Papalism and Apocalyptic

Olivi was aware of the fact that he was living on the eve of the coming of the Third Age, of the final translatio ecclesiae when the hierarchy of the Church will be replaced by the elect: “transferetur propter eius adulteria ad electos.” Accordingly Olivi was not interested in papal infallibility as such, but rather in holding out this high doctrine of the papacy as a standard for all to see- to see and to know that the Third Age will have come as soon as a pope no longer lives up to this high set of qualifications.

… Hence infallibility proved to have been launched by an accused heretic without support from the earlier tradition…

The moment is near at which the final demarcation line between Rome and Babylon will be drawn: a pope who does not live up to the high qualities of his office prove to be a pseudo-pope, a pope “quoad solam apparentiam” , in appearance only. What first seems to be the highest elevation of papal office, is a test of orthodoxy which soon is to umask the antichrist. The eyes of all true belivers are on the pope: once he does err, we have entered the modern era, the time of the last things.
~ Heiko Oberman The Dawn of the Reformation pp. 12-13; 23; 24-25

Well That’s One Way To Argue It

Experience and history teach us not to allow transubstantiation, since it is written that Pope Victor of Rome died drinking poison from the chalice, and Emperor Henry took poison from the bread in the Eucharist.

~ Peter Martyr Vermigli The Oxford Treatise and Disputation pg. 46

Vermigli On History and Authority

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth only insofar as it upholds the Word of God, preaches it, retains it, bears witness with it, defends it, and maintains it. Nor is the Word heard without the Church. But the Chruch is not authorized and empowered by the Word when the Church errs or falls. When it speaks according to the Word of God, it does not and cannot err; but going beyond this Word– whether by pronouncement or practice– it not only may err but is surely in error. They also (please God!) attribute infallibility to the popes in matters of faith, to use their terms. Yet it cannot be denied that John XXI erred in a most shameful way when he declared that the souls of men perished with their bodies or (as some would soften his views) sleep until they are raised with their bodies at the last day. Although the pope erred so shamefully and disgracefully, neither bishops nor cardinals, who are supposed to represent the Church, challenged him. When the University of Paris did object (1333), and informed the king of France regarding this error, he forbade any of his people to have contact with the pope until he showed penitence. This led the pope to recant…

…But they pick flowers selectively, culling only what they think will support their claim to power, honor, and domination. They strive to shake the faithful loose from their adherence to the Word of God so that instead of trusting God they believe popes and councils. How different was the attitude of Augustine to Maximus, bishop of Arians. Debating with him, he said: “You may not quote to me the council of Rimini, nor will I quote to you that of Nicaea, since I am not bound to that one nor you to this one. But we must both face up to the Scriptures, which are common ground. Let matter contend with matter, cause with cause, and reason with reason.”

~ Peter Martyr Vermigli Schism and the True Church pg. 186, 187

Vermigli’s Appeal to Baptism

In debating the way in which Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper, Vermigli appeals to baptism as an example. I thought this was interesting because I’ve used this approach myself (prior to reading it in Vermigli), and it gives us some insight on Vermigli’s view of baptism:

Moreover, we see that in the sacrament of baptism the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins are conferred, yet we do not say that they lie concealed in the water. In fact we put on Christ, yet no one holds that the water is transubstantiated. [They say that] Christ is in the Eucharist in one way and in baptism in another; I do not deny it, so long as they agree to his presence in baptism. As to the mode, I confess that in baptism Christ is given to us as mediator, reconciler; to speak more properly, as regenerator. Here [the Eucharist] he is given to us truly as food and nourishment.

~ Peter Martyr Vermigli The Oxford Treatise and Disputation pg. 35

Peter Leithart on N T Wright

N. T. Wright, in my view, unnecessarily minimizes the importance of this point [that Abraham was justified by faith and not by anything that he did] to Paul’s argument.  He denies that Paul is teaching the Romans “how to be justified,” but instead that Paul is arguing about the extent of the family of Abraham.  Verses 1-8 are not an attack on “a theology of self-help legalism, in which ‘righteousness’ is earned by moral effort” but rather “a further metaphorical expansion, rather than the inner substance, of Paul’s point.” (NIB vol 10. pg. 490)  For Paul, the “how” of justification is inseparable from the “who”: Justification can be extended to Gentiles only if justification is accomplished by some means other than Jewish Torah.  Wright is correct that much of Rom 4 is about the Jew-Gentile problem, but the text also emphasizes the mode of justification.  That Paul is concerned with the “how” is supported by his use of Rom 15, which states that “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (cf. Rom 4:3, 9, 22).  In one sense, this seems a curious passage for Paul to use.  After all, by the time we get to Gen 15, Abraham has already been walking with Yahweh and worshiping Him in faith for many years (Gen 12:1-4; 12:8; 13:4; cf. Heb 11:8).  Genesis 15:6 is not the story of Abraham’s conversion, even though it’s the story of his justification.  To be justified is to be accepted as a covenant-partner of God (Gen. 15:6, 18).  But the passage actually fits into Paul’s point perfectly.  It is, after all, the passage that talks explicitly about Abraham’s faith and Yahweh’s counting him righteous.  Besides, Paul’s point is to emphasize that even for Abraham, justification is not according to works.  By the time Abraham is justified, he has done a lot of good works, and Paul’s Jewish opponents would likely say that Abraham has earned good standing with God.  Paul points them back to the text: Even though Abraham has been worshipping Yahweh faithfully, that is not what gives him righteous standing before God.  He is justified by believing God’s promise.  Abraham is justified by trusting in the God who justifies the ungodly.

~”Justification as Verdict and Deliverance: A Biblical Perspective” in Pro Ecclesia Vol. XVI Winter 2007.  pg. 65-66

John Adger on Calvin’s Doctrine of the Eucharist

The mystery of the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature, and it is therefore exhibited to our dull minds in visible, familiar signs, showing that souls are fed by Christ just as the corporeal life is sustained by bread and wine. The end then of this sacrament is to assure us, that the body of Christ was once sacrificed for us, so that we may now eat it and eating feel within ourselves the efficacy of that one sacrifice, and that his blood was once shed for us so as to be our perpetual drink. Pious souls have great delight in this sacrament as a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that every thing which is his they may call their own. For these are words which can never lie nor deceive: “Take, eat my body broken for you; drink my blood shed for you.” In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours; in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us; in affirming that his body was broken and his blood shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his as ours, because he took and laid down both not for his own advantage but for our salvation. So the chief and almost the whole energy of the sacrament consists in these words, “It is broken for you, it is shed for you,” because it would not be of much importance that the body and blood of the Lord are now distributed, had they not once been set forth for our redemption and salvation…

This can be illustrated thus: As a reservoir of water furnishes a supply to drink, to draw from, and to irrigate the fields, and yet does not itself possess this abundance for so many uses, but gets it from the source which with perennial flow sends forth continually fresh supplies, so the flesh of Christ is a full and inexhaustible reservoir transfusing into us the life which constantly flows into it from the spring-head of Divinity itself. Who does not see now that a communion with the flesh and blood of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the heavenly life?

~John Adger, “Calvin Defended Against Drs. Cunningham and Hodge”, The Southern Presbyterian Review, 27 (1876), pp. 133-166.

Yes, that’s right- Southern Presbyterian.

Born in Babylon

Matthew 1: 6-17

And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

Matthew’s gospel begins with Genesis (1:1), but quickly moves to Exodus. Notice that Jesus is born “after the deportation to Babylon” (12). There is no mention of a return from exile, but rather Jesus is portrayed to us, the reader, as being born in Babylon. Babylon is Egypt of course, an intensified exile, and it is no surprise that Matthew quickly gives us the picture of Israel under a foreign and tyrannical ruler who issues an order to kill all the Hebrew boys.

After Jesus is taken out of Egypt in 2:15, he moves to the water event of baptism, and proceeds to be taken into the wilderness 4:1. When we get to chapter five, Jesus has a great multitude, and he ascends a mountain from where he will expound on the law.

Chapter eight shows Jesus coming down from the mountain, and Leviticus is recapitulated as the next series of stories involve cleansing, healing, and bringing life to the dead. Soon after this the disciples are sent out to conquer the land, and it isn’t too long until Jesus is, like King David, proclaimed Lord of the Sabbath. Wisdom narratives come after this, and by the time we reach the Olivet Discourse the reader is anticipating the prophetic stage that is revealed.

Wilson on the Relationship Between Education and Worship

Currently Reading The Case for Classical Christian Education By Douglas Wilson see related

Whereas Erikson primarily understands development in terms of biology, focusing on fetal development, Wilson approaches the development from a spiritual angle. His chapter on “the Nature of Man” is especially helpful as he bases all theories of development on the imago Dei and the reality of the Fall. Wilson writes, “Humans are fallen, and that fallenness must be taken into account as children are learning to trust in Christ as their Savior and are learning what it means to live in this world while they are growing up into that salvation” (48). Wilson also builds upon the work of Berkhof and Van Til[1] as he understands education in serving either God or man. In order for sinful humans to begin to address their situation and seek to properly develop, they will need to commit to the Bible as ultimate authority. This does not mean using the Bible as a universal textbook, but rather examining all educational theory and practice in the light of God’s Word in order to find the greatest amount of consistency and fidelity.

Having identified the “what” of the person, Wilson moves to the “what” of education. Interestingly enough, however, before answering the question “What is education?” (Chapter 7), Wilson devotes a chapter to “The Centrality of Worship.” Like Erikson, Wilson understand the need for crisis, however unlike Erikson, the point of view of the psychology is not the child’s view of himself, but rather God’s view of the child. Wilson addresses this point head-on when he says, “The ancient Greek notion is that mankind should be defined and understood as homo sapiens, with humans defined by their ability to think. But in the Christian view, man is homo adorans, worshipping man. What men and women are in the presence of God defines them; in the light of this, the learn to think, love, walk, emote, and sing in a certain way” (61). Building off the liturgical writings of James B. Jordan and Jeffery Meyers[2], Wilson locates the most basic crisis development in the Church’s union with the crucified and risen Jesus Christ. Through confession of sins, singing of praises, hearing the Word preached, and becoming the one bread in the Eucharist, psychology is developed through imaging Christ.

---

[1] Berkhof, Louis and Cornelius Van Til, Foundations of Christian Education: Addresses to Christian Teachers. ed. Dennis Johnson (Phillpsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1990).

[2] Jordan’s work is largely found in Biblical Horizons newsletters, but Meyers has composed a lengthy treatment of worship which is a direct outworking of Jordan’s work which can be found in The Lord’s Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship (Moscow: Canon Press 2003).

Calvin on Gospel Vengeance

And to those whose sins you retain. Christ adds this second clause, in order to terrify the despisers of his Gospel, that they may know that they will not escape punishment for this pride. As the embassy of salvation and of eternal life has been committed to the apostles, so, on the other hand, they have been armed with vengeance against all the ungodly, who reject the salvation offered to them, as Paul teaches, (2 Corinthians 10:6.) But this is placed last in order, because it was proper that the true and real design of preaching the Gospel should be first exhibited. That we are reconciled to God belongs to the nature of the Gospel; that believers are ad-judged to eternal life may be said to be accidentally connected with it. For this reason, Paul, in the passage which I lately quoted, when he threatens vengeance against unbelievers, immediately adds, after that your obedience shall have been fulfilled, (2 Corinthians 10:6) for he means, that it belongs peculiarly to the Gospel to invite all to salvation, but that it is accidental to it that it brings destruction to any.

It ought to be observed, however, that every one who hears the voice of the Gospel, if he do not embrace the forgiveness of sins which is there promised to him, is liable to eternal damnation; for, as it is a living savior to the children of God, so to those who perish it is the savour of death to death, (2 Corinthians 2:16.) Not that the preaching of the Gospel is necessary for condemning the reprobate, for by nature we are all lost, and, in addition to the hereditary curse, every one draws down on himself additional causes of death, but because the obstinacy of those who knowingly and willingly despise the Son of God deserves much severer punishment.

~Commentary on John 20:23

This idea of “accidental” damnation attached to the gospel is fascinating. I think it would clear up a lot of our sacramental disputes, as well those surrounding the free offer. Nevertheless, let it be shown that John Calvin speaks of “the forgiveness of sins” being “promised” and “offered” to those who do not embrace it.

This also casts a new light on the law/gospel question. The gospel is here performing a function that is traditionally given to “law.” I’d love to see this worked out further.

The Beggars of the Sea

The Dutch Reformation has a fascinating history. Here is one of my favorite scenes from their war with the Spanish in 1573:

Since their oppressors called them beggars, that was the name they [Dutch Protestants] would give themselves. The leather bag of a beggar became the banner of rebellion…

But Philip was not a king to be swayed by his subjects’ opposition. He had declared, with vehement sincerity, that he had no desire to be “lord of heretics.”

The Protestant cause was therefore desperate. Its only hope seemed to be in the beggars of the sea, while its armies were repeatedly and roundly defeated. The crisis came at the siege of Leiden, an important trading center that had declared itself for Protestantism, and which the Spanish had surrounded. An army sent by William of Orange to break the siege was defeated by the Spnaish, and in that battle two of William’s brothers were killed. All was lost when William, whose enemies called him “the Silent” or “the Sly,” suggested that the dikes be opened, thus flooding the land around Leiden. This implied the destruction of many years of hard work, and the loss of a great deal of arable land. But the citizens agreed. In spite of an incredible shortage of food, the besieged continued their resistance during the four months that it took the sea to reach Leiden. Riding the flood, the beggars of the sea also arrived, shouting that they would rather be Turkish than Popish. Lacking naval support, the Spanish were forced to abandon the seige.

~Justo Gonzalez The Story of Christianity Vol. 2 pg. 98,100