CREEDS AND CONFESSONS 1. An Introduction to the Confessions

 A Series of Studies based upon “Presbyterian Creeds – A Guide to the Book of Confessions” by Jack Rogers. (WJK Books ISBN0-664-25496-9)

1.    An Introduction to the Confessions

Every time an elder, deacon or minister is ordained they are asked “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed Church as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?” the reply is usually an “I do”; a reply often made in the hope that the confessions actually are ‘authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do’, rather than with any first hand knowledge!

We often treat the confessions rather like the medicines we obtain from the pharmacy. Although they come with detailed instructions of every single side effect and plausible dosage, we go ahead and take them in faith, and it’s only when something goes wrong turn to examine the details!

So, what are these confessions?
Are they still essential?
How did they come about in the first place?
Maybe first we should ask... what exactly is a Reformed Church anyway?

REFORMED THEOLOGY

The Reformation is known for the time Martin Luther nailed his theses to the door and the break began with the Catholic Church. Equally important in the reformation story were the figures of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin. There were differences in the theologies of these reformers, particularly when it came to the sacraments.

Martin Luther took the view that it was enough to simply reject those matters of medieval doctrine that seemed clearly contrary to the Word of God. Calvin and the other Swiss Reformers took the view that reform would only truly take place when life in the church and the world was fashioned after only those things that were in the scriptures.

At a later date Queen Elizabeth 1st described the theology of the Swiss Reformers as being “More Reformed” than that of the Lutherans because of its stress upon simplicity of worship and upon discipline in public and private life. As the ‘Reformed’ movement matured it developed some distinctive theological emphases.

TENSION

The Confessions and Creeds reflect theological tensions across centuries of faith and guide us as to how that theology that came to be known as Reformed dealt with those tensions. They mostly came out of situations of conflict or times of great change and as such often delve deeper into things than many would normally take the time to do. Such explains their sometimes inaccessibility, yet also their importance, as they can be a bedrock upon which to stand during times when faith is under fire.

ESSENTIAL AND NECESSARY

In the hope of being ‘Reformed and also Reforming” a distinction is sometimes made between what is ‘essential and necessary’ to believe, and what is of secondary importance. Freedom of conscience is tempered by community standards. Our ‘Book of Order’ Chapter 2, gives a summary of what is considered ‘Essential.”

Universal (Held by all Christian Churches)
The Trinity
The Incarnation

Reformed (Held by all Reformed Churches)
Justification by Grace through Faith
Scripture as the final Authority for salvation and the life of faith.

Distinctive (Particular to Presbyterianism)
God’s Sovereignty
God’s election (choosing) of people for salvation and service.
The Covenant nature of the Church, ordering its life by the Word of God
Faithful Stewardship of God’s creation
The rejection of idolatry
Obedience to God’s Word in working for justice and the transformation of society.

SETTING MARGINS

Within the margins of a typed page, one has freedom to express whatever one wishes. But functioning without margins makes things intolerable. If you have ever downloaded a file to “Notepad’ on your computer and not checked the “Word Wrap” button, you’ll understand what I’m talking about!

The margins can be changed. But even then, others have to be set. Think maybe of our Confessions as margins (that sometimes have been moved as paper has changed its quality and printing has evolved) but essentially margins remain in place to define us as being “Reformed” and guide us in our “Reforming.”

2.    Doctrine and Dogma for Dummies

The need for Creeds comes about because Christians are a disagreeable bunch of folk. Ask a Session Meeting to decide what color the kitchen should be painted, and you’ll soon discover what I’m talking about. Theological arguments run even deeper than decorative ones, and many of the confessions came about because of strong disagreement over such things as Doctrine, Dogma and Dogmatics.

Before launching into a look at the individual Creeds, it may be helpful, that as we last time described what we meant by Reformed, that this time we define what some of these loaded theological “D” words are about and how it is they build a bridge for us from the Scriptures to the Confessions.

Remember that the Creeds are not intended to replace Scripture.  An essential Presbyterian belief is that “Scripture alone is the final authority for salvation and the life of faith.” They are, as we insist on our officers assenting, “authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do”

Even the simplest and best known scriptural passages are open to interpretation. As an example, Jack Rogers takes in his book the biblical statement that commences the Lords Prayer, “Our Father who art in heaven’ (Matthew 6:9). The first of our “D”s is;

DOCTRINE

Whilst we may have learnt the Lords Prayer parrot fashion, the intention in doing so was not simply recitative ability but that we may consider what it teaches us about God. ‘Doctrine’ comes from the Latin word ‘doctrina’ meaning ‘the content of what is taught’. Whenever we state a biblical idea, we are expressing a doctrine.

In the first phrase of the Lord’s Prayer we discover a number of things about the nature of God. First of all, we claim that God is ours – as opposed to yours or theirs. This is not a God divorced from experience, but one whom we are in fellowship with.

We call this God ‘Father’ – a term indicating a parental function that God to exerts over our lives. We could go further and develop what exactly an Eastern concept of Fatherhood at the time of Jesus would indicate. This personal God (we call ‘who’) is located in a specific realm that we describe as ‘heaven’ from where the concept of personal fatherhood exerts an influence over our lives.

We were to then take each of those concepts, “Our God”, “Fatherhood”, “Heaven” and search through the scriptures for other occurrences and meanings we would be developing a doctrine – a general concept – derived from a synthesis of a number of biblical passages.

A doctrine is the sum of what the scriptures teach about a particular topic. So, you will find books that speak about, “The Doctrine of the Church” or the “Doctrine of Atonement’. Some have even attempted “The Doctrine of God” in other words – “Everything you wanted to know about God but were afraid to ask”

A doctrine deftly developed may become a;

DOGMA

There is a movie called Dogma which takes a warped look at religion and reminds us that ‘dogma’ and his friend ‘dogmatic’ tend’ to be taken as negative adjectives. Often, we use the terms to describe ideas or people whom we judge to be narrow, inflexible and biased.

In it’s original Greek it expressed a positive. Dogma was “That which seemed good.” It referred to a principle that settled things once and for all. Ask the question “Do chairs work best when they have 4 legs”. Answer “Yes, Chairs need 4 legs” and you have stated a dogma regarding leg necessities on pieces of furniture we call chairs. No further discussion is necessary.

In religious terms a “dogma” came to describe a “doctrine” that had been decided by a church body or council to be authoritative. As an example, the Nicene Creed was sanctioned by the very first ecumenical councils (way back in AD 381 and 325) as being an authoritative interpretation of scriptures teaching.  Their words represent what the entire known church of the day agreed was good.

Our simple prayer fragment “Our Father who art in heaven” becomes developed to read, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” The second statement deals with some of the questions that were raised about the first.

If God was only ‘our God’ did that mean, there were other Gods for other people? No, we believe in One God. Well, if God’s in heaven, and He made the earth, then who made the heavens? God made them both, God is the Almighty Creator! What about things we can’t see, did God make those as well, angels and all that stuff? Yes, God is creator of all things, visible and invisible. The doctrines connected to the dogma . And the Dogmas connected to the…

DOGMATICS

As with Dogma, the term Dogmatics and his friend, “Systematic Theology,” raise eyebrows with some fellows in the theological world. Again, their original intention was a positive one as they were meant to describe the orderly study of doctrines and dogma in an attempt to state clearly all that we know about Scripture.

The word theology derives from two Greek terms, ‘Theo” (God”) and ‘Logo’ (“words”). Theology is simply God-Talk. Systematic Theology (or Dogmatics) became the word used to describe the process of organizing all the different doctrines into a whole.  In a volume of systematic theology you may find headings such as ‘The Doctrine of God,’ of.. humankind, sin, salvation, the church and the ‘Last things’.

Where does all this Doctrine, Dogma and Dogmatics lead us? 

Why, of course to our topic… "CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS". 

Our sessions will cover some of the historic creeds found in the PC(USA) Book of Confessions.

CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS 2. Who gives an iota? - The Nicene Creed

 

Subtitled : A Tale of Two Councils
(Well really more councils than that… but let’s not get bogged down)

Last time we looked at ‘Doctrines, Dogmatics and Theology’ - the building blocks of Confessions. This time we come to our first confession, held by the church universal as authoritative (although with a little modification by the Orthodox Churches of the East) – The Nicene Creed.

In the Bible, particularly the letters of John, you get a few hints that not all was plain sailing when it came to describing exactly who Jesus was and how his life related to the life of God. (see: 2 John 7-9). And where did the Holy Spirit fit into the picture?

Bear in mind that what we are dealing with is words. Words can mean different things at different times, yet they remain essential to how we understand things. When we speak about ‘God’ we are attempting to translate mystery into human speech. O. Weber speaks of definitions as “an attempt to bring human speech into the presence of the mystery.”

Let’s firstly read the Nicene Creed.

"I believe in one God,the Father almighty,maker of heaven and earth,of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,the Only Begotten Son of God,born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,true God from true God,begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven,and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,he suffered death and was buried,and rose again on the third dayin accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.He will come again in gloryto judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,who proceeds from the Father and the Son,who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Now let us go back in time as best as we can. To a time when words such as ‘Logos’ (meaning the 'Word') and ‘Substance’ and ‘Flesh’ are being thrown around. To a time when the Roman Emperor Constantine has put an end to church persecution by adopting Christianity as the State religion of the Empire and he has a problem. If Christianity was to unite the empire then it had to speak with one voice. Two groups in particular where in strong disagreement.

The first group is headed by a church leader called Arius who along with Eusebius of Nicodea is in great disagreement with a second group, headed by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and the theologian Athanasius. Whilst these two parties are the main antagonists, there also exists a large Middle Group, maybe best represented by Eusebius of Ceaserea one of the earliest church historians.

What is at stake in the opposing arguments are views of God that have a dramatic impact on how we see salvation. If Jesus was not fully man, could He really understand what it’s like to be human? Yet if he was not fully God, then didn’t the disciples make a huge mistake worshiping Him, and how did His death on the Cross achieve anything other than being just another example of a life well-lived that ended in tragedy?

Rumbling behind these questions are others about theology itself. How much should the insights of philosophy be permitted to define the understanding of doctrines and beliefs? Who should have the last say Plato or Paul, Socrates or Scripture?  You can understand why Constantine was more than a little concerned!

It’s the year 325. The city of Nicea is teeming with tourists, merchants, and beggars. Why? Because the emperor has summoned the 318 bishops that represented the worldwide church to come together and seek common ground.  What a mixed group! Many were scarred from persecutions, one with an eye put out, others who had been monks spending years as hermits in caves and forests, others who held office in large urban areas and had seen their churches grow.

Constantine apparently chooses the city of Nicaea because its name means “Victory.” As he approaches in all his finery the assembled body rises as one to greet him. In his opening speech he calls on the assembly to put away all causes of strife and prays that the Holy Spirit might guide their deliberations to a harmonious conclusion.  

Arius commences his argument by asserting that there was only One God, a point all were in agreement upon. The ‘Son of God’ he suggested could not be of the same substance as the Father but must have been created out of nothing. If Jesus was of the same nature, that was equivalent to saying that there were two Gods, not one.

Bishop Alexander disagreed by proposing that God was a single unit. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three different ways of God’s self-expression. Christ was of ‘one  substance’ – homoousios – with the Father.

Arius then argued, drawing upon the Greek philosophical tradition that the Son was the ‘Logos’ – the Word of God. How could the Logos be of the same substance? No... the Logos had to be a different substance .

Bishop Alexander responded by asking “How can the Son change?” He quoted scriptures such as “I am in the Father and the Father in me” and “I and the Father are One” to support his one substance argument.

As the council daily progressed things became heated. So heated that there was a song, set to a bawdy tune, circulating that roughly translated went:

“Arius of Alexandria, I’m the talk of the town,
Friend of Saints, elect of heaven, full of learning and renown,
If you want some Logos-Doctrine, I’ll serve it hot and hot,
God begat him and before he was begotten, HE WAS NOT!”

Athanasius, the theologian supporting Alexander, argued that God was not identical with nature. God was the source of all being (the Creator) and the orderer of the universe (The Logos). He accused Arius of  presenting philosophy that pretended to be theology. Theology was about scripture, and he warned that Arius’s philosophical interpretation put salvation in jeopardy.

Constantine then asked by Eusebius of Ceaserea, the historian who represented a middle view to intervene. He proposed a creedal statement that had been used in his own diocese.

We believe in One God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, God from God, light from light, life of life, Son only-begotten, first-begotten of all creation, begotten before all ages from the Father, through Whom all things came into being, Who because of our salvation was incarnate and dwelt among men, and suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit.

As the statement was read, heads nodded in approval. Except for Alexander and Athanasius. The Arian's were happy with saying ‘God from God’ as it accommodated their idea of the Son of God being of a ‘different substance.”

Amendments were proposed. “the true image and power of the Father”; “in all things like the Father”. But Alexander and Athanasius wanted a definition that specifically said “Same Substance”. Constantine’s patience had now worn out. He made his verdict.

“one  substance” – homoousios was in.
Arius was cast out.
Council Dismissed.
What had been asserted was that Jesus Christ was truly Divine.

But that’s not where it ends!

Emperors don’t live for ever. When Constantine’s son, Constantinius came to power he was sympathetic to the views of Arius. So, the tables slowly turned. Arius was reinstated, Athanasius was in exile and those in the middle could see another huge split on the horizon. Another council was called in 385. Again, debate was heated, but (after Athanasius returned from exile) the verdict this time was on the basis of a compromise.

Instead of “one  substance” – homo-ousios
“Of like/Similar substance” homo-i-ousios
The Greek letter ‘i’ – iota – defined the difference

Enter another figure – Bishop Apollinarius of Laodecia.

The problem he wrestled with was the nature of Christ’s mind and soul. He came to the conclusion that although the flesh of Jesus was one with God (one substance” – homo-ousios) from the moment of conception, His mind and soul were that of the “Logos” of God. This time it was the humanity of Jesus rather than the divinity that was under question.

Three theologians, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus, took issue with such a view. If Jesus wasn’t really human, but only appeared to be so and the incarnation was a sham, then He really couldn’t help humanity a great deal. Scripture rather taught that Christ wept, that he suffered and experienced the whole range of human experience.

In 380 the latest emperor, Theodore, ordered another council. At this one were the followers of Arius,  those who followed Athanasius, those who supported the compromise of homo-i-ousios, as well as the supporters of Apollinaruis .

This council did nothing to substantially change the Creed but stressed that Christ was truly made man, reinstated ‘homousios’ over ‘homo-i-ousious’ and added a section that talked of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Trinity.

The process finally came to a conclusion at the Council of Chalcedon in 491 when the ‘Nicene Creed’ became official church doctrine!

Nicea affirmed the Jesus was Divine
Constantinople affirmed he was human.
At Ephesus a further council affirmed Jesus Christ was one integrated person.
At Chalcedon it was settled that Jesus had two natures, divine and human.

All went well till the Middle Ages when a council added something called the 'filioque clause' – which suggested that the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son. This caused a huge split between the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Conclusions

The Creed addresses two important issues: ‘The Person of Jesus Christ’ and ‘The reality of the Holy Spirit’

Jesus Christ is the center of Christian Faith. The Nicene Creed expresses the churches understanding of what Scripture teaches about who Jesus Christ is. "*If God actually came in the flesh of a human being and if that God/person lived, suffered and died and rose again for our sakes, then we can be united to God." This the church has affirmed since its earliest days.

The Creed also affirms the person and deity of the Holy Spirit and the unity of the Spirit with the Father and the Son.

Sometimes the accusation is made that the Doctrine of the Person of Christ is not in the scriptures. True, it’s not stated as a verse. Yet implicit to a Christian understanding of Scripture is the acceptance that the Son is both 100% human and 100% Divine.

To put all that in contemporary language the Nicene Creed says : “*Whatever God is, Jesus is that; and whatever humanity is, Jesus is that too, in one whole person.” 

(*Jack Rogers).  

Next time... The Apostles Creed.
 

CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS 3.Ancient and Modern: The Apostles Creed

Last time we looked at the rather stormy development of the Nicene Creed. We saw how it really did develop out of controversy over the nature of Jesus Christ, disputes that took over a century to resolve. The Apostles Creed pre-dates the Nicene Creed, in the sense that it was in use before the Council of Nicaea, but it never came to be official church doctrine until the 9th Century.

It is very much a foundational document, accepted by nearly all churches around the globe. Martin Luther used it as a basis for his shorter catechism whilst John Calvin used it, alongside the Lord’s Prayer and the 10 Commandments to produce his great document of the Reformation the “Institutes of the Christian Religion”, still regarded today as representing authoritative reformed theology.

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God,the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Background

It’s the ninth century. Garibaldus, Bishop of Le Leige in Southern France, is reading a letter he has just received from the holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne (Charles the Great). The emperors concern is that there should be uniformity to what was being taught to the Christians throughout the empire.

He is insisting that parents and godparents should be evaluated on their knowledge of the creed, indeed all Christians should be familiar with it and priests should know it, not by memory but in such a way as to be able to explain it those in their charge.

Rather like Constantine sought to unite the Roman Empire by his adoption of Christianity, Charlemagne desired to unite most of what is now Northern Europe into one super-state. During his reign he wanted not only political unity but also cultural renewal; a movement that became known as ‘The Carolingian Renaissance’.

The letter Bishop Garibaldus of Le Leige had received was part of the process in which Charlemagne was engaged: - namely seeking out detailed information on liturgical practice throughout the realm and specifically asking what use was being made of the creed. He organized a council in 813 to declare the Apostles Creed the standard of doctrinal and liturgical uniformity.

When he received his letter from Charlemagne, Bishop Garibaldus was in the fortunate position of being able to reply that within his diocese all the priests knew and used the apostles creed, and had been doing so for a number of years. 

But where exactly did it come from? How many years had it been in use?

Our Scriptures contain a number of passages that may well have functioned as creeds. Maybe the oldest and shortest in the New Testament is the simple statement “Jesus is Lord”. But in passages such as Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Deuteronomy 26:5-9 we see that the idea of statements of faith had a root in much earlier traditions.

Deuteronomy 6:4-6  Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. 6 Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart.

Deuteronomy 26:5-9  You shall make this response before the LORD your God: "A wandering Aramean was my ancestor; he went down into Egypt and lived there as an alien, few in number, and there he became a great nation, mighty and populous. 6 When the Egyptians treated us harshly and afflicted us, by imposing hard labor on us, 7 we cried to the LORD, the God of our ancestors; the LORD heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression. 8 The LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with a terrifying display of power, and with signs and wonders; 9 and he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey 

The New Testament gives us many examples of statements, either being asked for or explicitly stated.

Matthew 16:13  Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

Philippians 2:11 Every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4  For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures

Matthew 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

As early as the Second century there were in existence a number of documents that spoke of a summary of doctrine known as “The Rule of Faith” – an outline and summary of what the apostles had taught that was useful in teaching new converts about the faith.

One reason we know so little about these rules of faith is that the early church was a persecuted community that operated under a rule of secrecy. Creedal Statements were closely associated with sacramental celebrations of Communion and Baptism, both sacraments easily misunderstood and therefore performed in secret. It is thought that the earliest versions of “The Rule of Faith” represented promises made by baptismal candidates when they were received into the church.

The candidate would be asked, “Do you believe in God the Father, Almighty?” and expected to reply “I believe.” A similar question and answer pattern would be followed as questions about Jesus and the Holy Spirit were asked. This threefold affirmation would be followed by baptism in the threefold name of the One God.

Reciting a creed in this setting became known by the Latin word “sacramentum’ – the same word which is at the root of our English word ‘sacraments’. A sacramentum was understood as taking a solemn oath; such as soldiers in the army declaring their allegiance to their country.

The word ‘symbol’ was also used to describe this “Rule of faith” in that a symbol pointed to something other than itself. Reciting the Creed reminded the Christian of their baptism and their vow of trust in God Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As Christianity became more accepted, references to the “Rule of faith’ start to appear in the documents of those writing in defense of Christianity. One of the early fathers, Justin Martyr, defended his beliefs by appealing to their uniformity. The same expressions of faith were being used throughout the empire.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in the Second Century, a great defender of Christian doctrine against the many heresies that had arisen, made the constant claim that a consensus he called ‘the canon of truth’ existed wherever the gospel was proclaimed. Irenaeus was also one of the first to speak of the collection of books we regard as the New Testament as being used with authority in the churches.

He was thought to have learned the gospel from studying under an earlier church father known as John the Elder, who in turn had learnt the faith from John the disciple of Jesus. Tertullian, the first scholar to write in Latin, repeatedly appeals to a “Rule of faith’ whilst his Roman contemporary Tertullian uses a form of a creed very similar to the Apostles creed in a book called “the Apostolic Tradition’ that dates back to the late second century.

Whilst there is a tradition that each of the twelve apostles contributed a line each to the Creed as we now have it, (popularized in a series of sermons wrongly attributed to St.. Augustine titled “The Symbol”) such a view has not been widely held since the Middle ages, and even then had it’s detractors. The Apostles Creed is however regarded as reflecting genuine apostolic teaching based on Scripture..

The first literary reference to the form of the apostles creed as we have it today comes from the writings of a Spanish Benedictine monk called Priminius who moved from southern France to Germany in the eighth century. The Saracens invaded the area in 718 and the church singled out for particular persecution.

Fleeing from the area and heading further south, Priminius began mission work in the Lake Constance area,  and founded a monastery at Reichenau. To help his community in their outreach efforts he composed a handbook of Christian Traditions.

In it he reminds his readers of the solemn nature of their baptisms; “Thus we recall to your memories the pact we made with God in the baptistery itself; that is how, when we were severally asked by the priest our names and how we were called, either you yourself answered, if you were already of an age to answer, or at all events he who was undertaking the vow for you and lifted you up out of the water answered.” Then follows the Apostles creed in question and answer form.

By the beginning of the ninth century the creed had come to have a virtual monopoly in Western Europe. Rome received back, in an enriched form, a rule of faith it had helped develop since at least as early as the second century – the essential tenets of the gospel known since the days of the apostles.

Essential Tenets of the Creed

ONE GOD
The Father, Son and Holy Spirits are three personal manifestations of the One God. The Nicene Creed elaborates further on their relationship.

GOD IS FATHER
Father of Jesus Christ – in the sense that Jesus had an organic intimate relationship with God. The Nicene Creed again explores the nature of Jesus. Our Father – we’re born from above into the family of God through our faith in Jesus Christ.

GOD IS FATHER-SON-HOLY SPIRIT
Note that this designation is not “Creator-Redeemer-Sustainer” or “Shepherd-Helper-Refuge” – which while wonderful ways od describing the action if God fail to define who God is!

ALMIGHTY
All-ruling rather than “over-powering”.

CREATOR
The creation debate continues! We assert ‘Separate from creation’ - nothing in creation is worthy of our ultimate commitment.

The Apostles Creed is a rule of faith that unites Christians across many traditions. I recall we had, in one town where I served, a ministers group that was made up of a variety of folk from numerous traditions. Somebody suggested we needed a statement of faith. In the end we settled on the Apostles Creed, as despite our differences, it was an orthodox statement of the essentials of faith that we could agree upon.

It is appropriate that when we share in Holy Communion it is the one most frequently use in our services. Around a table that is designed to unite us we speak words that define our one faith.
 

CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS 4. Calvin and Oatcakes - The Scots Confession

In understanding the confessions, it is important to have a picture of what was going on historically at the time they were written. The Scots Confession is certainly a point in case!

Europe in the Sixteenth Century was a continent in great political and religious ferment. Power was shifting from nation to nation and faith to faith. Unlikely alliances were formed in attempts to create stability. A tinderbox atmosphere prevailed.

Catholic v Protestant

In Spain, Catholic King Phillip II is a formidable power. In England, the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I comes to the throne, the child of Henry IV’s wife Anne Boleyn. The Catholic sympathizers in England do not recognize her leadership. Following Elizabeth’s predecessor’s actions, Mary Tudor, who had burnt at the stake Protestants Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer and Thomas Crammer, sympathies lay more with the Protestants than the Catholics.

In Scotland power is in the hands of Mary of Guise, a Catholic with strong links to France where reigns Catholic Catherine da Medici, struggling herself in the midst of a struggle between the French Guise and Bourbon families.

The Scottish church, Roman Catholic through and through, is not in good shape Illiteracy and adultery is prevalent; amongst the clergy. Ecclesiastical positions are doled out to the idle in exchange for money and power. 

But on the continent a new wind had begun to blow. The Reformation was taking place. Information about the Reformation movement began to seep through from the ports and over the border from England …and dissatisfaction with Catholicism began to grow.

One of the first to express this dissatisfaction is Patrick Hamilton who begins to preach Reformation principles in opposition to Catholicism. In 1528 he is summoned to the castle at St Andrews to ‘debate’ his views with Cardinal David Beaton. The debate turns out to be a trial and Hamilton is burnt at the stake for heresy.

His death inflames another protestant, George Wishart. He travels to Geneva and studies under Calvin, returning to Scotland where he preaches uncompromisingly regarding Reformation principles. Cardinal Beaton decrees that this must stop and sends an army of 500 soldiers to capture him.

 Knox turns to Prorestantism

Before his inevitable capture, Wishart comes into contact with a young tutor by the name of John Knox, who takes to heart Wishart’s message. Wishart is captured, tried by a jury hand picked by Cardinal Beaton and burnt at the stake in St Andrews castle whilst the Cardinal is alleged to have enjoyed he spectacle whilst reclining on cushions on the castle ramparts.

This act triggers armed resistance by a small band of Protestants under the leadership of John Lesslie. Amongst them, as a chaplain, is John Knox. They storm the castle and seize it, dispensing of cardinal Beaton in the process.

 Knox becomes a galley slave, is educated under Calvin and returns to Scotland

Mary of Guise, the ruling lady in Scotland, appeals to Catherine de Medici for help and a fleet of warships blockades the harbor eventually recapturing St Andrews from the protestant vigilantes. John Knox is captured and for nineteen months becomes a galley slave, chained to the oars of a French warship. Intervention by the English government, who favor his protestant principles, secured his release in 1549, whereupon Knox returned to preaching; a message characterized by opposition to the Mass and the ‘harlot’ of the Roman Church.

Such principles went further than the English Reformers were prepared to reach, so in January 1554 he went to Geneva and studied under John Calvin. He made a number of excursions back to Scotland, even on one accessions appealing directly to Mary of Guise, the ruler of Scotland, to embrace the Protestant cause. Her response was to order him tried for heresy and ceremonially burning his effigy.

In 1557 he wrote in Geneva a book on Predestination and another about “The monstrous Regiment of Women” which initially offended England’s protestant Queen Elizabeth to such an extent that he lost her sympathies and was no longer guaranteed a safe passage though England. He won back her favor by comparing her to “Deborah’ the most fearless of the Old Testament prophetic dynasty.

Knox returned to Scotland on May 2, 1559, the same day as the catholic clergy of Edinburgh were holding a conference that called for implementing certain reforms to pacify increasingly restless parishioners. Specifically, that any priest caught in adultery would automatically lose a third of his income at first offence. (Cardinal Beaton before his demise had fathered at least eight illegitimate offspring – a fact not mentioned at the conference!)

Knox had been in the country just 10 days when Mary of Guise ordered that every Protestant preacher must stand before her in Stirling. Knox replied that he would willing do so, along with his whole congregation, and every man of them would be bearing arms. 

Mary appealed to France to send troops. Quickly!

The stage was set for revolution. Scottish rebels, supplemented by English troops dispatched by Elizabeth laid siege to French strongholds, in particular the town of Leith. On June 11th, 1560 Mary of Guise died, and with her the Catholic cause. On July 6th a treaty signed with France that she would never again interfere with Scottish interests.

The revolution had succeeded but only with England’s help. Knox wanted more. He sought complete Scottish independence. He urged the Scottish Parliament to adopt a confession of faith that would unite the nation both politically and ecclesiastically.

On August 17th, 1560, John Knox spoke to the Scottish Parliament:

“Long have we thirsted, dear brethren, to make known to the world the sum of that doctrine which we profess and for which we have sustained infamy and danger. But such has been the rage of Satan against us, and against Jesus Christ’s eternal verity, lately now born again among us, that to this day no time has been granted to us to clear our consciences, as most gladly would have done. For how we have been tossed until now the most part of Europe, we suppose, understands.”

He then delivered to them a confession, hastily produced in four days by him and five others; the adoption of which he hoped would bring formal recognition of the doctrinal standards of Geneva.

Central to the confession were two teachings that broke away from Catholicism, firstly Election, secondly the Church.

ELECTION

In 1546 the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent declared that redemption came not only through the remission of sins, but also through the sanctification of the inner being by supernatural love. This second spiritual necessity was only achievable by observing the Mass. Faith alone was not enough. The Mass had to be administered and received, as it was the central sacrificial act, in which the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ through which the recipient attained salvation.

Knox declared such a view false. Only God, not any ritual could save people. In God’s great mercy, God elected – chose – people for salvation. It was not a process that could be manipulated by church or priest, nor dependant on human initiative.

Example: CHAPTER 8 – Election

That same eternal God and Father, who by grace alone chose us in his Son Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world was laid, appointed him to be our head, our brother, our pastor, and the great bishop of our souls. But since the opposition between the justice of God and our sins was such that no flesh by itself could or might have attained unto God, it behooved the Son of God to descend unto us and take himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone, and so become the Mediator between God and man, giving power to as many as believe in him to be the sons of God; as he himself says, "I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God." By this most holy brotherhood whatever we have lost in Adam is restored to us again.

 Therefore we are not afraid to call God our Father, not so much because he has created us, which we have in common with the reprobate, as because he has given unto us his only Son to be our brother, and given us grace to acknowledge and embrace him as our only Mediator. Further, it behooved the Messiah and Redeemer to be true God and true man, because he was able to undergo the punishment of our transgressions and to present himself in the presence of his Father's judgment, as in our stead, to suffer for our transgression and disobedience, and by death to overcome him that was the author of death.

But because the Godhead alone could not suffer death, and neither could manhood overcome death, he joined both together in one person, that the weakness of one should suffer and be subject to death--which we had deserved--and the infinite and invincible power of the other, that is, of the Godhead, should triumph, and purchase for us life, liberty, and perpetual victory. So, we confess, and most undoubtedly believe.

Election is the Reformed way of saying “Grace Alone”. The stress is upon the gracious act of God that prompts our act, rather than the other way around. It places the responsibility upon us to respond to that which God has already declared, and suggests that even that response is somehow a response to divine initiative.

THE CHURCH

Chapter 18 designates the three marks of a true church:

•    True preaching of the Word
•    Right administration of the Sacraments
•    Upright administration of church Discipline

Chapters 5 and 16 talk of the invisible church that began in Adam. Chapter 25 clarifies the situation by stating that in identifying geographical churches “we do not mean that every individual person in that company is a chosen member of Christ Jesus. The whole body of all those who truly believe, makes up the invisible church and this church is known only to God. The visible church is made known by the 3-fold pattern of a true church. 

Such were principles held in common with many protestant churches. But in Scotland, Knox's actions led to the Presbyterian Church becoming "THE Church of Scotland", while to this day  'The Church of England' is the domain of the Anglican/Episcopalian church.

Many Presbyterian Churches in the USA hold “Scottish Sunday” services, acknowledging the influence of the Presbyterian of Scotland and of John Knox, in defining their faith today. For that reason “The Sots Confession’ remains as an important document among the collected Confessional works!

 

CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS: 5. Frederick, Casper and the Professor- The Heidelberg Catechism

Last study we saw the tumultuous events of Scotland’s protestant heritage and the particular contribution made by John Knox to the Presbyterian Tradition. In continental Europe, things were also taking dramatic twists and turns.

Heidelberg is a university town in West Germany that from 1559 – 1576 was ruled by Elector Frederick III. In Heidelberg met two rivers, the Neckar and the Rhine. At the time the area was known as ‘The Palatinate’, an influential district of the Holy Roman Empire, (An empire that included what is now Germany, Austria, Switzerland, eastern France, much of Holland and parts of Italy.)

In 1214 the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II granted the Palatine lands to Louis I, the Duke of Bavaria, and his dynasty ruled the Palatinate through much of it’s subsequent history. The rulers, or ‘counts palatine’ bought prosperity and firm rule to the area. They fought for the rights of German princes against popes and emperors, so successfully that by1356 the elector palatine was the chief secular prince of the Holy Roman Empire.

Frederick was raised in Emperor Charles 5th court; Charles being a Catholic of dubious nature whose decadence was infamous. In 1537 Frederick married Princess Maria of Brandenberg-Kulmbach, a devout Lutheran. Maria insisted that Frederick read the Bible daily, and although they then lived in the Catholic city of Trier, under her influence Frederick embraced Protestant principles. Together they had seven children.

Also in Trier was born Caspar Olevianus, the son of a prosperous butcher. Caspar was a friend of Frederick’s oldest son, Herman Louis, and they went off to college in France together. One night in France, students being students, and some the worse for drinking, a small group of them attempted to cross the River Eure in a rowboat. In the boat was Frederick’s son, Herman. The boat overturned.

A fateful drowning

On shore, Herman’s friend, Casper saw what was happening and dived in the river to help his friend Herman. Sadly he was unsuccessful and Herman drowned. The event had a profound effect on Casper and he changed his career path from being that of a lawyer to being a preacher, eventually traveling to Geneva to study under John Calvin. His heroic efforts to save Herman came to Frederick’s attention and he vowed not to forget the young man who had sought to save his son.

In 1559 the elector of Palatine, Otto Henry, also a protestant, died, leaving behind him no children. Next in line of succession was his nephew, Frederick, and so Frederick and Maria moved from Trier to Heidelberg where he became the new 'Count of the Palatine.'

The movement known as the Reformation had now been in progression for a while and was far from united on a number of doctrinal points. As mentioned, Heidelberg was at the intersection of the rivers Neckar and the Rhine. As Lutheran thought moved down the River Neckar, Reformed Christian thought flowed along the Rhine into Heidelberg from Switzerland. But all was not well. The Reformation had splintered into different groups. Tension between the Lutherans and so-called “Reformed Christians” were intense. A particular point of disagreement was the Lord’s Supper.

The Communion Conflict

The Reformers held to three views of the Lords Supper. The first the Lutheran position, was a modified version of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, the belief that in the Mass the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ. Lutherans held to a doctrine known as consubstantiation. Luther maintained that Christ was physically and bodily present at the Lord’s Supper, holding to a literal translation of the words “This is my body”.

At the other end of the argument was the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli who taught that Christ was speaking purely metaphorically and that the communion was a simple memorial celebration. In between these two views were those of John Calvin who taught that Christ was ‘Spiritually’ present in a unique way when communion was celebrated.

At the time Frederick III became count palatine in Heidelberg, the friction caused by the differing views that flowed into the city had reached boiling point. The main Protestant church in the city was “Holy Ghost Church” under the leadership of High Lutheran pastor Tilemann Hesshus, who was also the principal of the theological college.

His assistant was a Wilhelm Klebitz, an ardent Zwinglian. Hessus (The Lutheran) in 1159 took some leave. During his absence the theological college awarded Klebitz (The Zwinglian) a degree in theology, an act that Hesshus probably would have blocked had he been there.

When he returned from leave, Hesshus was furious and preached a sermon calling for the revoking of Klebitz's degree and calling him a Zwinglian devil, promising that the ‘hellish, devilish, cursed, cruel and terrible’ act of the college would be revoked. To his great embarrassment he was ignored.

The following Sunday they both stood at the communion table. When Klebitz picked up the cup, Hessus snatched it from his hand, and the two started brawling in the chancel in front of a shocked congregation. Not surprisingly, Frederick III (The Count of Palatine) fired them both, Klebitz though with a recommendation, Hessus without one. Frederick was now left with a terrible dilemma. What could be done to restore peace to the church now the issue of communion had exploded?

Frederick contacted Philip Melancthon, the man who was rapidly becoming Martin Luther’s successor. Melancthon replied, “In all things seek peace and moderation. This is best done by holding to a fixed doctrinal position regarding the Lord’s Supper”. His personal studying though led him to ask, “Which fixed doctrinal position?”

He called a conference between two scholars, one Calvinist and one Zwinglian, and listened in as they debated for a number of days. At the conclusion of the discussions Frederick was favored towards the position of Calvin.

Meanwhile…

Meanwhile Casper Olevianus (the boy who had tried to rescue Frederick's son) had returned to Trier. He was preaching at St Jacob’s church. Trier was still largely a Catholic town, but Caspar's preaching attracted large crowds, a worrying phenomenon to the town council who feared what the Catholic archbishop would do if he found out.

Catholic Archbishop John did find out, and he was furious. So furious that he arrived with an army and laid siege to the town, burning crops, cutting off the water supply and ordering Protestants to pay him 20, 000 gold florins and leave the city. At their refusal the town was stormed, and was Caspar captured and thrown into jail with twelve others (Which is where we’ll leave him for the moment).

Frederick still had his problem with the church. The first position he sought to fill was the college. He invited a scholar named Peter Martyr to take charge, but he refused and instead recommended a young student who had recently been studying under Melancthon, a man by the name of Zacharias Ursinus.

Gentle and shy by temperament, and although only twenty-seven years old, Zacharias Ursinus was an excellent choice for professor at Heidelberg. Peter Martyr described him as ‘having the brilliance of a great scholar and the piety of a great servant of God’. This still left the problem of the church.

It was around this time that Frederick learnt of Caspar's preaching skills and current plight in jail. Recalling him as the one who tried to save his son, he sent an emissary to Archbishop John, carrying a trunkful of money and a note that, should Caspar be put in Frederick's care, he would never again return to preach in Trier. Frederick had found his preacher!

The time had come, Frederick determined, for a definitive statement of faith that would unify Reformed Protestantism in the Palatine district and beyond. Frederick saw in Caspar and in the Professor Ursinus the kind of people who had the skill and conviction to create such a document.

The birth of a new confession

The result of their work, a work that Frederick also continued to have input to, was the “Catechism, or Christian Instruction, according to the Usages of the churches and Schools of the Electoral Palatinate” or simply the “Heidelberg Catechism”. It was adopted by a synod in Heidelberg and the first edition, with a preface by Frederick, published in 1563.

It immediately proved popular and soon spread beyond the Palatine area. It became particularly influential in the Dutch Reformed Church, where disputes between Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed Christians had been particularly difficult.

In 1609 Dutch explorers brought it to Manhattan Island. Long before New Amsterdam had become New York, there were folk well versed in the Heidelberg Catechism arriving in the New World! As such it qualifies as the oldest Presbyterian creed in use in America, and was approved by the General Assembly in the United States as early as 1870.

About the Catechism.

The Catechism consists of 129 questions and answers. It opens with two questions concerning life and death. 

Q1.What is your only comfort in life and in death?

A.That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul,in life and in death—to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven; in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.
Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit,assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

Q2.What must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort?

 A. Three things: first, how great my sin and misery are; second, how I am set free from all my sins and misery; third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance.

All the following questions are divided into three parts corresponding to a line of Romans 7:24-25 “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”

Questions 3-11 deal with sin and guilt
Questions 12-85 deal with the way Christ sets us free,
Questions 86-129 deal with the way we express our gratitude to God.

The whole catechism is divided into 52 sections so that each section could be looked at during a whole year. For a time Dutch Reformed preachers were directed to preach on each particular section in their afternoon services.

It is as much a devotional as it is a doctrinal work and carefully worded to promote unity rather than discord. The central theme is that God has not abandoned people to a helpless fate, but in Christ restores our broken relationship with God. 20th century theologian Karl Barth (quoting a German hymn) says the message of the catechism is “Get of the way, you spirits of sadness, for Christ the sovereign of joy is coming in!”

Jack Rogers points out in his book that a central theme of the Creed is “Stewardship”. Stewardship, not as narrowly defined in the giving of gifts, but in the broadest senses, stewardship of the whole of life. The emphasis of the catechism is that we are saved by Grace to serve. Service is the true expression of thankfulness.

The Catechism includes questions relating to the Apostles Creed, the 10 Commandments and the Lords Prayer, as well as sections on the nature of God, and of course a section dealing with the contentious issue of the sacraments.

Questions 78 and 79 deal with the bread and wine relating to the body and blood of Christ. Question 80, (a later addition added after the council of Trent in 1562 had pronounced that ‘touching the sacrament of the Mass’ was an essential of faith) deals with the difference between the Lord’s Supper and the Papal mass.

The Heidelberg Catechism has proved to be one of the most popular of Reformed Creeds, having a reception far beyond what Frederick, Caspar and the Professor anticipated. It rightly has a place amongst the creeds that have helped define the faith of the American Presbyterian churches.

For USA Presbyterians its significance may be that it defines for us our beliefs about the Sacrament of Communion. We do not believe bread and wine are magically transformed into body and blood. Yet neither do we consider it as a simply a memorial of a great man.

CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS 6. Stormy waters at the Font - The Second Helvetic Confession

Last time we looked at the influence of Frederick III upon the Heidelberg Catechism and saw how some of the different and contradictory currents of Reformed faith caused friction. In 1556 Catholic Emperor Maxmilian II, anxious to exert control over Protestant princes such as Frederick III, responded to events in Heidelberg by putting Frederick on trial for heresy.

Over in Zurich, the chief minister of Great Munster Cathedral was Heinrich Bullinger, (about whom we shall be learning more of later). He knew of Frederick’s work (and that of Casper Olevianus and Zacharias Ursinus) in creating the Heidelberg Catechism. He had been working on a Confession of his own, which he had intended to leave to the world, as part of his last will and testament. The trial of Frederick convinced him that he should publish it before his death, as a way of showing solidarity with Fredericks cause.

An earlier publishing date was also needed as the growth of new movements, which went far beyond the kind of reforms Luther or Calvin had envisaged, was threatening the stability of the increasingly diverse movement known as the Reformation. These new movements were characterized by the idea that the church, both the Catholic and the emerging Protestant churches were so hopelessly lost that reform was impossible. Only complete separation from both secular and religious authority, and a radical return to New Testament principles would suffice.

Whilst many of these movements were opposed and suppressed by the third reformer we mentioned last time, namely Ulrich Zwingli, their growth was partly due to his influence. Before looking at Heinrich Bullinger, (who was Zwingli’s successor at Great Munster) we need to look again at the views of Zwingli.

Ulrich Zwingli was a self styled Renaissance scholar. A year before Martin Luther had posted his 95 theses he had been preaching a reformation message that called for radical changes to be made in religious life.  His voice went largely unheeded, as he was for 10 years a parish priest in an obscure Swiss village in the mountains, which he followed up by spending two years as a chaplain at a monastery. It was only when he accepted tenure at Great Munster in Zurich in 1519 that he really came to public attention.

The Word of God – the Bible - was his passion. He created a translation of the New Testament in German, followed by a translation of the whole bible, 4 years before Luther completed his translation. In worship he was greatly concerned that nothing should detract from the reading and preaching of the Word, and hence he regarded music, church furnishings and décor as “Popish Decorations”. He conducted worship in German, not Latin, as he felt it important that people hear the gospel in their native tongue.

The approaches to worship of Luther and Zwingli were poles apart. Luther believed that anything should be allowed in worship that scripture did not specifically forbid. Zwingli believed that in worship only those things should be accepted that scripture specifically commanded. Baptism. Communion (as a memorial), Scripture Reading, Prayer and Preaching.

Unexpected Results started to arise from Zwingli’s radical approach, in particular lay people began studying the bible quite independently of the church. One of the reasons the Catholic Church had kept a tight control over who should interpret the bible (and to whom scripture should be available) was a fear that if scripture was left to the interpretation of individual voices rather than the corporate voice of the church, then all sorts of heresy would evolve.

What happened in Zurich and beyond, was that those who met outside of the church felt that their study of scripture led them to believe that Zwingli and the other reformers had not gone far enough with their reforms. There grew a desire within many of these groups to return to a state of purity similar to that experienced by the first century church. For many of these groups the Old Testament was seen as no longer being formative on church doctrine. Old Testament concepts were often disregarded as being only shadows of true Christian Belief.

As well as theological ponderings, other forces were at work. In places where the Reformation had taken hold, power (and the taxes and tithes associated with political position) had passed from the Catholic hierarchy to the Protestant hierarchy. In financial terms this meant many citizens were in a no better financial state under Protestantism than Catholicism.

These were brutal times. Wars and rumors of wars continued to rage. Plagues and disasters, often seen as signs of God’s judgment, had not declined. The ‘Magisterial Reformation” of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli (so termed because it’s leaders exercised authority similar to Magistrates) had failed to bring the revolution that some had hoped for. They sought for a more radical way. Which brings us to…

Radical Reformation and the Anabaptists

The aim of the radical reformers was to bring about a total restoration of New Testament Doctrine and lifestyle. To achieve that aim a number of things were involved. One was the total separation of church and state. Another was withdrawal from society in general and the creation of alternative ways of living. For some this involved the setting up of communities in which all things were held in common.

Some were completely pacifist by nature; others saw thought the sword was a weapon of punishment for unbelievers. Many practiced ‘banning’ as a way of discipline. If a member were to err from the way they would be shunned until they amended their ways. Others were strongly messianic and thought that the return of Christ was immanent. Most were anti-Clerical, that is they saw no need for Catholic priests or the ‘magisterium’ leadership of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

However their major departure from the faith of the Reformers was their rejection of infant baptism, claiming that it was ‘the highest and chief abomination of the pope”. They therefore became known as the ‘re’ (or ‘ana’) Baptists because of their insistence that only adults should be baptized and a refusal to recognize infant baptism as valid.

The Anabaptist churches were a ‘free’ or ‘gathered’ church; in sociological terms a sect. They did not believe in a Church embracing both sinners and saved, as Catholics and Protestants had. Instead, the elect were a scattered remnant of the faithful, separated from the sinners. The true church of the elect would not remain invisible within a wider body, as Calvin had taught, but had to become visible and be marked off by adult baptism.

The leaders of the Anabaptist movements were a varied group that included scholars, cobblers, ex-priests, mystics, dissatisfied evangelicals and radical revolutionaries. The Hutterites of Moravia, the Mennonites in Holland and the Swiss Brethren in Zurich were early adherents of the Anabaptist movement. The Swiss Brethren were particularly critical of Zwingli in 1525 for his adherence to infant baptism.

Following a law code introduced by Justinian way back in the sixth century (which imposed the death penalty for rebaptisers) the town council of Zurich declared that anyone baptized as an adult would be executed without trial. Just prior to their action Swiss Anabaptist leaders Conrad Grebel and Balthasar Hubmaier had baptized their friend George Blaurock. Similar laws were passed in other reformed centers.

These actions set in motion one of the bloodiest passages of Reformation history. By the early 1520’s hundreds of Anabaptists had been drowned, beheaded or burned at the hands of both Reformed Magistrates and Catholics. Worse was to follow in the city of Munster, in Westphalia.

Munster

Under the influence of the preaching of Bernhard Rothmann the city council of Munster had become favorable to Anabaptist teaching. There appeared in the town a self-styled Dutch prophet named John Van Leyden who announced that Munster was to be the New Jerusalem. On February 9, 1534 his followers seized the town hall. A proclamation was made that any who refused adult baptism would be banished.

Amongst John Leyden’s other beliefs were that the whole world was immanently facing destruction, and that only the ‘New Jerusalem’ (i.e. Munster) would remain. He therefore planned to engage in an aggressive war to defeat the ungodly rulers in preparation for the impending Day of Judgment. At the age of twenty-six he declared himself king of the ‘New Jerusalem’ in Munster and had alongside him a queen, fifteen other wives, and a retinue of 135 servitors. By this time the city had some 8-9000 residents.

In May of 1535 a group from Munster attacked the city hall in Amsterdam, killing the mayor and several other citizens. Others of their number ran naked through the streets announcing the impending doom of the ungodly and calling them to repent before it was to late. An unlikely alliance between the army of the Catholic bishop of Munster and the Protestant Philip of Hesse, eventually invaded Munster, killed every Anabaptist leader they could find and displayed their bodies in iron cages as an unpleasant object lesson for any considering following a similar path.

The incident cast a dark shadow not only on the Anabaptist movements, but also on the Reformation as a whole because of the link between the teaching of Zwingli and the growth of sectarian movements. Stormy waters were indeed in evidence at the font!

Baptism and The Nature of Covenant.

Differences in baptismal practice arose from views of the nature of God’s covenant with God’s people. For Zwingli the primary covenant was the one God made with Adam and renewed for all time with Abraham. The appearance of Jesus Christ was its fulfillment. There was no chasm between the covenant of the Old Testament and that of the New. The history of faith was unified and continuous.

Zwingli (along with Calvin) cited baptism and circumcision as parallel rites. It was right therefore for children of Christian believers to be included in the church through baptism. Jesus commended the faith of children as that which exemplified Kingdom belief. Baptism signaled God’s willingness to accept people as servants, not human willingness to accept God.

In 1531 Zwingli was killed in the battle of Kappel, leaving a huge gap in the leadership at Great Munster. The council of Zurich chose Zwingli’s friend, Heinrich Bullinger.

Heinrich Bullinger.

 Heinrich was born in central Switzerland in July 1504. His father, also named Heinrich, was a parish priest, who like many priests of those days, in violation of the laws of celibacy lived in regular wedlock. Young Heinrich was one of five sons born from this ‘arrangement’, which, although not officially sanctioned, had all the stability of marriage. 

He belonged to the second generation of Continental Reformers. He was twenty-one years younger than Luther, twenty years Zwingli's junior and only twenty-seven years of age when he commenced his life's task at Zurich in 1531. Bullinger possessed the qualifications needed for such a position of critical responsibility in Zurich. His preaching was lucid and enriching. His published sermons carried the Reformation teaching far beyond Zurich and one of his associates spoke of him as 'a divine, enriched by unmeasured gifts of God.'

While Bullinger was essentially a man of peace it is nonetheless evident that he was involved in much controversy - with the Lutherans over the Lord's Supper, with Calvin over the decrees of God, and with the Anabaptists over just about everything! In regard to baptism, like Zwingli before him, Bullinger pointed out that both Jews and Gentiles share in the same covenant though differing in outward administration. Both Jew and Gentile are children of Abraham by faith. He asserted that children were not excluded from the Old Covenant and therefore ought not to be excluded from the New. Again, along with Zwingli and Calvin, he asserted that baptism in the New Covenant corresponds to circumcision in the Old. 

The Second Helvetic Confession
The First Helvetic Confession was a document designed to unite the German Lutheran and Swiss Reformed churches against the Counter-Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church. Whilst it did much to unite the German speaking churches of Switzerland it was not widely received.

As stated earlier, Henreich had intended that his second confession be a personal statement of faith to guide the church after his death. But events following Frederick’s trial for heresy prompted its earlier release. 

The Confession is too extended for a detailed analysis. However the brief outline following will give some indication of the scope of the subject matter covered. 

Chapters 1 and 2: The Scriptures and their interpretation. 

Chapters 3 to 11: The Doctrine of God; Idols, Images and Saints; The One Mediator; Providence; Creation; The Fall; Free Will and Man's Ability; Predestination and Election; Jesus Christ, True God and Man. 

Chapters 12 to 16: The Law of God; The Gospel; Repentance and Conversion; Justification; Faith and Good Works. 

Chapters 17 to 30: The Church and its only Head; The Ministry; The Sacraments; Ecclesiastical Assemblies; Prayers and Singing; Feasts and Fasts; Catechizing and Visiting the Sick; Burial, Purgatory and Apparition of Spirits; Rites and Ceremonies; Celibacy, Marriage and Domestic Affairs; The Civil Magistrate.

Chapter 20 is entirely devoted to baptism. Bullinger leaves us in no doubt regarding his views on adult baptism. 

“ANABAPTISTS. We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Whey should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism? We condemn also the Anabaptists in the rest of their peculiar doctrines which they hold contrary to the Word of God. We therefore are not Anabaptists and have nothing in common with them.”

The last part of the Confession is the most pastoral of the Confessions included in the Book of confessions focusing on such topics as the communal life of the church, the conduct of ministers and the raising of families. 

One interesting feature is 5.248 “MATRIMONIAL FORUM. Let lawful courts be established in the Church, and holy judges who may care for marriages, and may repress all unchastity and shamefulness, and before whom matrimonial disputes may be settled.”

The theological distinctives of the Second Helvetic Confession are Covenant and Baptism. For the Anabaptists covenant was a contractual agreement between voluntary consenting adults. It placed a high premium on individual rights and yielded an emphasis on the autonomy of the local congregation.

For the Reformed, the covenant was not created by contracting parties but by God. All participants in the covenant were chosen by God and thus become part of an organic unity, the body of Christ. The needs of the body hold focus rather than the rights of the individuals. Authority and responsibility lie not only in the local congregation but throughout the whole body.

For USA Presbyterians the major significance of the Helvetic Confession may be that it defines for us our beliefs about infant baptism. We believe that baptism is a sign of beginning a relationship of God. We therefore administer the sacrament to children within the household of faith as well as adults who come to faith.

Jack Rogers makes an interesting contrast between denominations that hold to infant baptism as opposed to those who hold adult baptism. 

       BELIEVERS BAPTISM                INFANT BAPTISM
       Individual Rights                Representative Government
       Personal Piety                   Societal Transformation
       Crisis Conversion                Christian Nurture
       Charismatic Leader               Committee Process
       Local Congregation               Connectional Church.
       Para-Church movements            Institutional Church
       Voluntary Contract               Organic Union
       New Testament over Old           Unity of the Bible

CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS 8. Civil War and Faith Defining - The Westminster Confession

The Westminster Confession was written in House of Westminster during a time of conflicting political and religious loyalties that held an uncertain outcome. It became a founding document of both Scottish and American Presbyterian belief.

The situation in Great Britain was significantly different to that of the rest of Europe. For one thing Britain was not a single state. Scotland and England were different nations. There was a long running conflict with France, an alliance with whom was seen by some as strength, others as a threat. There was the influence of Germany and Spain to contend with, and various political alliances that had been made through marriage or treaty.

The Reformation affected England and Scotland in very different ways. In Scotland the influence of John Knox that led to the Scots Confession had been along similar lines to the Reformation in Europe. John Knox had spent time studying in Geneva under John Calvin. His ideas of the relation of Church and state were influenced by events in Geneva.

In England however King Henry VIII had adopted the Protestant faith for reasons that were political rather than religious. The Catholic Church recognized neither his Kingly rule nor, more significantly, his series of marriages.  The Church of England provided Henry with not only the wedlock he sought, but also political and religious power.

The church he governed was not dissimilar in many respects to the Catholic Church, a fact that dismayed the growing Puritan movement, who influenced by the Pietism and Anabaptist Reformation movements in Europe sought for far more radical reform.

Throw into this confusing mix the fact a series of Kings and Queens came to the throne who were either Catholic or Protestant in their sympathies, (alongside the fact that the most radical of the dissenting Protestant groups felt that royalty should not exist) and it all made for a most unlikely backdrop against which the most influential of Presbyterian creeds should have been composed!

The only link between some of those that authored the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, was that they had no sympathy with the Roman Catholic Church. They wanted neither a Romish King nor a Pope!

Trouble and Civil War

In 1637 King Charles I sought to unite the church by imposing an Anglican liturgy upon the Scottish Presbyterians. A bad move! The Presbyterian Scots rioted and raised an army. By 1640 their army occupied many of the Northern English counties.

In 1640, Charles I called what became known as “The Long Parliament” to raise money to fight against the Scottish rebels. Another disaster. The Parliament split on issues such as the role of bishops, how to quell an Irish rebellion that had also broken out, and who should choose the Kings advisers and ministers. 

 By 1642 that political quarrel had become an armed conflict, the English Civil War. On one side were those loyal to Charles I, the ‘Cavaliers’, on the other side were those loyal to Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell and known as the ‘Roundheads’. The Roundheads, gained the support of the Scots armies by promising to reform the Anglican Church along Scottish Presbyterian lines.

A Called Assembly

 In 1643 the Westminster Assembly was called with the specific aim of producing documents to reform the Church along Presbyterian lines. This was done in conjunction with the Scots, who the same year had made their ‘Solemn League and Covenant’ with the Scots people and parliament. 

The Westminster Assemblies aim was to abolish the Church of England and its Episcopal system (with its ties to royalty) and replace it with a Presbyterian system which would adhere to Calvinistic standards of doctrine and worship and unite the church in England and Scotland. It was only under such terms that the Scots were willing to join the parliamentary forces in their war against Charles I. Eventually Charles I was defeated (in 1649) and executed.

Restoration… kind of.

The turmoil that followed under Parliamentary rule led to a restoration of the monarchy in 1660 when Charles II became King. One of Charles II first acts was to restore the Episcopal system and declare the Church of England the national church.

Meanwhile in Scotland things had taken a different turn. The Westminster Confession was adopted entire by the General Assembly of the Scottish Church in 1647 and ratified by the Scottish parliament in 1649. 

In 1729 the first organized Synod of Presbyterians in America, meeting in Philadelphia, adopted the original Westminster Confession, with some reservations, as its official statement of doctrine.

Until the adoption of ‘The Book of Confessions” by the United Presbyterian Church in 1967 the Westminster Confession of Faith was the sole doctrinal standard of Scottish and American Presbyterian belief and its longer and shorter Catechisms were its major tools of instruction.

The majority of the 121 commissioners to the Westminster Assembly were Presbyterian. They wanted to see a Presbyterian system set forth in the documents produced by that body. They were convinced that Presbyterianism was of God, and not an invention of man.

The Confession

The Confession of Faith is divided into thirty-three chapters. The opening chapter of the Confession deals with the doctrine of the Holy Scripture, as the source of all divine truth. The Westminster Divines wished to set forth the Scriptures as the foundation upon which to build their confession. In particular they were guarding against two heresies
a) Rome's insistence upon a living voice in addition to the Scriptures,
b) the ‘enthusiasts’ claims to continuing special revelation.

Next come four chapters on the topics of the nature of God and the Holy Trinity, the Divine Decree, and the works of God in Creation and Providence. These opening five chapters form the first distinct division in the Confession. Then comes the next division relating to the Fall of Man into Sin, God's Covenant with Man, and Christ the Mediator of the Covenant. These topics are set forth in Chapters Six through Eight. 

Following them the Confession deals with the subject of Free Will in Chapter Nine. The Confession continues with the application of redemption in Chapters Ten through Eighteen. The order of the treatment of these subjects indicates, first, the actions and processes of which God is the agent - Calling, Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification (Chapters Ten through Thirteen). Next come the responses given by those who are sovereignly acted upon by God - Faith, Repentance, Good Works, Perseverance, and Assurance (Chapters Fourteen through Eighteen). 

There are two chapters on the Law of God and Christian Liberty (Chapters Nineteen and Twenty), and then eleven chapters on the relations within the church and between the visible church and the world (Chapters Twenty-one through Thirty-one). They deal respectively with Religious Worship, Oaths and Vows, Church and State relations, and the Church and Sacraments. Finally, the last two chapters (Thirty-two and Thirty-three) deal with Eschatology (End-Times Theology)

The Catechisms

 After the Westminster Assembly completed its work on the confession, it focused its attention on preparation of a catechism. Its early attempts were frustrated, and a consensus developed that two catechisms would be needed, "one more exact and comprehensive, another more easier and short for new beginners." 

The Larger was intended for pulpit exposition, while the Shorter was intended for the instruction of children. These were completed, the Shorter in 1647 and the Larger in 1648. Both function as official standards of doctrine in many denominations today within the Reformed tradition. The Larger has, to a considerable extent, fallen into disuse, while the Shorter has been greatly used and loved, though many have found it too difficult to be an effective teaching aid for children. 

Both are structured in two parts: (1) what we are to believe concerning God, and (2) what duty God requires of us. The first part recapitulates the basic teaching of the confession on God's nature, his creative and redemptive work. The second part contains;(a) exposition of the Decalogue, (b) the doctrine of faith and repentance, and (c) the means of grace (word, sacrament, prayer, concluding with an exposition of the Lord's Prayer.

THE BIG TEN

The first ten clauses are one of the most studied sections of any confession. Briefly stated;
1)    There is one source of Revelation: God’s Word (not any man or council)
2)    Scripture given to us by the inspiration of God.
3)    The Canon is complete.
4)    Scriptures authority rests on the testimony of God.
5)    The internal witness of the Holy Spirit is our final proof.
6)    Scripture is a rule for the fundamentals of salvation (not a history of all that can be possibly known about life)
7)    Scripture has a plain message.
8)    Scripture requires diligent study (allowing the plain message to interpret the harder parts)
9)    Scripture is a Unity – its one message being the saving Grace of God in Jesus Christ
10)    The Spirit and the Word offer a united witness.

By far the most influential of all the Creeds upon Presbyterian doctrine, the Westminster Confession is claimed by some to be the only statement of genuine orthodox Presbyterian belief.

The Six Great Ends 1 The Proclamation of the Gospel

“THE SIX GREAT ENDS OF THE CHURCH.”

1. The proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind

Over a hundred years ago the Presbyterian church in this land was seeking to define what the essentials of it's faith and mission actually were. In 1910 the United Presbyterian Church of North America, following various actions between 1904 and 1910, formulated something that became known as “THE SIX GREAT ENDS OF THE CHURCH.” They have been part of the constitution of our Presbyterian Church, in all it's different varieties ever since and appears as part of our constitution within the Book of Order. They are peculiar Presbyterian and just as relevant now as when they were first proposed.

As we have been going through the “New Beginnings” process, and last year went through “The Story”, this seemed like a good topic to consolidate what we have been learning! So... The Six Great Ends of the Church (From the Book of Order F-1.0304)

The great ends of the church are:

• The proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind
• The shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God
• The maintenance of divine worship
• The preservation of the truth
• The promotion of social righteousness
• The exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world

Each of the “Great Ends” has been represented visually through banners, stained glass windows... (maybe even T-Shirts) that we will use during our studies. So onto business... our first great end....

“The proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind”

In the midst if all the stuff that we do it is never a bad thing to pause and ask ourselves, “Why does the church even exist?” Back that up a little and we could ask, “What was the purpose of the life of Jesus?”

Simply stated Jesus came to bring us a revelation of the Kingdom of God... to reveal to us who God was (and in the process who He was) and how God's love could change everything through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The church exists because we have a dynamic world changing message about a person called Jesus that changes everything! No Jesus. No church. No Jesus. No message. No Jesus. Nothing to say... nothing to proclaim... nothing that we can offer that can be of salvation to anybody or solve anything.

We exist to proclaim the gospel. Of course we do lot's of other things as well, and we proclaim the gospel in many different ways... but the bottom line is we were created by Jesus to proclaim His message of reconciliation and salvation to a world that is lost without it. No other organization has that agenda. It is ours alone.

We find our inspiration for doing that in a couple of places. Firstly (but theses are not in order) we have the Scriptures. Without the Scripture we wouldn't really have any content or message to declare. But scripture alone cannot save us. As we saw in “The Story” our scriptures consist of 66 books that need interpretation and understanding. So secondly we have the living influence Holy Spirit (the very presence of Jesus) to guide us and help us.

At the center of our message... the very symbol of our faith... is the Cross. We proclaim the Christ of the Cross as savior... that what happened at the Cross... was an event of death shattering significance. All of that is contained within this first great end of the Church.... “The proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind.” This is where visual representations come in handy!

The First Great End

"The proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind"

The book represents the Scriptures.

The dove is rising from the Scriptures indicating the source of both the original witness and our present understanding. The same Spirit that inspired the original writers enables us to receive the gospel.

The cross behind the book and dove reminds us that the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ, God with us and for us.

I'll be referencing a book edited by Rev. Joseph D. Small “Proclaiming the Great Ends of the Church” that contains a number of essays on each of the statements (but no pictures!) So if you want to go deeper... I highly recommend it.

So let's engage some scripture in our discussion. (This is a bible study after all!) Getting back to reasons why we exist and do what we do... we feel a need to proclaim salvation, because one of our core convictions is that the world as it is... is not the world as it is meant to be. This conviction is not just about the physical world but touches upon every one of us who lives in this world. A passage that speaks to this is Mark 10:17-31.

¹⁷ As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" ¹⁸ "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. ¹⁹ You know the commandments: 'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.' " ²⁰ "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." ²¹ Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." ²² At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. ²³ Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" ²⁴ The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵ It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." ²⁶ The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" ²⁷ Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." ²⁸ Then Peter spoke up, "We have left everything to follow you!" ²⁹ "Truly I tell you," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel ³⁰ will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--along with persecutions--and in the age to come eternal life. ³¹ But many who are first will be last, and the last first." (Mar 10:17-31 NIV)

In many ways this is quite a disturbing passage. Here is this guy who outwardly is doing everything right. He recognizes Jesus as good. He has done well for himself and prospered. He has kept the commandments ever since he was a boy. He wasn't a liar. He honored his parents. He was faithful. No doubt, there were those down in the synagogue who thought that his favorable financial fortune was related to the inherent goodness of his life. He is concerned, after all, about eternal things. His question is 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Here is a person who is very, very, like ourselves.

And what do we make of the words of Jesus? We, who are dwellers in the richest nation on earth and lack for nothing? “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" What kind of message is this? Maybe we feel a little offended like the disciples who ask “Then who can be saved?”

We keep proclaiming this message that God is with us and God is for us. Why would Jesus be so down on this guy who seemed to have taken such a message on board and had it all together? I suspect it has something to do with concealment. I say that because the answer Jesus gives the man, exposes something about the man. That maybe his trust in God, was not actually trust in God, but in his own ability to be a godly person. That maybe this person had found his worth, not in God, but in the things he presumed God had blessed him with... and which granted him a level of security and respectability.

There's a place in Wales called Trefeca, the ancestral home of a unique preacher from the time of the Methodist revival in Wales called Howell Harris. One of the most fascinating architectural features is in his sitting room, in that the whole ceiling features a mural of the eye of God. Unblinking. Staring down at you. Wherever you are in the room you cannot avoid glancing upward and feeling somehow exposed. It always raise the question; “Is the eye of God something fearful or something comforting? Is the thought that God sees all, knows all, reveals all, tells all... something that sets us free or something that causes us concern?”

The one sentence, in the conversation between the rich young ruler and Jesus that we can miss, is the very first section of verse 21 “Jesus looked at him and loved him.” When we understand that whatever Jesus told this man, was out of love, it changes the conversation. It speaks of the scandal of grace. It reveals to us the complete futility and utter impossibility of earning our inheritance. (A concept Jesus reinforces in parables like that of the prodigal son). We can no more earn favor with God than we can earn our genetic make-up or choose who our parents are.

C.S. Lewis once wrote that there are no such people as ordinary people. Only needy people. That God sees right through every one of us. Yet this passage reminds us that the vision that sees us with unblinking eye, stripping us naked and seeing what we struggle to face... is a loving vision. That Jesus says with God all things are possible.

The salvation of the rich young man was possible. He was not a hopeless case. As you read the gospel accounts of the many encounters with people that the world dismissed as hopeless cases, we realize that with God there are no hopeless cases. Challenging ones. Tricky ones. Impossible ones. Desperate ones. And ones that don't even realize that they are lost!

Jesus looks at them with love and tells us "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” That is the gospel. That's why number one of the great ends of the church is "The proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind". We need to let the world know that salvation is possible. Not only possible but necessary. Which brings us to another passage. John 19:16-19, 28-30

¹⁶ Finally Pilate handed Jesus over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus.¹⁷ Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). ¹⁸ There they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. ¹⁹ Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

²⁸ Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." ²⁹ A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. ³⁰ When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:16-19 and 28-30 NIV)

In our banner image the Scripture and the Spirit lead us to the Cross. The question we seek to answer through proclaiming the gospel is “Why did Jesus die?” Movies like Mel Gibson's “The Passion” go to great lengths visualizing “How Jesus died”. But such portrayals do not answer the more pressing question; “Why?”

Traditionally Christian theology has offered many theories. A financial theory. He died to redeem us. A military image. He died to defeat evil. A legal image. He took the penalty of our guilt that we deserve. A sacrificial image. In the book of Hebrews Jesus is both priest and sacrifice. None of these are wrong. But they are all incomplete. None of them get to the heart of the matter that Jesus died because SIN is a BIG deal.

Sin is concealed. Within us. All around us. Pervading our world and our culture and our church and our politics. We don't see it. We don't recognize it. It conceals itself. (As it did with the rich young man in our last passage). It convinces us that it is not really what it is.

The problem with some of the traditional theological images is that they suggest God has a problem with sin. That somehow on the Cross the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were involved in some huge struggle with each other. God v Jesus with the Holy Spirit playing the role of Switzerland.

Yet as Paul often seeks to make clear, on the Cross it is ALL of God against ALL of sin, it is ALL of God acting all for the salvation of humanity. God is not the problem. Sin is the problem. On the Cross we see the loving arms of God stretched wide in a loving embrace. The words from the Cross “It is finished” apply not simply to His own struggle, but refer to God's victory over sin, evil and death. They are defeated. Finished. Vanquished. They are the losers. God is the winner.

Through “proclaiming the gospel for the salvation if humankind” we are inviting people to realign their lives. To choose to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. To deliberately and consciously choose to stand for justice and hope and peace... and against their opposites... even if it costs and it hurts and it is not easy.

We invite people to a lifestyle that is shaped by the Cross. In the words of Heidi Armstrong “A lifestyle marked by authenticity, transparency, love and forgiveness. Isn't that why Jesus died? Not to provide us with a ticket to heaven someday, but to be the key to a new kind of existence now, an existence that proclaims the gospel of salvation with our very lives.” (p16)

We are invited to proclaim the Cross.

Our basis for this message of salvation, looking again at our picture, is the Bible. Another reading . 1 Corinthians 9: 16-18.

¹⁶ For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! ¹⁷ If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. ¹⁸ What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel. (1Co 9:16-18 NIV)

In his essay on “The Dogma in the Drama,” K. Nicholas Yoda talks about how the bible was not given to us just to satisfy our curiosity, but given that our lives may be changed by it. (P28). He notes that this is not an easy process and talks about Paul's relationship with the Corinthian church.

The Corinthians attack Paul's voice. They don't like the way he speaks. They question his courage. They question his motives. They don't like the way he looks. He counteracts them by inviting them to scrutinize the content of his teaching, to watch the conduct of his life and think about the motive of his message... in terms of... “Why would I even bother dealing with all the stuff you put me through if it wasn't true?

Yoda quotes a sermon by John Newton in which Newton tells his listeners, “I entreat you... receive nothing upon my word any further than I can prove it from the Word of God. And hold every preacher and every sermon that you hear to the same standard.”

The measure of our message has to be the Bible.

But how do we proclaim the gospel for the salvation of humankind?

A wonderful example is given in the account in John 1:43-51 about Nathaniel.

⁴³ The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me." ⁴⁴ Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. ⁴⁵ Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." ⁴⁶ "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip. ⁴⁷ When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit." ⁴⁸ "How do you know me?" Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you." ⁴⁹ Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel." ⁵⁰ Jesus said, "You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that." ⁵¹ He then added, "Very truly I tell you, you will see 'heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on' the Son of Man."

John's gospel begins with a great philosophical and theological opening about who Jesus is. 'In the beginning was the Word. … and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... and we beheld His glory!” Having declared His identity John moves on to explain how people get to know Him.

There is no uniform pattern of reaching out. There is no one size fits all. Some just seem to get it. They hear the proclamation. Jesus says to Philip “Follow Me” And Philip follows. But the Philip's seem to be the exception. More of us it seems are like Nathaniel.

Nathaniel is a seeker. Nathaniel needs to ask questions. Nathaniel needs space. Nathaniel needs moments of personal understanding and revelation. Most of all Nathaniel needs to hear the invitation... “Come and See!”

So this tells us something about the way we are called to proclaim.

Firstly, there needs to be the clear invitation for people to become follows of Jesus Christ. That gets the “Philips” to follow.

But there are the Nathaniel's who will say, in the face of our proclamation “Bah. Can anything good come out of Nazareth” (For Nazareth substitute negative thoughts of your own devising.)

So we say... “Well. Just come and see. Think about it”.

And we have to trust that those who seek will encounter Jesus.

Nathaniel is pictured under a fig tree, a traditional image for a place of thought and consideration.

We have to trust that Jesus knows how to deal with people we ask to “Come and See”.

He does.

Our task? “Out of love for for neighbors and in obedience to the Lord's command, stating our convictions about the savior and then graciously inviting others to 'Come and See' ” (P9)

The first of the Six Great Ends of the Church. "The proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind"

As we consider the future, a question to ask as a church would be “How much of our programming aligns with that core purpose?” Yet we need to go deeper than that. We need to ask, “How much of our lives are aligned with that purpose? How much dies that statement define our relationship and hopes for our church?”

But don't panic... it's only one of six. 5 more are on their way!

To recap.

The first great end is "The proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind"

The churches unique role is proclaiming the good news about Jesus Christ. That Jesus is the Savior. That is nothing is impossible with God. That evil is a reality that can be defeated by faith in what God has done in Christ at the Cross. That with God there is hope and healing for humankind.

We do this in many ways. By being faithful to our foundational documents we find in the Scripture. By recognizing that we cannot do this alone, but in partnership with God, whose Holy Spirit both interprets God's Word to our hearts and empowers us to be Kingdom people. We invite others to “Come and See” and create opportunities for them to question, to reflect and to respond.

And next time... Number 2 “The shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God”

Rev Adrian J. Pratt B.D.