The entire five parts of the Primer on Reformed liturgies have been combined into a single essay. You can find it here: A Primer on Reformed Liturgics
Read More
Continued from . . . A Primer on Reformed Liturgics: Lessons from the Past Applied in the Present (Part One)
Reformed Worship Supports the Church’s Discipline
Churches in the Reformed tradition “fence the table” to preserve the purity of the church and its gospel witness. “Fencing the table” refers to the practice of a church’s elders not permitting unbelievers or those who are under church discipline (as determined by the church’s elders) to receive the Lord’s Supper. Those who anticipate receiving the Lord’s Supper are exhorted to search their hearts for hidden sins and implored to offer sincere repentance before partaking. Lists of specific sins which should keep the unrepentant from the table are often included in that portion of the liturgy designed to prepare the faithful for receiving the elements (bread and wine). The Reformers were not so much concerned that sinners might partake of the supper, rather that unrepentant sinners would eat and drink judgment upon themselves (1 Corinthians 11:29), or that churches who were lax in their practice of discipline might provoke the judgment of God as explained in 1 Corinthians 5.
A proper liturgy warns those under church discipline, or who have a different understanding of the Lord’s Supper than that found in the Reformed confessions, to refrain from partaking until any issues are resolved. A proper liturgy also gives biblical exhortations to communicants to repent of their sins but then come to the table to partake with great comfort and full assurance since Christ’s merits received through faith alone secure our Lord’s welcome and access to the communion table and its benefits.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
For the Reformers, Recovering the Gospel Also Meant Recovery of Proper Worship
The Reformers understood that the recovery of the gospel was directly connected to proper Christian worship. John Calvin, for one, saw his own conversion and subsequent work of reform tied directly to the removal of all forms of Roman idolatry (especially the mass) from Christian worship. The centrality of the gospel to the life of the church must be made manifest in the pure worship of God. This meant a Word-centered liturgy in which biblical texts were preached upon, biblical exhortations and commands were made clear, and biblical promises made to the people of God were to be read for their comfort and assurance. As one writer puts it, “the recovery of the gospel in the Reformation was ultimately a worship war–a war against the idols, a war for the pure worship of God.”[2] Our worship must reflect our gospel, and our gospel must define our worship.
The Reformers Sought to “Reform” the Church’s Worship
While affirming Sola Scriptura and striving to base all liturgical reform on biblical principles of worship, the Reformers carefully considered the practices of the ancient church and the teaching of the church fathers when revising the liturgies they inherited. The goal was to reform the church’s ancient liturgies by striping them of all unbiblical additions, not to compose entirely new liturgies from scratch. “New” and “contemporary” when used in the Reformed tradition in connection to worship, are therefore best understood as “reforming” (i.e., removing all unbiblical accretions, as well as adding those things which are missing), not replacing the ancient liturgies with contemporary fads grounded in popular preferences.
Martin Luther stated that his intention was to not to abolish, but to cleanse the liturgies of “wicked additions” (i.e., Roman inventions) and recover their proper (pious) use. Calvin too sought to remove Roman additions made to the liturgies of the ancient church, which is why his Genevan liturgy (The Form of Ecclesiastical Prayers) was subtitled “According to the Custom of the Ancient Church.” Like Luther, he was no innovator, but a “Reformer.” It was said of Heinrich Bullinger (the Reformed pastor in Zurich and a contemporary of Calvin) that he restored “all things to the first and simplest form of the most ancient, and indeed apostolic tradition.”[3] It is fair to say that “tradition mattered to the Reformers. It was the living faith of the dead, not the dead faith of the living.” [4]
Returning to the ancient ways meant, in part, incorporating the reading of the Ten Commandments (or “law” texts from throughout the Scriptures), using the Lord’s Prayer (either recited or as a model for prayer), reciting the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds, God’s people thereby confessing the orthodox faith while effectively uniting the church of the present to the people of God of the past—the so-called “cloud of witnesses” mentioned in Hebrews 12:1.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
Elements and Circumstances [1]
The Reformed divide liturgical practice into two categories: elements and circumstances. Elements are limited to what Scripture authorizes (either by command or good and necessary inference) along the line of Acts 2:42, while circumstances refer to how we put elements into practice. Circumstances are matters left to our judgment and discretion, but remaining within the general bounds of God’s word.
Elements are a distinct and usually ordinary act of worship (e.g., prayer, Scripture reading, the preaching of word, the administration of sacraments, etc.). Circumstances pertain to practices not unique to religious worship, but common to “human actions and societies” (WCF 1.6). Circumstances refer to matters such as where and when to meet, how many hymns should be sung, how the church furniture should be arranged, etc. Circumstances are not indifferent nor ungoverned, but are regulated by the light of nature, Christian prudence, and the general rules of Scripture (WCF 1.6). For example, we can choose what times to meet on Sunday, but we cannot move our Lord’s Day worship to another day of the week.
As the Reformed liturgical traditions took shape (the elements), there were wide variations in circumstantial practice. The various church orders (the constitutional documents of the churches) often developed along national/local lines. Most liturgies were full services, while others were partial liturgies or set forth guidelines for parts of the service—i.e., John Knox’s Practice of the Lord’s Supper. And there was the collection and publication of prayers to be used in worship (i.e., Thomas Cranmer’s Collects which are found the Book of Common Prayer (BCP).
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
General Characteristics of Early Reformed Liturgies.[1]
As the Reformation got underway and the Reformed churches began to develop their own distinct theological identity and practices, general characteristics of Reformed liturgical practice emerged. The following are found in the majority of Reformed liturgies in the Reformation era and can be summarized as follows: (1) The assumption that the church is the assembly of the covenant community. (2) The assembled people of God participate in worship in the common tongue. (3). Simplicity. (4). The centrality of word and sacrament. (5) A central role for Psalms. (6). Adaptability to need and circumstance.
Emerging Liturgical Forms and Practices
Given the stress upon congregational participation in worship as central among the changes brought about by the Reformation, the assembled worshipers sang, prayed, heard the word of God read and preached, and received the sacraments regularly. These things were not limited to the clergy, choirs, etc. Full congregational participation can be seen in the common liturgical practices adapted early on. Worship in the Reformed churches was grounded in a word-centered liturgy in the vernacular (the common language). This was a departure from pre-Reformation practices, amounting to a . . .
Far-reaching change . . . The whole service [was read] in a clear audible voice [not Latin] and in the vernacular tongue. Low mass had been the popular form of service for a considerable period before the Reformation, and this meant that the old service had been said in Latin and also inaudibly. Now, for the first time, the people both heard the words and understood them, while at one stroke the old secret prayers disappeared and the central rite [i.e., the mass] stood clear of medieval accretions.”[2]
Much of the Reformation era liturgical reform was adapted from the ancient church, in part, to demonstrate that Reformation churches were not schismatic–a charge often leveled against them by Rome. Because the goal was the reform of the true church, the following became mainstays of the Reformed liturgies: The Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, a confession of sin with absolution or declaration of pardon, and intercessory prayers.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
Episode Synopsis:
I begin this episode with a personal testimony.
I was born and raised a dispensationalist. Our family owned a Christian bookstore. The first Christian book I picked out and read on my own was Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth. Years later, I was challenged by one of our delivery men about the books we were selling–all the dispensationalist best sellers. He said he was “Reformed.” I thought he meant that he had gone to “reform school” or was on work release from prison. The questions he put to me bounced off like BB’s against a Battleship. Dispensationalism was biblical. How could anyone doubt that?
But those BB’s actually penetrated my embarrassingly thin armor. Eventually, I became a very reluctant Calvinist and then I started re-thinking my eschatology. After university and a year at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (which was founded by John Warwick Montgomery, the faculty included Walter Martin, and Rod Rosenbladt, and is now the Trinity Law School in Santa Ana), I was steadily moving away from my doctrinal roots (Arminian and dispensational). I found that the Reformation views on law and gospel, the five solas, and the end times, were absolutely compelling because they were thoroughly biblical. To my surprise Drs. Montgomery and Rosenbladt suggested a career change–seminary, specifically the new seminary in Escondido (90 miles to the South), Westminster Seminary California.
In the Acts and Paul class taught by Dennis Johnson, I first encountered what I came to know as the two-age model–terms I was familiar with from reading the New Testament but never thought much about–“this age” and “the age to come.” After reading Herman Ridderbos and Geerhardus Vos on Paul, I realized how serious a challenge the two-model was to my premillennial eschatology (I had pretty much given up on most of my dispensationalism by then, although I still thought like one). Driving home after Dr. Johnson’s class, I had an “ah-ha moment.” “I can’t be premillennial any more.” The two-age model makes premillennialism (in all its forms) a biblical impossibility. I dug in my heels and fought the inevitable. But here I am far down the road, presenting and defending the two-age model. If you’ve not heard this before, you are in for a real surprise. This is a game changer in terms of your view of the end times.
To read the show notes and listen to the episode, follow the link below
Read More
The Reformed liturgy is thought to originate in St. John’s chapel in Strasbourg, where a revised mass was celebrated in 1524 in German by Diehold Schwarz. Schwarz, an ex Dominican, translated the Latin mass into simple German and removed words and phrases which spoke of the mass as a repetition of Christ’s work on Calvary. The service was read audibly in the vernacular. A revised mass in the common tongue was just the beginning.
As the Reformation took root across Europe, a number of liturgical reforms were made in Strasbourg and elsewhere, especially in Switzerland. Metrical Psalms (with melodies and harmonies) and hymns were introduced into the service and sung by the congregation in German. The Apostles’ Creed was also recited by the congregation, and the old lectionaries (collections of biblical passages to support “holy days” on the church calendar) faded into disuse. The Scripture lessons, especially from the gospels and epistles, became much longer and were now read in every service. Sermons were also preached at every service, often based upon the Scripture lessons chosen for that service. The ceremonial elements of the mass were slowly eliminated, the minister no longer faced to the East (a long practiced custom) but now faced the assembled worshipers. Church fixtures changed as well—the communion table was no longer called “the altar” and was moved forward, much closer to the people.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
I was a recent guest on the Renewalcast. Here’s the link: Renewalcast -- “Eschatology and the Reformers"
Read More
Background
One of the best-known Psalms among our contemporaries is Psalm 40. No doubt, this is because for many years the Irish rock band U2 closed out their concerts with a very moving rendition of it, in which huge audiences sang along with the band. As written, Psalm 40 reflects the author’s (David) thanksgiving for deliverance from urgent danger. In light of this sense of immediate need for deliverance of which David is speaking, John Calvin–who was very reticent to speak about himself–describes his conversion as being pulled from the mire of his addiction to the papacy, a direct reference to verse 2 of this particular Psalm. Calvin goes on to say, “God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life.”[1] In light of this Psalm’s historic importance, and current familiarity, an exposition of Psalm 40 would be beneficial.
The Book of Psalms was the hymnal of ancient Israel. The Psalter is also one of the most beloved portions of God’s word, provides Christ’s church with much of its song, and also serves as the foundation for the devotional life of God’s people. The more we know about the Book of Psalms, the greater our desire to read, reflect upon, and sing them as God’s people have done throughout the ages.
The Five Books of the Psalter
The Psalter is composed of 150 songs which reflect the entire range of human emotion, from despair to jubilation. Although the Psalter was written by different authors over the course of much of Israel’s history, most Psalms are closely tied to the life and times of David (Israel’s most prominent king). Many of the Psalms reflect Israel’s worship of YHWH during this turbulent period in the nation’s history. There are a number of different types and genres of Psalms. There are Psalms of praise, Psalms of lament (67 of them), there are imprecatory Psalms (which invoke God’s judgment on his enemies), there are messianic Psalms (which prefigure the coming of Jesus Christ), there are “enthronement” Psalms (which speak of God as king and ruler of all), there are wisdom Psalms (which reveal to us wisdom from God), and there are Psalms of trust, (which express confidence in God’s power, and in God’s faithfulness in keeping his covenant promises).[2] And then, there is the famous “shepherd Psalm,” the twenty-third Psalm.
There are also a number of names attached to the 150 Psalms (i.e., David, Solomon, Moses, Asaph, the Sons of Korah). 73 of the Psalms are ascribed to David (king of Israel). 12 Psalms are ascribed to Asaph (who was one of David’s three temple musicians, along with Heman and Jeduthun). 11 Psalms are ascribed to the Sons of Korah (who were a guild of temple singers), 3 are ascribed to Jeduthun (a Levite), 2 are connected to Solomon, as well as one each to Moses, Heman (a grandson of Samuel), and Ethan (a symbol player in David’s court and thought by some to be another name for Jeduthun). The remainder of the Psalms are unattributed. With the exception Moses, the others to whom various Psalms are ascribed are mentioned throughout the two books of Chronicles, so we know certain details about them and their service of YHWH. Even though not all of the Psalms were written by David, it is reasonable to speak, as many do, of the “Psalms of David” since the vast majority of them are ascribed to David or his known associates.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
In his essay “The Biblical Idea of Revelation” (1915), Warfield addresses the terminology associated with the divine production of Scripture. His comments here are widely known and have been very influential upon recent Bible translations and discussions of inerrancy.
Warfield addresses the common use of “inspired “and “inspiration.” He writes . . .
The Biblical books are called inspired as the Divinely determined products of inspired men; the Biblical writers are called inspired as breathed into by the Holy Spirit, so that the product of their activities transcends human powers and becomes Divinely authoritative. Inspiration is, therefore, usually defined as a supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 131; new edition 71)
The term has changed meaning over time:
Meanwhile, for English-speaking men, these terms have virtually ceased to be Biblical terms. They naturally passed from the Latin Vulgate into the English versions made from it (most fully into the Rheims-Douay: Job 32:8; Wisd. 15:11; Ecclus. 4:12; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). But in the development of the English Bible they have found ever-decreasing place. In the English versions of the Apocrypha (both Authorized Version and Revised Version) “inspired” is retained in Wisd. 15:11; but in the canonical books the nominal form alone occurs in the Authorized Version [i.e., the KJV] and that only twice: Job 32:8, “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding”; and 2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." The Revised Version removes the former of these instances, substituting “breath” for “inspiration”; and alters the latter so as to read: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness,” with a marginal alternative in the form of, “Every scripture is inspired of God and profitable,” etc. The word “inspiration” thus disappears from the English Bible, and the word “inspired” is left in it only once, and then, let it be added, by a distinct and even misleading mistranslation. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 132; new edition 71)
But “inspiration” is not the proper translation . . .
For the Greek word in this passage—θεόπνευστος, theópneustos—very distinctly does not mean “inspired of God” . . . . The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a “spiring” or “spiration.” What it says of Scripture is, not that it is “breathed into by God” or is the product of the Divine “inbreathing” into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, “God-breathed,” the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing them. No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 132-133; new edition 71-72)
You can find this and other essays here: B. B. Warfield" The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (new edition)
Read More
There are two common extremes regarding the relationship between faith and reason. The first is rationalism, which attempts to base theological claims on universal principles of reason and absolute knowledge, The second is fideism, which makes theological claims with no attempt at arguing their basis, usually in opposition to reason and knowledge.
However, “faith seeking understanding” is the proper relationship between belief and knowledge. This is consistent across the arts and sciences: in every pursuit of truth a basic interpretation of reality is presupposed.
The Christian faith is not opposed to reason, but to its suppression and perversion in unrighteousness against the truth of God. Therefore, faith must not be opposed to knowledge. Every Christian doctrine transcends reason’s comprehension, but does not contradict reasonable apprehension. A “ministerial” or “instrumental” use of reason in which God’s revelation is apprehended and interpreted is necessary to understand the basic teaching of the Bible. But a “magisterial” use of reason (in which human reason seeks to discover truth apart from divine revelation) is to be rejected. It is this magisterial use of reason against which Martin Luther railed,
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
You can order these from The Westminster Theological Seminary bookstore for 50% off. But hurry, the sale ends soon (May 5)!
The First Two Volumes of the Classic B. B. Warfield Collection
Here’s my endorsement:
“Many of us first encountered B. B. Warfield through the five Warfield volumes published by P&R from 1948 to 1958. My own Warfield volumes are thoroughly highlighted and well worn. I have purchased duplicate volumes over the years to mark up all over again. All but one of the Warfield volumes had fallen out of print, so I was thrilled to learn of the republication of this new and entirely updated version of the five-volume set. I cannot recommend these volumes highly enough or sufficiently thank the folks at P&R for bringing the ‘Warfield set’ back into print. May a new generation of readers discover America’s greatest theologian as I once did.”
Kim Riddlebarger
Visiting Professor of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California; author, The Lion of Princeton: B. B. Warfield as Apologist and Theologian
Read More
To listen to the recent interviews on Renewalcast and Pilgrim Radio, follow the link below
Read More
Arguments in Favor of a Post-A.D. 70 Dating
1). The most important reason for dating The Book of Revelation after A.D. 70 is evidence of the presence of emperor worship and the imperial cult underlying much of what takes place throughout John’s vision.
A number of texts such as Revelation 13:4-8, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4, all indicate that Christians were being forced to participate in the emperor cult in ways which violated their consciences. As Moffat once put it, whether persecution of Christians had already become widespread or not, “the few cases of repressive interference and of martyrdom in Asia Minor (and elsewhere) were enough to warn [John] of the storm rolling up on the horizon, though as yet only one or two drops had actually fallen.”[1] While the persecution of Christians in Rome was already beginning during the reign of Nero, it was not widespread until the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) or even later. As several recent studies of Nero have demonstrated, the evidence shows that persecution of Christians in Rome (and not in Asia Minor, where John was) began under Nero because he used them as scapegoats for the great fire which destroyed much of Rome, not because they refused to worship him.[2]
Important studies of the historical background of Asia Minor during this time, such as those by Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (1984), and Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, (1990), indicate that by the time of Domitian’s reign the imperial cult and emperor worship was in full-flower.[3] Although Thompson admits that Roman sources depict Domitian as an evil tyrant without exception,[4] nevertheless he proceeds to argue that persecution of Christians under Domitian’s reign was actually quite isolated and Domitian may not be the monster Roman historians made him out to be. Yet, as Thompson goes on to state, if the imperial cult preceded Domitian by “many reigns” it also continued long after Domitian was gone.[5]
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
Arguments for a Pre-A.D. 70 Date of Authorship and Responses
(1). In Revelation 11:1-12, John, supposedly, mentions the Jerusalem temple as though it were currently standing when he was given his vision.[1]
If the temple was still standing when John recorded his vision, then the Book of Revelation must have been written before the temple’s destruction at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70. The passage (Revelation 11:1-2), reads as follows; “I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, `Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.” If John is speaking of the temple in Jerusalem, and it was still standing when John was given this vision, this demands a date of composition before the temple was destroyed.[2]
Response:
The post-A.D. 70 response to the prior interpretation is to notice the highly symbolic language throughout the passage which points the reader in a direction away from that of the physical temple in Jerusalem. As G. B. Caird points out, “in a book in which all things are expressed in symbols, the very last things the temple and the holy city could mean would be the physical temple and earthly Jerusalem.”[3]
Caird goes on to note that if John is referring to the Jerusalem temple, then a rather remarkable thing is said to occur. The Gentiles, which according to the pre-A.D. 70 dating, would mean the armies of Titus (cf. Luke 21:24) occupy the outer court for three and a half years, but leave the inner court (the altar) undefiled. This, of course, did not happen when the temple was destroyed. If true, it would make much of the passage unintelligible because it lacks any historical connection to the actual events of A.D. 70. This also ignores John’s use of the symbolism of the outer court and the inner sanctuary as a reference to the church.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
Introduction
Preterism — Pre-A.D. 70 Dating:
A theological position is only as strong as its weakest point. The preterist interpretation of John’s figures of antichrist and the beast (i.e., Revelation 13) is based upon the assumption that John (the presumed author of Revelation) was given his apocalyptic vision before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A pre-A.D. 70 date allows preterists to identify the beast of the Book of Revelation with Nero, thereby limiting antichrist to the series of heretics mentioned in John’s epistles who will plague Christ’s church until the Lord’s return (1 John 2:18-22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). According to preterists, the visions given to John recorded in Revelation 13-18 lay in the past and were fulfilled before A.D. 70. There will be no future manifestation of a Nero-like beast or a personal Antichrist who will persecute the church immediately before our Lord’s return at the end of the age.
If it can be shown that the Book of Revelation was written after A.D. 70, the preterist interpretation of the beast as entirely a figure of the past becomes untenable. While the case for a future antichrist and manifestation of the beast is surely strengthened by a post-A.D. 70 dating of Revelation (through the elimination of a competing view), the case for non-preterist varieties of amillennialism (such as my own) are not dependent upon the date when the Book of Revelation was written.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More
In the last year or so, there have been several significant volumes published dealing with various elements of Paul’s theology. Here’s a list of those volumes I think readers of the Riddleblog and listeners to the Blessed Hope Podcast might find useful. All of them recognize Paul as an eschatological thinker, challenge the New Perspective reading of Paul’s letters, and are rich in background and theological content.
To see the recommendations, follow the link below
Read More
Promised under the Old Testament as the Messiah who is to come as a descendant of a woman of Abraham, Judah, and David, [Jesus] is conceived in the fullness of time by the Holy Spirit in Mary (Matt. 1:20) and born of her, of a woman (Gal. 4:4). He is her son (Luke 2:7), the fruit of her womb (Luke 1:42), a descendant of David and Israel according to the flesh (Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3; 9:5), sharing in our flesh and blood, like us in all things, sin excepted (Heb. 2:14, 17–18; 4:15; 5:1); a true human, the Son of Man (Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5), growing up as an infant (Luke 2:40, 52), experiencing hunger (Matt. 4:2), thirst (John 19:28), weeping (Luke 19:41; John 11:35), being moved (John 12:27), feeling grief (Matt. 26:38), being furious (John 2:17), suffering, dying. For Scripture it is so much an established fact that Christ came in the flesh that it calls the denial of it anti-Christian (1 John 2:22). And it teaches that Christ assumed not only a true but also a complete human nature.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More