Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:42:42 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Martin Bucer pre-Leithartian?
Here’s a sample:
Now the reason why God authorized men to use a rite of this nature, involving immersion or washing or sprinkling with water and received at the hands of the official ministers of religion, as the means of obtaining the washing away of their sins and hence also as the regular mode of initiation to the service of God, is to be found in his purpose to confirm and stimulate to greater vigor in them by this procedure the first and foremost principle of our salvation, namely, faith in the remission of sins, that is, in our unmerited justification. For God himself formed us in such a way that whenever we are seriously promising or conferring invisible realities our natural inclination is to do so by means of signs perceptible to the senses. The same procedure can be observed among all peoples in important transactions of every kind, for it is in this manner that treaties are concluded, kings installed, marriages contracted, and sales executed. Consequently, as far as this use of symbols is concerned, God deals with us in terms of our own practice, as he is accustomed to do in other respects as well. And since the whole of the covenant he has made with us and our entire salvation (which is his primary consideration in all his dealings with us) have their beginning and basis in our persuasion that he pardons our sins, in his wisdom he has willed to confirm and stimulate our faith in this pardon principally by his own symbol, and particularly at the time when men consecrate themselves to his service in a special way. For on that occasion they reflect more closely on their own unworthiness and his goodness, and as a result more fully forsake self and dedicate themselves to him for a life of complete holiness and a true readiness to serve the needs of all men.
His purpose, however, to present the remission of sins through the agency of public ministers of religion was not determined solely by the fact that it is appropriate for physical symbols to be conferred at the hands of men. It was also his aim by this means to knit his own more closely together and to each other, and to bind them more securely to submission to religious instruction and admonition in the congregation. This should result from their realizing that the men from whom they received the counsels of salvation and to whom they must cleave as fellow members in the same body are able to shut or to open heaven to them, and to retain or to remit their sins. The Church of God, of course, has always possessed this power, and God has never failed to make use of its exercise for the salvation of his own whenever the Church has languished in spirit and the light of knowledge.
It should now be clear from what we have said why God has required his Church in every age to use baptism and in this manner to introduce men to his service.
Here’s another:
And therefore, when the faithful, believing theses words and not doubting that they are addressed by the Lord to themselves (that they were in fact spoken only to them is proved by phrases in the context such as, “is given for you, is shed for you, is the new covenant,” which are all entirely alien to those who lack faith), truly eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, there is no reason based on the authority of Scripture which compels us on that account to tie the body of Christ to the bread in a physical manner, and not rather to confess that when Christ is eaten by faith by believers these words are completely fulfilled. The godly man hears that Christ offered bread to his disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body,” and believes that this is spoken to himself as well. Does he not truly eat the body of Christ even though no change occurs in the bread that he eats? A prince hands over to a judge elect a rod as the symbol of judicial authority, adding these words: “Behold, I hearby commit to you the authority of a judge.” The latter, believing his prince and accepting the rod, is at the same time constituted a judge, although the rod in itself remains nothing but a rod. Similarly by the symbol of the keys a person may receive the rights of the household, the keys remaining in their own essence the same as they were before.
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:31:29 EST
From: Leithart@aol.com
Subject: Re: Martin Bucer pre-Leithartian?
Mark,
Thanks. But I’m rather say I’m a post-Bucerian. Or, that both Marty and I are simply Augustinians.
Peter
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
a word from the godfather
“I just thought the juxtaposition of the Keller quotes with Jordan’s/Leithart’s was interesting and worthy of discussion — especially since some sort of synthesis seems likely. It’s been at the back of my mind as a point for discussion for years.” — Rich Lusk
“Another one of my favorite guys has also taken down some of his stuff and has retired from the blogosphere because it is so, you know, mean. Translated from the FV, that means that they’ve been uncovered and they need to lie low until the dust settles and institutional inertia can take effect. Hiding what you really are behind protestations that others are breaking the 9th? How precious is that? Evidently, the 9th means exactly what they say it means — nothing more and nothing less. Truth hurts. Maybe if the FV [men] worried more about the true gospel and less about the color of their gowns, sashes and stoles, we wouldn’t be where we are now.” — Eileen
“Generally one doesn’t dog the Westminster Assembly as ‘weak’ and get along well in Presby circles. . . . Now if we could just get everybody to read the latest issue of Credenda.” — DP Cassidy
a well-documented history
book review
“Well, the inevitable finally happened with content from the 2005 Biblical Horizons list recently made public on an anonymous Yahoo blog. I don’t know how much material from Biblical Horizons will make its way to the web, but what has come out thus far has proven embarrassing to some, including a dear friend within my own church.” — David Bayly
“Yet, not everyone has seen the FV for what it is. Some FV advocates have protested that there is no difference between what they promote and Westminsterian Calvinism. Others have asserted, absurdly, that there is no ‘FV movement.’ The BH list shows those things to be false, and, in that, it is useful. One would hope that TE’s Wilkins, Meyers and Leithart made these emails available to the various committees charged with examining their views.” — Ken Pierce
“Yet, not everyone has seen the FV for what it is. Some FV advocates have protested that there is no difference between what they promote and Westminsterian Calvinism. Others have asserted, absurdly, that there is no ‘FV movement.’ The BH list shows those things to be false, and, in that, it is useful. One would hope that TE’s Wilkins, Meyers and Leithart made these emails available to the various committees charged with examining their views.” — Ken Pierce
“MLK was a pretty sorry specimen of humanity. . . As a person, MLK was trash and he’s in hell.” — James B. Jordan
helpful quotes
“. . . nothing you reprinted here differs from what I have said for 35+ years.” — James B. Jordan
“I — and since BH is me, we. . .”
— James B. Jordan
“It shows us many, many things about the FV that the critics have been saying all along, and Jordan agrees.” — Pastor Lane Keister
“. . . the post above I think is overstated, rhetorically unhelpful, historically misguided and wrong. In short, I disagree. . .” — Douglas Wilson
“Jim’s statement is misleading and wrong, and I wish he would retract it.” — Douglas Wilson
“I didn’t say ‘recant’ . . . but rather ‘retract,’ which is what somebody should do with any mistake, whether 30 years old or not.” — Douglas Wilson
“This is what happens when a guy who knows just enough to be dangerous admits the truth, and a guy who knows even less refuses to do the same.”
— Ron Henzel
“well something seems to have gone off the rails” — Paul Duggan
“I’m still confused.” — Mark Horne
“I — and since BH is me, we. . .”
— James B. Jordan
“It shows us many, many things about the FV that the critics have been saying all along, and Jordan agrees.” — Pastor Lane Keister
“. . . the post above I think is overstated, rhetorically unhelpful, historically misguided and wrong. In short, I disagree. . .” — Douglas Wilson
“Jim’s statement is misleading and wrong, and I wish he would retract it.” — Douglas Wilson
“I didn’t say ‘recant’ . . . but rather ‘retract,’ which is what somebody should do with any mistake, whether 30 years old or not.” — Douglas Wilson
“This is what happens when a guy who knows just enough to be dangerous admits the truth, and a guy who knows even less refuses to do the same.”
— Ron Henzel
“well something seems to have gone off the rails” — Paul Duggan
“I’m still confused.” — Mark Horne
The YAHOO! Cam captured James Jordan’s reaction to the news that his beloved list went public:
“If you want to keep something secret, don’t put it on the internet.”
— Johannes Weslianus
“The most interesting aspect of the discussions has been the way they regard and describe their critics. I won’t try to describe the rhetoric. It’s better that you read it for yourself.”
— R. Scott Clark
— Johannes Weslianus
“The most interesting aspect of the discussions has been the way they regard and describe their critics. I won’t try to describe the rhetoric. It’s better that you read it for yourself.”
— R. Scott Clark
NEW WINE — IT'S POISON!
“Oh, it’s true enough: We depart from the whole Reformation tradition at certain pretty basic points. It’s no good pretending otherwise. I think the PCA is perfectly within its rights to say no to all BH types. We are NOT traditional presbyterians. The PCA suffers us within itself, but we are poison to traditional presbyterianism.” — James B. Jordan