Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin was recently interviewed by Back to the Bible on the history of the church from the Patristic era to modern day. Click below for each podcast and transcript.
Read moreSouthern Baptist Founders Conference Midwest
The recent 22nd annual Southern Baptist Founders Conference Midwest featured four lectures from Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin. These lectures include: "Why Do We Need to Remember the Reformation?," "William Tyndale and Sola Scriptura," "Thomas Cranmer and Solus Christus," and "Sealing the Reformation in Blood: The Witness of Jane Grey." You can listen and watch these lectures by clicking here.
Post Tenebras Lux
By Evan D. Burns
In the book, John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, and Doxology, Steve Lawson discusses John Calvin’s weighty preaching.[1] He quotes James Montgomery Boice, who remarked, “Calvin had no weapon but the Bible. From the very first, his emphasis had been on Bible teaching. Calvin preached from the Bible every day, and under the power of that preaching the city began to be transformed. As the people of Geneva acquired knowledge of God’s Word and were changed by it, the city became, as John Knox called it alter, a New Jerusalem.”[2] Lawson outlines the uniqueness of Calvin’s preaching with ten observations:
Focusing on Scripture
Preaching through Entire Books
Beginning in a Direct Manner
Preaching in a “Lively” Fashion
Excavating the Biblical Text
Speaking to the Common Man
Pastoring the Lord’s Flock
Fending Off Ravenous Wolves
Calling out to Lost Sinners
Magnifying the Glory of God
Lawson’s concluding words should exhort us to pray that we too might see the dawn of reformation and revival in this dark day: “May God raise up a new generation of expositors like Calvin. May we experience a new Reformation in our day. And may we see, once more, the illuminating power of the Word preached in this midnight hour of history.”[3]
[1]Steven J. Lawson, “The Preacher of God’s Word,” in John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, and Doxology, ed. Burk Parsons (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 71–82.
[2]James Montgomery Boice, Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace? Rediscovering the Doctrines that Shook the World (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 83-84.
[3]Lawson, “The Preacher of God’s Word,” in John Calvin, 82.
_______________
Evan D. Burns (Ph.D. Candidate, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is on faculty at Asia Biblical Theological Seminary, and he lives in Southeast Asia with his wife and twin sons. They are missionaries with Training Leaders International.
Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism: A Brief Review
By Ryan Patrick Hoselton
Many historians and theologians have described Scholasticism as dry, stodgy, and mechanical. Although Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism has not necessarily convinced me that the Scholastic literature is more exciting than reading Augustine or Jonathan Edwards, it has shown me that understanding Scholasticism is worth my time. Written by Dutch scholar Willem J. van Asselt with three other contributors, the work was translated into English from its original publication, Inleidung in de Gereformeerde Scholastiek.
The authors challenge the historiographical scheme that pits Calvin versus his Scholastic heirs. Following Richard Muller, they counter that Calvin was not the sole shaper of the Reformed tradition and thus should not represent the standard by which the rest are judged. Secondly, they argue that Scholasticism refers to a method rather than a doctrinal system. Theologians from a variety of traditions—including Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Arminian—all employed the Scholastic method but adhered to different doctrinal content. Thus, the authors define their study by narrowing it to Reformed theologians who employed the Scholastic method.
In the first half of the book, the authors provide a brief history of nineteenth and twentieth-century scholarship on Scholasticism, arguing that many have erred by either reducing the tradition to a Centraldogma or dismissing it as rationalism. They then examine the impact of the Aristotelian tradition on their method and the Augustinian tradition on their content. In chapters five through seven, they explain how Scholasticism operated in Medieval and Renaissance universities, outline the scholastic method and style of argumentation, and they define much of the difficult jargon like quaestio, disputatio, and fontes solutionum.
The second part of the book describes the eras of Reformed Scholasticism. Van Asselt follows Richard Muller’s classification of early (1560–1620), high (1620–1700), and late (1700–1790) orthodoxy, showing how Reformed Scholasticism developed from confessionalization and codification in the early stage to a sophisticated academic system with active debates and diverse schools of thought by the high and late stages. He highlights characteristics of each era, the positions represented in the leading universities and regions, and a theologian who is representative the period. The appendix offers a helpful study guide on how to access and navigate the primary source material of the Scholastics.
The work is accessible and comprehensive. I found the chapter on late orthodoxy especially useful in guiding one through the Reformed reaction to the Enlightenment. The work even addresses the role of Baptist theologians—like John Gill (1697–1771) and Andrew Fuller (1754–1815)—and their use of Reformed Scholastic categories in the debates during the period of late orthodoxy. Becoming familiar with Scholasticism is vital for understanding medieval theology, the Reformation, and the Puritans, and I highly recommend Van Asselt’s work as an introduction to the subject.
______________________ Ryan Patrick Hoseltonis pursuing a ThM at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY with his wife Jaclyn, and they are the parents of one child.
An excellent comment by Andrew Atherstone on reading history
By Michael A.G. Haykin
In a book review that appeared in the most recent Banner of Truth, Andrew Atherstone, whose work I admire, has this comment regarding Natalie Mears and Alec Ryrie, eds., Worship and the Parish Church in Early Modern Britain (2013)—he is talking about the way the Reformation impacted the Christian in the pew: “The lives of ordinary Christians in the Reformation world were filled with nuance, variety, contradiction and complexity, just as they are today.” So true! Budding historians as well as seasoned authors need to take note.
_______________
Michael A.G. Haykin is the director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. He also serves as Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Haykin and his wife Alison have two grown children, Victoria and Nigel.
Are Baptists Reformers, Radicals, or Restorationists?
By Nathan A. Finn
If you spend much time studying Baptist history and thought, you know that a perennial debate concerns Baptist origins, early theological influences, and any bearing those topics might have on the nature of Baptist identity. Some scholars argue that Baptists are second or third generation reformers who are rooted in a mostly puritan identity. Barrie White and Tom Nettles come to mind as exemplars of this view, which is the majority position among historians. Other scholars argue that Baptists, though clearly emerging from English Separatists, are at least influenced by the evangelical wing of the Radical Reformation. William Estep and Ian Randall are two representatives of this school of thought. Still other historians argue that Baptists are evangelical restorationists: Doug Weaver makes this case. Some Baptist scholars opt for an eclectic or polygenetic approach to this question, notably Curtis Freeman.
I wonder to what degree one’s own theological and/or spiritual presuppositions play into how a scholar views this issue. Granted, none of the aforementioned categories are Landmark, so presumably their historiographies aren’t totally theologically driven. Still, does one’s understanding of issues like predestination, ecumenism, church and state, and church and culture affect where one “lands” on this question? I think this is at least possible in some cases.
For my part, I can see why different scholars champion each of these approaches. The historical genesis of the earliest English Baptists was most definitely in English Separatism and by the time of the Civil War the English Baptists were thinking in broadly puritan categories. However, at least some of the earliest General Baptists and perhaps a few of the earliest Particular Baptists had some affinity with some Anabaptists. And, of course, both Anabaptists and Baptists held to baptistic ecclesiologies, which would at least lend itself to the understandable (if not always charitable) assumption that the groups were connected in some ways. Baptists on the whole might not be restorationists, but there is no doubt there is a restorationist streak among some Baptists—how else does one explain the spiritual pilgrimages of John Smyth and Rogers Williams or the existence of the Independent Baptist movement? These factors are why I resonate with a more polygenetic approach to early Baptist theological identity, while still holding to English Separatist historical origins.
How do you think we should think about Baptist origins and/or identity? Are we puritans who got straightened out on the sacraments? Are we the more respectable wing of the Radical Reformation? Are we sane restorationists? Or, especially since the early eighteenth century, are we really just dunking evangelicals? I’m thinking out loud more than I am making any particular arguments, so I would love to hear your thoughts about this question.
_______________
Nathan A. Finn is associate professor of historical theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also an elder at First Baptist Church of Durham, NC and a fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.
“There is No Middle Ground”
By Evan D. Burns
October 31, 1517 ought always to be remembered as the sacred day when the Spirit of God used the German Augustinian monk, Martin Luther (1483-1546), to launch the Protestant Reformation. Luther was a prophetic voice that took no prisoners with his theological assertions. His theological persuasion and unbreakable dissent emerged from his knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. The Reformation was the rediscovery of the Word. And it was through the languages that Luther unearthed the treasure of the gospel: justification by faith alone.
The following excerpts from his commentary on Galatians exemplify his zeal for this doctrine:
- There is a clear and present danger that the devil may take away from us the pure doctrine of faith and may substitute for it the doctrines of works and of human traditions. It is very necessary, therefore, that this doctrine of faith be continually read and heard in public…. This doctrine can never be discussed and taught enough. If it is lost and perishes, the whole knowledge of truth, life, and salvation is lost and perishes at the same time. But if it flourishes, everything good flourishes.[1]
- If the doctrine of justification is lost, the whole of Christian doctrine is lost…. For between these two kinds of righteousness, the active righteousness of the Law and the passive righteousness of Christ, there is no middle ground. Therefore he who has strayed away from this Christian righteousness will necessarily relapse into the active righteousness; that is, when he has lost Christ, he must fall into a trust in his own works.[2]
- Therefore we always repeat, urge, and inculcate this doctrine of faith or Christian righteousness, so that it may be observed by continuous use and may be precisely distinguished from the active righteousness of the Law. (For by this doctrine alone and through it alone is the church built, and in this it consists).[3]
- The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it, but because we work with that first and alien righteousness. This is that matter of life spent profitably in good works, in the first place, in slaying the flesh and crucifying the desires with respect to the self.[4]
For Luther, eternal joy and eternal punishment were at stake in this doctrine. To him, the minister of the Word ought to be fervent and constant in teaching this doctrine. One cannot be casual and lackadaisical in proclaiming Christian righteousness. As Luther said, there is no middle ground. This doctrine is absolutely essential for salvation.
Luther’s invincible weapon of justification by faith was produced in the factory of the original languages. Consider his grave concern that gospel ministers know Greek and Hebrew in “To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools” (1524):[5]
- In proportion then as we value the gospel, let us zealously hold to the languages….
- And let us be sure of this: we will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out, they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments. If through our neglect we let the languages go (which God forbid!), we shall not only lose the gospel.
- It is inevitable that unless the languages remain, the gospel must finally perish.
- But where the preacher is versed in the languages, there is a freshness and vigor in his preaching, Scripture is treated in its entirety, and faith finds itself constantly renewed by a continual variety of words and illustrations.
- We should not be led astray because some boast of the Spirit and consider Scripture of little worth, and others, such as the Waldensian Brethren think the languages are unnecessary.
- So I can by no means commend the Waldensian Brethren for their neglect of the languages. For even though they may teach the truth, they inevitably often miss the true meaning of the text, and thus are neither equipped nor fit for defending the faith against error. Moreover, their teaching is so obscure and couched in such peculiar terms, differing from the language of Scripture, that I fear it is not or will not remain pure. For there is great danger in speaking of things of God in a different manner and in different terms than God himself employs. In short, they may lead saintly lives and teach sacred things among themselves, but so long as they remain without the languages they cannot but lack what all the rest lack, namely, the ability to treat Scripture with certainty and thoroughness and to be useful to other nations. Because they could do this, but will not, they have to figure out for themselves how they will answer for it to God.
[1]Timothy Lull. Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005 (18).
[2]Lull (22).
[3]Lull (22).
[4]Lull (136).
[5]Luther’s Works, ed. W. Brandt and H. Lehman (Philadelphia Muhlenberg Press, 1962), 357-366.
_______________________________
Evan D. Burns (Ph.D. Candidate, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is on faculty at Asia Biblical Theological Seminary, and he lives in Southeast Asia with his wife and twin sons. They are missionaries with Training Leaders International.
Children and Church History
By Dustin Bruce
Recent years have witnessed a recovery of biblical teaching related to the responsibility of Christian parents to be their children’s primary disciplers. Groups like The Center for Christian Family Ministry and events like the D6 Conference have championed the Bible’s command to “bring them [children] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).
In Deuteronomy 6:7, God instructs Israel to teach their children his commands throughout the course of the day. In Joshua 4, Israel constructs a monument of stones as a teaching tool to educate the coming generations of God’s mighty saving acts. And while it is vital to teach children God’s commands and how he has worked through salvation history, it is also important to educate children on how God has worked to preserve a people for his own possession throughout the history of the Church.
While this can seem no easy task, thankfully, there a number of good resources available to help. Here are a few of my personal favorites:
Reformation Heroes by Diana Kleyn and Joel Beeke
The Christian Biographies for Young Readers Series by Simonetta Carr
History Lives: Chronicles of the Church by Brandon Withrow and Mindy Withrow
Heroes of the Faith Series by Sinclair Ferguson
The renewed emphasis on biblical family discipleship is something to celebrate. But let’s not forget to equip our children with a working knowledge of Church History.
Join in:
What are some of your favorite tools for teaching children Church History?
Are there any children’s books that focus on Baptist history?
_____________
Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.
Understand Ourselves Through Understanding Our Past: Two Recent Publications
By Dustin Bruce
Despite what it may seem, your local Baptist church didn’t appear out of thin air. It falls within a long line of Christian history, much of which has shaped the way you understand your Bible and gather as a church, in ways that are hard to overestimate.
Baptists have been shaped by a number of individuals, institutions, and movements. Of the many, perhaps no movements have shaped us so much as the 16th century Reformation and the 18th century revivals that formed early Evangelicalism.
If you would like to know more about these movements, I recommend two recent publications.
First, the recent appearance of the 25th Anniversary Edition of Timothy George’s Theology of the Reformersmarks the revising and republication of a treatise that serves as a great introduction to the key leaders and theological contributions of the Reformation. If you want to know more about the 16th century Reformation, I heartily recommend this volume. Read it and you may be surprised how much you learn about why you do the things you do.
Second, the publication of Early Evangelicalism: A Reader, edited by Jonathan M. Yeager, comes as a great service to those interested in exploring the roots of the Evangelical movement. This work features a short introductory piece on over 60 persons of key influence, followed by a sampling of their work. This book also comes highly recommended as a helpful guide to exploring the roots of the larger movement of which we are a part.
I don’t believe it to be a stretch to say that you can’t understand yourself as a 21st century Baptist (or Evangelical) without understanding these two key movements. Whether you know little or much about these movements, these two volumes will undoubtedly be of service to you.
Pick up and read!
_____________
Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.
Calvin versus the Anabaptists
By Dustin Bruce
In John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life, Herman J. Selderhuis attempts an unbiased telling of the Reformer’s story, counting him “neither friend nor enemy.”[1] Striving for balance, Selderhuis presents a nuanced relationship between Calvin and the Anabaptists. Against the common misconception of Calvin as a vitriolic persecutor of Anabaptists, Selderhuis states, “Calvin did not differ from his fellow Reformers in his stance toward them, but he did in his approach, for he thought that these Anabaptists had a point when they stressed sanctification of life, imitation, dedication, and devotion.”[2]
Calvin, willing to learn from Anabaptists, found commonalities with them even while feeling they went too far in some areas. For Calvin, the Anabaptist tendency toward perfectionism in the Christian life and church proved unbiblical. He sought to extend Luther’s insight of simul iustus et peccator from the individual saint to the church as a whole.[3] Calvin also took issue with “the absence of ordered, structured thought among the Anabaptists.”[4] Calvin served a God of order and he felt the absence of such to be inconsistent with divine revelation.
While the Magisterial Reformer undoubtedly took issue with the Anabaptists at points, Selderhuis makes a case for a much more understanding Calvin. As he summarizes, “He was very engaged with the Anabaptists, and even married an Anabaptist widow, providing a symbol of the way he dealt with them theologically. One had to win them over and bring them into one’s own house. In terms of the church, one might even marry them by taking into one’s own theological house the good that they bring with them.”[5] Whether you count John Calvin as theological friend of enemy, all would do well to model such a practice.
[1]Herman J. Selderhuis, John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life (Downer’s Grove: IL, InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 8.
[2]Selderhuis, John Calvin, 74.
[3]Selderhuis, John Calvin, 75.
[4]Selderhuis, John Calvin, 75.
[5]Selderhuis, John Calvin, 74.
___________________
Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.
Precious Doctrines: Quakertown Regional Conference on Reformed Theology
On November 15-16, 2013, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin will be speaking at the Quakertown Regional Conference on Reformed Theology. The conference theme is "Precious Doctrines" and will also feature Voddie Baucham and Philip Ryken as speakers. Details on the conference can be found here. The conference is a regional conference of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.
A series of video spots promoting the conference will be available here. The first has already posted.
Zwingli Against the Zwinglians?
By Ian Hugh Clary
Zwinglianism is the view that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are only a memorial and that Christ is in no sense present—what some have called the “real absence” view, or the memorialist view. The Eucharist was a hotly debated topic during the Reformation that resulted in deep lines drawn between the Reformed, particularly the Swiss, and the Lutherans. Luther could barely bring himself to say that Zwingli was a brother in the Lord because the Zurich theologian refused to believe in consubstantiation. It is often noted that Calvin sought to steer a middle course between the Lutheran and Zwinglian forms by offering a “spiritual presence” view, where the Spirit draws the believer by faith into true communion with Christ in the elements. The so-called memorial view had a continuing influence in subsequent Reformed theology, and even more so in broader evangelicalism. But was Zwingli a Zwinglian?
W. P. Stephens, in his Zwingli: An Introduction to His Thought (Oxford, 2001) puts Zwingli in perspective. The heat of Zwingli’s debate with Luther centred on the words of Christ who said of the bread, “This is my body.” For Zwingli, the word “is” should be understood as “signifies.” For Luther this was anathema. At the Marburg Colloquy (1529), though some headway towards agreement was made, the two Reformers could not agree on this point. However, this did not entail that Zwingli denied any presence of Christ in the supper. After the colloquy, Zwingli expressed his belief in the “real presence” of Christ. Stephens, pointing to Zwingli’s works like An Account of the Faith (1530) and The Letter to the Princes of Germany (1530), says, “Zwingli made it clear that the bread was not mere bread, and he began to affirm terms such as presence, true, and sacramental” (105). In the appendix to his An Exposition of the Faith (1531) Zwingli said, “We believe Christ to be truly present in the Supper, indeed we do not believe that it is the Lord’s Supper unless Christ is present” (Stephens, 105). This change in emphasis came with a greater stress on the bread and the wine, both of which were “divine and sacred” (Stephens, 107).
Stephens does an excellent job tracing out Zwingli’s overall Eucharistic theology. After establishing that Zwingli was not really a “Zwinglian,” as the term has become known, he also makes the important point that Zwingli was consistent in his theology from his early to his later years. While his earlier views were nascent, his later views did not contradict them. In 1523 Zwingli spoke of the soul being fed in the supper. Admittedly he emphasised the “symbolic” understanding of the elements after 1524, yet he held this view when he spoke of feeding on Christ. Stephens summarizes Zwingli’s overall thought saying, “The more positive notes in the later Zwingli do not indicate a real shift in his position, rather a difference of emphasis” (Stephens, 109). The concern for Zwingli, as for other Reformers at this time, was the place of faith in the communicant—he guarded against any gracious effect for the unbeliever who partakes. In this, he appealed to the early Luther who emphasized the need for faith. While issues of Christology and philosophy play into their differences, Zwingli was not as far from Luther as the German Reformer thought. Though he they did not share full agreement, Zwingli was much closer to Calvin, whose view Luther was not so scathingly against.
So, in a sense, Zwingli was against the Zwinglians.
_____________________
Ian Hugh Clary is finishing doctoral studies under Adriaan Neele at Universiteit van die Vrystaat (Blomfontein), where he is writing a dissertation on the evangelical historiography of Arnold Dallimore. He has co-authored two local church histories with Michael Haykin and contributed articles to numerous scholarly journals. Ian serves as a pastor of BridgeWay Covenant Church in Toronto where he lives with his wife and two children.
Two new works on Covenant Theology in its Baptist expression
By Jeff Robinson
One of the theological questions I have been asked most often during my first 24 months as pastor has been some version of this query: Do Baptists believe Covenant Theology or is that just a Presbyterian thing? My answer (which is consistently “Yes, Baptists have historically believed Covenant Theology that obviously differs a bit from our Presbyterian brethren”) has puzzled some and made others curious enough to launch your own study of my conclusion. But my dear friend Mike Gaydosh at Solid Ground Books in Birmingham, Ala., the city where my family lives, has recently published two books that will provide plenty of grist for that mill and will provide substantive historical and biblical answers to the question of Baptists and their relationship to Covenant Theology.
The first work is titled The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism by Pascal Denault. The point of pressure separating the Baptist and non-Baptist version of Covenant Theology is, of course, the subjects (the who?) of baptism. In the concise span of 140 pages, Denault’s work provides a brilliant historical, biblical and theological defense of believer’s baptism and provides an excellent overview of the consistent, biblical Covenant Theology which the Calvinistic (Particular) Baptists of 17th century England espoused. Denault surveys British Particular Baptists who held to Covenant Theology such as Benjamin Keach and John Gill and also shows biblically how paedobaptists misinterpret the continuity between the promises given to Abraham in the OT and baptism in the NT and arrive at the conclusion that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of membership in the covenant people of God. The author traces the points at which historic Baptists and their fellow Puritans parted ways on issues of the continuity and discontinuity between the old and new testaments and argues forcibly that Baptists more consistently held to a biblical version of Covenant Theology.
Edited by Earl M. Blackburn, the second work, Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive, is a multi-author work and includes chapters from contributors such as Justin Taylor, Fred Malone and Walter Chantry. Like the Denault book, this work is brief in compass (161 pages, including three appendices) and each of the five well-written chapters examines a separate issue related to the covenants of Scripture, ranging from baptism to the question of the existence of a covenant of works. Blackburn opens with an excellent overview of Covenant Theology and Malone follows with a discussion of biblical hermeneutics and Covenant Theology. This work, like Denault’s book, offers a well-done overview of the Baptist version of Covenant Theology and I heartily recommend them both for your spring or summer reading.
To order, see the Solid Ground Christian Books website at http://www.solid-ground-books.com/index.asp. Phone: (205) 443-0311.
___________________________
Jeff Robinson (Ph.D., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Senior Pastor of Philadelphia Baptist Church. Jeff is the author of the forthcoming book, The Great Commission Vision of John Calvin. Jeff is also a fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.
Fuller’s Three Classes of Religious Dissenters
By Dustin Bruce
Often when considering the English Reformation, we distinguish only between those who remained within the newly formed Church of England and those who dissented from it. In “A Brief Statement of the Principles of Dissent,” Andrew Fuller reminds us that “as all dissent is expressive rather of what is disapproved than of what is embraced, it is natural to suppose that the objects of disapprobation will be different in different persons.”[1]
Fuller goes on to distinguish three classes of dissenters:
- Those who disagree with the theology of the Church of England.
- Those who approve of the theology, but desire further Reformation within the English Church.
- Those who approve of the theology, but reject the establishment of a nation church in principle.
Concerning the first class of dissenters, Fuller speaks of those who abandoned the Church of England due to some unorthodox beliefs or practice. For Fuller, disagreement with the doctrine of these dissenters provides no justification for persecuting them. None who hold respect for private judgment and the authority of Christ “can forbear to regret that the Reformation should at so early a period have been stained with blood.”
The majority of Puritans and Nonconformists form the second class of dissenters. These men did not take issue with the establishment of a national church, but desired a national church with a Presbyterian form of government, which they found “more agreeable with the Scriptures.”
For the third class of dissenters, the primary objection to the Church of England was not one of theology, but of the very existence of a national church. Fuller states,
“The temporal power of bishops, the imposition of ministers, to the exclusion of the free election of the people, the mixture of godly and manifestly ungodly characters at the Lord’s table, the corruption of worship, the total want of discipline, and all other deviations from primitive Christianity, appeared to them to be no more than might be expected, if circumstances admitted it, to grow out of a national establishment. They, therefore, peaceably withdrew from its communion, with the view of forming churches on the plan of the New Testament.”
To this third class of dissenters belongs the Independents and the Baptists. Both holding to a form of congregational church government, the Baptists further dissented from the Independents by rejecting the practice of infant baptism.
Interestingly, Fuller makes two points of application for the third class of dissenters.
- “If the government should even offer to make theirs the established religion, however they might be obliged to them for their kindness, they could not accept it without relinquishing their first principles relative to church government.”
- “Neither can they, without relinquishing the first principles of the system by which they are distinguished from other Christians, persecute any man for his religion, whatever that religion be. They may think and speak of men according to their true character; they may refuse all religious connexion with them; they may expose their principles to just abhorrence; but their hand must not be upon them.”
[1] Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 459.
___________________________
Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a ThM in Church History at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.
Diarmaid MacCulloch: All history writing is autobiography
By Ian Hugh Clary
Recently I had the opportunity to hear Sir Diarmaid MacCulloch give a lecture on the history of Christianity and sexuality. MacCulloch is a church historian from Oxford who specializes in the English Reformation. As an evangelical, I find that his interpretation of history squares with my own, so I was perplexed by his talk.
For those who may not know, Prof. MacCulloch is an out-of-the-closet homosexual—just check the acknowledgements section of his masterful biography of Cranmer. He is also an advocate in the Church of England—where he was once an office-bearer—for gay rights. He recently left the church and now considers himself a “friend” of Christianity. As you can imagine, his lecture provoked questions. I believed that I would hear a very careful handling of sources, though admittedly there may be revisionist elements. I was wrong in my assessment.
Before I explain why, I should say that MacCulloch is an exciting lecturer—the hour or so he took in his first talk went by quickly. He addressed the role of sexuality from the Old Testament to the late Middle Ages; it was fast-paced and he covered a lot of ground, but it was never confusing or boring. I could only imagine what it must have been like to take one of his classes.
As the lecture progressed, however, I became troubled. From beginning to end, MacCulloch gave a large polemic against traditional interpretations of scripture and history. I also became more and more incredulous. This was not due to hearing an historian defend gay rights, that doesn’t shock me—it’s commonplace in academia. My upset was due to my hearing one of the world’s leading ecclesiastical historians be so shaped by his personal bias that it allowed him to crudely handle texts and history. As for scripture, MacCulloch used Boswell’s hermeneutic, alluded to gay relationships between figures like David and Jonathan, and drove a wedge between the sexual ethics of Jesus and Paul (saying the latter was the more liberal); all of this has long since been repudiated by scholars like Robert Gagnon. MacCulloch was dishonest to his audience by making his case seem so open and shut, when such is far from the case.
MacCulloch based his historical arguments on Hellenization that he argued infected the early church so that it denigrated the physical world and thus sexuality. He also hammered against the celibacy that has so dominated the western church. While I have sympathies with his views of monastic celibacy, he did not give a rounded view of the early church on the goodness of sex and marriage—the work of David Hunter offers a needed corrective. Though I was not able to attend his second lecture the next day, a friend told me that MacCulloch also did not deal with the Puritans and their views of sex, marriage, and the body—the Puritans, as Leland Ryken and others have shown, had a healthy view of sex, and were not Platonists in their view of the material world.
In the Q & A I shocked myself by raising my hand. Seemingly without control I stood and asked, “If you will allow me to ask a personal question, that is not at all meant to be cheeky, I wondered how you view your reading of history in light of your own personal story and struggles in the church. Could traditional historians not accuse you of allowing your own bias to inappropriately control your historiography, as you have accused Augustine?” He was gracious in his response, and even acknowledged the importance of the question. He replied that “all history writing is autobiography.” I found this so perplexing to hear from a scholar who has been such a model historian to me. For one who could appropriate the findings of Catholic revisionists like Eamon Duffy, yet do so while being true to the English Reformation and vindicating earlier historians like A. G. Dickens, I was disappointed to hear him justify a reading of history that would not square with his earlier historiographic methods.
Professor MacCulloch serves as a reminder to all of us: as historians, now matter how great or prestigious, we must be aware of our personal biases and strive towards objectivity. While pure objectivity is impossible, I do believe that historians can put forth a body of work that can withstand scrutiny from specialists. And while my autobiography may lurk, I cannot allow it to so colour my work that it misleads readers.
_________________
Ian Hugh Clary is finishing doctoral studies under Adriaan Neele at Universiteit van die Vrystaat (Blomfontein), where he is writing a dissertation on the evangelical historiography of Arnold Dallimore. He has co-authored two local church histories with Michael Haykin and contributed articles to numerous scholarly journals. Ian serves as a pastor of BridgeWay Covenant Church in Toronto where he lives with his wife and two children.
New Book on Heidelberg Catechism Celebrates 450th Anniversary
Next year (2013) marks the 450th anniversary of the Heidelberg Catechism. This Protestant document was written in Heidelberg in 1563 on behalf of Frederick III, Elector Palatine and spread over the world when it was approved by the Synod of Dort in 1619. A new volume is being released next March to commemorate this important event in church history—Power of Faith: 450 Years of the Heidelberg Catechism, edited by Karla Apperloo-Boersma, Herman J. Selderhuis. See flyer from publisher the Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht here.
In this 440 page hardcover book, respected specialists in their fields present how the Heidelberg Catechism spread and influenced culture, education and ecclesiastical life. In addition to the text, over 250 pictures illustrate the contributions making an attractive volume for display. This work will include the following contribution from Michael A. G. Haykin and Steve Weaver "To 'concenter with the most orthodox divines': Hercules Collins and his An Orthodox Catechism—a slice of the reception history of the Heidelberg Catechism."
Power of Faith is slated to be released in Dutch, English and German editions. You can preorder the English edition from Amazon.com (German edition).
Posted by Steve Weaver, Research Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.
Audio interview with Dr. Haykin on The Reformers and Puritans as Spiritual Mentors
Dr. Haykin was recently interviewed on the podcast of the "New Books in Christian Studies" website. The subject of the interview is Dr. Haykin's recent book, The Reformers and Puritans as Spiritual Mentors (Joshua Press, 2012). The interview has been posted here and is available on iTunes as well.
Posted by Steve Weaver, Research Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.
Hitchens on the Cromwellian Revolution
Thanks to a tip by Ian Clary, here is a fascinating observation by Christopher Hitchens in his essay, “The Importance of Being Orwell”:
“The Protestant revolution was partly centered on the long battle to have the Bible made available in the English vernacular and removed from the control of the linguistic priesthood or “Inner Party.” ”
A true school of theology according to Martin Luther
There was a good reason that Martin Luther argued that a true theologian is formed by oratio and meditatio and tentatio, that is, prayer, meditation, and temptation/spiritual conflict. Student of theology: have you enrolled in this school?
John Calvin's mother tongue
It is not well known, but the mother tongue of John Calvin was not French—which he learned later in life—but Picard, a Romance language still spoken today that is close to but distinct from French, for he was born in Noyon, Picardy, in north-eastern France.[1]
[1] Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 4. For an overview of Picard, see “Picard language” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picard_language; accessed July 4, 2009).