Protestants, baptism and the covenants (Part 2)

More sweeping generalisations which may not be true. Perhaps I should call them hypotheses for testing.

• For Lutherans the sacraments are the covenant/promise with the individual ("This cup is the new covenant in my blood").
• For the Reformed the sacraments are the sign of a covenant/promise which existed before hand with the individual ("He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.").
• For Baptists the sacraments are reminders of the covenant/promise that was made before hand and has no necessary connection with the individual ("Do this in remembrance of me").

Please disprove my hypothesis.

A command to baptism "pertaining to all"

Passages from Luther suggesting he thought the Baptism should be universal (indiscriminate) because the New Covenant included all:

If [inclusion in the kingdom, justification] was brought about with the Jews in the Old Testament through the medium of circumcision, why would God not do the same thing with the Gentiles through the medium of the new covenant (novo pacto) of baptism? The command pertains to all (praeceptum universale est): "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them …" Hence whereas circumcision was commanded only to the descendants of Abraham, baptism is commanded to all the nations, with the promise of salvation if they believe.

(WA 42,622,19-25 = LW3,104 on Gen 17:3-6 cited in Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther By Jonathan D. Trigg, p.105)

Our baptism, thus, is a strong and sure foundation, affirming that God has made a covenant with all the world to be a God of the heathen in all the world, as the gospel says. Also that Christ has commanded the gospel to be preached in all the world, as also the prophets have declared in many ways. As a sign of this covenant he has insituted baptism, commanded and enjoined upon all heathen, as Matt. declares: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father," etc.

(Martin Luther, pp. 257-258, Concerning Rebaptism in Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings)

Protestants, baptism and the covenants

I'm not sure that this is right but it is seeming from my reading that:

• Luther thought that the New Covenant is with every individual. It may be rejected by unbelief but the promise of the New Covenant is for all.
• Reformed theology seems to see the New Covenant as being with believers and their children (unless they reject it). However, I may be wrong here as while it is clear that they see believer's children as in the 'covenant community' I'm not sure that it is the same thing as thinking they are in the covenant.
• Credobaptists believe that the New Covenant is with believers only.

If this is a true summary then the different beliefs about baptism are simple to explain. However, I am 90% sure that my sweeping generalisation is wrong. But I'm trying to get things right in my head as I go.

Please, please, please correct me where I'm wrong.

This blog

This blog seems to have turned into my notebook. I don't know if this a good or a bad thing. It must make reading it intolerable though. My lack of readers may be due to this, but on the up side my lack of readers also ensures that it doesn't matter.

God's word and infant baptism

Assume that the first baptism is without faith. Tell me which is the greater and the more important in the second baptism, the Word of God or faith? Is it not true that the Word of God is greater and more important than faith, since faith builds and is founded on the Word of God rather than God's Word on faith? Furthermore faith may waver and change but God's Word remains forever. Then too, tell me, if one of these two should be otherwise, which should it rather be: the immutable Word or the changeable faith? Would it not more reasonably be the faith that should be subject to change rather than the Word of God? It is fairer to assume that the Word of God would change faith, if a right one were lacking, than that faith would change the Word of God.

(Concerning Rebaptism, pp. 257-258 of Basic Theological Writings)

I guess credobaptists realise this and so that is why they don't accept that baptism is primarily an arrow down.

Hot theology

Bruce McCormack has been weighing in on the debate about Peter Enns' book (see here and here if you missed it and are curious), and as a aside mentions something I have noticed but haven't had the theological knowledge to put a fancy Greek name to:

The last thing most of my friends want is a truly Protestant theology (whether Lutheran or Reformed); theosis is the hot topic in soteriology and both Lutheran and Reformed theologians are struggling mightily to find something akin to a theosis doctrine in their own church fathers (in Luther but also in Calvin - as Todd Billings’ recent book amply demonstrates). (source HT: Michael Bird)

Not only do I not have the knowledge to put a fancy name to it but I find it too mind-bending to try and analyse theosis in the light of the Bible. Similarly I can't really make up my mind about the whole Enn's saga (bizarrely, or perhaps not, I think Peter Leithart has managed the best critique of the book). But it is nice to be aware of what is hot in theology at the moment as it all trickles down and I often swallow stuff before realising later that its not as straight forward as I thought. I hate swallowing stuff unknowingly.

BTW I must remember to get round to reading Bruce McCormack properly. The tiny amount I have read has been very stimulating.

Excluded from the generations

It is easy in some ways to see the structure of Genesis as the author kindly provides us with section headings (although slightly confusingly when X is in the title it is the children of X and not X himself in focus):

1. the generations of the heavens and the earth [about humanity as a whole and climaxing in God's curse of humanity]
2. the generations of Noah [about Noah but climaxing at the end with his blessings/curses for his sons]
3. the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. [about the children of Noah's son's (the nations) and climaxing with God's judgment of them at Babel]
4. the generations of Shem. ['just' a list of Shem's descendants]
5. the generations of Terah.[about Abraham and Isaac closing with Abraham and God's blessing of Isaac]
6. the generations of Ishmael [a short list of his descendants]
7. the generations of Isaac [about Jacob and climaxing with his blessing and renaming by God]
8. the generations of Esau [a short list of Esau's descendants]
9. the generations of Jacob [about Joseph and Judah and climaxing with the blessing of both]

Lot's to think about in this structure but I've been thinking about Judah and Tamar again due to Peter Dray's prompting. Gordon Wenham comments on this episode that:

If scholars had taken more seriously the editor's title in 37:2, "This is the family history of Jacob," they might not have been so wont to write off this chapter as irrelevant. Chaps. 37-50 are not just the story of Joseph but the story of Jacob's family. Therefore, to have sections entirely devoted to other sons of Jacob should not be surprising.

However when you think about that there is a further problem which jumps out at you. Why are what are perhaps the most significant stories about some of Jacob's children (Simeon, Levi, Dinah and Reuben) in the wrong section? Why are they in Genesis 34 and Genesis 35:22 when naturally they belong in Chapters 37-50? The answer seems to come in what I think is the climax of Genesis: Jacob's blessing of his sons. Jacob starts with considering his eldest sons:

"Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. Unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence, because you went up to your father's bed; then you defiled it—he went up to my couch! "Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are their swords. Let my soul come not into their council; O my glory, be not joined to their company. For in their anger they killed men, and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce, and their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel."

Not much of a blessing! In fact it is clear that Jacob is excluding his 3 eldest son's from the promise because of their behaviour in the other section of the book. Then, In a way that seems difficult to hold together Jacob blesses both Judah and Joseph in very strong terms which in one breath give prominence to Judah and in another to Joseph. It is clear how Joseph justifies these high blessings but the story of Judah and Tamar hardly seems to make Judah fit for "the ruler's staff". In a way this is of course typical of God, for he is a God of grace, but yet there may still be a reason for it. Wenham again:

There is a glaring contrast between Jacob's inconsolable grief over the "death" of Joseph, described at the end of chap.37, and the absence of any mourning by Judah when two of his sons died, as described in 38:7-10. Judah seems to be a hard and callous man. [...] In this story, he not only fails to mourn the death of his two sons but he summarily orders his daughter-in-law to be burned. Yet what a different Judah we meet in 44:18-34. Here he appeals for Benjamin's release with great warmth and tenderness [...] Clearly, Judah is a changed man, and this story shows the beginning of the transformation when he admits "She is in the right, not I" (38:26). [...] in its biographical sketches, character change is what Genesis is all about: Abram becomes Abraham; Jacob becomes Israel.

So Genesis 38 is a turning point in the life of Judah. Here he repents of sin which contrasts with Simeon and Levi in Genesis 34:30-31 who they are defiant in their own righteousness in the face of a stinging rebuke from their father. Wenham mentions Judah's new tenderness later in Genesis but there he also seems to take the role of the leader amongst the brothers in Joseph's absence. In Genesis 43:1-10 Judah speaks on behalf of his brothers in conversation with Jacob and pledges for Benjamin's safety. In Genesis 44 we also read of "Judah and his brothers" where Judah again acts as spokesman for his brothers when talking to Joseph.

So perhaps the key to Genesis 38 comes in its final verses:

• Judah repents
• The line of the Seed is continued with the birth of children.
• The younger ousts the older to be pre-eminent.

Those are just some thoughts to keep me going anyway.

Cullmann on Baptism

I have been re-reading Oscar Cullmann's brilliant Baptism in the New Testament again. He concludes his little, but influential, book like this:

In the New Testament it is certainly proved that Baptism is applied to adult Jews and heathen who come over to Christianity. Proof of infant Baptism is at best indirectly demonstrable from observable indications. On the other hand, infant Baptism is in every detail congruous with the doctrine of Baptism, in the following ways:

1. in so far as Christ in his death and resurrection procures for all men and independent of them a general Baptism [i.e. judgment overcome with new life];
2. in so far as God in the entirely sovereign act of grace of Church Baptism permits the person baptised, through an incorporation into the fellowship of the Body of Christ at a specific place, to take part in that once-for-all saving event;
3. in so far as faith as response to this grace is decisive;
4. in so far as Baptism in its nature is the completion of circumcision and of the proselyte baptism connected, with it.

From these final conclusions, both adult and infant Baptism are to be regarded as equally biblical. (p.70)

Wonderfully this book is now on the internet here (pdf). Go read it if you can.

The sacraments as God's arrow down

Glen Scrivener comments that Mike Reeves says that "the sacraments are not our 'arrow up' to God and the world. They’re His 'arrow down'. His promise to us, not our promise to Him." I was reminded of that comment when reading Melanchthon today who writes in his Loci Communes (1543):

Profane people think that the sacraments are signs of profession which distinguish us from other people [...] or are symbols of certain functions regarding other people [...] But although many purposes have been ordained for the sacraments, yet far at the head of all of these must be placed this chief purpose, namely that they might be signs of God's will toward us, that is, added testimonies of the promise of grace [...] These rites are not human spectacles like the tragedies of the Greeks, which were set up so that some kind of commemoration of things done might be handed down to posterity; but they have far higher purposes. (p.139)

The Look

Thanks to Sovereign Grace Music for bringing this old hymn alive with a modern setting (you can download the mp3 free here). I didn't know the hymn before but the words are amazing.

In evil long I took delight,
    Unawed by shame or fear;
Till a new object struck my sight,
    And stopped my wild career.

I saw one hanging on a tree,
    In agonies and blood;
Who fixed his languid eyes on me,
    As near his cross I stood.

Sure, never till my latest breath,
    Can I forget that look;
It seemed to charge me with his death,
    Though not a word he spoke.

My conscience felt, and owned the guilt,
    And plunged me in despair;
I saw my sins his blood had spilt,
    And helped to nail him there.

Alas! I knew not what I did,
    But now my tears are vain;
Where shall my trembling soul be hid?
    For I the LORD have slain.

A second look he gave, which said,
    "I freely all forgive;
This blood is for thy ransom paid,
    I die, that thou may’st live."

Thus, while his death my sin displays,
    In all its blackest hue;
(Such is the mystery of grace)
    It seals my pardon too.

With pleasing grief and mournful joy,
    My spirit now is filled;
That I should such a life destroy,
    Yet live by him I killed.

One of the best things about blogs is you can save stuff for yourself at a later date.

A journey with sacraments

I think that I became a paedobaptist for the second time (!) because I decided that every argument against it, if valid would also overturn circumcision, because the differences between the OT and the NT that were relied upon to distinguish the two were shown up to be no difference at all by Romans 9-11.

I think I've now come to a 'high' Lutheranish position for the same reason. Arguments about real presence and effectual rituals rely on seeing God as either free or bound. However the OT sees God as both ultimately free, but graciously choosing to bind himself in covenant to certain signs. In the OT he is seen as both as everywhere and residing in the Temple. It sees sacrifices as themselves effectual, and yet worse than pointless without repentance. How can you reconcile the two? I haven't got a clue. In that I am like Luther who said to Zwingli:

"I do not ask how Christ can be God and man and how His natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ Himself says, 'This is my body.' I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments..."

Judah and Tamar retold

"may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the Lord will give you by this young woman." (Ruth 4:12)

A strange blessing to give a couple considering Judah and Tamar were as far from the perfect couple as you could imagine. However, perhaps this was important to the author of Ruth as the story bares some striking similarities to the story in Genesis 38. In addition the story ends with "the generations of Perez" giving a genealogy beginning with Perez and ending with David.

After some reflection I think I may go so far as to say that Ruth is the recounting of what the faithful people of God act like in contrast to the cautionary tale of Judah and Tamar. Here are some of the similarities I spotted.

Gen 38	Ruth
Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite	Elimelech moved away from his people to Moab
Judah and his son marry a Canaanite	Mahlon and Chilion marry Moabites
Judah's two sons die	Elimelech and his two sons die
Judah and Onan act unfaithfully as kinsman-redeemer	Boaz acts faithfully as kinsman-redeemer, the un-named redeemer of Ruth 4 does not act faithfully
Tamar faithfully seeks to continue the line	Ruth faithfully seeks to continue the line
Tamar offers herself as a prostitute to Judah	Ruth seeks to seduce Boaz in a way which could almost be considered entrapment
Judah dishonourable and seduced by Tamar	Boaz is honourable in his conduct to Ruth
Tamar is included in the people of Israel and is an ancestor of Boaz, David and Jesus	Ruth is included in the people of Israel and is an ancestor of David and Jesus

However, as I find Genesis 38 one of the more puzzling bits of Scripture perhaps I haven't helped myself understand Ruth any better.

Anointing of Jesus

"I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." (Matthew 26:13)

I think I ought to do a list of episodes which appear in every single one of the four gospels. I don't think there can be many and arguably this one isn't one as the four accounts of Jesus being anointed do not all tally nicely and there seems to be more than one event described in the NT. But anyhow, I have always found this phrase in Matthew's account weird. But I think the sermon I heard at church on Sunday has hinted at a reason behind it.

Of course the anointing is to burial and that is explicit in 3 of the 4 accounts. However could it not also be an anointing of Jesus as King? It is like David and Saul but as different as he is different yet similar to them. It is an anointing to death, through which comes glory; an anointing by a lowly woman and not a mighty prophet or priest.

I don't know, I'm just musing.

Reading Romans backwards

I set myself the task of reading Romans backwards the other day. Well not literally, but by focusing on how the application of chapters 12-16 followed from Romans 1-11. One thing that struck me doing it this way is how running through the whole book is the question: who judges?

All the judgment language in Romans (Justification, Righteousness etc) is often brought to a point with one of two questions:

• How do we receive a favourable judgment (Legalism v. Grace)? Or
• How do we know who has received a favourable judgment (Jew v. Gentile)?

Both these questions are important to Paul writing Romans, but seem secondary to the larger question of who does the judging.

Romans 1 dwells on the judgment made by God (on all humanity, Paul does not start with Gentiles in chapter 1 and then move onto Jews in chapters 2-3)

Romans 2 questions those who take on judgment for themselves how they will stand in God's judgment.

Romans 3 is again about the universal and condemning nature of that judgment.

Romans 5 talks about the two judgments available, one belonging to Adam and one to Christ.

Romans 12 says that the Christian should "think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment" and should leave judgment (vengence) to God.

Romans 13 talks about God's judgment being invested in the proper authorities.

Romans 14 at length teaches how we should not judge each other, and in particular the weak.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? To me at least this has been a bit of an epiphany.

More musings on the differences between the Reformers and Evangelicalism

Further to my recent musing on the difference between Evangelicals of the eighteenth century onwards and the Reformers of the sixteenth here, I am now thinking that the root difference was that the Reformers looked for 'revival' through a top-down reformation of theology and worship, where as the Evangelicals looked for the change in hearts of individual Christians which would then lead to the reformation of society. [Phew long sentence]

So a monarchal compared to a democratic approach.

This is no doubt partly a result of the Enlightenment but also other factors.

The Puritans may form a bridge between the two in England.

Goldsworthy MP3

• "The Necessity and Viability of Biblical Theology" (SBTS, 18 March 2008)

Evangelicalism and the Enlightenment

Lots of interesting books coming out of IVP at the moment. One of them includes the following in the blurb:

David Bebbington's Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, published in 1989, offered an intriguing hypothesis regarding the genesis of this movement. He argued that evangelical religion had emerged as a substantially new entity through trans-Atlantic evangelical revival in the 1730s, and had taken a collaborative rather than antithetical stance towards the Enlightenment. In both respects, Bebbington distanced himself from older interpretations that had held the opposite view. (Source)

I wonder if Bebbington is right or not....

Anyway, I can't stop, I should be writing an essay on Land Law.

Mealtime

OT sacrifices can often be thought of offerings of food for God to 'eat'. Graciously in the OT God allows the priests especially, but the rest of the people as well, to share in these meals.

In the NT we don't bring offerings of food to God, instead God presents us with food to eat. Food that is greater and also more expensive than the spotless lambs offered by Israel to their God.

The Christ Files

I thought a few people may be interested in this new TV series from John Dickson (Australian evangelist). He's written a lot of books which include the wonderfully titled (and very good) If I were God—I'd make myself clearer... (available from The Good Book Co).

Anyway he has lined up an incredible list of the best of the best of sensible scholars out there to interview, so hopefully it will be pretty good and will be shown in the UK soon. You can view a whole load of video clips on the website: www.thechristfiles.com.au. My favourite bit has to be James Charlesworth on the differences between Qumran and Jesus. Here is the blurb:

The Christ Files is a full-scale historical documentary based on the book of the same name by Dr. John Dickson, Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and Honorary Associate of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Australia.

Filmed in seven countries the documentary reveals the earliest and most important manuscript evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, including the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, the apostle Paul and the controversial Gnostic Gospels.

Neither a work of fanciful scepticism nor of Christian propaganda The Christ Files provides viewers with a front row seat to the facts behind Western civilisation’s most influential story.

Interviews with twelve of the most prominent scholars and historians and access to some of Israel’s most important archaeological sites give this documentary a unique authority.

(Hat tip to Michael Bird).

The Table of Nations: another side of the story

Dave Bish has just written a great post about the seep and recurring problem with humanity as told through the genealogies of the bible, particularly the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.

Anyway, this encouraged me to take up and read (as Dave Bish's blog has a habit of doing) and I felt like sharing a few random, and more positive, observations on Genesis 9-11.

I was just listening to some lectures by Bruce Waltke the other day. He observes that is the Table of Nations seems to be in the wrong place chronologically. According to Genesis 11 (part of) the reason for the dispersing of people and the different nations that result is the sin making a name for themselves. However by placing the Table of Nations before that Moses seems to God's call to 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth' (Genesis 9:1; 7). It is blessing and a reminder that Noah is a new Adam and the world has a new start.

Of course before we get going sin has creeped in again with Ham's dishonour towards his father in drawing attention to his naked father (unlike Dave Bish I'm not so sure Noah sinned as Ham is the one who is blamed). This leads to the cursing of Ham and the blessing of Shem and Japheth. However it is notable that the blessings of the brothers is not the same.

"Blessed be the LORD [YHWH], the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant." (9:26-27)

YHWH was the covenant name of God, the name that showed his special relationship to his people. Shem and Japheth both receive blessings but Noah gives a greater blessing to Shem by saying that God will be with his line.

This blessing is not just for Shem but for his decendents and the Hebrews in particular (Note the promanence brought to Eber, who gave his name to the Hebrews, in Genesis 10:21). And this is how we should make this passage ours today, for we are the children of Abraham (Romans 9:7) if by faith we unite ourselves with the one who was physically his child.

Nevertheless this blessing does not come in a straightforward way. Dave Bish can see the many examples of sin in genealogies. For me in Genesis this is shown as much as anything by the declining life spans of the people (see Genesis 11). As the author of Hebrews points out even Abraham who YHWH was especially close to still did not see much blessing and lived in tents hoping for something better (Hebrews 11:9). His 175 years was less than his father, and in the grand scheme it was not long before he fell under the curse of death.

Perhaps though in Genesis 7-11 we also see how God will bless his people when Sin and it's consequences reigns on the earth. In Genesis 7-9 God seems to be destroying the world to recreate it. The trouble is he doesn't complete the destruction as Noah and his family bring the pollution into the new world. In Genesis 11 God shows his determination to again bless the world despite the sins of humanity. He judges the world at Babel in order to continue the filling of earth he promised/commanded Noah, his mercy wins through again.

Peter and Paul recognised that this pattern of God blessing his covenant people, and judging the world to recreate it, reached its climax in Jesus Christ the seed of Abraham. God was merciful in the flood and held back his anger, as he had been merciful to Adam, Eve and Cain. On Jesus though the Father would pour out the full judgment on sin (cf Rom 3:25), but also bring to fulfilment the promise to his covenant people in Jesus' resurrection life. And this can be ours too. Not by birth into a line of promise, but by rebirth following death in baptism (Romans 6; likened to the flood in 1 Peter 3:18-22).

Pickings from the blogosphere

It's been a while since I did this.

• Ruth the Moabitess Absolutely brilliant stuff from Peter Leithart. It takes just 30secs to read but it is taking a long time to think about.
• Luther vs. Zwingli on the Lords Supper by Trevin Wax. A good summary of the Marburg Colloquy. Trevin Wax sees the main issue to be Christology (Mike Reeves agrees in these lectures) although Martin Greschat thinks it was how God communes with us (through external means such as the Words and Sacraments, or more directly). It's all so confusing.
• Read Gordon Cheng's comments on Tim Keller's apologetics amidst the comments on Tim Challies blog and then read Time Keller respond here. Then leave some time to do some serious thinking about how you present the Gospel.

2 questions

1. What shall we do with the sudden declaring of all foods clean in the New Covenant? That's what I am thinking about at the moment as my Bible reading plan takes me through Leviticus (when I bother to follow it). And what does that teach us about the Gospel? Incidentally I am a little sceptical of the use of David Field's word studying in Romans just because I think uncleanness is a really important. How can we accept that because the word 'law' does not appear after Romans 13:10 that we don't have to fit Romans 14 (on vegetables) into our reasoning.
2. What did Calvin base the structure of his 1559 Institutes on? The Creed (as Mike Reeves in his great talks on Calvin suggests along with others such as TF Torrance) or Romans (as JI Packer says)? Or is this just the universal structure of great theology, seeing as it also appears quite Trinitarian? But most important of all... am I just too much of geek because these sorts of things nag at me?

Anyhow, I am so rushed of my feet this week that is the best I can manage for a post. Sorry.

Structure

Ephesians is often treated as a pure type example of the Pauline method that "the indicative precedes the imperative."

But what Paul does first is pray. (Mark Horne)

Sorry for my continued absence.

Calvin the evangelist

UCCF's Theology Network is up and running. Lots for me to enjoy exploring in coming weeks.

Interestingly part of the inspiration for setting it up seems to be John Calvin's evangelistic work (sadly much ignored usually):

In 1555, based in Geneva, John Calvin established a top secret programme for the evangelisation of his native France. Using an underground network, with safe houses and hiding places, he slipped agents of the gospel across the border into France to plant new (sometimes literally) underground churches. Its success was astounding: the evangelical faith exploded in both numbers and influence in France. More than 10% of the entire population became Protestant, including something like a third of the nobility. Geneva became a nerve-centre for world evangelisation as missionaries were dispatched from Geneva to Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Italy, and even South America. [read more]

This reminded me of something else I had recently read about his few years in Strasbourg at an earlier time:

He placed great importance on fostering the independence of individual members, on kindling and promoting faith in each of them, and on having them assume their individual responsibility for the congregation. Intensive Bible study and a strict church discipline were the means he used to reach these goals. Calvin also succeeded in winning back a remarkable number of Anabaptists to the Protestant fold. It is no coincidence that he entered his name in the membership list of the tailors' guild on July 29, 1539 - a guild known for the many Anabaptists and their sympathizers in its midst. The woman whom Calvin married in Strasbourg, Idelette de Bure, was the wido of an Anabaptist he himself had converted.

(pp. 147f; Greschat, Martin; Martin Bucer: A reformer and his Times)

Of course not everyone might agree that the Anabaptists needed converting :)

Protestantism and pluralism

The Protestantism of the reformers is different from contemporary Christianity in many ways. It is particularly different from Evangelicalism surrounding the issue of pluralism.

1. Exclusive where we are inclusive

The term Protestant comes from the Protestation at Speyer. This was a protest by the Protestant princes at the Emperor's insistence that the Mass be permitted in all the territories of the Holy Roman Empire. The protest was not directly at the denial of the rights of the evangelicals to worship but at the idea that two rites (evangelical and Roman) may be permitted in the same region. It was inconceivable to them that they Christian princes could allow worship that denied the Gospel (i.e. the Mass). The truth was universal and pluralism cannot be permitted if a prince has the power to prevent it.

This is clearly different to the view of almost everyone today, whether Christian or not. Freedom of religion is one of the most basic rights of citizens in the West. Interestingly the first emergence of this idea in England was in Cromwell's (Puritan) Commenwealth.

2. Inclusive where we are exclusive

The other thing that is striking as a twenty-first century Christian reading the Reformers is that they were not separatists.

Martin Luther as late as 1920 presents his book The Freedom of a Christian to the pope appealing to him to preach the teachings of the Reformation! Martin Luther, nor any of the Reformers that I can tell, felt compelled to leave the Roman Catholic church. Rather they considered that the Church of Rome left them and the teaching of the Early Church. At least that was how it was understood by the Protestants. I think in this the Reformers paralleled Paul's practice in mission. He started in the Synagogues time after time and usually only started preaching apart from them when they had ejected him.

If the church is ever in the news today it is because of new threats of divisions and threatened separation. When considering the debate within Anglicanism today, none of the Reformers would act like some (but not all) of their supposed followers do today. They threaten to split from the Church unless the bible is obeyed by the authorities within the Church. The Reformers trusted the Word to do it's work, and as long as they weren't actually prevented from preaching that Word they looked forward to the renewal of the fallen Church of which they were a part.

Interestingly the first major separations from the Church of England were by (some) Puritans.

Ooo, I have so much more to say about ecumenicalism (e.g. what we can learn from the Donatists, Justification by faith as an ecumenical doctrine, the possibilities for evangelism and church discipline) but it is probably not worth saying.

In the end...

I don't know whether modern day evangelicals are more in the right than the first evangelicals but one thing is for sure 'the past is another country'.