Restoration and Reformation

Restoration and Reformation

John P. Sartelle

"From the time Jesus began to preach, saying.' Repent. For the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17). What was the first word spoken by John the Baptist and Jesus as they came preaching? Each of them returned from his sojourn in the wilderness proclaiming the same thing. (Matt. 3:1-2; 4:17). The word repent conjures up a picture in our minds of a wild-eyed man with unkempt hair carring a sign: "Repent, the end is near." That is exactly the image Satan wants us to have. Many evangelicals avoid the subject of repentance because of that connotation. We must be reminded that the two greatest preachers and leaders of Christian reformation began their initial sermons with the word repent. True reformation begins with repentance,

What did John and Jesus have in mind when they called people to repentance? Their hearers were sinners from the heart whose lives exhibited characteristics alien to the kingdom of heaven. Thus they were calling them to renounce their sin and take on a new character. There is a false and incomplete repentance that confesses a sin and even develops an animosity and aversion to that sin, yet does not adopt the righteous characteristic opposite the illicit behavior. It is not good enough that the penitent eschews greed, Jesus calls him to a gospel generosity. Hence, genuine repentance leads to reformation - a reformation of the repentant individual and society. The authenticity of a Christianity that does not change individuals and societies must be questioned.

Repentance and reformation are born from a change in the inner man wrought by God. Man, with his arrogant ego, wants to produce reformation by his own strength. Such was the shallow sanctification of Nicodemus. Outwardly, he was the epitome of religious obedience. Inwardly, he was full of putrid corruption. Jesus' initial statement to him pertained to a spiritual rebirth in the inner man (John 3:3) The secular world preaches a reformation of outward behavior ( the utopian great society) fashioned by the power of education, capital, or government. Such institutions are only placebos that will not reach to the depth of mankind's depravity. Repentance that produces reformation begins deep in the inner recesses of the heart.

If sin corrupts every part of our being ( and it does), then there must be repentance and reformation in every part of our lives. Sometimes we are wont to say the gossip or jealousy or prejudice is our besetting sin. We ignore other areas of our lives, thinking they are quite right with God and others. Who of us can say we have no need of repentance and change? As a Christian, I know that every aspect of my life is in need of daily repentance, and if it is in need of repentance, it is in need of reformation, There is a reformation continually thanking place in the Christians life from the moment of his conversion until he is called home. The man or woman who has been a Christian seventy years is still repenting, growing in Christ, and being reformed by the Holy Spirit.

There has always been a tendency to "spiritualize" repentance and reformation so that they do not reach the mundane details of our "real" lives. For instance, the young Christian is often taught that if he desires genuine sanctification he must go into some ministry serving the church. Many of us teach Sunday school, sing in the choir, or serve as officers in the church, thinking these are the only ways we can really express our love for Christ when we live in the secular world during the week. When John the Baptist cried to the crowds to repent, some tax collectors and soldiers came to him and asked, "What shall we do?" (Luke 3:12, 14) John did not tell them to leave their vocations (and many viewed those specific vocations as inherently evil). He did not tell them to become prophets or priests. He told them to repent of the sins usually prevalent in their line of work and to bring a godly character to their careers.

For many years I was privileged to meet with five ministers of very large churches on a regular basis. These conservative churches had a combined membership of 48,000 members. I once asked these ministers what percentage of their congregations understood that they were called of God to serve Him in their vocations. Each minister thoughtfully considered the question and gave his answer. Not one estimate was over ten percent. Ninety percent of these congregations were not bringing repentance and reformation to the places where they spent the majority of their week. We are called of God to bring heartfelt repentance and reformation to every area of our lives and His world. Over the last century, Christians in our society have abandoned the institutions of media, government, education, arts, business, and so on. The strange truth is that we abandoned these institutions in the name of Christ. We must ask, " What Jesus were we serving?" Certainly not the Jesus whose first preached word was repent as He sought to bring restoration and reformation to a lost creation

We Believe the Bible and You Do Not

by Keith Mathison

Not too long ago, in an effort to get a better grasp of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, I was reading the chapters on the sacraments in Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, and I ran across this statement: "The difference between the Lutheran Church and the Reformed in the doctrine of Baptism is fully and adequately defined by saying that the former believes God's Word regarding Baptism, the latter not" (vol. 3, p. 269).

Let that one sink in for just a moment. Here we have one of the most respected Lutheran systematic theologians of the last century saying that the difference between his church and the Reformed over baptism can be summed up as follows: "Lutherans believe the Bible, and the Reformed don't." It's just that simple, right?

When I first read this, I was a bit taken aback. How could a theologian as brilliant as Pieper so casually ignore the role of interpretation on this point? Why could he not see that this is not a matter of disbelieving the Bible, but of disagreeing with the Lutheran interpretation of the Bible?

I recalled, however, that this kind of statement in regard to the sacraments goes back to the sixteenth-century debates between the Lutherans and the Reformed. In his debates with the Lutheran Joachim Westphal, John Calvin was almost driven to distraction by Westphal's repeated claim that Jesus' words "This is my body" allowed of no interpretation. One either believed them or one disbelieved them. In the historical context of the Lutheran-Reformed debates, then, Pieper's statement is not terribly unusual.

If you are Reformed or Baptist, what is your immediate reaction to Pieper's statement? Do you accept his claim that the only difference between you and the Lutherans on the subject of baptism is that Lutherans believe the Bible and you don't? Or do you think that his statement is a poor excuse for an argument? Do you think it is a fair statement, or do you think it is somewhat self-serving?

Lest I be accused of picking on my Lutheran brothers, ask yourself this question now: "How many times have I seen my theological heroes use essentially the same kind of argument in different theological disputes?"

I don't know about you, but as I reflect on it, I can recall numerous times when I've seen this "argument" in action in my own theological circles. When I was a dispensationalist, the common thought was that the difference between premillennialists and everyone else was fully and adequately defined by saying that premillennialists believed God's Word regarding the millennium while amillennialists and postmillennialists did not. We believed what God said in Revelation 20. Amillennialists and postmillennialists did not believe what God said. Case closed.

When I was a Baptist, I regularly heard it said that Baptists believed God's Word concerning believer's baptism while others did not. As a Presbyterian, I've heard it said that Presbyterians believe God's Word concerning the promises to the children of believers while the Baptists do not.

I've heard this line of argument used in disputes involving the Sabbath, the days of Genesis, theonomy, the gifts of the Spirit, church government, you name it. In every dispute over the meaning of some biblical text or theological point, it seems that someone eventually throws out some version of the line: "The simple fact of the matter is that we believe what God clearly says here and you don't." When both sides in a given debate do it, the result is particularly edifying.

Re-read the Lutheran quote in the first paragraph. Do you (assuming you are not Lutheran) find it persuasive when it is said of you that the only reason you do not accept the Lutheran understanding of baptism is because you do not believe God's Word? Probably not. But we find that same kind of statement very assuring (and persuasive) when it is said in support of a doctrine or interpretation that we happen to agree with.

The problem with Pieper's statement is that he does not allow for any conceptual distinction between the infallible and inerrant Word of God and his own fallible and potentially errant interpretation of that Word. Thus, to disagree with his interpretation is to disagree with God. But this is obviously false. Presbyterians and Baptists do not reject the Lutheran doctrine of baptism because they disbelieve God's Word. They reject it because they think Lutherans have misinterpreted God's Word.

The fact of the matter is that people who believe equally in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture sometimes disagree in their interpretation of some parts of that Scripture. We know God's Word is not wrong, but we might be. God is infallible; we are not. We are not free from sin and ignorance yet. We still see through a glass darkly. In hermeneutical and theological disputes, we need to make an exegetical case, and we need to examine the case of those who disagree with us. It proves nothing to make the bare assertion: "We believe the Bible and you don't."