There used to be a time Post-Reformation, where those who wished to attend the Lord's Table had to make a credible profession of faith to partake.  Even now some Reformed denominations have similar requirements.  Some practice closed communion, (only communing members may partake) and some like my denomination, the PCA verbally fence the table.  That means prior to communion the Pastor tells everyone attending that to partake of the Supper one has to be a Christian, a member in good standing of an evangelical church, and not engaged in open and public scandal, or under discipline.  Those under discipline know who they are and they simply do not partake being instructed by the Session.  During Calvin's time, to not partake of the Supper may have carried more of a social stigma then it does today.  So many churches pass the elements down the aisle and those who do not partake go unnoticed and are usually not embarrassed.  Those who should not partake and do anyway also can go unnoticed.  Some Churches like mine have families come up to the chancel to receive the elements from the Session so it can be a little more obvious to everyone who does not partake, especially if the congregation isn't very large.  The Reformed churches who don't practice closed communion, surely have unbelievers taking the supper, and probably have people under discipline taking it as well.  It is hard to fence the table because of a variety of reasons. 

John Calvin found himself in a unique situation.  Calvin faced off against a group that had recently lost political power upon Calvin's arrival at Geneva.  The Libertines were a group who appealed to the freedom of the Spirit as an excuse to indulge in the desires of the flesh.  Some have said of the Libertines, that the "communion of saints" meant the common possessions of all goods and even other men's wives.  They were sexually immoral and proud of their liberty.  They were proud of their liberty all the while insisting on their right to attend the Lord's Table.  But the Reluctant Reformer stood in opposition. 

Here is what one historian writes:  "The eventful morning dawned. The bell invited the people to the church of St. Peter. The Libertines were present, with their swords (drawn), determined to communicate. Calvin preached on the intention of the sacred ordinance, and spoke of the state of mind necessary for obedience to the Lord’s command. At the close, he said: “As for me, so long as God shall leave me here, since He hath given me fortitude, and I have received it from Him, I will employ it, whatever betide; and I will guide myself by my Master’s rule, which to me is clear and well known. As we are now about to receive the holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, if anyone who has been debarred by the Consistory shall approach this table, though it should cost my life, I will show myself such as I ought to be.” -  He then left the pulpit, and stood at the table. Removing the white cloth, and covering the bread and wine with his hands, he said, with a voice that rang through the building, “These hands you may crush; these arms you may lop off; my life you may take; my blood is yours, you may shed it but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane, and dishonor the table of my God.” As if the very power of God prevailed, a calm succeeded, and the Libertines retired.... A solemn silence enabled the Reformer to celebrate the sacred ordinance in awe, as if the Lord Himself had been manifestly present. The question in the mind of Calvin was not whether he or the Libertines should succeed; but whether the Reformation should be wrecked at the very table of the Lord. He stood firm; and victory remained with him."  -History of Protestantism by James A. Wylie

Calvin's courage against the Libertines in one sense was easy, although it wasn't easy to face down the threat of swords to be sure.  Osterhaven writes- “A crowd of Libertines surged forward to the table. Calvin, descending from the pulpit, stood before the table. With drawn sword a Libertine cried, ‘Administer communion to us or you will die.’  (The Banner Of Truth; “The Reformers: The Secret Of Their Greatness”; Eugene Osterhaven).  So I'm not saying it was actually easy to face death over the issue of "who should take communion", because it wasn't.  I remember recently a "Gay" rights group attending a Mass in Chicago (I think) dressed as clowns and they were allowed to partake.  So the courage to ban those from the table that should be banned is hard to find.  What Calvin did in the face of death wasn't easy. But it was easy in this sense:  it was obvious to Calvin that the thought of the Libertines participating in the Supper was worse than death. 

But what about those who are not so obvious?  What about the ones who carry no sword and carry no profession?  How do we fence those who are non-believers?  How do we fence those who are not so known to us?  It does seem nowadays that fencing the table is a foreign concept.  Well it's not foreign among normal run of the mill evangelicals.  Sometimes modern evangelicals fence the table by having a Communion service on Sunday night (monthly or quarterly), knowing that mainly members will be there.  Sometimes modern evangelicals fence the table by saying something like "if you haven't confessed up all your sins then do so now."  I remember when I was a kid attending a Baptist church, wondering if I had remembered all my sins?  It was hard in my mind even as a kid, to get "worthy enough" to take the Supper.  But that is not the fencing I'm talking about.  None of us come worthy to the table.  Let's make that clear.  If we have a Table that is only for "worthy" people then none of us should ever participate in the Supper.  But what about the basic stuff?  Should we do more than to verbally fence the table?  I don't know maybe we should.  Maybe we are doing all we can.  I'm not advocating closed communion.  I don't think the Table is just a Presbyterian Table, it is a Christian Table.  But I am wondering to myself if we could or should do more to take seriously the guarding of God's honor in who receives the body and blood of Christ.  Maybe we should fence the table in more ways than verbal instruction.  To be sure that goes on in some churches.  Some of that goes on behind the scenes pastorally, I know that.  I appreciate that and thank God for those Pastors who exercise godly and living discipline.  Some parishoners for reasons of conscience elect to sit out.  That is a good thing.  I know we should fence the table.  I wonder what I would do faced with a sword?  I'm  wondering if we are doing enough and should do more.  If we are fencing the Table, I'm wondering if we should do it Calvin style? 

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

A Southwestern Seminary Professor tells a heartbreaking story about his encounter, his one night with Todd Bentley. You can read it here. Here is some telling videos of "Healing Minister" Todd Bentley. One of them is his fascination with Angels.

July 10th was John Calvin's birthday.  He was born in 1509 and the 10th would have been his 499th birthday.  He died on May 27th, 1564.  We have no marker to commemorate his death, to lay down flowers or even to take pictures.  Why?  Because he desired to be buried in a pauper's grave so that no one would think about visiting his grave in pilgrimages.  There was too much of that in the Roman Catholic world at that time.  Well it is that kind of humility that marked the life of the Reluctant Reformer.  It is also one of the reasons that the Reluctant Reformer and Doctor of Geneva's work, theology and passion for Christ carries on in our modern era.  John Calvin was probably converted sometime in 1533.  His only mention of his conversion comes from his introduction to his commentary on the Psalms.  He didn't talk about himself very much.  But he did preach and he preached volumes.  T.H.L Parker, a Biographer of Calvin notes that Calvin preached one hundred and eighty-nine sermons on the Acts between 1549 and 1554, a shorter series on some of the Pauline letters between 1554 and 1558, and sixty-five sermons on the Harmony of the Gospels between 1559 and 1564. During that time he preached a series on Jeremiah and Lamentations (up to 1550), on the Minor Prophets and Daniel (1550-2), then one hundred and seventy-four on Ezekiel (1552-4), then one hundred and fifty-nine on Job (1554-5), then two hundred on Deuteronomy (1555-6), then three hundred and forty-two on Isaiah (1556-9), then one hundred twenty-three on Genesis (1559-61), a short set on Judges (1561), one hundred and seven on 1 Samuel and eighty-seven on 2 Samuel (1561-3) and a set on 1 Kings (1563-4).   That is just a sampling of his volumous works in preaching.  He also wrote his Institutes of the Christian Religion and a mass of commentaries on the Scriptures.  John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a monumental work that stands among the greatest works of Christian theology and Western literature.  Calvin's Institutes did much to shape the church's understanding of Christian doctrine for generations and has had a tremendous amount of influence in the development of Western thought in both the religious and civil arenas.  His Institutes represent his life's work in teaching theology. Originally Calvin wrote the Institutes to give his readers a basic understanding of Christian doctrine.  Can you imagine that?  Basic?  Amazing.  Anyway the Institutes became one of the earliest systematic theologies of the Reformed tradition. In writing the Institutes Calvin wanted to give the reader the necessary background to read and accurately handle the great doctrines and promises of the Bible.  Calvin sent a copy to the King Francis I to encourage him to stop persecuting the Christians who were embracing the gospel as taught by the Reformers. His basic argument was that if the king understood what these people believed he would stop killing them as heretics but rather see them as faithful adherents of historical Christianity. His two-volume work is broken down into four books that loosely follow the outline of the Apostle's Creed. Book 1 concerns knowledge of God. Book 2 is about Jesus Christ as redeemer. Book 3 is about the Holy Spirit's role in applying Christ's redeeming graces. Book 4 is about the church and practice.  Calvin was the first in the great Protestant tradition to pen a Biblical, systematic theology that every Christian could and should read. 

Calvin's Institutes should be read by anyone who desires an understanding of the development of Western thought, literature and theology. The Institutes is not just  great theology, which it is, but what you find out when you read the Institutes is that they are also extremely pastoral and devotional. They are not like reading a modern systematic theology. Calvin understood doctrine to be more than just heady intellectualism, but it was actually something to mold our understanding of God, and ourselves and the world in which we live.

John Calvin was a scholar to be sure, and wished for nothing but a life of books and scholarship.  But one encounter with a fiery eyed preacher named Farel changed all of that.  No, no providence changed all of that.  Calvin had no intention of staying in Geneva that providential night.  No he was passing through and that was all.  But Farel wouldn't hear of it.  Farel greatly desired reformation in Geneva and he knew he needed the helpful, pastoral scholarship of someone like Calvin.  Farel oh so genlty coaxed Calvin into staying in Geneva.  He simply threatened the curse of God on Calvin if Calvin left.  So Calvin reluctantly agreed to stay for a time.  He later became Pastor and was fired.  After the Roman Catholics looked as though they would take back over the chancel, through the influential arguments of a crafty Cardinal named Sadoleto Calvin was called back.  He went back to the Church which had fired him.  A point of which speaks to his humility and forgiving spirit.  I for one would have probably called down fire on such a place, but not Calvin.  No he had the heart of a Pastor.  His heart for God's people and God's Word made him unique.  It made him someone way ahead of his time.  It made him, Calvin the great Doctor of Geneva.  Happy belated birthday John Calvin.  May all of us who wear the Reformed badge immulate your humility, your courage, your love for Christ and your love for God's people.

"True and sound wisdom consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves." Institutes 1.1.1

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

Something's not right.  Something is amiss.  Calvinism has always stirred up some kind of controversy, but you could always count on the Calvinists to be outnumbered.  But now Calvinism seems to have gone the way of the fad, trends, and postmodernism.  Calvinism is naturally off-putting.  I mean traditionally it hasn't catered to or stroked the ego like so many other theological systems.  So something doesn't seem right with this new kind of Calvinistic resurgence. In an odd sort of way it has become somewhat of a hybrid system.   I fear it is either becoming or has become a sort of hybrid mixture of something old (orthodoxy), something new (postmodernism), something borrowed (inclusivism) and something blue (colorful language). 

I used to go to a Christian High School where Calvinism was not very popular.  That was okay with me, I always liked a good fight.  I kind of thought that was the way Calvinism was supposed to be; a kind of underdog type of theology in today's culture.  But something has changed.  The change has been both gradual and radical.  Too many are too easily becoming Calvinists.  Too many find it tempting to embrace the doctrines of grace.  Someone is saying to themselves now..."What?  Too easy?  Are you sure?"  Shouldn't it be harder?  Where are the wars?  Where are the fights?  Some of the biggest knock-down drag out arguments I've had were over the Doctrines of Grace.  - Note: I'm not saying that is a good thing.  I say that too my shame because I was the one usually doing the yelling etc... But every new Calvinist usually has gone through this type of struggle or fight.  Usually when the prospective Calvinist is confronted with Sovereign Grace and the light comes on, it takes a few years to soften the edges of his rhetoric.  This is especially true when this new Calvinist is trying to win over as many as he can from the Arminian dark side.  But there doesn't seem to be much of that going on in this new kind of resurgent Calvinism.   Maybe the "new" Calvinism is a friendlier, kinder and gentler "Calvinism".  Who knows.

I once threw my Bible against the wall when I first read Romans 9.  I couldn't believe it said what it said.  It was hard to become a Calvinist for me.  The thought of being the master of my domain was especially hard to lay down.  But now to become a Calvinist seems kind of like becoming a Red Sox Fan.  It's too easy to be a fan when they are winning you know!  So I'm wondering to myself if all these new Calvinists are actually Calvinists who embrace the tulip? Or are there too many "new" Calvinists who are simply followers of the latest trend and movement?  Are these "new" Calvinists, 5 pointers because it's trendy and against the grain which is kind of cool?  How many of these "new" Calvinists are actually happy to read the Necessity of Reforming the Church?  I've also been wondering to myself this thought:  What if Piper and MacArthur were Arminians (which they aren't) but what if they were?  How many less Calvinists would we have? I wonder how many "Calvinists" that are out there have actually fought and railed against the tulip prior to their embrace of it?  How many fought and clawed their way to finally understanding the Sovereignty of God in Salvation?  How many have actually bled and cried over Romans 9 while finally understanding that they are without a doubt saved by the Sovereign grace of Jesus!  Or how many thought Calvinism was cool and just blindly accepted it because guys like Piper, Harris, Mahaney, Dever and others are Calvinists?  How many of these "New" Calvinists actually have read Calvin?  How many of them own a copy of the Institutes? 

I hope and pray that the "New" Calvinists will be more and more like Calvin.  I hope and pray that this "new" resurgence in Calvinism has partly become popular because of the attraction to the Passionate proclamation of the Gospel by guys like MacArthur and Piper.  I hope the new Calvinism will work hard at looking like Piper and MacArthur.  If this "new" Calvinism has grown popular because of the faithful exposition of God's Word by Piper and MacArthur, then I praise God for it.  I'm growing skeptical though.  To me a Calvinist is not just someone who reads and listens to Piper, Mahaney, Harris, MacArthur and Dever.  (For the record I listen to them almost daily).  But to me a Calvinist is more than a "new" radical 5 pointer.  The Calvinist in my opinion is one who reads, studies and works through the whole of Calvinism.  The Institutes is a good place to start you know.

I think time will tell how many of the "new" Calvinists stick.  I think time will tell if these new "postmodern", "edgy", "blue", and "intellectual" Calvinists are actually- post reformation, died in the wool Calvinists.   We'll see.  Time and Providence will tell if the "new" Calvinists will grow to be old ones. 

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

John Piper had some very interesting things to say after watching a documentary on the martyrdom of Jim Elliot.  Here's what he said: The missionaries had guns when they were speared to death. One of them shot the gun into the air, it appears, as he was killed, rather than shooting the natives. They had agreed to do this. The reason was simple and staggeringly Christlike:  The natives are not ready for heaven. We are.  I suspect the same could be said for almost anyone who breaks into my house. There are other reasons why I have never owned a firearm and do not have one in my house. But that reason moves me deeply.  I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun. Better to find some missionaries like this and support them.  Read the whole thing here:

There were a couple of things that bothered me while reading Piper's comments.  One- There seems to me to be a distinction between someone breaking into our home with the intentions of rape, murder or robbery and someone like an Auca indian who killed Jim Elliot.  But that's just me.  I was also especially bothered by the social activist type statement about economic stimulus check jargon.   I don't see the connection.  I don't think the connection is even close.   What I do with my stimulus check is my business.  Even if I bought a gun with it, (which I didn't...I already have plenty) there is nothing unlawful about doing so!  There is nothing unlawful about owning a gun.  There is nothing unlawful about wanting to own a gun or actually purchasing a gun.  I don't care if s0meone doesn't want to own a gun, but for a preacher like Piper to  stress that it be improper to do so is seriously weird for a preacher to do.  Anyway...I digress.

But what about this notion of letting someone enter your house filled with your wife and children and not defending yourself or them?  Would that make you a martyr?  I don't think so.  It would only make someone a victim.  I for one think that Brother Piper is out to lunch on this one.  Sorry.  I just think it is plain nutty to equate Jim Elliot's martyrdom with not defending yourself or family.  Can't we be reasonable about this?  The criminals who break into homes cannot be reasoned with.  I have three reasons which are reasonable that answer the question:  can I defend myself or my family against would be attackers ?

Reasonable Reason #1

Westminster Shorter Catechism

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

Reasonable Reason #2

Self Defense is a basic human right even for the Christian! 

Reasonable Reason #3

It is not godly to abscond one's duty to protect wife and children.  If one chooses to forgoe his duty as a man to protect his family then that man is just plain guilty of not loving of his wife as he should, even though it is clearly by omission.  How do you obey Ephesians 5 and just stand there to allow someone to harm your family?  Many feel it quite natural to equate what we should do with the biblical notion of turning the other cheek or giving away our cloaks.  But Cloaks and Cheeks are not the same nor are they equal to the sanctity and preciousness of the life of my family.  Martyrdom?  Really?  Don't think so.  Those who break in and steal in my house will not be bound by the strong man, they will be shot.  And that makes me feel better.

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux