following remarks regarding worship and justification by faith, respectively.
With a view to proper worship he said, “The primary rudiments by which we are wont to train to piety those whom we wish to gain as disciples to Christ are these; viz., not to frame any new worship of God for themselves at random, and after their own pleasure, but to know that the only legitimate worship is that which He himself approved from the beginning. For we maintain what the sacred oracle declared, that obedience is more excellent than any sacrifice (1 Sam. xv. 22). In short, we train them by every means to be contented with the one rule of worship which they received from His mouth, and bid adieu to all fictitious worship.”[7]
Regarding the centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith as the ground of man’s salvation, Calvin said this to Sadoleto: “Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown…the gross ignorance of this doctrine which even still continues in all your churches, declares that our complaint is by no means ill-founded.”[8]
I ask you, where would you find an evangelical church today that could explain this central doctrine to its members or to an outsider? Luther went so far as to say that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls.[9] Which mega-church or Emergent congregation is dealing with the matter of justification by faith?
I’ll close this installment with Calvin’s sense of how lawful worship of the Lord not merely had to include the proclamation of biblical doctrine, but also how it must, by necessity, also be Christ-centered. Calvin puts it this way: “…we proclaim that a fountain of all blessings is offered us in Christ, from which we may draw everything needful. Our writings are witnesses, and our sermons also, how frequent and sedulous we are in recommending true repentance, urging men to renounce their reason, their carnal desires, and themselves entirely, that they may be brought into obedience to God alone, and live no longer to themselves but to him.”[10]
We could—and should—be having this debate today. Unfortunately, our contemporary debate would not only be with Roman Catholicism but also a large number who represent “mainstream evangelicalism.” The mega-church has long since abandoned the biblical heritage that the Lord has given us and the Emergent Church probably never really had it, so it is simply that much easier for the ECM to defect. The ravaging effects of postmodernism in the modern Christian Church was far too easy.The parents of the ECM crowd were, by and large, participants in the mega-church movement. They were given stones for bread, were not taught the importance and indispensable character of biblical teaching, family worship, and catechizing children, so they had no spiritual “legacy” to pass on to their children. Lack of solid biblical teaching for at least three decades has left us with an evangelicalism that is bereft of all but the most fundamental, rudimentary truths of the faith—if that. Every cry for revival is ill-placed. What is needed is not revival, but reformation; a reformation that listens attentively to the Word of God, preaches that Word, prays that Word, sings that Word, focuses on that Word in the administration of the sacraments of the New Testament Church, and fellowships around that Word.

[1] The exact title was The Necessity of Reforming the Church. To the most invincible Emperor Charles V., and the Most Illustrious Princes and Other Orders, Now Holding a Diet of the Empire at Spires, A Humble Exhortation Seriously to Undertake the Task of Restoring the Church. Presented in the Name of All Those Who Wish Christ to Reign.”
[2] J.K.S. Reid [ed.], Calvin: Theological Treatises, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), p. 185.
[3] Ibid., 186.
[4] Ibid., 186-187.
[5] Ibid., 187.
[6] Ibid.
[7] John C. Olin [ed.], John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto: A Reformation Debate, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966), p. 59.
[8] Ibid., 66.
[9] As a brief survey of the importance of justification by faith to Luther see the following works: Gerhard Ebeling, Lutherstudien, Band III (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985); Theodosius Harnack, Luthers Theologie, (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 19272); Rudolf Hermann, Luthers These “Gerecht und Sünder Zugleich”, (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1930); Gesammelte Studein zur Theologie Luthers und der Reformation, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960); Karl Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze, Band 1, (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 19487); Kjell Ove Nilsson, Simul, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966); Otto Hermann Pesch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung bei Martin Luther und Thomas von Aquin, (Darmstadt; Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985); Gordon Rupp, The Righteousness of God, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, Ltd., 19632).
[10] Reid, CTT, 188.

Postmodernism and the Modern Church (V)

Does God Care How We Worship Him?
In our modern Church setting it seems that precious little thought is given to how we worship God. Nick Needham is correct when he couches our contemporary problem in these terms: “The question which most evangelicals tend to ask of worship-practices is, ‘Do I find this helpful? Is this meaningful to me? Doe this make me feel closer to God?’ The question, ‘Is this how God actually wants to be worshipped?’ is rarely raised.”[1] What Needham is describing is the “worship wars” that pitted the “Roman-Lutheran-Anglican” side against the “Calvinistic” or “Puritanic” side. I would also place modern evangelicals in the R-L-A camp.
These things being the case, modern pastors/teachers/theologians are attempting to re-define the Church and, as often as not, we hear the phrase “doing church” rather than explanations as to the essence of Christ’s Church. The net result is worse than a mere dumbing-down, which is included in the modern dilemma but does not totally define it. Historically, in the Protestant’s struggle against the Roman Catholic Church in the period known as the Reformation, two essential aspects of the Church emerged: worship and the pastors that led a God-centered worship.
In the last segment, I ended with a quotation from William Cunningham about the Church. By way of review, I want to remind you of what Cunningham said: “The ekklēsía (Church), both etymologically and really, is just the assembly or congregation of the klētoí (called), those who are called out of the world. Christ calls men to come out of the world, to believe in Him, to submit to His authority, and to unite together in an organized society of which He is the head, and which is to be governed exclusively by His laws.”[2]
So I want to do something that is necessary in our time, namely to step back in history and listen to what one of the Reformers had to say about the Church, worship, and pastors. In one sense, this should be something that Brian McLaren and the Emergent Church tribe should applaud, because they are constantly hearkening back to the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically—I would say predictably—, McLaren and the ECM crowd tends not to place much of a premium on who the Reformers were or what they accomplished.
Just to give us a handle on this part of the discussion, I’m going to make use of what was arguably one of the most important debates during the Reformation: the debate between Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto and John Calvin.[3] In his reply to Sadoleto’s accusations, Calvin states that pastors have a twofold role to play: To edify the Church and “to repel the machinations of those who strive to impede the work of God.”[4]
Of central importance to Calvin with a view to proper worship is Romans 11:36: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (ESV). That is to say, God’s glory must be the center of our worship. He writes, “It is not very sound theology to confine a man’s thoughts so much to himself, and not to set before him, as the prime motive of his existence, zeal to illustrate the glory of God. For we are born first of all for God, and not for ourselves.”[5]
This is a virtual direct contradiction to what passes for “worship” in many evangelical circles today—and given both the mega-church as well as the ECM, those circles are widening exponentially. Worship becomes whatever man decides is plausible or will keep the “troops” happy and in attendance. Referring to the unbiblical accoutrements in the Roman Catholic Church during Calvin’s time and the gross, crass biblical ignorance Calvin concluded that the existence “worship” in the Roman Catholic Church was both preposterous and perverse.[6]
How then should we worship? That is the burning question of our time, even though a number of so-called and self-styled pastors refuse to ask that question. Calvin compares true and fictitious worship and clarifies what he means in this manner: “The primary rudiments by which we are wont to train to piety those whom we wish to gain as disciples to Christ are these; viz., not to frame any new worship of God for themselves at random, and after their own pleasure, but to know that the only legitimate worship is that which He himself approved from the beginning. For we maintain what the sacred oracle declared, that obedience is more excellent than any sacrifice (1 Sam. xv. 22). In short, we train them by every means to be contented with the one rule of worship which they received from His mouth, and bid adieu to all fictitious worship.”[7]
With a glaring, deplorable lack of biblical knowledge—mega-church folks as well as their Emergent counterparts are notoriously biblically ignorant or liberal or both—it is no wonder that many are falling into the false dilemmas of postmodernism.

The Latest Fad or the Theology-du-Jour
Postmodern philosophers are calling the operating tenets of the Enlightenment into question and it should come as no surprise that non-Christians are, once again, going with the proverbial flow. Postmodernism and its elite academicians are as far from God as their Enlightenment counterparts. This is the latest fad to come down the pike and especially in its pop-cultural variety, it promises new freedoms. What the philosophers have promised in academia has been watered down enough for postmodern man to be able to grasp primarily through the entertainment media. Since many—if not most—people live life almost totally unreflectively, what do we expect from the non-Christian world? It doesn’t really matter how you stack it, you still end up with the same old pile.
What might shock us, however, is that some Christians, especially the younger ones, also are “buying in to” the whole postmodern scene. I intentionally used the word might in the previous sentence to make the point that really we should not be all that shocked at all. The two biggest consumers of postmodern thinking are both the now almost-defunct mega-church movement and its newest sibling: the emergent (or emerging) church movement. As we shall see, these two movements that seem to be at each other’s throats actually have a great deal in common—a great deal.
But there is more. Phil Johnson, executive director of Grace to You, recently gave a talk entitled, “You Can’t Handle the Truth: Addressing the Tolerance of Postmodernism.”[8] One of Johnson’s theses is this: “I’m convinced that postmodernism is inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity.”[9] He is simply echoing what I and a number of other Christian theologians have been saying for the longest time. Of course, you shouldn’t get the impression that Johnson simply makes the declaration and then moves on, but he substantiates his position very well—something that postmoderns don’t like and something that Christian pastors who have foolishly embraced the tenets of postmodern don’t want to hear.
Johnson gives a number of reasons why he, as a Christian, is opposed to Christianity’s involvement with postmodernism. Allow me to summarize his excellent points.
First, he explains that the postmodern way of looking at the world is fundamentally anti-Christian.[10] All you have to do is to peruse the postmodern’s array of philosophers and this truth becomes painfully evident painfully quickly.
Second, Johnson contends that “postmodernism is based on an erroneous set of unbiblical beliefs, and we need to oppose it with the clear and careful application of biblical truth.”[11] Many have been saying these things to the pastors who insist on “engaging the culture, but too little or no avail. Johnson is spot on when he comments: “Listen: the Christian message has always been out of step with the times…. The gospel has always been out of step with the wisdom of the world.”[12] When are we going to get this simple truth through our thick skulls?
Third, postmoderns deny that “absolute truth may be objectively known. And that is the central idea that gave rise to postmodernism.”[13] That being the case, how can any Christian pastor or any Christian embrace this tenet?
Fourth, postmodernism “generally prefers subjectivity to objectivity and ambiguity to clarity.” This has become evident to me as I have responded to postmodern “bloggers.” They continually cloud issues, speak in vagaries, or ascribe words like “arrogant,” “naïve,” “outmoded,” “culturally biased,” “judgmental,” “poor argument,” “fallacious,” and the like. Johnson’s experience is not unlike mine and anyone else’s who has tried to dialogue with the ECM tribe: “They would use pettifogging arguments to try to overthrow every definition I give and every dichotomy I make. And they would call me naïve for even attempting to clarify what they insist cannot be objectively explained or understood.”[14] And this argument carries weight starting at McLaren and moving on down the line.
From my perspective, as I stated above, I believe that it is a good thing that a large number of Enlightenment concepts are being disassembled. It has been too long in coming. My question, however, is this: what will come in its place? Is postmodernism a good replacement or is the cure as bad if not worse than the disease? In this and succeeding issues I will argue that postmodernism is not a good replacement both in its philosophical and theological forms, which are, after all, akin to one another.In the next installment, we’ll examine why postmodernist thinking is, at bottom, bankrupt and how it militates against anything that resembles a consistent, viable ethic.
[1] Nick Needham, “Westminster and Worship: Psalms, Hymns, and Musical Instruments?” in J. Ligon Duncan III, (ed.), The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), p. 230. Italics mine.
[2] William Cunningham, Historical Theology, Vol. I, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 19693), p. 14. Emphasis mine.
[3] I’ll be using the pagination located in John C. Olin [ed.], John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto: A Reformation Debate, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966).
[4] Ibid., 53.
[5] Ibid., 59.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid. Italics mine.
[8] You can download this .PDF file at the following web address: http://www.gracechurch.org/shepnew/2005notes/JohnsonTruth.pdf.
[9] Ibid., 1.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 2.
[12] Ibid., 20.
[13] Ibid., 2.
[14] Ibid., 4.

Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church (IV)

Calvin’s Reply to Cardinal Sadoleto (1539)
When Calvin penned his response to Cardinal Jacopo Sadeloto he had been relieved of his pastoral duties in Geneva.[1] He wrote his reply from Strasbourg on September 1, 1539. Calvin’s theology would be formed during his stay in Strasbourg due in large part to the role that Martin Bucer played in his life. It would also be a time of relative joy as he labored in a congregation of French immigrants who had fled for their lives. He would also write his commentary on Romans from Strasbourg.
Even though Calvin was no longer serving a congregation in Geneva, he was prepared to defend the rightful, lawful place of the Reformed pastors vis-à-vis breaking with the Roman Catholic Church. I do not have the time to give a complete overview of Calvin’s reply, but there are certain key facets of the letter that I would like to bring to your attention.
First, is the importance Calvin places on the role of the local pastor. What does he see as their primary functions, tasks? He describes a twofold purpose that pastors ought to fulfill: First, they should spend their time and efforts in edifying the Church by preaching and teaching the Word of God and second, they are “to repel the machinations of those who strive to impede the work of God.”[2]
Moreover, pastors are to preach the Word in a manner that is both understandable and instructive to those in the Kingdom of Christ. This way, God’s people avoid being immersed in a gulf of error and a better Church is formed.[3]
As we read through Calvin’s response, one of his key texts is Romans. 11:36: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (ESV). Regarding this text he says, “it is not very sound theology to confine a man’s thoughts so much to himself, and not to set before him, as the prime motive of his existence, zeal to illustrate the glory of God. For we are born first of all for God, and not for ourselves.”[4]
This cuts against the grain of what the Roman Catholic Church was teaching in the 16th century, but it also poses an interesting question to modern evangelicalism: Why do we worship? Is it our intention to have our needs, real or perceived, met during worship or are we there in order to offer a time of true, biblical worship to the one, true, and living God? Sadoleto had raised the question of the importance of worship when he wrote to the Genevans. In his rebuttal, Calvin points out that worship is indeed important, but more important is whether the worship is according to the Word of God or according to the precepts of men. Calvin believed that the Roman Catholic Church presented a worship that was attended by all kinds of pomp, but which was, at bottom, man-centered and self-serving. Nevertheless, Calvin agrees with Sadoleto’s premise about the central place of worship in the Christian faith. In terms of what the Reformers were achieving Calvin writes, “I have also no difficulty in conceding to you that there is nothing more perilous to our salvation than a preposterous and perverse worship of God.”[5]
What were then the main differences between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church? Calvin offers the following explanation: “The primary rudiments by which we are wont to train to piety those whom we wish to gain as disciples to Christ are these; viz., not to frame any new worship of God for themselves at random, and after their own pleasure, but to know that the only legitimate worship is that which He himself approved from the beginning. For we maintain what the sacred oracle declared, that obedience is more excellent than any sacrifice (1 Sam. xv. 22). In short, we train them by every means to be contented with the one rule of worship which they received from His mouth, and bid adieu to all fictitious worship.”[6]
Once again, this ought to give us reason to pause and reflect upon what God truly desires regarding worship in spirit and truth (cf. John 4:24). In true worship, the Holy Spirit does not reveal new doctrines to the Church but impresses the truth of the gospel on our minds.[7] Here we discover both the essence and simplicity of New Testament worship. One of the primary means whereby Christians come to understand what constitutes a biblical liturgy for worship is through the Word of God and the working of the Spirit.
These are not separate concepts whereby the Holy Spirit can give “special revelations” that contradict what the Bible says, much like we find in far too much of Christianity today and on some evangelical TV shows. Calvin combines the Word and the Spirit: “Learn then, by your own experience, that it is no less unreasonable to boast of the Spirit without the Word than it would be absurd to bring forward the Word itself without the Spirit.”[8]
How is the Church to be understood? Is every body that meets and claims to be Christian truly Christian? Is everything that passes as Christianity actually Christianity? to pose the question that Princeton theologian B.B. Warfield posed long ago. The procedures whereby Christians choose churches today leaves a great deal to be desired. Calvin was convinced that there were clear “notes” or “marks” Christians should be looking for in their endeavor to seek out, find, and then attach themselves to a local congregation.
He conceives of the Church in the following manner: “…it is the society of all the saints, a society which, spread over the whole world, and existing in all ages, yet bound together by the one doctrine and the one Spirit of Christ, cultivates and observes unity of faith and brotherly concord. With this Church we deny that we have any disagreement. Nay, rather, as we revere her as our mother, so we desire to remain in her bosom.”[9]
Sadoleto has also raised certain foundations by which Christ’s Church could be known. Calvin agrees that these foundations ought to be present and aids the readers in discerning what they might be. He postulates four foundations on which the safety of the Church is founded: First, is biblical doctrine that is preached clearly. Second, is church discipline. Third, are the sacraments of the church properly administered. Fourth, are the various ceremonies such as weddings and funerals that needed to be done decently and in good order.
In all this, the preaching of the Word is central and Calvin doesn’t spare Sadoleto or the Roman Catholic Church with regard to content of the preaching of the Word. In order to feed and nourish God’s flock spiritually, the preacher must employ both exposition and application and be concerned to preach the Word.[10] Here is what he replied to Sadoleto about the dismal nature of preaching in the Roman Catholic Church: “Nay, what one sermon was there from which old wives might not carry off more whimsies than they could devise at their own fireside in a month?”[11]
But the reply was not merely about preaching, but also about the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. It is a well known fact that central to the Reformation was a biblical understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith. Therefore, in the course of his reply, Calvin proceeds to defend it from the misconceptions caused by Roman Catholicism. Just how central is the doctrine of justification by faith to the Church? Calvin writes, “Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrow…the gross ignorance of this doctrine which even still continues in all your churches, declares that our complaint is by no means ill-founded.”[12] One can only speculate what Calvin would say to the ridiculous excesses in modern evangelicalism and their disdain for and lack of knowledge of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
Finally, for our purposes, Calvin designates three areas near the end of his reply in which the Roman Catholic Church was severely deficient: First, because they chose to have such a man-centered worship, the Word of God was buried. Second, the virtue of Christ was left in profound oblivion. This was due to several reasons. The Eucharist with its doctrine of transubstantiation was a re-sacrificing of our Lord. The homilies were kept to a bare minimum thereby not giving ample time and attention to the proclamation of the riches of Christ through the preaching. His active and passive obedience and all of his merits found surrogates in the meritorious works of Christians. Finally, the pastoral office was subverted. Whereas Sadoleto and his ilk rarely if ever functioned as true shepherd of God’s flock, much of the same is still true today. Pastors are more like CEOs than they are pastors. The office is subverted when pastors do not fulfill their biblical charge.
The upshot of this is that the modern evangelical Church has some frightening affinities with Roman Catholicism. As much as they claim to despise what the Roman Catholic Church stands for their theology and their actions tend to lean in the Roman Catholic direction. Modern evangelicals are just as semi-Pelagian as Roman Catholics; they are just as ignorant of basic doctrines as the Roman Catholics in Calvin’s time were and still are today. The pomp, glitter, and slick packaging that attends much of the modern seeker-sensitive, user-friendly churches would parallel if not exceed that in the Roman Catholic Church at the time of Calvin. Sermons are cut short so that the entertainment can take center stage. In the final analysis, what is or what are the deciding factors that differentiate modern evangelicals from Roman Catholics? Something to think about.
Next week we’ll examine Calvin’s treatise The Necessity of Reforming the Church.

[1] John C. Olin [ed.], John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto: A Reformation Debate, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966), p. 51.
[2] Ibid., 53.
[3] Ibid., 57.
[4] Ibid., 58.
[5] Ibid., 59
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 61.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 62. Italics mine.
[10] Compare T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching, (Louisville: Westminster Press, 1992), pp. 79ff.
[11] Olin, ARD, 65.
[12] Ibid., 66.

Does God Care How We Worship Him? (I)

How Do We Derive Our Principles for Worshiping the Lord God Almighty?
To some, the question posed in the heading is one that is not often seriously considered. For many today, little or no reflection goes into this question beyond a very superficial point. Much of modern evangelicalism is either “seeking sensitive” or entertainment oriented thereby accepting the “worship-du-jour” as the status quo.
During the period known as the Reformation two quite different, competing concepts of worship emerged; one was already in place: the worship form of the Roman Catholic Church. As Protestants moved out of and away from Roman Catholicism they formed Reformed, Lutheran, and Anabaptist congregations. Even though they are rarely debated in current Christianity, the differences that existed among them should be openly and frequently discussed.
On the one hand, there is what may reasonably be called the “Roman-Lutheran-Anglican” notion of worship (we may also add the Anabaptists to this group) and, on the other hand, there is the “Calvinistic” or “Puritan” form of worship. I realize that by mentioning the names of Calvin or the Puritans, many will cease reading at this point. Indulgence—pardon the pun—is what I ask.
The central dilemmas posed by both the mega-church and Emergent (Emerging) Church movements, however, take us back into history and require us to at least think about or re-think our liturgical positions. In essence, we asking: Why do we worship the way that we do? Does it matter how we worship? Does how we worship matter to God? Is there a discernible pattern for worship or are the contents of our weekly meetings, gatherings, or what we call worship up for grabs?
Nick Needham is correct when he couches our contemporary problem in these terms: “The question which most evangelicals tend to ask of worship-practices is, ‘Do I find this helpful? Is this meaningful to me? Doe this make me feel closer to God?’ The question, ‘Is this how God actually wants to be worshipped?’ is rarely raised.”[1] What Needham is describing is the “worship wars” that pitted the “Roman-Lutheran-Anglican” side against the “Calvinistic” or “Puritanic” side.
Allow me to take a couple of moments and explain the differences. In very simple fashion the differences between the two camps goes something like this: The R-L-A-A” camp holds to the notion that what Scripture does not expressly forbid can be incorporated into worship, while the “C-P” contingent believes that we should only incorporate those things commanded by God in the Bible. Clearly, most of modern evangelicalism is firmly ensconced in the “R-L-A-A” camp. This at least explains why what passes for worship today is little more than man-made and man-centered.
Oddly, the Roman Catholic, Robert Francis Romulus Bellarmine (1542-1621) aptly summarizes modern evangelicalism’ modus operandi in these words: “The controversy between us and heretics consists in this—that we assert that all necessary doctrine concerning faith and morals is not expressly contained in Scripture, and consequently, besides the written Word there is needed an unwritten one; whereas they teach that in the Scriptures all such necessary doctrine is contained, and consequently there is not need of an unwritten word.”[2] In addition, according to much of Barna research a great deal of what takes place in the modern Church is based more on what will keep the “troops” happy and staying at the church than what pleases God. Rather than being concerned about what God requires in worship modern Church leaders spend inordinate amounts of time “strategizing” about how to reach the culture.

Scripture and History
In Exodus 25:9 the Lord instructs Moses how he is to construct the tabernacle and his words are insistent that it must be made exactly as the pattern God revealed to him. During the time known as the Reformation a number of abuses in the Roman Catholic Church were corrected by the Reformers, among those abuses the lack of true biblical worship that comprised the Mass.
Noteworthy are three documents that I shall make use of in the course of these articles: The 1539 letter exchange between Jacopo Sadoleto and John Calvin,[3] Calvin’s treatise on The Necessity of Reforming the Church,[4] and, finally, Book 4 of Calvin’s Institutes.[5] I can imagine that some, not having either an appreciation for important works from Church History or who have no historical conscience, will think this to be a silly exercise.
Moreover, those who are in many of the broadly based evangelical settings will feel neither need nor compunction with regard to any introspection in this matter. But for those Christians who take their faith seriously and wish to live their lives according to the Word and the Spirit, this will be a very helpful exercise. Before we go on, let me give two texts of Scripture that I’m convinced speak to the need for worship according to the revealed will of our Lord.
The first text is taken from Exodus 25:8-9, where the Lord is speaking to Moses about contributions for the sanctuary and the actual building of the place of worship for YHWH. We read: “And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst. Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.” (Emphasis mine.) The mandate from the Lord is that the tabernacle could not be constructed in a manner that seemed good or right to Moses or the people, but it must be constructed according to the pattern—exactly according to the pattern—that God had given.
Second, is the text found in Leviticus 10:1-3. “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which had had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘This is what the Lord has said, “Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.”’ And Aaron held his peace” (comp. Num. 3:4; 26:61; 1 Chr. 24:2. Emphasis mine.)
This means, among other things, that our worship must be concentrated in the very nature of God himself. This poses a rather major problem for modern evangelicals whose understanding of the nature of God does not extend beyond the singular attribute of love. Mention the nature and attributes of God in modern Christian circles and you get the deer in the headlights look. So much emphasis has been placed God being only a God of love that many are in the dark as to the true nature of the Lord.
In addition to texts such as Deuteronomy 4:15-19 and John 4:24, Ligon Duncan reminds us, “As R.C. Sproul often reminds us, the distinctive of the Reformed doctrine of God is that theology proper controls every aspect of our theology, including our worship. Correspondingly, corporate worship as the locus of God’s prime means of grace is the instrument that God has chosen to grow and edify his church in the knowledge of himself, as well as the vehicle of our special earthly communion with him (Matt. 18). So, the regulative principle is grounded in God’s character…”[6]
If God is viewed as only love and as a benevolent Supreme Being who only smiles at the sins, transgressions, and indiscretions of his creatures, then he will be worshipped in that fashion. Moreover, if the goal of worship is to focus more on praise bands, liturgical dance, and slice-of-life drama, leaving only a small amount of time for solid preaching of the Word of God, then that leaves precious little time for the congregation to grow in its understanding of the nature and attributes of God. This holds true not merely for the mega-church movement, but has far-reaching implications and applications for the Emergent Church as well. The concepts of meeting in pubs, leaderless circles for the purpose of dialogue (read: pooling of ignorance), and expensive multi-media visual productions are equally inept and ill-suited for spiritual growth regarding the nature of God. Make no mistake: “Form impacts contents. The means of worship influences the worshipers’ apprehension of God.”[7]
That being said, we are in dire straits in modern evangelicalism due to the fact that the mega-church movement left its members/adherents bereft of any significant understanding of the nature of God and that deplorable lack of knowledge has been passed on by the parents to their children who are now flocking to the 20-thing gatherings in the Emerging Church. In essence, we now have two generations of those who call themselves Christians who cannot explain even the most elementary and fundamental truths of the Christian faith.
One of the gurus of the ECM is Brian McLaren. He is on record for questioning what the main problem is with homosexuality, sin, the doctrine of hell, and a host of other biblical doctrines. The “trickle-down” effect from McLaren to his congregation and other adherents is easy to understand. Rob Bell follows the same path with biblical doctrines, including the doctrine of Holy Scripture. When biblical doctrines are attacked—and make no mistake, the mega-church as well as the ECM are attacking biblical truth—the results for the group launching the attack is predictable.
When Calvin responded to Sadoleto in 1539 about the various abuses and lack of true worship in the Roman Catholic Church he used the doctrine of justification by faith as a case in point. He wrote, “Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown.”[8] This is precisely where the mega-church and Emergent Church movements find themselves today.
Isn’t it ironic that Protestants would end up falling under the accusation leveled at a Roman Catholic bishop, who was defending his church? It’s not only ironic but terribly sad as well. So are the complaints of the mega-church and EC movements unjustified? The short answer is: No. When detractors ask simple questions about worship, the Christian faith, and Christian doctrine it’s not asking too much to give them biblical answers. It seems that the mega-church cannot and the ECM will not provide those answers. Therefore, the criticisms that the Reformed makes against both the mega-church and EM movement and their respective lack of knowledge on fundamental biblical truth means that their gross ignorance “which even still continues in all your churches, declares that our complaint is by no means ill-founded.”[9]
In our next issue we’ll continue in our discussion of what constitutes worship that is pleasing to our God.

[1] Nick Needham, “Westminster and Worship: Psalms, Hymns, and Musical Instruments?” in J. Ligon Duncan III, (ed.), The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), p. 230. Italics mine.
[2] Quoted in Douglas Kelly, “The Puritan Regulative Principle and Contemporary Worship,” in J. Ligon Duncan III, (ed.), The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), p. 63.
[3] John C. Olin [ed.], John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto: A Reformation Debate, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966).
[4] J.K.S. Reid [ed.], Calvin: Theological Treatises, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), pp. 183-216.
[5] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (John T. McNeill [ed.] & Ford Lewis Battles [trans.]), Vol. II, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960).
[6] J. Ligon Duncan III, “Foundations for Biblically Directed Worship,” in J. Ligon Duncan III, Philip G. Ryken, & Derek W.H. Thomas [eds.], Give Praise to God, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2003), p. 52.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Olin, ARD, 66.
[9] Ibid.

Postmodernism and the Modern Church (IV)

Why Are Postmoderns So Exercised?
Postmodernism has a bone to pick with the Enlightenment and its certainty about knowledge. What postmodernists find objectionable about Enlightenment thinking is its ideology vis-à-vis certainty. Douglas Groothuis has aptly pointed out that “The Enlightenment vision of unleashing reason’s powers in pursuit of universal knowledge and technical mastery of the world has failed.”[1] I concur that the demise of Enlightenment ideology is needed. I welcome it. Paramount in Enlightenment ideology is the thesis that man no longer needs God to make sense of the universe and the world in which he lives. This thesis is known by many as “the modern mind.” A life and worldview is constructed leaving God out of the picture and relying on reason to create (scientific) certainty.
The upshot of Enlightenment ideology is that “we are living in a culture in which we are bombarded every day by values and concept that come out of humanistic philosophy.”[2] In other words, rather than God being the center, in Enlightenment thinking man is the center. Enlightenment dictates gave rise to a secular “metanarrative” that ostensibly explained the universe.[3] Eric Voegelin has aptly delineated many of the negative concepts and philosophies that emerged from Enlightenment ideology such as the French Revolution, revolutionary existence, the apocalypse of man, anarchy, inverted dialectics, and the genesis of Gnostic Socialism.[4] But it was not and it still is not the monopolized territory of secular postmodern philosophy to criticize and critique Enlightenment ideology.
No, Christians have written about the deleterious notions of the Enlightenment for quite some time. There is, in truth, no lack of scholarly criticism of Enlightenment thinking from the Christian perspective.[5] David Wells is to the point when he writes, “The gatekeepers to our culture have not allowed Christian ideas past the threshold.”[6] Therefore, until recently, American culture has meandered on its merry way refusing to listen to the pointed criticisms by Christians about Enlightenment thought.
One example can suffice here. When I was studying theology at the Free University of Amsterdam, the late Dr. Hans Rookmaaker taught art history there. He loved American students and he would host informal discussions on the history of art in the cafeteria (Dutch: mensa) of the Vrije Universiteit (Free University of Amsterdam). I spent many profitable hours listening to this learned Christian man discourse on art and artists. He wrote a book entitled Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, which is still available today and I highly recommend it.[7]
Rookmaaker was a meticulous scholar, but his work was all but totally ignored by the Dutch and American cultures. Though critical of Enlightenment notions, Rookmaaker was ignored by the “cultured despisers” of the Christian faith. The point here is simply this: If the Enlightenment philosophers loathed Christianity, what is to prevent the postmodern philosophers from doing the same? I will argue that in fact the postmodern counterparts dislike God as much as devotees of the Enlightenment did and do. This is why it is all the more ironic that so-called Christians are so enamored of the ideology of postmodernism, which contains virtually non-biblical metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
If the culture ignored Rookmaaker I have to wonder what McLaren, Bell, Lamott (Anne Lamott is a thorough-going secularist and it is a legitimate question as to whether she is truly saved), Miller, Pagitt, or others for that matter, have to offer in the field of art that Rookmaaker didn’t offer. Why would the culture listen to us parroting Rookmaaker now if it wouldn’t listen to him earlier? What cataclysmic changes have occurred to coerce either the Enlightenment or postmodern mindsets to welcome our observations about the bankruptcy of both movements? Where is Eduard Mönch when you need his scream?
But there is a much more important issue here, which is the long-forgotten question of the true church of Jesus Christ. Modern evangelicalism embraces so many aberrant theologies that you really do need to go back and ask the questions about what Scripture says concerning the nature and essence of the Church of Jesus Christ. We should not and must not gratuitously assume that every congregation/group/tribe/crowd/gaggle that calls itself Christian actually is.We’ll delve more into this in the next installment, but I leave you with this noteworthy quotation from William Cunningham: “The ekklēsía (Church), both etymologically and really, is just the assembly or congregation of the klētoí (called), those who are called out of the world. Christ calls men to come out of the world, to believe in Him, to submit to His authority, and to unite together in an organized society of which He is the head, and which is to be governed exclusively by His laws.”[8]
[1] Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), p. 26.
[2] R.C. Sproul, Lifeviews, (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1986), p. 64.
[3] See the the definition of metanarrative given below that goes like this: “A ‘metanarrative’ is simply a grand story that becomes a final criterion for the legitimacy of all other stories or one into which all other narratives must fit.”
[4] Eric Voegelin, From Enlightenment to Revolution, (John Hallowell, [ed.]), (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 19823).
[5] The Dutch Christian, Groen van Prinsterer formed a political party that was later headed by Abraham Kuyper called the Antirevolutionary Party. The name hearkens to van Prinsterer’s distaste and dislike for Enlightenment/French Revolution ideology. Revolution is the child of the Enlightenment.
[6] David Wells, Above All Earthly Pow’rs, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), p. 63.
[7] H.R. Rookmaaker, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994).
[8] William Cunningham, Historical Theology, Vol. I, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 19693), p. 14.

The Necessity of Regeneration (IV)

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:3-8).

New Creation—New Life
How is it that God regenerates the lost soul, gives new life, and makes a new creation? I can’t give you an exhaustive explanation, but allow me to touch on a few key aspects of God’s sovereignty in salvation.
First, he lovingly takes care that he gospel is preached as an earnest call for sinners to leave the life of sin and to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Second, those who are regenerated (regeneration precedes faith) have their minds powerfully enlightened by the Holy Spirit, so that they may rightly understand and discern the things and ways of the Lord (comp. Rom. 8:5-8; 1 Cor. 2:14-16).
Third, by the effective working of the Holy Spirit, who causes us to be born again, God penetrates into the innermost recesses of man. He opens the closed heart; he softens the hard heart; and he instills new qualities into man’s will.
God makes the will of man that was dead, alive; that was evil, good; that was unwilling, willing; and that was stubborn, obedient. Regeneration is truly a new life, a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).
The regenerating work and power of the Holy Spirit makes the soul that was dead to the things of God into a new creation. It is, as it were, a resurrection of the soul from the dead through the love and power of God (cf. Eph. 2:4-10).
And just as God sovereignly gives us a new heart, he also gives us all things in Christ. In light of what Jesus says to Nicodemus in the text, it is clear that regeneration—as a biblical power—is not inferior in power to creation itself or to the resurrection of the dead.
It is equally clear that all whose hearts are spiritually renewed are certainly, unfailingly, and irrevocably regenerated and people actually believe—the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit must precede faith.
Saving faith is, therefore, a gift of God, not because it is merely offered by God to man and then left up to man’s free will (where is that in the Bible?) to choose for or against God. No, faith is a gift of God because it is actually conferred on man, instilled and infused into him.The divine grace of regeneration by the Holy Spirit makes the will of man spiritually alive, heals it, corrects it, pleasantly and, at the same time, powerfully bends it and transforms it into a new creation.

The Necessity of Regeneration (III)

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:3-8).

A New Creation
In the first two issues we focused on the truth that God is sovereign in salvation (Eccl. 11:5; Ezek. 36:26-27; John 1:12-13; 6:44, 65) and that the ordinary manner in which the Lord regenerates a person is through the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17).
2 Corinthians 5:17 contains a text that speaks to our hearts. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” The keys words here are “a new creation.” They capture the essence of the new birth that the sinner receives.
Regeneration makes the soul that is dead to the things of God into a new creation. It is, as it were, a resurrection of the soul from the dead. It is made alive to God by God (Eph. 2:4-10). Then, just as God sovereignly gives us a new heart, he also sovereignly gives us all things in Christ.
Even though this sentence will be a bit of an awkward construction, I’d like to say it this way: By his sovereign grace, the Holy Spirit works regeneration in us without us. In other words, in regeneration man is passive. Our salvation is from first to last by grace and by grace alone and not by works.
In light of what Jesus says to Nicodemus in our text, it is clear that regeneration is not inferior in power to creation itself or the resurrection of the dead. And it is equally clear that all whose heart is spiritually renewed are certainly, unfailingly, and irrevocably regenerated and do actually believe (regeneration precedes faith).
So how is it that men and women repent and believe? The answer is: by the previous work and working of the Holy Spirit to regenerate their hearts. Faith is, therefore, a gift from God, not because it is merely offered by God to the free will of man, but because it is actually conferred on man, instilled and infused into him by the Holy Spirit.
The divine grace of regeneration by the Holy Spirit makes the will of man spiritually alive, heals it, corrects it, pleasantly, and at the same time, powerfully bends it so that now it is inclined towards God and the things that please him.
As a result, where formerly the rebellion and resistance of the flesh fully dominated, now a prompt and sincere obedience to the living God begins to prevail, which is the true, spiritual renewal and freedom of our will (Eph. 4:20-24; Col. 3:7-10).

John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church (III)

An Important but Neglected Debate
In March 18, 1539, Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto, bishop of Carpentras in southern France, addressed a letter to the magistrates and citizens of Geneva asking them to return to the Catholic faith. He itemized a number of essential aspects of the Christian faith that he believed that the Roman Catholic Church endorsed and taught and, at the same time, pinpointed what he considered to be several weaknesses, discrepancies, and untruths among the Reformers.
The following August, Calvin replied to Sadoleto, defending the adoption of a number of the Protestant reforms, and, at the same time, attacking many of the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church. The exchange caused a firestorm, which has been neglected today in our many discussions about the Church of Jesus Christ and of “doing church” in the 21st century. As much confusion as exists today about the nature of the Church it is instructive to return to what the Reformers had to say about Church and the worship of our Lord, based on the premise that those who do not know history are destined to repeat it. In this sense, Sadoleto’s letter and Calvin’s reply constitute one of the most interesting exchanges of Catholic-Protestant views during the Reformation.
In his reply, Calvin also supplies us also with some interesting biographical information of how he was instructed by the Reformers and eventually left the Roman Catholic Church and became a Protestant, which we shall examine in subsequent issues.
When Sadoleto wrote his letter to the Genevans in 1539, he was at the height of his long career and was one of the most eminent and respected members of the Sacred College of Cardinals. His request to the population of Geneva, therefore, represents his “mature” theological thought. In this issue I will focus on the main points that Sadoleto stressed and urged upon Geneva regarding why they should return to Roman Catholicism.
By way of introduction, as I hit the main emphases in Sadoleto’s letter, I’ll be using the paperback version published of the debate published by Baker in 1966.[1] (Calvin’s reply can also be found in a volume in The Library of Christian Classics series.[2]) As we proceed, it will become increasingly clear what Sadoleto’s criticisms were and how tenaciously he defended much within the Roman Catholic Church that was not and could not be substantiated by Scripture. This was due, in part, to view of Roman Catholicism of the nature of Scripture and tradition.
Sadoleto begins his letter by accusing the Reformers of seeking new power and new honors for themselves by assailing the authority of the Church.[3] To his mind, the Roman Catholic Church based its life on humility, reverence, and obedience toward God and the Reformers based their doctrines on philosophy, “syllogisms,” and “quibbles on words.”[4] Calvin will roundly reject this accusation and point out that the Reformers were, indeed, merely following Scripture in their endeavors.

The Heart and Soul of the Matter
Sadoleto does, however, hit on a number of the essential doctrines that divided the Roman Catholics and the Reformers. For example, early on Sadoleto addresses what he understands by the phrase “by faith alone.” He writes, “When I say by faith alone, I do not mean, as those inventors of novelties do, a mere credulity and confidence in God, by which, to the seclusion of charity and the other duties of a Christian mind, I am persuaded that in the cross and blood of Christ all my faults are unknown; this indeed is necessary, and forms the first access which we have to God, but it is not enough. For we must also bring a mind full of piety toward Almighty God, and desirous of performing whatever is agreeable to Him; in this, especially, the power of the Holy Spirit resides.”[5]
In his own words, Sadoleto reveals to us that his concept of “by faith alone” actually isn’t, well, alone. It involves walking in the common faith of the Church.[6] To that end, he favorably presents the Roman Catholic Church’s litany of the various expiations, penances, satisfactions, and other non-biblical rituals that existed in Roman Catholicism at the time over against the views of the Reformers with regards to them. To this above list, Sadoleto also adds the decrees of the Church or, in short, the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.[7]
In particular, he mentions the place of the Eucharist, confession of sins to a priest (auricular confession), prayers to the saints, and Christian freedom as essential matters in the Roman Catholic Church, which should not be abandoned.[8] Calvin will respond to each of these items both in his reply as well as in the Institutes. Perhaps one of his most meditative and reflective chapters is found in Book 3, chapter 19: Christian Freedom.
Sadoleto is also not above playing on the emotions of those recently joining the Reformation churches by stating that their salvation hangs in the balance.[9] Not only does his letter take on the tenure of an admonition, but there is a cloaked threat as well making his letter an iron fist in a velvet glove. Thus, he adds a grim “fear factor” to the contents of his letter.
In a stroke of almost laughable irony he adds that the Reformer’s great sin was firmly ensconced in not worshiping God purely as he commanded.[10] As many voices of reform that form a chorus in the history of Roman Catholicism about the blatant and rampant abuses it is more than a touch of irony that Sadoleto would level such an accusation at the Reformers. He almost sounds like the inventor of the Regulative Principle—almost.

The Reformers as Mental Midgets
In addition, the Reformers are accused of being “simple men” of a “duller intellect” and of promoting a “preposterous and false religion” as well.[11] In the course of his short letter, however, he does furnish the Genevans will sufficient, particular examples of precisely how the Reformers are promoting such falsehood. Sadoleto accuses Calvin and the Reformers of being “men seeking dissension and novelty.”[12] Historically, this is understandable when we realize that at the time there was a uniformity in Christendom in this sense: by and large if you attended church—and most did—your choice was limited to one church and one church only: the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformers was destroying this uniformity.
His main complaint, as he hurls these epithets at the Reformers’ heads, is that the Roman Catholic Church “has a certain rule by which to discriminate between truth and falsehood.”[13] The short answer to what this might be is the twofold Scripture and tradition. It should be pointed out that even though the Roman Catholic theologians and the Reformers were often at loggerheads over various doctrines of theology, they did not disagree on the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. Where the Reformers disagreed vehemently with Roman Catholicism was its parallel use of tradition. It a “doctrine” or practice was not found in Scripture but was included in the tradition, it was considered “settled and binding” upon the hearts and minds of the members of the Roman Catholic Church. Calvin and the other Reformers disagreed.
Sadoleto differentiates the Reformers from those who were educated in the lap and discipline of the Catholic Church—but, of course, they were, de facto, educated in the lap and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church but departed from its teachings. As he makes this accusation in his letter it begs the question: So how would the true Roman Catholic differ from the Protestant? (At this point, Sadoleto uses this part of his treatise to the Genevans to write a kind of “letter” describing the true Roman Catholic. Calvin will respond with a “letter: of his own.) To Sadoleto’s mind, the answers are clear cut.
First, the true Roman Catholic would be obedient to the (Roman) Catholic Church and revere and observe its law, admonitions, and decrees, as if God himself had delivered them.[14]
Second, and connected to the first point, as a good Roman Catholic, Sadoleto believed that the Roman Catholic Church does not and cannot err.[15] Why is that? He contended that the Holy Spirit “constantly guides her public and universal decrees and Councils.”[16]
Third, “even if she did err, or could have erred (this, however, it is impious to say or believe), no such error would be condemned in him who should, with a mind sincere and humble toward God, have followed the faith and authority of his ancestors.”[17] The Reformers on the other hand are guilty of using reason, philosophy, and philosophical dialectic to make their case.[18]
Another of Sadoleto’s main points of criticism is that while previously there was but one “form” of the Church: Roman Catholicism, with the advent of the Reformers a number of sects have torn the Church.[19] He writes, “Truth is always one, while falsehood is varied and multiform; that which is straight is simple, that which is crooked has many turns…. Can anyone who acknowledges and confesses Christ, and into whose heart and mind the Holy Spirit has shone, fail to perceive that such rending, such tearing of the holy Church, is the proper work of Satan, and not of God?”[20]
This, in a nutshell, is the essence of Sadoleto’s letter to the Genevans. In the next issue we’ll turn to Calvin’s somewhat lengthy reply that will, in all likelihood, require more than one issue to deal with sufficiently. From there, we’ll move on to yet another important treatise by Calvin on The Necessity of Reforming the Church. This will be a document that we shall want to pore over for a while precisely because so many are changing and modifying worship into something the Lord never intended it to be based on a fallacious understanding of Calvin’s document on church reform.Eventually, we’ll want to ask the questions of how this fits into our current ecclesiastical (dare I say ecclesial?) setting with a view to both the mega-church and Emergent Church movements.
[1] John C. Olin [ed.], John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto: A Reformation Debate, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966).
[2] J.K.S. Reid [ed.], Calvin: Theological Treatises, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), pp. 219-256.
[3] Olin, ARD, 31.
[4] Ibid., 32.
[5] Ibid., 35. Italics mine.
[6] Ibid., 37.
[7] Comp. Ibid., 40, “The point in dispute is whether is it more expedient for your salvation, and whether you think you will do what is more pleasing to God, by believing and following what the Catholic Church throughout the whole world, now for more than fifteen hundred years, or (if we require clear and certain recorded notice of the facts) for more than thirteen hundred years approves with general consent; or innovations introduced within these twenty-five years, by crafty or, as they think themselves, acute men; but men certainly who are not themselves the Catholic Church?”
[8] Ibid., 41.
[9] Ibid., 38, “I ask, with what care and anxiety of mind, ought we to guard against exposing our life and salvation to this great danger.”
[10] Ibid., 39.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., 42.
[13] Ibid., 40.
[14] Ibid., 43.
[15] Ibid., 45. Italics mine.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid., 46.
[20] Ibid.

The Necessity of Regeneration (II)

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:3-8).

The Sovereignty of the Holy Spirit
One of the few things that I agree with in the Scofield Bible is his note on Jonah 2:9. The text reads, “Salvation belongs to the LORD!” The note states, “The theme of the whole Bible.” I concur 100%.
But there is still a great deal of confusion among Christians about what Jonah tells us. What I mean is this: Is the theme of the Bible that the Holy Spirit is absolutely sovereign? The answer is Yes. Whether we like the notion of absolute sovereignty is one thing and submitting to it is yet another thing.
To deny absolute sovereignty to God is to deviate from the gospel. The Apostle Paul makes it clear that there is but one gospel and that any and all who deviate from it are anathema (Gal. 1:8-9; Greek: anáthema). The pure preaching of the gospel remains the central calling of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Every deviation from God’s plan, every attempt on man’s part to make the gospel less important, and every effort to control God or his plan is in vain. All of this begs the questions: How is it that the Holy Spirit sovereignly regenerates the lost soul, gives new life, and makes a new creation? Let me give you three spiritual ingredients.
First, our Lord lovingly takes care that the gospel is preached and an earnest call to leave the life of sin and to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is issued.
Second, those who are regenerated (regeneration precedes faith) have their minds powerfully enlightened by the Holy Spirit, so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God.
Third, by the effective spiritual working of the Holy Spirit, who causes us to be born anew, God penetrates into the innermost recesses of man—body and soul. He opens the closed heart and softens the hard heart. He instills new spiritual qualities into man’s will—both powerfully yet pleasantly.He makes the will that was dead, alive; the will that was bad, good; the will that was unwilling, willing; and the will that was stubborn, obedient.

The Necessity of Regeneration

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:3-8).

The Beginning of All Saving Grace in Us
The biblical doctrine of regeneration points us to the beginning of all saving grace in us. It is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit of God and is called being born again or being born from above.
Our union with Jesus Christ through faith begins with and by the renewing work of the Holy Spirit by which he begins the transformation of our lives into the image of Christ.
In the modern Church there has been a failure of many pastors to ask an essential question when it comes to the biblical doctrine of regeneration. What is the question? Well, it’s a simple but very important one, because what hangs in the balance is God’s sovereignty. Here’s the question: Which comes first, faith or regeneration. The answer we give to this question has far reaching implications and applications for our lives.
In light of what the Bible clearly teaches about man after the fall being spiritually dead (cf. Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 13:23; Rom. 8:5-8; Eph. 1:1-2) it would seem that this would be an open and shut case. This is, in the modern Church, unfortunately not the case. As a result, many in the modern Church end up with a notion of God that treats him as impotent rather than omnipotent.
If regeneration does not come first, then God must wait for man to exercise his “free will” (where is that in the Bible?) and choose him so that God’s plan can be worked out in that person’s life. Up until that point, spiritually dead man has sovereignty over God. God cannot do anything about man’s unwillingness to come to faith. The other piece of silliness you often hear is this: God is too much of a gentleman to force anyone! (Where is that in the Bible?)
Of course, it’s true that the mystery of regeneration does not include coercion. God doesn’t force us or drag us into the Kingdom of God, but the Holy Spirit works both powerfully and pleasantly to make us willing to come. This is in keeping with the truth about the sovereignty of God in salvation found throughout Scripture (cf. Eccl. 11:5; Ezek. 36:26-27; John 1:12-13; 6:44, 65).We are not and cannot be saved by works, by being “good” people, or by keeping the Ten Commandments. Even a cursory reading of Ephesians 2:1-8 makes it patently clear that we cannot (read: are not able to) take the first step towards God.

Postmodernism & the Modern Church (I)

Rebellion By Any Other Name
Theodore Roszak once wrote, “Let us be honest enough to confront our culture in its entirety and ask: is it merely a coincidence that, in the midst of so much technological mastery and economic abundance, our art and thought continue to project a nihilistic image unparalleled in human history? Are we to believe there is not a connection between these facts?”
Good questions. As we enter or have already entered a time that is rapidly becoming known as “postmodern,” it is worthwhile to revisit those questions. Even though many remain unsophisticated about when and where postmodernism began and what its major tenets and beliefs are, we’re all under the influence of it—wittingly or unwittingly. I’ll begin by breaking down the open door that others have broken down: postmodernism is a work in progress. Postmoderns constantly carp that few—if any—understand them. One can only wonder how the postmoderns understand each other, let alone anyone else, since this movement is being touted as so amorphous that no one actually understands what it’s all about. Personally, I think this appeal by the postmoderns is a cop out on a grand scale. In reality, it’s an attempt to make postmodernism such an esoteric movement that even the brightest minds of our century don’t have a clue what the main tenets are. Whenever people begin to speak like that, red flags ought to start going up in our minds.
Of course, to believe that not even the best scholars can understand postmodernism is simply nonsense. There are clear strands of thought in postmodernism even as it is a work in progress, just as there were in other movements in history. As we shall see, whereas Enlightenment thinkers—whom postmoderns despise—were primarily German philosophers, the postmoderns tend to depend upon a few French philosophers as well as some home-grown Americans to spell out what they believe. We shall, in due course, discuss these philosophers and their respective philosophical positions. For the time being, however, we shall suffice with this: Richard Tarnas correctly summarizes the tenets of postmodernism as containing components of “…pragmatism, existentialism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, feminism, language theory, and theories about science.”[1]
Postmodernism in both its secular and quasi-Christians forms appears to draw from a bevy of intellectuals. Art and the arts, for example, are spoken off often as indispensable vehicles for understanding postmodernism and the postmodern mind(set). Presbyterian theologian Charles Dunahoo draws on the insights of the late Francis Schaeffer and traces the steps of philosophical influence from philosophy to music to art to general culture to church/theology to school and, eventually, into the home.[2] Without going into the precise accuracy of these steps, the general outline seems feasible.
David Wells, however, contends that the “broader” postmodern attitudes are not drawn directly from intellectuals.[3] That is to say, there is a “gap” between the academician and the postmodern man or woman on the street. How, for example, does the intellectual postmodernism espoused by philosophers like Jean-François Lyotard, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty get from the ivory tower to mainstream America? I will argue that such a miniscule percentage of the population actually takes the time to read, let alone understand, these technical philosophers that this portion of the population has little direct impact on the culture.[4] So how do we get from, say, Derrida to MTV, which is a purveyor of postmodern thought through rock images?

Is It Modern or Postmodern?
In one sense, everything is modern and contemporary. A Presbyterian church, using the ordinary means of grace that God has provided is, for example, quite modern. The root word from which we derive our English word “modern” is modo, which means “just now.” This means, of course, is that postmoderns are just as modern as the moderns they tend to dislike so much. In the final analysis, they merely have a differing life and worldview. Christian postmoderns ostensibly want a new way of “doing church” just as their mega-church counterparts wanted a new way of “doing church” a generation ago, but more on that in later installments.One of the greatest obstacles for postmoderns is their method of interpreting Scripture. In summary, they deny the objectivity of knowledge, unequivocally state that knowledge is uncertain (huh? How do you know all knowledge is uncertain?), deny all-inclusive systems of explanation, and tend to believe that everything is culturally determined and bound. We’ll examine what a horrible bind this leaves them in, not merely for their epistemology, but for simple, general things in life.

[1] Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind; Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View, (NY: Harmony Books, 1991), p. 395.
[2] Charles Dunahoo, Making Kingdom Disciples, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2005), pp. 7, 137.
[3] David Wells, Above All Earthly Pow’rs, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), p. 61.
[4] Allow me to treat you to a smattering of Michel Foucault, writing in The Order of Things. He says, “In modern experience, the possibility of establishing man within knowledge and the mere emergence of this new figure in the filed of the episteme imply an imperative that haunts thought from within…. What is essential is that thought, both for itself and in the density of its workings, should be both knowledge and a modification of what it knows, reflection and the transformation of the mode of being of that on which it reflects. Whatever I touches it immediately causes to move: it cannot discover the unthought, or at least move toward it, without bring the unthought nearer to itself—or even, perhaps, without pushing it further away, and in any case without, causing man’s own being to under a change by that very fact, since it is deployed in the distance between them.” Now, go out and do the right thing. Can someone explain to me how, if I cannot discover “the unthought” I could have even the foggiest clue what the unthought is—or isn’t? How am I to gauge whether I’m pushing it further way or bringing it nearer to itself? If I cannot fathom the essence of unthought how can I have any meaningful discourse about it?