Archives For Protestantism

John Chrysostom 250px

Given the nickname “Golden Mouthed,” St. John “Chrysostom” was a well-known preacher and Archbishop of Constantinople during the second part of the 4th century. His sermon on John 3:16 is just as powerful after 1,600 years, perhaps even more so given our increased individual and societal wealth. Jesus’ message hasn’t changed or become more palatable over the millennia:

“God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

What He says, is of this kind: Marvel not that I am to be lifted up that you may be saved, for this seems good to the Father, and He has so loved you as to give His Son for slaves, and ungrateful slaves. Yet a man would not do this even for a friend, nor readily even for a righteous man; as Paul has declared when he said,Scarcely for a righteous man will one die. (Romans 5:7) Now he spoke at greater length, as speaking to believers, but here Christ speaks concisely, because His discourse was directed to Nicodemus, but still in a more significant manner, for each word had much significance. For by the expression, so loved, and that other, God the world, He shows the great strength of His love. Large and infinite was the interval between the two. He, the immortal, who is without beginning, the Infinite Majesty, they but dust and ashes, full of ten thousand sins, who, ungrateful, have at all times offended Him; and these He loved. Again, the words which He added after these are alike significant, when He says, that He gave His Only-begotten Son, not a servant, not an Angel, not an Archangel. And yet no one would show such anxiety for his own child, as God did for His ungrateful servants.

His Passion then He sets before him not very openly, but rather darkly; but the advantage of the Passion He adds in a clearer manner, saying, That every one that believes in Him. should not perish, but have everlasting life. For when He had said, must be lifted up, and alluded to death, lest the hearer should be made downcast by these words, forming some mere human opinions concerning Him, and supposing that His death was a ceasing to be, observe how He sets this right, by saying, that He that was given was The Son of God, and the cause of life, of everlasting life. He who procured life for others by death, would not Himself be continually in death; for if they who believed on the Crucified perish not, much less does He perish who is crucified. He who takes away the destitution of others much more is He free from it; He who gives life to others, much more to Himself does He well forth life. Do you see that everywhere there is need of faith? For He calls the Cross the fountain of life; which reason cannot easily allow, as the heathens now by their mocking testify. But faith which goes beyond the weakness of reasoning, may easily receive and retain it. And whence did God so love the world? From no other source but only from his goodness.

Let us now be abashed at His love, let us be ashamed at the excess of His lovingkindness, since He for our sakes spared not His Only-begotten Son, yet we spare our wealth to our own injury; He for us gave His Own Son, but we for Him do not so much as despise money, nor even for ourselves. And how can these things deserve pardon? If we see a man submitting to sufferings and death for us, we set him before all others, count him among our chief friends, place in his hands all that is ours, and deem it rather his than ours, and even so do not think that we give him the return that he deserves. But towards Christ we do not preserve even this degree of right feeling. He laid down His life for us, and poured forth His precious Blood for our sakes, who were neither well-disposed nor good, while we do not pour out even our money for our own sakes, and neglect Him who died for us, when He is naked and a stranger; and who shall deliver us from the punishment that is to come? For suppose that it were not God that punishes, but that we punished ourselves; should we not give our vote against ourselves? Should we not sentence ourselves to the very fire of hell, for allowing Him who laid down His life for us, to pine with hunger? But why speak I of money? Had we ten thousand lives, ought we not to lay them all down for Him? And yet not even so could we do what His benefits deserve. For he who confers a benefit in the first instance, gives evident proof of his kindness, but he who has received one, whatever return he makes, he repays as a debt, and does not bestow as a favor; especially when he who did the first good turn was benefiting his enemies. And he who repays both bestows his gifts on a benefactor, and himself reaps their fruit besides. But not even this induces us; more foolish are we than any, putting golden necklaces about our servants and mules and horses, and neglecting our Lord who goes about naked, and passes from door to door, and ever stands at our outlets, and stretches forth His hands to us, but often regarding Him with unpitying eye; yet these very things He undergoes for our sake. Gladly does He hunger that you may be fed; naked does He go that He may provide for you the materials for a garment of incorruption, yet not even so do you give up any of your own. Some of your garments are moth-eaten, others are a load to your coffers, and a needless trouble to their possessors, while He who gave you these and all else that you possess goes naked.

But perhaps you do not lay them by in your coffers, but wear them and make yourself fine with them. And what gain you by this? Is it that the street people may see you? What then? They will not admire you who wearest such apparel, but the man who supplies garments to the needy; so if you desire to be admired, by clothing others, you will the rather get infinite applause. Then too God as well as man shall praise you; now none can praise, but all will grudge at you, seeing you with a body well arrayed, but having a neglected soul. So harlots have adornment, and their clothes are often more than usually expensive and splendid; but the adornment of the soul is with those only who live in virtue.

These things I say continually, and I will not cease to say them, not so much because I care for the poor, as because I care for your souls. For they will have some comfort, if not from you, yet from some other quarter; or even if they be not comforted, but perish by hunger, the harm to them will be no great matter. What did poverty and wasting by hunger injure Lazarus! But none can rescue you from hell, if you obtain not the help of the poor; we shall say to you what was said to the rich man, who was continually broiling, yet gained no comfort. God grant that none ever hear those words, but that all may go into the bosom of Abraham; by the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

What does “Missional” mean?

admin —  September 26, 2012 — 4 Comments

It’s a hot buzzword right now, but do we all have a common understanding?

Rather than offering a “correct” definition, I would appreciate you letting me know in the comments what you mean when you say “missional.”

Were Puritans So Dour?

Owen —  November 23, 2010 — Leave a comment

The Puritans

We’ve all been taught that the Puritans were a dark, dismal bunch.  Our teachers lied to us:

Contrary to popular impression, the Puritan was no ascetic.  If he continually warned against the vanity of the creatures as misused by fallen man, he never praised hair shirts or dry crusts.  He liked good food, good drink and homely comforts; and while he laughed at mosquitoes, he found it a real hardship to drink water when the beer ran out.

The Puritan Family:  Religion and Domestic Relations in 17th Century New England, Edmund Morgan.

John Owen

John Owen, probably the greatest Puritan theologian, would walk through Oxford ‘hair powdered, cambric band with large costly band strings, velvet jacket, breeches set round at knees with ribbons pointed, and Spanish leather boots with cambric tops.’

- The Unquenchable Flame:  Discovereing the Heart of the Reformation, Michael Reeves

Charles Spurgeon on John Wesley

Owen —  September 24, 2010 — Leave a comment

Charles Spurgeon and John Wesley were famous leaders in opposing camps of Protestant Christianity.  Spurgeon was a dedicated Calvinist, and Wesley an Arminian who provided the foundation for the Methodist and Holiness movements.

Given the hostility that too often exists between these groups and their followers, it is refreshing to see what Charles Spurgeon had to say about a saint with whom he disagreed on some major issues.

Charles Spurgeon

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.

The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one “of whom the world was not worthy.”

You can read the full essay “In Defense of Calvinism,” from which this excerpt was taken.

On Love for our Fellow Man

Owen —  June 12, 2010 — Leave a comment

I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said:

Golden Gate in the Clouds

“Stop! Don’t do it!”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
“Well, there is so much to live for.”
“Like what?”
“Well, are you religious?”
He said yes.
I said, “Me too! Are you Christian?”
“Christian.”
“Me too! Are you Lutheran, Catholic or Protestant?”
“Protestant.”
“Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
“Baptist.”
“Wow, me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
“Baptist Church of the Lord.”
“Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of the Lord or are you Reformed Baptist Church of the Lord?”
“Reformed Baptist Church of the Lord.”
“Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of the Lord, reformation of 1879, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of the Lord, reformation of 1915?”
He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of the Lord, reformation of 1879.”
I said, “Die, heretic,” and pushed him off.

-Emo Philips, via Homebrewed Theology.

Mark Driscoll talks about the decline of denominations and their hold on Christianity

Classic:

Dear Christianity Today:

In response to Paul D. Apostle’s article about the Galatian church in your January issue, I have to say how appalled I am by the unchristian tone of this hit piece. Why the negativity? Has he been to the Galatian church recently? I happen to know some of the people at that church, and they are the most loving, caring people I’ve ever met.

Phyllis Snodgrass; Ann Arbor, MI

Dear CT:

I’ve seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and frankly I’m surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the Church deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr. Apostle for many years now has had a penchant for thinking he has a right to “mark” certain Christian teachers who don’t agree with his biblical position. Certainly I commend him for desiring to stay faithful to God’s word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the Church, and gives credence to the opposition’s view that Christians are judgmental, arrogant people who never show God’s love.

Ken Groener; San Diego, CA

Continue reading “If Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was Published in Christianity Today

This is what happens when you try to please two masters, the world and God:

Mr. Warren told CNN’s Larry King on Monday that he “never once even gave an endorsement” of the proposition, which said marriage in the state could only involve one man and one woman.

What Mr. Warren said he did do was send out a video to his 22,000-member church explaining his position the week before Proposition 8 went before state voters on Nov. 4.

“Now let me say this really clearly: We support Proposition 8,” he said on the video, “and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues, I come out very clear.”

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said his denial is “absolutely baffling.”

“Whether he supports Proposition 8 now, after the fact, is overshadowed by the bizarre claim that he did not say what the evidence so clearly proves he said.”

Warren waver on Prop 8 stuns leaders – Washington Times.

A problem many Christians face.

Francis Chan is the pastor of Cornerstone Church, in my hometown of Simi Valley (near Los Angeles), where I used to attend the youth services.

John Calvin was younger than Martin Luther, and had a great respect for him.  Sometimes painted as rivals, or even enemies, the truth is more complex.  This, for example, is an amazing ending for a letter that Calvin wrote to Luther:

In a letter which Calvin wrote to Luther, but which he never received or read, for Luther’s friend Melachton, did not think it advisable to deliver it to him, Calvin asked Luther’s opinion about a certain matter which gave him much trouble. Beautiful and magnificent is the ending of this letter.

“For I would preferably converse with you personally, not only on this matter, but also on other matters. But that which is not granted to us on earth, will presently, I hope, be imparted to us in the Kingdom of God. Hail to you, most excellent man, servant of Christ, and honoured father. May God bless you always through his Spirit until the end, to the mutual well being of his church.”