Posting Reading Lists in Church History

A number of brothers have enquired about reading lists on various eras in Church history. I have decided to post these in a series. Not sure how many there will be. But I shall number them consecutively so interested readers can keep track. And while I hope to work through the whole of western church history, I will not be posting every day, but as I have time. And I am sure many of you find will omissions of favourite things. Two things to note in this regard: I would love to hear of possible additions. But remember these are lists that I feel are necessary reading and because I am limited, the lists are also limited. In each of the areas I shall post on the reading could be multiplied many times over.

So here goes. The first reading list, on the Latin Fathers, follows immediately.

Why Are Cats Not Mentioned in Holy Writ?

Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528), one of the greatest of Renaissance artists, has a painting entitled Adam and Eve (1504) in which there is the most curious of things: a cat (for the painting, see http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/ho/08/euwc/ho_19.73.1.htm)! The cat, experts in artistic metaphor tell us, represents the choleric temperament in man. In Dürer’s rendition, the cat seems to be sleeping, while very close to it is a mouse, utterly unconcerned for its safety. The scene is pre-fall, and thus the fact that there is no danger for the mouse. Now, what I find most curious is this: cats are never mentioned in Scripture. How strange in that case to find one at the feet of Dürer’s Adam and Eve. That other prolific western pet, dogs, are mentioned in the Bible, though they rarely come off well. But cats make no showing at all. It is a good reminder that Scripture is not to meant to give us an exhaustive encyclopedia of all human knowledge nor is it designed as a comprehensive guide to every conceivable human decision.

Should I buy a cat? Well, cats are not even mentioned! So, no way. If God had wanted me to have a cat, he would have told me in his Word.

No, this is a misuse of Scripture. There are principles of guidance about buying and selling—which, we must say, are utterly sufficient—but as to the specifics of the question above in relation to cats, no details. This, it seems, has convinced some in the western tradition that cats are evil. Otherwise, why no mention of them? No, cats are not inherently evil—our flame-point Siamese Chai is rambunctious, but hardly evil—they are part of the goodness of God’s creation which our Maker has given us to enjoy.

All of this is a good reminder that we must ask questions of God’s Holy Word it is designed to answer. And the most critical of those is how can a Holy God deal with the sin of us post-fall human beings and yet still love the creation he has made and do it good? This is a weighty question indeed (and we heard some good answers at this year’s T4G this past week).

Where to Start in Reading Patristics

I was asked by one reader (www.letmypeopleread.blogspot.com ) about where I would recommend beginning a reading programme in the Fathers. Here is my brief reply. (And thanks, brother, for the great question). I would start with Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Then: Christopher A. Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998). Finally, a third book that is a gem, but not easy is Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition. A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1971).

And do not forget getting into the Fathers directly. Start with Augustine, Confessions, trans. R.S. Pine-Coffin (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1961) [this is the translation I like, but there are others]. Or read through an excellent collection by Steven A. McKinion, ed., Life and Practice in the Early Church. A Documentary Reader (New York/London: New York University Press, 2001). Another favourite of mine is Basil of Ceasarea, On the Holy Spirit, trans. David Anderson (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimirs Press, 1980).

For a good overview of the period, see the relevant pages in Tim Dowley ed., Introduction to the History of Christianity (1990 Rev. ed.; repr. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) and for the key leaders, see John D. Woodbridge, ed., Great Leaders of the Christian Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988). The latter is regrettably out of print, but second-hand copies can be gotten easily. I have also had published Defence of the Truth: Contending for the truth yesterday and today (Darlington, Co. Durham: Evangelical Press, 2004), which deals with theological challenges faced by the Ancient Church.

I did blog on this back in 2006: see WHAT TO READ OF THE FATHERS?

Wise Words from Wendell Kempton

In the most recent issue of The Baptist Bulletin (March/April 2008) I noticed a two-page memorial tribute about Wendell Kempton, the President Emeritus of ABWE, who died January 6, 2008. I probably would have paid no attention if I had not received earlier this year an e-mail sent out by Larry Smith, with whom I worked for a couple of years in the 1990s at Heritage Baptist College and Seminary. Until I received Larry’s e-mail I do not believe I knew the name of Dr. Kempton. I was struck by one paragraph in particular about Dr. Kempton. Larry wrote this about him:

“I was in my office in Santiago, Chile beginning our second term of missionary service when I learned that our new president of ABWE was a man named Wendell Kempton. I did not know him or anything about him. I asked a missionary colleague who he was and he replied, “We call him Wendy—he’s a coach.”

“…As time passed, I was privileged to have Dr. Kempton “coach” me. I remember sitting in the airport in Santiago, Chile and listening intently to him as he coached me with words of wisdom on how to become a better missionary. As I approach retirement, I remember him telling me that “it is more important how you leave an organization than how you entered”.”

Those are wise words indeed.

Why Seek out the Fathers

A dear friend, John Clubine, recently passed along to me a couple of pages from The Berean Call, 23, No.3 (March 2008), an article by T.A. McMahon entitled “Ancient-Future Heresies.” There are a number of things in the article with which I would wholeheartedly agree. But at one point the following is stated: “…it takes very little scrutiny of men like Origen, Ireaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and others, to see their flaws, let alone their heresies. For example, Origen taught that God would save everyone and that Mary was a perpetual virgin; Irenaeus believed that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus when consecrated, as did John Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem; Athanasius taught salvation through baptism; Tertullian became a supporter of the Montanist heresies, and a promoter of a New Testament clergy class, as did his disciple Cyprian; Augustine was the principal architect of Catholic dogma that included his support of purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism, mortal and venial sins, prayers to the dead, penance for sins, absolution from a priest, the sinlessness of Mary, the Apocrypha as Scripture, etc. It’s not that these men got everything wrong; some on certain doctrines, upheld Scripture against the developing unbiblical dogmas of the roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, overall they are a heretical minefield. So why seek them out?” (p.4).

John Lukacs, a marvelous historian, has recently said that one of the reasons why we need to do history is that there is so much bad history out there. And this paragraph is a case in point! Much of what is said here is out and out erroneous, some of it needs nuancing and parts of it are right. It would take a book to respond adequately, and a blog is probably not the best place in engage in developing an adequate response.

But suffice it to say this: the paragraph ends with a very erroneous statement and a very important question. The deeply erroneous statement: “overall they are a heretical minefield.” Wow! There have been some in the past who argued thus, but they were usually ones who disagreed with the Reformation impulse and felt that the entire history of the church between the Apocalypse of John and the Reformation was an utter wasteland. Best to forget it all and start anew.

This was not the view of the Reformers, who felt that the Fathers of the Church could aid them in the Reformation needed in their day. Not that the Reformers believed everything that the Fathers wrote. They tested all against Holy Scripture. But they did believe that the Fathers more often supported them than they did their Roman Catholic opponents.

The question: “why seek them out?” Because the Reformers like Calvin and Cranmer and Knox believed that the Fathers were important witnesses to biblical truth and they bore witness to the grace of God at work in the Church.

The Error of the Federal Vision

In the Ancient Church a Christian was a person who turned from idols and embraced the living God as he had revealed himself definitively in the crucified and risen Christ (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10). What made him a Christian? Faith, which was rooted in the electing work of God (see Acts 11:18; 13:48; 15:7-9; 16:31). None of the early New Testament authors believed that the act of baptism alone saved anyone (thus Mark 16:16). Baptism is the way a person with a good conscience (to see what this is and how one obtains it, read Hebrews 9:14) responds to the saving work of God. Thus 1 Peter 3:21 means that the baptism which saves is that which is “the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”

These convictions must be asserted afresh today for the upholders of the so-called Federal Vision maintain that the baptism of infants makes them Christians—a position that is simply taking us back to the disastrous confusion of the medieval Church. As a Calvinistic Baptist I have deep admiration for many Reformed paedobaptist brothers, though I would disagree with their argument that infant baptism is a covenantal sign that must be affirmed later in life. But such brethren do not argue for trust for salvation in the baptismal rite. There must be conversion.

But this position is quite different from the affirmation that a human rite in itself and by itself saves. The Apostle clearly rejects this latter argument in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5. If participation in the ordinances saved, then surely those who followed Moses out of Egypt would have entered the Promised Land. But they did not—for baptism (and the Lord’s Table) do not save.

God will not give the glory of being the Saviour of his people to another person or thing!

Liam Goligher Lectures

This past Saturday morning, The Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, now located at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (www.sbts.edu) , teamed up with Toronto Baptist Seminary (www.tbs.edu ) to present a mini-conference of two lectures by Dr Liam Goligher of Duke Street Church in Richmond-on-Thames, London (see www.dukestreetchurch.co.uk ). This conference had been planned before the move of the Andrew Fuller Center to Louisville, but it is hoped that the Center will be able to hold a similar event annually in southern Ontario. Dr Goligher superbly and succinctly analyzed the Emergent Church in his first lecture and then looked at the deviations from a solid biblical focus on penal, substitutionary atonement in his second talk. Coming from a position Goligher described as “Catholic [that is rooted in the patristic era], Protestant, Reformed, and Evangelical,” he examined Emergent thinking in relation to Scripture, humanity, Christ, salvation, ethics, and Christian orthodoxy. He urged his hearers that while we must be humble in the way we present the truth, we should not “be humble about the truth” itself. Truth can be known—though obviously not all the truth about any given topic. Insightfully he suggested that the opposite of humility today for many people—even Christians—is not pride, but conviction.

Goligher’s second lecture looked at the doctrine of the cross in the New and Old Testaments. He ably responded to Steve Chalke’s recent argument that viewing the cross as God’s judgment on sin is simply cosmic child abuse and rightly pointed out that the charge is not a new one. Goligher powerfully argued that the cross achieves propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, and victory over evil.

It was a morning well spent. We hope, DV, to have another set of lectures next year at roughly the same time. On that occasion, Dr Stephen Wellum of Southern will be with us lecturing on the person of Christ. Plan on joining us!

For another report of the lectures by Dr Goligher, see Kirk Wellum: Post Lecture Thoughts.

The audio of Dr Goligher's lectures can be found here on the Toronto Baptist website:

Lecture #1 The Emergent Church - Reinventing Liberalism

Lecture #2 - Preaching The Cross Today

Scripture for Hilary of Poitiers

Some great words from Hilary of Poitiers (c.315-367/8), whom I have long desired to study more and even write a biography of him: "The Apostle, who instructs us on many things, also teaches us that the Word of God must be treated with the greatest reverence, saying “whoever speaks, [let him speak] as uttering the oracles of God” [1 Peter 4:11]. For we ought not to treat Scripture with a vulgar familiarity, as we do in our ordinary speech; rather, when we speak of what we have learned and read we should give honor to the author by our care for the way we express ourselves… Preachers, then, must think that they are not speaking to a human audience, and hearers must know that it is not human words that are being offered to them, but that they are God’s words, God’s decrees, God’s laws. For both roles, the utmost reverence is fitting.” [Tractatus super Psalmum 13.1 (CCSL 61:76, ll.1-6, 21-24)].

The Poetic and Preaching

It seems so obvious that when a significant portion of Holy Scripture is poetic in form, poetry in genre, that preachers should take courses in understanding ancient poetry—and some instruction on how to interpret more modern forms of poetry would surely help as well. But the poetic is not in vogue in our culture (apart from modern music, and that is usually little better than nursery rhymes!), and we, and preaching, are the worse off. Is it no wonder that the Psalms, the poetic portions of the Prophets and other poetic portions of Holy Scripture are not regularly preached as much as the more didactic forms that appeal to the modern western mind-set?

No Gloating, Please!

I saw The Toronto Star today—its front page, though I rarely look at this particular paper—with its picture of Conrad Black heading to prison and underneath the headline “Lord 18330-424.” Could not help but think of the way the world often gloats over the unhappy circumstances of others. Oh, you say, this man deserved this. Maybe—maybe not. I honestly do not know and I have not followed the details of the trial. It is not so much in the interest of justice that I am blogging.

Rather, I am concerned about the way in which there is something rotten in the human heart that takes comfort in the misery of others.

You doubt this? Then read Fik Meijer, The Gladiators: History’s Most Deadly Sport, trans. Liz Waters (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2007), pages 1-12—very convicting about the depth of human depravity.

Still unconvinced? Then read the account of Alypius, the friend of Augustine, and the time he went to the Roman Colosseum.

And it should not be this way for the followers of the merciful Jesus who prayed for those who put him to death—he did not gloat that one day they would face a Judge much greater than Pilate—namely himself and inherit the trash-heaps and ashen dumps of hell if they had not repented. Who can gloat when all of us--oh yes, no exceptions here; my universalism--deserve just this?

A Sober Assessment of the Present State of Evangelicalism

Talk about Spurgeon redivivus: here is Phil Johnson’s take on the current state of Evangelicalism and he couldn’t be more right! Gospel Lite. Some people, well-meaning, tell us that we should not be so critical, we need to be kind with all of our words and not cause any divisions, lest the true enemies of the Christian faith, namely, the Muslims, come in and take us over! Well, I for one am glad that Martin Luther, with the Muslims at the gates, did not hesitate to criticize the Pope. Or Augustine, with the barbarians about to sweep over the Roman Empire, was not slow to tell those who recognized Pelagius and his error that they were on the high road to hell because of heresy. Or Paul, facing persecution at the hands of the Jews, was not afraid to tell his readers to have nothing to do with theological error.

To Kill a King

To Kill A King (2003): I was utterly surprised to find this movie just released on DVD about that most tumultuous era of the British Isles’ history, the era of the 1640s and 1650s, when the world of our Anglophone forebears was “turned upside down” (a phrase actually used in the movie). It is well done in many ways: costumes and acting—Rupert Everett as King Charles I is excellent, as is Dougray Scott as Lord Thomas Fairfax (1612-1671), and Olivia Williams as Anne Vere, Fairfax’s wife. It was good to see married love—that between Fairfax and his wife—portrayed with sympathy. In fact, from Naseby to Charles II’s public hanging of Cromwell’s corpse, the movie is marked overall by historical accuracy—except in one instance: the character and rule of Oliver Cromwell.

I was sorely disappointed in the portrayal of Oliver Cromwell (acted by Tim Roth). Not by Roth’s acting, but by the portrayal of Cromwell as a morose individual who, according to the movie, eventually exercises a brutal tyranny through the Army. The movie thus perpetuates one of our great historical myths: that Cromwell was cut from the same cloth of such later tyrants like Robespierre and Stalin. As one reviewer put it, Roth’s Cromwell is “assured but troubled, righteous yet ruthless,…the ugly, human face of this riveting drama.”

Those of us who love the memory of Cromwell—in this, the 350th anniversary of his death—await a sensitive, accurate celluloid portrayal of this complex man.

Book Review of Fik Meijer, the Gladiators

Fik Meijer, The Gladiators: History’s Most Deadly Sport, trans. Liz Waters (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2007), xviii+267 pages. I must admit that the gaudy cover of this book was off-putting at first glance. I picked it up at a variety store in an airport terminal and frankly, I thought it looked somewhat hokey. A quick perusal of the book, though, soon convinced me otherwise. And as I read it over the next few days I realized that this 2003 work by Dutch historian Fik Meijer is a gem. The very fact that the topic of gladiators is of perennial interest provides space for Meijer to argue that the modern West is as deeply fascinated by violence as Rome ever was.[1]

He first explains how the bloodiest “sport” in history evolved to become a key aspect of Roman society. Details regarding the lives of the gladiators—everything from the various types of gladiators who fought in the arena to the financial details of the shows—and the building of the Colosseum in Rome (the most spectacular of over 200 such amphitheatres in the Roman world by the third century a.d.) are then given in a lively prose style that is at once informative and fascinating reading.

The chapter “A Day at the Colosseum” brilliantly recreates what it would have been like to have attended one of the shows for a day of bloody and brutal entertainment. Although I have read the accounts of Christian martyrs for a good number of years now, I was completely unaware that their deaths would have taken place during what Meijer terms the lunchtime interval between the morning programme when there would have been animal fights and the afternoon “attraction” of the main gladiatorial fights (p.147-159). Meijer actually draws on the North African theologian Tertullian (fl.190-220) for some of his information, citing the second-century author more than half a dozen times.

Three final chapters deal with sea battles, the burials of slain gladiators and the end of the gladiatorial shows. Although Constantine issued legislation abolishing the shows in 325 a.d., it was not until the fourth decade of the following century that the shows finally ended.

All in all this is an excellent work and helps students of the Ancient Church understand in part why that ecclesial tradition, reacting against the violence of their world, was so solidly committed to non-violence.

[1] See pages 1-12, and his brief reviews of the movies Spartacus (1960) and Gladiator (2000) (p.220-231) as proof.

The Hymns of Keith Getty

One of my criticisms of contemporary worship music has been its failure to generally focus on the cross. This lack of crucicentrism is sad, given the priority that the cross of the Lord Jesus has in the Scriptures. How encouraging then to be given this evening Modern Hymns Live: The Hymns of Keith Getty (2006). Wow! Here is fresh music for corporate worship that retains the riches of the Evangelical hymnody of the past—especially crucicentrism. This is rich. O for more hymnwriters like Keith Getty! Check out his website: www.gettymusic.com.

Thanks to a dear brother Chip Stam ( www.carlstam.org ) for the gift of this CD.

David F. Wright

Dr. Ligon Duncan has a notice about the death of one of the great Reformed Patristic Scholars of our day, Dr. David F. Wright, Professor of Patristic & Reformed Christianity at the School of Divinity, the University of Edinburgh. I read Dr Wright’s article on Mat 28 just this past week, a superb piece as was the case with all the work he did. I have deeply admired him and his work. Praise to the Lord who gave him to the church. Thank you Ligon for this note. HT: Justin Taylor.

Reading Week, February 1974–A Week Never to Be Forgotten

I was sitting with my daughter Victoria in a Second Cup café today partly because she has her reading week this week and some free time. As I was musing on reading weeks and their importance in the life of the student—and the teacher—I recalled a very important reading week thirty-four years ago. I find it hard to believe that so much time has passed, but it has. It was the Sunday following the University of Toronto’s reading week of 1974. I was at the worship service of Stanley Avenue Baptist Church, Hamilton, Ontario. The preacher was a Welshman by the name of Davies—was it Elwyn Davies?—and he preached one of those Spirit-anointed sermons one never forgets, and which we need far more of these days, and then gave an “altar call.” Within a minute the front of the church was packed with thirty or so people, among them myself. I came forward to give my life to Christ.

Then later that week, in the privacy of my apartment, I gave myself unreservedly to the Triune God and knew what it was to be a Christian. When was the moment of regeneration and when the hour of conversion? I am not sure, but O how I wish I had lived up to the commitment I made then. But if I have failed the Lord, He has never ever failed me.

But, whatever my failings and sins, there has been no turning back. And that because of God’s grace. I would not have seen that then. But I sure do now: only divine grace can enable perseverance. Eternal praises to His Name!

Pray for Dr. Mohler

You who bow the knee and pray to the Living Christ, Lord of heaven and earth, our great High Priest, please remember our dear brother Dr Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who needs surgery to remove a pre-cancerous tumor in his colon. Dr Mohler has been a tremendous encouragement to God’s people as he has been at the forefront of a remarkable work of grace in our day. May we who have richly benefited from his ministry be an encouragement to him as we pray for restoration of health and strength.

George Adam Smith: Generous Orthodoxy in the 19th Century!

I have long enjoyed reading the blog Free St. George's. Here is a recent post that is so illuminating about Sir George Adam Smith (1856-1942), whom I would call a liberal, but who regarded himself as an evangelical and who delighted in the ministry of D.L. Moody. How can such things be? Read Book Review: 'Fixing the Indemnity'and take note of these words in the review: "Today we see history repeating itself. We fear that evangelicals who read little, particularly in the realm of history, are ill-equipped to handle the present crisis. Now those who read this blog are not in that category, so we recommend they buy the book, read it, and tell their friends what it contains.”

This is not an idle warning. All around us we see signs of Evangelicalism collapsing--and yet we despair not, for we serve a Sovereign God who can make out of stones voices of praise. And we that happening too--in the most unlikely of places God is raising up living stones for his praise and glory.