From John Williamson Nevin’s introduction to Philip Schaff’s “The Principle of Protestantism”

Leave a reply

The work will not be regarded by puseyites and papists as a plea in their favor. Rather, if I am not much mistaken, it will be felt by them, so far as it may come under their observation, to be one of the most weighty and effective arguments they have yet been called to encounter, in this country, in opposition to their cause. For it is not to be disguised that a great deal of the war which is now carried on in this direction is as little adapted to make any impression on the enemy as a battery of popguns in continual fire. Instead of being alarmed or troubled on its account, the enemy is up doubt pleased with it at heart. Nothing can be more vain than to imagine that a blind and indiscriminate warfare here can lead to any true and lasting advantage. Not with circumstances and accidents simply must the controversy grapple, but with principles in their inmost life, to reach any result. The present argument accordingly, in throwing itself back upon the true principle of Protestantism, with a full acknowledgment of the difficulties that surround it, while proper pains are taken to put them out of the way, may be said to occupy the only ground, on which any effectual stand can be made against the claims of Rome.

To contend successfully with any error it is all important that we should understand properly and acknowledge fairly the truth in which it finds its life. The polemic who assails such a system as popery or puseyism with the assumption that its pretensions are built upon sheer wind, shows himself utterly unfit for his work, and must necessarily betray more or less the cause he has undertaken to defend. All error of this sort involves truth, apprehended in a onesided and extreme way, with the sacrifice of truth in the opposite direction. Hence a purely negative opposition to it, bent simply on the destruction of the system as a whole, must itself also become inevitably onesided and false, and can only serve so far to justify and sustain what it labors to overthrow. Romanism includes generally some vast truth in every one of its vast errors, and no one is prepared to make war upon the error, who has not felt, in his inmost soul the authority of its imprisoned truth and who is not concerned to rescue and save this, while the prison itself is torn to the ground. In this view, no respect is due to an infidel or godless zeal, when it may happen to be turned in this direction, and that must be counted always a spurious religious zeal, which can suffer itself to be drawn into communion with such an irreligious element, simply because for the moment it has become excited against Rome. It is greatly to be feared, that the spirit into which some are betrayed in this way is unhallowed and profane, even where they take to themselves the credit of the most active zeal for tfce glory of God. So with regard to puseyism. Nothing can well be more shallow than the convenient imagination that the system is simply a religious monstrosity, engrafted on the body of the Church from without, and calling only for a wholesale amputation to effect a cure. Such a supposition is contradicted, to every intelligent mind by the history of the system itself. No new phase of religion could so spread and prevail as this has done, within so short a period of time, if it did not embody in itself, along with all its errors, the moving force of some mighty truth, whose rights needed to be asserted, and the want of which had come to be felt in the living consciousness of the Church, vastly farther than it was clearly understood. If the evils against which the system protests were purely imaginary, it could never have acquired so solid a character itself, as it has done in fact. Most assuredly the case is one that calls for something more than a merely negative and destructive opposition. Only by acknowledging and honoring that which is true and good in the movement, is it possible to come to any right issue with it so far as it is false. The truth which it includes must be reconciled with the truth it rejects, in a position more advanced than its own, before it can be said to be fairly overcome. In this view, it is not saying too much to affirm, that a large part of the controversy directed against it thus far has been of very little force. It has been too blind and undiscriminating, as one-sidedly false in its own direction at times, as the error it has opposed in the other. Our newspapers, and reviews, and pamphlets and books show too often that the question is only half understood by those who undertake to settle its merits. While they valiantly defend the citadel of Protestantism at one point, they leave it miserably exposed to the attacks of its enemies at another. With many it might seem to be the easiest thing in the world, to demolish the pretensions of this High Church system. Its theory of the Church is taken to be a sheer figment, its idea of the sacraments a baseless absurdity, its reverence for forms a senseless superstition. The possibility of going wrong in the opposite direction is not apprehended at all. Such a posture however with regard to the subject, is itself prima face. evidence that those who occupy it are not competent to do justice to the case.

Peace wrote Proverbs

2 Replies

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

via Passage: James 3 (ESV Bible Online).

Peacable? Of course it is! A recent sermon reminded me:

Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her, and she bore a son, and he called his name Peace. And the LORD loved him (2 Sam 12.24)

Peace. Shalom. Solomon..

 

Formulating Nevin’s Doctrine, Real Union or Legal Fiction 4

1 Reply

CONTINUED

Since Nevin was never particularly interested in original sin per se, he never systematically set forth his position on the subject. He says enough, however, for us to summarize a systematic position:

Adam was the natural root of the human race as well as its representative. When he sinned by eating the forbidden fruit he (1) incurred guilt, (2) lost his original righteousness, and (3) became corrupt. It is important to realize that (temporally) all of these things happened simultaneously. Obviously, he could not sin and only later lose his righteousness. Furthermore, the sin itself was the beginning of his corruption (indeed, corruption and want of original righteousness could easily be understood as different aspects of the same reality). Finally, the guilt was imputed because of the sin at the same time that the sin was committed.

Now, all Adam’s descendants who come from him by ordinary generation, come from Adam and Eve as sinners. They are guilty, lacking in righteousness, and corrupt. From this nature springs all subsequent human beings, who as separate individuals manifest this same guilt, lack of righteousness, and corruption. This corruption is simply the continuation of Adam’s first sin. [Why aren’t additional sins passed on in this way? One must remember that Nevin did not deny that Adam was a federal representative of the human race. To this objection he could have simply responded that only the first sin was confirmed into permanent depravity by God, so that it affected his posterity. The first sin especially confirms Adam’s descendants in depravity and guilt for the same reason that it especially confirmed Adam in depravity and guilt.]

Thus, the guilt attending that corruption is the guilt of Adam’s first sin. All Adamites have solidarity with Adam’s sin and guilt. We are guilty, lacking in righteousness, and corrupt because we have union with Adam.

Here we see the similarities and dissimilarities, between our union with Adam and our union with Christ. We are in union with Adam simply by virtue of being human. To be a human being means simply to have acquired our nature from Adam–a corrupt nature. Personal existence is inconceivable without him. Yet Christ is communicated to us by the Holy Spirit as an alien person with an alien righteousness so that we, because we are engrafted into Him, are given justification and sanctification–His righteousness is imputed to us and His holy life is imparted to us so that we ourselves grow in holiness. There is nothing in Nevin’s presentation which renders justification a “transfusion” as in Tridentine theology. [In the January 1854 Biblical Repertory & Princeton Review, Hodge wrote a review of the English translation of Philip Schaff’s History of the Apostolic Church. Since he had already reviewed the original German version, Hodge took this opportunity to simply evaluate the “Mercersburg theology” and the furor it was causing. He magnanimously defends Schaff by claiming that he was himself quite sound but was too much influenced by Nevin! Of special interest in this review is the fact that Hodge praised Schaff’s defense of forensic justification as impeccably sound (pp. 154-155). Yet later in the same article he criticizes Schaff for holding the same view of justification as Nevin (pp. 175-176). Somehow, it is possible for someone who holds to a non-protestant, “romish” view of justification to simultaneously be a clear expounder of the pure Reformed doctrine.]

The fact that the basis of justification is mystical union through the Holy Spirit does not change the fact that the nature of justification is declarative and forensic. The point simply is that there is a basis for God’s declaration–union with Christ.

[John Murray (in The Imputation of Adam’s Sin [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959] p. 70) wrote defending “immediate” imputation: “The one ground upon which the imputation of the righteousness of Christ becomes ours is the union with Christ. In other words, the justified person is constituted righteous by the obedience of Christ because of the solidarity established between Christ and the justified person. The solidarity constitutes the bond by which the righteousness of Christ becomes that of the believer.” Nevin could and would, I think, easily subscribe to this formulation. But Murray continues: “This is to say that the conjunction is immediate. If the case is thus on that side of the analogy which pertains to justification, we should expect the modus operandi to be the same in connection with condemnation.” Here we see that Nevin and Murray are of two different worlds. Nevin never took sides on the question of “mediate” versus “immediate” imputation, and I suspect that he would simply reject the distinction, as Dabney did, as an “over-refinement” (Discussions: Evangelical & Theological, vol 1, [London: Banner of Truth, 1890, 1967], p. 264). But for Nevin, the Holy Spirit is the One through whom there is a “solidarity established between Christ and the justified person.” For Murray this union or solidarity is somehow a transtemporal phenomenon–a legal union, or a property of God’s eternal decrees. Thus Murray makes original sin rest on that sort of solidarity, “[A]ll the members of the race were contemplated by God as destined to exist; they were foreordained to be and the certainty of their existence was thus guaranteed. It is important in this connection to bear in mind that as thus contemplated by God they were contemplated no otherwise than as members of the race in solidaric union with Adam and therefore as having sinned in him. In other words, they are not conceived of in the mind and purpose of God except as one with Adam; they are not contemplated as potentially but as actually one with Adam in his sin” (p. 91).]

TO BE CONTINUED

And we follow the OT pattern of all those Mosaic dunkings

1 Reply

Why Do We Baptize by Dunking People All the Way in Water? | The Mars Hill Blog.

The Mars Hill translation of Hebrews 9.8-10?

By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various immersions, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.

Right. Just read Leviticus. It is full of ceremonial immersions.

And thus Hebrews 10.19-23:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts dunked clean from an evil conscience and our bodies immersed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.

Not that the word “baptism” is in these later verses. But I’m just following through from the versions of the OT “washings” that is demanded by the new revised version of Hebrews 9.10.

Discipleship needs love of God and man added to it?

1 Reply

The Great Commission (making disciples through the gospel) and the Great Commandment (serving our neighbors through loving works) can neither be separated or confused.

via Live at The Gospel Coalition – White Horse Inn Blog.

Right, because one would never want to confuse “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” with “love God” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus never taught that, right? So it is not something included in the Great Commission, right? One moves on from the Great Commission and adds obedience to the Great Commandment. Don’t confuse them, whatever you do.

It is so wonderful that Evangelicals can be saved from simple Biblicism by the sophistications found in the mysteries of “confessional” (sure, whatever they say) Reformed [sic] Theology ™.

(Yes, I realize I’ve had my own problems with those who could be described as “Biblicists.” The label is flexible. Much like describing the quotation above as “Reformed.”)

Don’t waste your slavery

3 Replies

I’ve been posting a bit on Proverbs and the practice and understanding of life that it presupposes and teaches in the context of the Bible. I’ve said a fair bit about freedom (or maybe better, kingship) and slavery. I’m worried I’ve distorted the picture a bit by making slavery bad and freedom good.

It is not good to be a slave in the same way that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He was meant for a wife and we are meant for dominion. But that doesn’t mean all Adam’s time spent alone was wasted.

Paul says that a child is just like a slave, so all the Proverbs begging the son to listen and memorize what his parents tell him are, in a sense, exhortations to be a diligent slave.

The constant temptation in Proverbs is to try to escape slavery by violence or sexual fantasy, or to use one’s mouth to wreak vengeance on rulers who have what you don’t yet. Solomon says that the plan for escaping slavery is diligent slavery. Work and give and save.

I don’t always agree with Dave Ramsey but this principle may lie behind his point that looking for a “fix” for debts, like a con-solidation loan will not work. The person’s perceived shortcut will leave them with the same habits that got him into debt in the first place. You have to change your way of living to change your life.

So you have to learn to be an efficient and cheerful slave in order to be raised from slavery. Otherwise, you will fall back into it. There is no shame in being born in slavery and being freed. There is a great deal of shame in being free and selling yourself into slavery because one is ruled by bad habits and appetites.

So your slavery is there to teach you how to be a free man–or rather, a king.

What Moses never said to Pharaoh

1 Reply

Then Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How long shall this man be a snare to us? Let the men go, that they may serve the Lord their God. Do you not yet understand that Egypt is ruined?” So Moses and Aaron were brought back to Pharaoh. And he said to them, “Go, serve the LORD your God. But which ones are to go?” Moses said, “Only the adults will go, for we are holding a special feast to the LORD in which our young are not permitted to eat. We will leave our sons and daughters here in Egypt with you.”

via Passage: Exodus 10.7-9 (ESV Bible Online).

RePost: 5 things you are not allowed to do on a holy day of worship

2 Replies

1. You are not allowed to weep about your sins when you hear the reading of the Law of God.

And Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, “This day is holy to the LORD your God; do not mourn or weep.” For all the people wept as they heard the words of the Law. Then he said to them, “Go your way. Eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to anyone who has nothing ready, for this day is holy to our LORD. And do not be grieved, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.” So the Levites calmed all the people, saying, “Be quiet, for this day is holy; do not be grieved.” And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words that were declared to them (Nehemiah 8.9-12).

2. You are not allowed to retreat by yourself to worship God.

3. You are not allowed to retreat to a family gathering to worship God.

4. You are not allowed to to exclude foreigners and the disenfranchised when you gather to worship God.

And you shall rejoice before the LORD your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your towns, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are among you, at the place that the Lord your God will choose, to make his name dwell there. You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt; and you shall be careful to observe these statutes. You shall keep the Feast of Booths seven days, when you have gathered in the produce from your threshing floor and your winepress. You shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are within your towns. For seven days you shall keep the feast to the LORD your God at the place that the LORD will choose, because the LORD your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful (Deuteronomy 16.11-15).

5. You are not allowed to fast from eating and drinking for pleasure.

You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household. And you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your towns, for he has no portion or inheritance with you (Deuteronomy 14.22-27).

Related: How to be spiritual according to the Bible.

Dare we believe our children are converted? 1

3 Replies

Think about the hymns we sing in the modern Evangelical church. Aren’t they often about a conscious conversion experience?

But what kind of hymns did God teach Israel to sing?

From Psalm 8:

O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
Out of the mouth of babies and infants,
you have established strength because of your foes,
to still the enemy and the avenger.

And again here is Psalm 71. Notice especially verses 5, 6, and 17:

Rescue me, O my God, from the hand of the wicked,
from the grasp of the unjust and cruel man.
For you, O LORD, are my hope,
my trust, O LORD, from my youth.
Upon you I have leaned from before my birth;
you are he who took me from my mother’s womb.
My praise is continually of you.

I have been as a portent to many,
but you are my strong refuge.
My mouth is filled with your praise,
and with your glory all the day.
Do not cast me off in the time of old age;
forsake me not when my strength is spent.
For my enemies speak concerning me;
those who watch for my life consult together
and say, “God has forsaken him;
pursue and seize him,
for there is none to deliver him.”

O God, be not far from me;
O my God, make haste to help me!
May my accusers be put to shame and consumed;
with scorn and disgrace may they be covered
who seek my hurt.
But I will hope continually
and will praise you yet more and more.
My mouth will tell of your righteous acts,
of your deeds of salvation all the day,
for their number is past my knowledge.
With the mighty deeds of the Lord God I will come;
I will remind them of your righteousness, yours alone.

O God, from my youth you have taught me,
and I still proclaim your wondrous deeds.
So even to old age and gray hairs,
O God, do not forsake me,
until I proclaim your might to another generation,
your power to all those to come.

And Psalm 22:

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
“He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Be not far from me,
for trouble is near,
and there is none to help.

I have sung many hymns about adult conversion from unbelief yet I’m not aware of one Psalm which speaks of that subject. On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever sung a hymn that called for me to put myself in the place of one who was regenerated in the womb. That is a sad state of affairs. These Psalms were sung in Israel’s public worship of God. They were means of discipling Israel and forming their outlook and expectations. Our hymns do the same but in the wrong direction.

The idea that their relationship began from the womb was not some sort of fantastic exception, but the general expectation.

And why shouldn’t all Christians possess the expectation that their children are believers? After all, that is what God has promised us. God promised “to be God to you and to your offspring after you” (Gen 17.7). The “lovingkindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children’s children” (Psa 103.17).

“And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,” says the LORD, “from this time forth and forevermore.” (Isa 59.21).

God doesn’t say through Isaiah, that His Spirit and word will be put in the mouths of a Christian’s grandchildren, but rather that they “will not depart from” them. Obviously, this passage does not discount the fact that all children are born sinners, but it does seem to promise more than the bare hope of a future conversion experience.