The Radical Resurgence

A common quotation from “Augustine”?

The question most commonly bouncing off the Internet wall to me about Augustine is the source of the following quotation: “in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.” In late 2004, I have seen the quotation, unattributed, on a brass plaque outside the front door of the national headquarters of The Grange, 1616 H Street NW, in Washington DC.

This page has now an interesting history. If you read down, you will see the sequence of scholarly discovery, first in 1997 when a colleague brought new material to me, then in 2010, when a kindly and learned web-stranger brought still new material. The story grows more interesting and is well worth reading to the end.

The quotation seems to have gotten into circulation as something attributed to Augustine, and so I am asked the source. I cannot find the text in Augustine’s own texts, nor does it sound Augustinian to me, but it is clearly popular. So I went on a web-crawl. To my surprise, delight, and then bemusement, I found that this quotation is a pan-denominational maxim, quoted as authoritative in a dizzying variety of incompatible Christian traditions. The closest I came to a source was Wesley, until I found a specific reference to John XXIII’s first encyclical, Ad Petri cathedram of 1959. I cannot find the Latin text on-line, but the English translation is available, whence this quotation, its paragraph 72:

But the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.

I take that as suggesting that the Vatican’s own scribes and scholars cannot find a sure attribution.

8 September 1997: Thanks to Prof. Gerald Schlabach of Bluffton College, I now have the following report, more than a century old, which gives the saying a seventeenth-century date:

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, pp. 650-653 (repr. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1965)

It was during the fiercest dogmatic controversies and the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War, that a prophetic voice whispered to future generations tile watchword of Christian peacemakers, which was unheeded in a century of intolerance, and forgotten in a century of indifference, but resounds with increased force in a century of revival and re-union:

“IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY.

NOTE

On the Origin of the Sentence: “In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis (or, dubiis) libertas, in utrisque (or, omnibus) caritas.”

This famous motto of Christian Irenics, which I have slightly modified in the text, is often falsely attributed to St. Augustin (whose creed would not allow it, though his heart might have approved of it), but is of much later origin. It appears for the first time in Germany, A.D. 1627 and 1628, among peaceful divines of the Lutheran and German Reformed churches, and found a hearty welcome among moderate divines In England.

The authorship has recently been traced to RUPERTUS MELDENIUS an otherwise unknown divine, and author of a remarkable tract in which the sentence first occurs. He gave classical expression to the irenic sentiments of such divines as Calixtus of Helmstadt, David Pareus of Heidelberg, Crocius of Marburg, John Valentin Andreae of Wuerttemberg, John Arnd of Zelle, Georg Frank of Francfort-on-the-Oder, the brothers Bergius in Brandenburg, and of the indefatigable traveling evangelist of Christian union, John Dury, and Richard Baxter. The tract of Meldenius bears the title, Paraenesis votiva pro Pace Ecclesiae ad Theologos Augustanae Confessionis, Auctore Ruperto Meldenio Theologo, 62 pp. in 4to, without date and place of publication. It probably appeared in 1627 at Francfort-on-the-Oder, which was at that time the seat of theological moderation. Mr. C. R. Gillett (librarian of the Union Theological Seminary) informs me that the original copy, which he saw in Berlin, came from the University of Francfort-on-the-Oder after its transfer to Breslau.

Dr. Luecke republished the tract, in 1860, from a reprint in Pfeiffer’s Variorum Auctorum Miscellanea Theologiae (Leipzig, 1736, pp. 136-258), as an appendix to his monograph on the subject (pp. 87-145). He afterwards compared it with a copy of the original edition in the Electoral library at Cassel. Another original copy was discovered by Dr. Klose in the city library of Hamburg (1858), and a third one by Dr. Briggs and Mr. Gillett in the royal library of Berlin (1887).

The author of this tract is an orthodox Lutheran, who was far from the idea of ecclesiastical union, but anxious for the peace of the church and zealous for practical scriptural piety in place of the dry and barren scholasticism of his time. He belongs, as Luecke says (“Stud. und Kritiken,” 1851, p. 906), to the circle of “those noble, genial, and hearty evangelical divines, like John Arnd, Valentin Andrea,, and others, who deeply felt the awful misery of the fatherland, and especially the inner distractions of the church in their age, but who knew also and pointed out the way of salvation and peace.” He was evidently a highly cultivated scholar, at home in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and in controversial theology. He excels in taste and style the forbidding literature of his age. He condemns the pharisaical hypocrisy, the philodoxia, philargia, and philoneikia of the theologians, and exhorts them first of all to humility and love. By too much controversy about the truth, we are in danger of losing the truth itself. Nimium altercando amittitur Veritas. “Many,” he says, “contend for the corporal presence of Christ who have not Christ in their hearts.” He sees no other way to concord than by rallying around the living Christ as the source of spiritual life. He dwells on the nature of God as love, and the prime duty of Christians to love one another, and comments on the seraphic chapter of Paul on charity (1 Cor. 13). He discusses the difference between necessaria and nonnecessaria. Necessary dogmas are, (1) articles of faith necessary to salvation; (2) articles derived from clear testimonies of the Bible; (3) articles decided by the whole church in a synod or symbol; (4) articles held by all orthodox divines as necessary. Not necessary, are dogmas (1) not contained in the Bible; (2) not belonging to the common inheritance of faith; (3) not unanimously taught by theologians; (4) left doubtful by grave divines; (5) not tending to piety, charity, and edification. He concludes with a defense of John Arnd (1555-1621), the famous author of “True Christianity,” against the attacks of orthodox fanatics, and with a fervent and touching prayer to Christ to come to the rescue of his troubled church (Rev. 22: 17).

The golden sentence occurs in the later half of the tract (p. 128 in Luecke’s edition), incidentally and in hypothetical form, as follows:-

“Verbo dicam: Si nos servaremus IN necesariis Unitatem, IN non-necessariis Libertatem, IN UTRISQUE Charitatem, optimo certe loco essent res nostrae.” [In a word, I’ll say it: if we preserve unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in both, our affairs will be in the best position.]

The same sentiment, but in a shorter sententious and hortative form, occurs in a book of Gregor Frank, entitled Consideratio theologica de gravibus necessitatibus dogmatum Christianorum quibus fidei, spei et charitatis officia reguntur [Theological discussion on the most serious essentials in Christian doctrine governing the duties of faith, hope and charity], Francf. ad Oderam, 1628. Frank (1585-1661) was first a Lutheran, then a Reformed theologian, and professor at Francfort. He distinguishes three kinds of dogmas: (1) dogmas necessary for salvation: the clearly revealed truths of the Bible; (2) dogmas which are derived by clear and necessary inference from the Scriptures and held by common consent of orthodox Christendom; (3) the specific and controverted dogmas of the several confessions. He concludes the discussion with this exhortation:-

“Summa est.: Servemus IN necessariis unitatem, IN non-necessariis libertatem, IN utrisque charitatem.”

He adds, “Vincat veritas, vivat charitas, maneat libertas per Jesum Christum qui est veritas ipsa, charitas ipsa, libertas ipsa.” [Let truth prevail, let charity prevail, let liberty abide through Jesus Christ who is truth itself, charity itself, freedom itself.]

Bertheau deems it uncertain whether Meldenius or Frank was the author. But the question is decided by the express testimony of Conrad Berg, who was a colleague of Frank in the same university between 1627 and 1628, and ascribes the sentence to Meldenius.

Fifty years dater Richard Baxter, the Puritan pacificator In England, refers to the sentence, Nov. 15, 1679, In the preface to The True and Only Way of Concord of All the Christian Churches, London, 1680, In a slightly different form: “I once more repeat to you the pacificator’s old despised words, ‘Si in necessariis sit [esset] unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in charitas, optimo certo loco essent rcs nostrae.” Luecke was the first to quote this passage, but overlooked a direct reference of Baxter to Meldenius in the same tract on p. 25. This Dr. Briggs discovered, and quotes as follows:-

“Were there no more said of all this subject, but that of Rupertus Meldenius, cited by Conradus Bergius, it might end all schism if well understood and used, viz.” Then follows the sentence. Baxter also refers to Meldenius on the preceding page. This strengthens the conclusion that Meldenius was the “pacificator.” For we are referred here to the testimony of a contemporary of Meldenius. Samuel Werenfels, a distinguished irenical divine of Basel, likewise mentions Meldenius and Conrad Bergius together as ironical divines, and testes veritatis, and quotes several passages from the Paraenesis votiva.

Conrad Bergius (Berg), from whom Baxter derived his knowledge of the sentence, was professor in the university of Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, and then a preacher at Bremen. He and his brother John Berg (1587-1658), court chaplain of Brandenburg, were irenical divines of tile German Reformed Church, anti moderate Calvinists. John Berg attended the Leipzig Colloquy of March, 1631, where Lutheran and Reformed divines agreed on the basis of the revised Confession of 1540 in every article of doctrine, except the corporal presence and oral manducation. The colloquy “as ill advance of the spirit of the age, and had no permanent effect See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom I. 558 sqq., and Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum in Eclesiis Reformatis publicatarum, p. LXXV. and 653-668

Dr. Briggs has investigated tile writings of Conrad Bergius and his associates in the royal library of Berlin. In his “Praxis Catholica divini canonis contra quasuis haereses et schismata,” [Catholic practice of the divine canon against whatever heresies and schisms] etc., which appeared at Bremen in 1639, Bergius concludes with the classical word of “Rupertus Meldenius Theologus,” and a brief comment on it. is quoted by Baxter in the form just given. In the autumn of 1627 Bergius preached two discourses at Frankfurt on the subject of Christian union, which accord d with the sentence, and appeared in 1628 with tile consent of the theological fatuity. They were afterwards incorporated in his Praxis Catholica. He was thoroughly at home in the polemics anti irenics of his age, anti can be relied on as to tile authorship of the sentence.

But who was Meldenius? This is still an unsolved question. Possibly he took his name from Melden, a little village on the borders of and Silesia. His voice was drowned, and his name forgotten, for two centuries, but is now again heard with increased force. I subscribe to the concluding words of my esteemed colleague, Dr. Briggs: “Like a mountain stream that disappears at times under tile rocks of its bed, and re-appears deeper down in the valley, so these long-buried principles of peace have reappeared after two centuries of oblivion, and these irenical theologians w ill be honored by those who live in a better age of the world, when Protestant irenics have well-nigh displaced tile old Protestant polemics end scholastics.”

The origin of the sentence was first discussed by a Dutch divine, Dr. Van der Hoeven of Amsterdam, in 1847; then by Dr. Luecke of Goettingen Ueber das Alter, den Verfasser, die urspruengliche Form und den wahren Sinn des kirchlichen Friedenspruchs ‘In necessariis unites,’ etc., Goettingen 1850 (XXII. and 146 pages); with supplementary remarks in the “Studien und Kritiken ” for 1851, p. 905-938. Luecke first proved the authorship of Meldenius. The next steps were taken by Dr. Klose, in the first edition of Herzog’s “Theol. Encycl.” sub vol. IX. (1858), p. 304 sq., and by Dr. Carl Bertheau, in the second edition of Herzog, IX. (1881), p. 528-530. Dr. Briggs has furnished additional information in two articles in the “Presbyterian Review,” vol. VIII., New York, 1887, pp. 496-499, and 743-746.

The earliest known occurrence of this so far is to my knowledge once again “Catholic”, if somewhat dubiously so, given that the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique calls the De republica ecclesiastica “a very interesting blend of theses Anglican and Gallican” (vol. 4, col. 1670), and the 2nd edition of the New Catholic encyclopedia, De Dominis himself an “apostate”:

In preparing vol. XVII of the Briefwisseling van Hugo Grotius I came across a letter which the French scholar Jean de Cordes addressed to Grotius on 9 November 1634 (Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS. D’Orville 51).  In this letter the source of the adage is mentioned, be it rather vaguely:  the works of Marc’ Antonio de Dominis (1560-1624), archbishop of Split (Spalato).  After some research I have found the device in book 4, chapter 8 of De republica ecclesiastica libri X, London/Hannover 1617-1622) i.e. “on p. 676 of the first volume published in London in 1617, at the end of chapter 8 of book 4, which treats of the papacy” (H. J. M. Nellen, “De zinspreuk ‘In necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas,'” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschidenis 79, no. 1 (1999): 106, 104 (99-106)).  Cf. http://spu.worldcat.org/title/marci-antonii-de-dominis-de-republica-ecclesiastica-libri-x/oclc/476586221.  There (and on p. 104 of this article) it appears as follows:

Quod si in ipsa radice, hoc est sede, vel potius solio Romani pontificis haec abominationis lues purgaretur et ex communi ecclesiae consilio consensuque auferretur hic metus, depressa scilicet hac petra scandali ac ad normae canonicae iustitiam complanata, haberemus ecclesiae atrium aequabile levigatum ac pulcherrimis sanctuarii gemmis splendidissimum. Omnesque mutuam amplecteremur unitatem in necessariis, in non necessariis libertatem, in omnibus caritatem. Ita sentio, ita opto, ita plane spero, in eo qui est spes nostra et non confundemur.

Now if this plague of an abomination [were to] be cleared away at the root—i.e. see or rather throne of the Roman pontiff—itself, and [if] that fear hanging over the common counsel and consent of the Church (suppressed, of course, by this stone that makes men stumble [(cf. 1 Pet 2:8 in the Vulgate)], and reduced to the ‘equity’ of canon law) [were to] be removed, we would have an equitable atrium of the Church polished and [rendered] surpassingly brilliant by the beautiful gems of the sanctuary. And we would all embrace a mutual unity in things necessary; in things non necessary liberty; in all things charity. This I feel, this I desire, this I do indeed hope for, in him who is our hope and we are not confounded.

I would welcome any suggestions for the refinement of this translation.

This was quoted by De Cordes (who claimed to “ay trouvé [it] dans les oeuvres de Dominis”) in his letter to Grotius dated 9 November 1634 (above) as follows:

in necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas et in omnibus charitas

(Nellen, 102).  Grotius knew De Dominis personally, and, indeed, was in possession of this first volume of the De republica ecclesiastica by 1619 (Nellen, 103).  But he wouldn’t have been able to track the maxim down on the strength of this vague reference alone (Nellen, 104).

For additional passages in De Dominis’ De republica ecclesiastica that give voice to similar sentiments, see Nellen, 104n20:  bk. 7, chap. 6, sec. 21 (p. 104); bk. 7, chap. 9, sec. 18 (p. 130); bk. 7, chap. 9, sec. 27 (p. 132); bk. 7, chap. 9, sec. 204 (p. 197); bk. 7, chap. 12, sec. 113 (p. 316).

Would the presence of De Dominis in England go some way towards accounting for the major role played by Richard Baxter (1615-1691) in the dissemination of the maxim several decades later?  “The apostacy [(geloofsafval)] of the Archbishop and his flirtation with Anglicanism made him for representatives of the Reformation an important trump card in the religious controversy with Rome” (Nellen, 105)—for as long, at least, as that flirtation lasted.  And quite probably longer.

Prior to this ground-breaking article by Nellen (which, he admits, may well be superceded by “the definitive answer” published “in 2065—or perhaps much earlier” (Nellen, 101)), the consensus of more than a century had been that it was the work of Peter Meiderlin (1582-1651) (anagrammatico-pseudonymously Rupertus Meldenius), and appeared for the very first time in the first (i.e. 1626) printing of his Paraenesis votiva pro pace ecclesiae ad theologos Augustanae Confessionis (http://spu.worldcat.org/title/paraenesis-votiva-pro-pace-ecclesiae-ad-theologos-augustanae-confessionis/oclc/34765422):

Verbo dicam: si nos servaremus in necessariis unitatem, in non necessariis libertatem, in utrisque caritatem, optimo certe loco essent res nostrae.

(Meiderlin’s Paraenesis was so rare that Friedrich Lücke reproduced it in an appendix to his Über das Alter, den Verfasser, die ursprüngliche Form und den wahren Sinn des kirchlichen Friedenssprüches “In necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas”:  eine literar-historische theologische Studie (Göttingen:  Dieterich, 1850).)

“Meiderlin is [therefore] a disciple of Johann Arndt, but he seeks less to defend the ideas of his master (in whom one can see a precursor of ‘Pietism’) than to bring an end to the dogmatic rivalries of the theologians of the Augsburg Confession” (Joseph Lecler, “À propos d’une maxime citée par le Pape Jean XXIII: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas,” Recherches de science religieuse 49 (1961): 552 (549-560)).

In Catholic (but also some Protestant) hands, dubiis was substituted for non necessaries [(note also the presence of omnibus rather than, as in Meiderlin, utrisque)], and this had supposedly the effect of extending “the rule of Meldenius . . . to much more than just the necessaria [(for salvation)] and the non necessaria [(for salvation)]”, much more than just the “fundamental articles”:  “the tripartite maxim. . . . [thus] lost its original Protestant nuance, in order to extend liberty to the entire domain of questions debated, doubtful, and undefined [(non définies par l’Église)]” (Lecler, 559-560).  There are many helpful references to the literature (but most notably Krüger and Eekhof) in Lecler, who isn’t doing much in the way of original scholarship, but mostly summarizing the work of others (Eekhof and Krüger, and, for more than a century total behind them, Bauer, Lücke, and Morin).

But the 1999 article by Nellen has, for now at least, returned this once again to (a dubious) “Catholicism”.

Here is a bit more in the way of 20th- and 21-century bibliography, thrown in quite willy nilly as encountered.  I do not claim to have read what follows, nor that this list is anything even close to exhaustive.

Burr, Viktor. “Zur Geschichte des Wahlspruches:  In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.”  In 110 Jahre Unitas-Salia zu Bonn/1847 bis 1957 – Festschrift zum 110. Stiftungsfest des W.K.St.V. Unitas-Salia, der Mutterkorporation des Unitas-Verbandes, edited by Anton Brenig, 7-24.  Bonn, 1957.

Post by Steve Perisho

The Law is Not of Faith

by Jon Zens

But the Law is not of faith. Rather, “The one having done these things will live by them.”

– Galatians 3:12

The first ten years of my life in Christ, I was in a tradition that saw the Ten Commandments as the believer’s rule of life, and emphasized Sunday Sabbath-keeping. I began to question some of the basic tenets of this theological system when I read several articles by Arkansas preacher E.W. Johnson.

Then two years later, Norbert Ward gave a study on 1 Corinthians 9 in the assembly that met in his home. The Lord used his presentation to open my eyes to more of Christ. Norbert pointed out that Paul in being all things to all people identified three categories of people: (1) the Jews were hupo nomos, under law; (2) the Gentiles were anomos, without law; and (3) believers were ennomos Christou, in-law to Christ.

GALATIANS 6:2

This in turn helped me see what was going on in Galatians 6:2, “bear one another’s burdens and so fully fulfill [anaplereo] the law of Christ.” The “law of Christ” is the New Commandment, loving others as He loved us on the cross (John 13:34). The false teachers were putting the Law on believers which was a burden no one could bear (Acts 15:10; Matt, 23:4), which was unfulfillable, and which brought curse with it. Paul, with implicit contrast, encourages the believers to bear – not the Law — but others’ burdens, which then in fact fully fulfills Christ’s law of cross-love.

LAW WAS THE ISSUE IN GALATIANS

There are voices advocating that Paul did not have Torah observance in mind in Galatians. They suggest that the Galatian believers were going back to pagan observances from their past, and that Torah observance was actually Paul’s position. They pretty much have to come up with a notion like this, because on the surface Galatians is an embarrassment to their ideas, and destroys a pillar of their Torah-centered beliefs. There are many reasons why denying that the Torah is in view in Galatians is untenable, but here are three.

First, Paul’s concerns for the Galatians center on issues rooted in the Law. In Galatians 2, Paul refused to let Titus be circumcised because “because some false brethren had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves” (2:4). Elsewhere, Paul said, “circumcision is nothing . . .” (1 Cor. 7:19). But to these false teachers circumcision was everything. They were basically saying that Gentile believers had to live like Jews.

Secondly, Paul asked the Galatians, “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the Law, or by believing what you heard?” (3:2) The problem at hand was not them going back to pagan rituals.

Thirdly, Paul pointed out that the Law was a covenantal unit. If a person put himself under one part, he became obligated to do all of it (5:3). There was no room for picking and choosing what parts you wanted to keep. Further, once you put yourself under the Law, you incurred a curse for not doing everything in the book of the Law 24/7 (3:10, 5:5). All of this, and much more, has nothing to do with the Galatians reverting to pagan practices.

EPHESIANS 2

In Ephesians 2, Paul taught us that the Law was a barrier between Jew and Gentile. As long as the Old Covenant was in effect, Jew and Gentile had to be kept apart with a vengeance. But by the cross Jesus made the two one New Humanity by “destroying the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in His flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations.” Jesus was born “under” the Law and He honored it and fulfilled it (Matt. 5:17). In fulfilling it, He took it away, removed it as a barrier, and put into effect the New Covenant in which Jew and Gentile believers were on equal footing in the New Humanity, His body, the ekklesia. If the Law still stands, then it continues as a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. Clearly, however, Ephesians 2:14-15, tells us that the whole covenantal unit was nailed to Jesus’ cross.

COLOSSIANS 2

Colossians 2:13-15 also has a similar teaching to what was stated in Ephesians 2. “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ, He forgave us all our sins, have canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; He took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” The Law as a unit – including the Ten Commandments – was nailed to the cross. As Paul put it in Romans 7:6, “But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the Law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Given the comprehensiveness of Paul’s language in both Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2, one has to do Olympic gymnastics to suggest that the Ten Commandments were not included in the “written code.”

2 CORINTHIANS 3

More is specifically unfolded about the “written code” in 2 Corinthians 3. Paul told the Corinthians, “you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” It is clear in this passage that the Ten Commandments are in view – “not on tablets of stone” (v. 3), “engraved in letters on stone” (v. 7). Paul showed that what was on stone “killed,” “brought death” and “condemnation.” Bur the clincher comes when Paul unequivocally asserts that the written code was “done away.” Some translations do no justice to the strength of the verb katargeoby rendering it as “fading away” or “passing away.”

The verb argeo, strengthened by the prefix kata-, means to “abolish,” “destroy,” to make completely inoperative. Remember, this is saying that the temporary glory of the Law was abolished and removed in order for the lasting, life-giving glory of the New Covenant to take its place. “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear” [in 70 A.D.]. “He has enabled us to be servants of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (v. 6). Those pushing Torah-observance on believers are flying in the face of Paul’s New Covenant realities. The “written code” was abolished as echoed in Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 in order for a better covenant to be in force.

THE NEW EXODUS

Since the Law has been nailed to Jesus’ cross, does this mean we are left in a moral vacuum? Absolutely not! The Ten Commands were given after the Lord’s mighty deliverance in a Red Sea exodus out of Egypt – “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Exodus 20:2). The old exodus out of Egypt was a shadow of a New Exodus that would happen when Jesus died on the cross (Luke 9:31). Just as the 613 commands flowed out of the Red Sea exodus, so one New Command flowed out of the Golgotha exodus – “A new command I give you: Love one another as I have loved you in giving My life on the cursed tree” (John 13:34; 15:12-13). Out of one sweeping command flow all of His other commands – “If you love Me, keep my commands.”

The old covenant life of Israel was rooted in God’s act of exodus out of Egypt. The life in Christ of the New Humanity flows out of the Exodus He accomplished in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). The voice from the Shekinah cloud proclaimed, “This is My Beloved Son, listen to Him” (Luke 9:35). Jesus’ simple, but deeply profound words to those who would come to Him were “follow Me.” If we just had these words from Him to follow, we would all be very occupied until He returns in glory: “bear one another’s burdens and so fully fulfill the Law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). There are 58 “one another’s” in the New Testament. We can pursue these until the cows come home, and know that we are in line with His heart.

HEBREWS 7 & 8

A verb used in Hebrews 7 and 8 shows decisively that the New Covenant is our spring board, not the old covenant. The verb nomotheteo means “in place as binding,” hence, legally in force. In Hebrews 7:11 we are told that the Law was put into legal effect on the basis of the Levitical priesthood. In 8:6 we are informed that “the covenant of which He is mediator is superior to the old one, and is put into effect as binding on better promises.” All that is associated with the old covenant is fulfilled and no longer in force. The new and living way of Jesus is now the benchmark and plumb line. The old covenant had a beginning and an ending: “the Law was put in charge until Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the Law” (Gal. 3:24-25). “The Law was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come” (Gal. 3:19).

“MOSES WROTE ABOUT ME”

If the Law-covenant is fulfilled, abolished and removed by Christ as a barrier, then what do we do with the Old Testament? The New Testament does not comment on every verse in the OT, but it does cite it some 450 times, and patterns can be identified. The NT views the OT, not as a law-book, but as focused on Jesus Christ. The Lord Himself noted that “Moses wrote of Me” (John 5:46). He told the Jewish religious leaders, “you search the Scriptures because you think that in them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life” (John 5:39-40).

To the couple on the road to Emmaus Jesus said, “’How foolish you are, and how slow of heart that you do not believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter His glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself” (Luke 24:25-27). Later, with the disciples, Jesus affirmed, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). Over and over, when Paul was speaking in Synagogues, “he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” (Acts 17:2-3).

If you are reading the Old Testament to find out that you shouldn’t boil a kid goat in it’s mother’s milk, you are wide of the mark. When the Ethiopian Eunuch asked for help in understanding Isaiah’s words, Philip “began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35). Martin Kuske’s book title is appropriate: The Old Testament as the Book of Christ: An Appraisal of Bonhoeffer’s Interpretation. Paul reminded Timothy that from infancy he was taught the OT Scriptures, “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). If Moses himself were with us now, he would plead with us not to focus on 613 laws, but on the Prophet he wrote about who would be sent by the Lord with words that must be heard (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:22-23; Acts 7:37).

We must grasp the truth that the old covenant is over and terminated, but the Old Testament remains as a Christ-centered body of literature. As Meredith Kline put it so well:

The words of the New Testament which the enthroned Christ has spoken through His inspired ministers of the New Covenant are His architectural directives for the holy task of constructing this new covenant home . . . . The Old and New Testaments . . . will be seen as two separate and distinct architectural models for the house of God in two quite separate and distinct stages in history . . . . This is to say that the Old Testament is not the canon of the Christian church . . . . The form of government appointed in the old covenant is not community polity for the church of the new covenant . . . . In these terms, the Old Testament, though possessing the general authority of all the Scriptures, does not possess for the church the more specific authority of canonicity. Under the new covenant the Old Testament is not the current canon (Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, Eerdmans, 1972, pp. 85, 99, 102; emphasis mine).

WHAT ABOUT THE SABBATH?

One common question people have is that nine of the ten commandments are cited in the New Testament, why isn’t the Sabbath mentioned as an obligation? In the New Covenant we can only keep the Sabbath by ceasing from our own works and trusting in Christ (Heb. 4). The Sabbath is not about a day anymore, but about a Person. Colossians 2:16-17 makes it clear that the Sabbath is not a norm of judgment in Christ because it is a shadow/type and the reality has come in Jesus. Once the fulfillment has arrived you don’t continue the shadow. Will we embrace Paul’s New Covenant perspective on the Sabbath, or go on focusing on non-realities?

In Romans 14:5, Paul noted that “one person considers one day above another, but another person views every day the same.” If the Sabbath (which is Saturday; some people see Sunday now as the Sabbath) is obligatory for all, how could Paul allow for people to view every day the same? The answer is because in Christ there is no mandatory Sabbath-day keeping. Only by believing in Christ, and ceasing from our own works, do we find Sabbath-rest (Matt. 11:28-29).

Under the old covenant, the priests violated the Sabbath-day rest by doing their Temple work, yet they were held guiltless. How could people violate any of the other nine commands and come away blameless?

“WITHOUT LAW”

Those who opt for Torah observance seem to miss a little phrase in Romans 3:25 of vital importance. Paul pointed out that the strength of sin was the law, and then announced, “But now without Law a righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed to by the Law and the prophets.” The Old Testament told of future Gospel days, but Gospel righteousness came “without Law.” One person makes sense when they suggest that this means “God has provided a way for sinful men to be made right in His sight and that way is without keeping the requirements of the Law.” That is a hard pill for Law-people to swallow.

FOOD LAWS

Obviously, the food laws were at the heart of Israel’s daily living. The “clean/unclean” distinction was etched in their hearts. It was one of the main issues that separated them from the Gentiles.But with the coming of Jesus all of this was to change. Jesus taught that it was not what went into a person’s stomach that made him/her “unclean,” but what evil things came out of human hearts were defiling (Mark 7:18-19). “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’” (7:19). When Peter ended up in a tanner’s home, the vision he saw had all kinds of food on a sheet. He was told to “Get up, Peter, kill and eat.” Peter protested, “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” Then he was told, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

The ultimate point was more about people (Gentiles) than food. But this vision signified the end of the clean/unclean distinction. In Romans 14:14 Paul declared, “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that nothing is unclean in itself.” Paul informed Timothy about false teachers who would “forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:4). Like circumcision, unclean food to the Jews was a huge matter. But things changed radically with the new wineskins Jesus ushered in.

TITHING

Many Bible teachers, preachers and church leaders have brought old covenant Tithing into the visible church. Often, the curse in Malachi 3:9 is used from the pulpit with vengeance. It is probably safe to say that multitudes of church leaders would be shaking in their boots if Tithing disappeared from their religious apparatus. Most churches depend on the assumption of Tithing members to meet their budgets.

Most people are not aware that not all in Israel were required to tithe. Preachers don’t tell folks that. But in the New Covenant scriptures Tithing is never given as a duty to the saints. God’s people are to be generous and giving, but Tithing is never the benchmark. The widow Jesus highlighted did not tithe; she put her whole Social Security check in the pot. Jesus did not mention Tithing when He said to give and keep giving, and it would be given to you in overflowing ways (Luke 6:38). Right after Pentecost, believers parted with their goods to help the needy, and the Lord’s power was present. Not a word about Tithing. “As the Lord has prospered you,” “each according to his ability,” and “the Lord loves a cheerful giver” are used to describe the grace-giving in the New Testament. Tithing is retrogressive and borrowed from the old order.

TITUS 2:11

Many people believe that if you don’t have the Law as a moral guide, bad behavior is just around the corner. It is hard for them to side with Paul when he said, “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under Law” (Gal. 5:19). But Paul’s position was crystal clear, grace is our teacher, not law. “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all. It teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age, while we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ . . .” (Titus 2:11-13). When the Lord came in the flesh, it was immediately noted, “Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

~ Jon Zens is the author of many books, including This Is My Beloved Son, Hear Him: The Foundation of New Covenant Ethics & Ecclesiology – SearchingTogether.org.

Jesus vs. Moses (Grace vs. Law) by Frank Viola

The Radical Resurgence is dedicated to the radical wing of the Reformation, which is experiencing a resurgence in our time. Articles written by those who resonate with the resurgence, present and past, will be featured.

The whole concern of Reformation theology was to justify restructuring the organized church without shaking its foundations. – John Howard Yoder

The church’s future lies with the left wing of the Reformation. – Jurgen Moltmann

 Check out our recommended links.

From The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God by Jonathan Edwards

The content of this book was originally delivered by Edwards as the commencement speech to the faculty and student body of Yale University on September 10, 1741. Edwards expanded the work and published it later that same year with a preface by the Rev. William Cooper of Boston. The complete title of the work is:

The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God, Applied to that Uncommon Operation that has lately Appeared on the Minds of Many of the People of This Land: With a Particular Consideration of the Extraordinary Circumstances with Which this Work Is Attended.

Edwards’ design in this work was “to show what are the true, certain, and distinguishing evidences of a work of the Spirit of God, by which we may safely proceed in judging of any operation we find in ourselves, or see in others” (87). Edwards believed he found a biblical standard for this in 1 John 4:1-6.

His approach is two-fold. He begins with what he calls “Negative Signs,” or signs/events/experiences/phenomena from which we may conclude nothing. One is not free to conclude from the presence of these occurrences either that the Holy Spirit produced them or that He did not. Edwards then turns to those signs which are indeed sure and certain evidence of the Spirit’s work.

Negative Signs

“Nothing can be certainly concluded from this, that a work is carried on in a way very unusual and extraordinary; provided the variety or difference be such, as may still be comprehended within the limits of Scripture rules”(89).

This initial argument is so crucial that we would do well to consider it in detail. Edwards explains:

“What the church has been used to, is not a rule by which we are to judge; because there may be new and extraordinary works of God, and he has heretofore evidently wrought in an extraordinary manner. He has brought to pass new things, strange works; and has wrought in such a manner as to surprise both men and angels. And as God has done thus in times past, so we have no reason to think but that he will do so still. The prophecies of Scripture give us reason to think that God has things to accomplish, which have never yet been seen. No deviation from what has hitherto been usual, let it be never so great, is an argument that a work is not from the Spirit of God, if it be no deviation from his prescribed rule. The Holy Spirit is sovereign in his operation; and we know that he uses a great variety; and we cannot tell how great a variety he may use, within the compass of the rules he himself has fixed. We ought not to limit God where he has not limited himself” (89).

N.B. If a criterion for determining the origin of a religious work is its conformity to past experience, i.e., if a work is to be excluded simply because it is unprecedented and strange, then we would be compelled to reject what occurred in the book of Acts. “The work of the Spirit then,” writes Edwards, “was carried on in a manner that, in very many respects, was altogether new; such as never had been seen or heard since the world stood” (90).

“A work is not to be judged of by any effects on the bodies of men; such as tears, trembling, groans, loud outcries, agonies of body, or the failing of bodily strength” (91).

“We cannot conclude that persons are under the influence of the true Spirit because we see such effects upon their bodies, because this is not given as a mark of the true Spirit; nor on the other hand, have we any reason to conclude, from any such outward appearances, that persons are not under the influence of the Spirit of God, because there is no rule of Scripture given us to judge of spirits by, that does either expressly or indirectly exclude such effects on the body, nor does reason exclude them” (91).

But the question remains: Why should we expect or even be open to the possibility of bodily, physical manifestations? Edwards’ answer is an appeal to what he calls “the laws of the union between soul and body” (91). See pp. 91-94.

“It is no argument that an operation on the minds of people is not the work of the Spirit of God that it occasions a great deal of noise about religion” (94).

“It is no argument that an operation on the minds of people is not the work of the Spirit of God that many who are the subjects of it have great impressions made on their imaginations”(95-96).

So far is this from being a reason for rejecting the presence of the Spirit that Edwards wonders how it is possible not to have one’s imagination stirred while under the influence of the Spirit’s power. He explains:

“I dare appeal to any man, of the greatest powers of mind, whether he is able to fix his thoughts on God, or Christ, or the things of another world, without imaginary ideas attending his meditations? And the more engaged the mind is, and the more intense the contemplation and affection, still the more lively and strong the imaginary idea will ordinarily be; especially when attended with surprise” (96).

“It is no argument that a work is not of the Spirit of God that some who are the subjects of it have been in a kind of ecstasy, wherein they have been carried beyond themselves, and have had their minds transported into a train of strong and pleasing imaginations, and a kind of visions, as though they were rapt up even to heaven and there saw glorious sights. I have been acquainted with some such instances, and I see no need of bringing in the help of the devil into the account that we give of these things, nor yet of supposing them to be of the same nature with the visions of the prophets, or St. Paul’s rapture into paradise. Human nature, under these exercises and affections, is all that need be brought into account. If it may be well accounted for, that persons under a true sense of a glorious and wonderful greatness and excellency of divine things, and soul-ravishing views of the beauty and love of Christ, should have the strength of nature overpowered, as I have already shown that it may; then I think it is not at all strange that amongst great numbers that are thus affected and overborne, there should be some persons of particular constitutions that should have their imaginations thus affected. The effect is no other than what bears a proportion and analogy to other effects of the strong exercise of their minds. It is no wonder, when the thoughts are so fixed, and the affections so strong — and the whole soul so engaged, ravished, and swallowed up — that all other parts of the body are so affected, as to be deprived of their strength, and the whole frame ready to dissolve” (97).

Edwards, being a cessationist, does not equate such experience with any of the revelatory gifts or such phenomena as dreams, visions, etc. But he maintains, nonetheless, that the experience is of God.

“It is no sign that a work is not from the Spirit of God that example is a great means of it” (98).

Some objected that if the Spirit were to work, he would not produce such phenomena through means, but rather do so immediately and instantaneously. Edwards disagrees. If it is biblical (and it is) that people are influenced in matters of practical virtue by the example of others, why should not the same hold true when it comes to the more visible and vocal manifestations of the Spirit? He explains:

“It is therefore no argument against the goodness of the effect, that persons are greatly affected by seeing others so; yea, though the impression be made only by seeing the tokens of great and extraordinary affection in others in their behaviour, taking for granted what they are affected with, without hearing them say one word. . . . If a person should see another under extreme bodily torment, he might receive much clearer ideas, and more convincing evidence of what he suffered by his actions in his misery, than he could do only by the words of an unaffected indifferent relater. In like manner he might receive a greater idea of any thing that is excellent and very delightful from the behavior of one that is in actual enjoyment, than by the dull narration of one which is inexperienced and insensible himself” (99).

“It is no sign that a work is not from the Spirit of God that many who seem to be the subjects of it are guilty of great imprudences and irregularities in their conduct. We are to consider that the end for which God pours out his Spirit is to make men holy, and not to make them politicians” (101).

Says Edwards: “That it should be thus may be well accounted for from the exceeding weakness of human nature, together with the remaining darkness and corruption of those that are yet the subjects of the saving influences of God’s Spirit, and have a real zeal for God” (101). Two biblical examples cited by Edwards to prove his point are the church at Corinthand the experience of Peter as described by Paul in Gal. 2:11-13.

“Nor are many errors in judgment, and some delusions of Satan intermixed with the work, any argument that the work in general is not of the Spirit of God” (103).

The fact that Jannes and Jambres, Pharoah’s court magicians, worked false miracles by the power of Satan does not mean the Spirit was not present in the miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt.

“If some, who were thought to be wrought upon, fall away into gross errors, or scandalous practices, it is no argument that the work in general is not the work of the Spirit of God. That there are some counterfeits is no argument that nothing is true: such things are always expected in a time of reformation. If we look into church history, we shall find no instance of any great revival of religion, but what has been attended with many such things” (104).

For example, the presence of Judas Iscariot as a counterfeit among the disciples does not mean the Spirit was not at work in the other eleven!

“It is no argument that a work is not from the Spirit of God that it seems to be promoted by ministers insisting very much on the terrors of God’s holy law, and that with a great deal of pathos and earnestness” (106).

In particular, if there is a hell to which all unbelievers will be eternally consigned, why would we not proclaim that truth with the greatest urgency and pathos possible? Says Edwards, “Some talk of it as an unreasonable thing to fright persons to heaven; but I think it is a reasonable thing to endeavour to fright persons away from hell” (108).

Edwards then proceeds “to show positively what are the sure, distinguishing Scripture evidences and marks of a work of the Spirit of God, by which we may proceed in judging of any operation we find in ourselves, or see among a people without danger of being misled” (109). Here Edwards bases his argument on principles gleaned from 1 John 4:1-6.

Positive Signs

“When the operation is such as to raise their esteem of that Jesus who was born of the Virgin, and was crucified without the gates of Jerusalem; and seems more to confirm and establish their minds in the truth of what the gospel declares to us of his being the Son of God, and the Saviour of men; it is a sure sign that it is from the Spirit of God” (109).

Edwards derives this principle from vv. 2-3 and v. 15. Therefore, if people are led to deeper conviction that Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh, if they are led to deeper devotion and esteem for Christ, if they are led to more honorable thoughts of him, “it is a sure sign that it is the true and right Spirit” (110). Satan would never do this. He “never would go about to beget in men more honourable thoughts of him, and lay greater weight on his instructions and commands. The Spirit that inclines men’s hearts to the seed of the woman is not the spirit of the serpent that has such an irreconcilable enmity against him” (111).

“When the spirit that is at work operates against the interests of Satan’s kingdom, which lies in encouraging and establishing sin, and cherishing men’s worldly lusts; this is a sure sign that it is a true, and not a false spirit” (111). See vv. 4-5.

“The spirit that operates in such a manner as to cause in men a greater regard to the Holy Scriptures, and establishes them more in their truth and divinity is certainly the Spirit of God”(113). See v. 6.

In view of the reference in v. 6 to “the spirit of truth and the spirit of error,” Edwards concludes that”if by observing the manner of the operation of a spirit that is at work among a people, we see that it operates as a spirit of truth, leading persons to truth, convincing them of those things that are true, we may safely determine that it is a right and true spirit” (115).

“If the spirit that is at work among a people operates as a spirit of love to God and man, it is a sure sign that it is the Spirit of God” (115). Edwards appeals to what John writes beginning with v. 6 and extending to the end of the chapter.

Edwards’ point is that there are certain things that Satan either cannot do or would not do: he would not awaken the conscience of the sinner or make them sensible of sin and guilt; he would not confirm their belief in or their love for the Son of God; he would not increase their love for and belief in the truth and authority of the Scriptures; he would not increase our love or humility. Thus Edwards concludes that

“when there is an extraordinary influence or operation appearing on the minds of a people, if these things are found in it we are safe in determining that it is the work of God, whatever other circumstances it may be attended with, whatever instruments are used, whatever methods are taken to promote it; whatever means a sovereign God, whose judgments are a great deep, employs to carry it on; and whatever motion there may be of the animal spirits, whatever effects may be wrought on men’s bodies. These marks that the apostle has given us are sufficient to stand alone, and support themselves. They plainly show the finger of God, and are sufficient to outweigh a thousand such little objections, as many make from oddities, irregularities, errors in conduct, and the delusions and scandals of some professors” (118-19).

Edwards now turns to several practical inferences from the preceding.

“From what has been said, I will venture to draw this inference, viz, that the extraordinary influence that has lately appeared causing an uncommon concern and engagedness of mind about the things of religion is undoubtedly, in the general, from the Spirit of God” (121). Under this general heading, Edwards makes several comments that are helpful in evaluating the move of the Spirit.

Greater precision is possible in determining the source of religious phenomena “when it is observed in a great multitude of people of all sorts and in various places [as was the case in the Great Awakening], than when it is only seen in a few, in some particular place, that have been much conversant one with another” (122).

Those people who have been the subject of intense bodily manifestations were either “in great distress from an apprehension of their sin and misery” or were “overcome with a sweet sense of the greatness, wonderfulness, and excellency of divine things” (123).

Edwards believed that “there have beenvery few in whom there has been any appearance of feigning or affecting such manifestations, and very many for whom it would have been undoubtedly utterly impossible for them to avoid” (124).

Edwards observed that “generally, in these agonies they have appeared to be in the perfect exercise of their reason; and those of them who could speak [implying that some were so overcome that they couldnot speak] have been well able to give an account of the circumstances of their mind, and the cause of their distress, at the time, and were able to remember and give an account of it afterwards. I have known a very few instances of those who, in their great extremity, have for a short space been deprived in some measure of the use of reason; and among the many hundreds, and it may be thousands, that have lately been brought to such agonies, I never yet knew one lastingly deprived of their reason” (124).

To the objection that the “revival” was not of God because he is the author of order, not confusion, Edwards responds:

“But let it be considered what is the proper notion of confusion, but the breaking that order of things whereby they are properly disposed, and duly directed to their end, so that the order and due connection of means being broken they fail of their end. Now the conviction of sinners for their conversion is the obtaining of the end of religious means. Not but that I think the persons thus extraordinarily moved should endeavour to refrain from such outward manifestations, what they well can, and should refrain to their utmost, at the time of their solemn worship. [Edwards’ point here is that during times of worship, during those moments when reverence, awe, silence, and the like, seem proper, if possible, people should try to restrain those sorts of manifestations that would prove inconsistent with the atmosphere of the service.] But if God is pleased to convince the consciences of persons, so that they cannot avoid great outward manifestations, even to interrupting and breaking off those public means they were attending, I do not think this is confusion or an unhappy interruption, any more than if a company should meet on the field to pray for rain, and should be broken off from their exercise by a plentiful shower. Would to God that all the public assemblies in the land were broken off from their public exercises with such confusion as this the next Sabbath day! We need not be sorry for breaking the order of means, by obtaining the end to which that order is directed. He who is going to fetch a treasure need not be sorry that he is stopped by meeting the treasure in the midst of his journey”(126-27).

Edwards talks further about many “who have had their bodily strength taken away” (127) because of a sense of Christ’s beauty and dying love; others “had their love and joy attended with a flood of tears” (127); and “many have been overcome with pity to the souls of others, and longing for their salvation” (127).

Edwards attributes the imprudences and irregularities, at least in part, to the fact that the Awakening came “after a long continued and almost universal deadness” (128).

He also attributes much of the excess to the fact that the principal recipients of the Spirit were young people, “who have less steadiness and experience, and being in the heat of youth are much more ready to run to extremes” (129).

Edwards also notes that when the ministers of those who have been touched by the Spirit oppose the work, the people are left without guidance. “No wonder then that when a people are as sheep without a shepherd, they wander out of the way” (129).

“Let us all be hence warned, by no means to oppose, or do any thing in the least to clog or hinder the work; but, on the contrary, do our utmost to promote it” (130).

To those waiting to see the results of the revival, Edwards says: “If they wait to see a work of God without difficulties and stumbling-blocks, it will be like the fool’s waiting at the river side to have the water all run by. A work of God without stumbling-blocks is never to be expected. . . . There never yet was any great manifestation that God made of himself to the world, without many difficulties attending it” (133).

Clearly, Edwards did not condone excess or difficulties or stumbling-blocks. As much as is humanly possible, with the help of divine grace, we should work to eliminate anything that might hinder or bring reproach upon the work of Christ (as the subsequent argument makes clear). His point is simply that when the Spirit genuinely moves in extraordinary power, there will always be a mess, and that we cannot afford to sit idly waiting for a revival that is free of them.

“Let me earnestly exhort such [friends of the revival] to give diligent heed to themselves to avoid all errors and misconduct, and whatever may darken and obscure the work; and to give no occasion to those who stand ready to reproach it” (136).

Edwards especially warns about the destructive impact ofpride. “Let us therefore maintain the strictest watch against spiritual pride, or being lifted up with extraordinary experiences and comforts, and the high favours of heaven that any of us may have received” (136). Cf. 2 Cor. 12:7.

Edwards then tries to argue (mistakenly, in my opinion), that none of the phenomena of the revival are to be equated with the extraordinary or miraculous gifts of the Spirit. For his weak defense of cessationism, see pp. 137-41.

He also warns (rightly, this time) against the tendency to despise human learning because of the depth of spiritual experience .

He issues strong warnings against any further censoring of those who are judged to be hypocrites or unsaved. Leave that judgment to God for the final day. “They, therefore, do greatly err who take it upon them positively to determine who are sincere, and who are not; to draw the dividing line between true saints and hypocrites, and to separate between sheep and goats, setting the one on the right hand and the other on the left; and to distinguish and gather out the tares amongst the wheat” (143).

Source: Sam Storms

48 Laws of Spiritual Power: Uncommon Wisdom for Greater Ministry Impact

A fascinating look at what will increase spiritual power in your life and ministry. In 48 Laws of Spiritual Power, best-selling author Frank Viola lays out the unchanging principles of tapping into God’s power and releasing it to serve others. These laws are based on over thirty years of ministry experience—trench-tested in Frank’s life and the lives of others who have spent decades in ministry.

Though these laws may seem counterintuitive and uncommon, they will equip you to look for God’s power in your ministry. In short, digestible chapters packed with secrets of effective and impactful ministry, 48 Laws of Spiritual Power will equip you with what you need for your ministry to thrive. With straight-to-the-point insights, the book provides a unique perspective on God’s work and practical tools for overcoming the inevitable hardships that are part of any ministry.

48 Laws of Spiritual Power will:

• Help you access God’s power in your personal life and release it in the lives of others
• Introduce you to uncommon wisdom that is rarely talked about in seminary or Bible college
• Give you a fresh look at how to transform your ministry with the power God is ready to grant you

The key to effective ministry is God’s power.

48 Laws of Spiritual Power is available, and Frank Viola is available for interviews. 

Go to 48Laws.com for details.

Audience Interest Points

• Bestselling author Frank Viola brings his incisive and out-of-the-box insight to the topic of spiritual power, equipping readers to survive and thrive in ministry.
• With a title inspired by Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power, which casts a vision of power marked by manipulation and selfishness, Viola’s 48 Laws of Spiritual Power demonstrates the counterintuitive principles that govern the release of God’s power.
• 48 Laws of Spiritual Power offers practical prescriptions to avoid the many traps that those in ministry face as well how to increase ministry impact.
• Rather than a strict to-do list, Viola’s 48 laws are filled with real-life stories and workable action steps. 

About the Author 

Frank Viola has helped thousands of people around the world deepen their relationship with Jesus Christ and enter into a more vibrant and authentic experience of church. His mission is to help serious followers of Jesus know their Lord more deeply so they can experience real transformation and make a lasting impact. Viola has written many books on these themes, including God’s Favorite Place on Earth, From Eternity to Here, and his landmark book, Insurgence: Reclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom. His blog, Beyond Evangelical, is rated as one of the most popular in Christian circles today. 

Interview Questions

1. How do you define spiritual power?
2. Tell us about the origin of the book and why you decided to write it?
3. What are the common traps of ministry today and how can ministers avoid them?
4. Many spiritual leaders are weary or burnt out? How will some of the 48 laws equip them to find new strength?
5. Your 48 laws cover how a minister should care for others while at the same time guard his/her personal well-being. Why do many ministers fail in either one of those?
6. In the book, you write that, “If you are in Christ, your entire life is to be a ‘mission trip.’” Can you elaborate on this?
7. What are one or two laws of spiritual power that are especially needed for what those who serve God are facing today?
8. What is one law that has been particularly challenging to follow in your life? How did you learn that you needed it to be effective in ministry?
9. Based on comments by early readers, what things have they said that stood out about the impact of the book?
10. How can readers learn more about the 48 laws and how to apply them in their own lives? 

48 Laws of Spiritual Power by Frank Viola

ISBN: 978-1-4964-5226-9

Softcover: $17.99

October 2022 

48Laws.com

Enjoy the sites!

OrganicChurch.com

RethinkingChurch.net

Click here to read the unedited interview with N.T. Wright. Appears on Frank Viola’s blog. Worth reading.

Here are links about the author Jon Zens.

Jon Zens | LinkedIn

View Jon Zens’s professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world’s largest business network, helping professionals like Jon Zens discover inside …

What’s with Paul and Women?: Jon Zens, Wade Burleson …

… as a clear mandate to silence women in the church for over 1500 years. In What’s With Paul & Women? Jon Zens exposes the fallacies of this interpretation.

Istoria Ministries Blog: Searching Together, Edited by Jon Zens

Sep 21, 2010 – One of my favorite theologians is Jon Zens. Jon edits the quarterly periodical called Searching Together, formerly known as the Baptist …

Is Paul sexist? (with Dr. Jon Zens) – YouTube

Adam Zens and Bo Bennet interview Dr. Jon Zens. Jon explains why he doesn’t think that Paul is sexist and …

Gatherings In The Early Church. By Jon Zens | house2housemagazine

Oct 17, 2013 – Gatherings In The Early Church. By Jon Zens. Sharing Christ with One Another, Not Listening to a Pulpit Monologue. Although I have problems …

Jon Zens Talks About His New Book: No Will of My Own

May 7, 2011 – Author Jon Zens joined in earlier today at Jocelyn Andersen’s Blog Talk … In his Introduction to No Will of My Own, Jon states, “In this case, …

Four Tragic Shifts in the Visible Church | Jon Zens – Granted Ministries

Read “Four Tragic Shifts in the Visible Church” by Jon Zens. Download for free. See our review.

Jon Zens: The Pastor Has No Clothes | 5 Pt. Salt

Aug 15, 2011 – This is the kind of thing that makes you go “Hmmm….” Or…. “Are you kidding me?” Related Post: The Pastor-Teacher: One Calling, One Office

Jon Zens and Frank Viola

Jon Zens Videos

Adultery According to the Bible

by Owen McLaren

Today, people use the word “adultery” to mean kissing or have feelings for another person who is not one’s spouse. That is not what it was meant in the Bible.

Of course, there is spiritual adultery. Jesus said looking after a woman with lust is adultery in that sense. But physical adultery had a very specific meaning [Matt. 5:28].

Physical adultery involved sexual intercourse. It is “willful sexual intercourse between someone other one’s husband or wife.”[1]

According to biblical scholar and original language expert James Swanson, adultery is “Sexual intercourse with [someone] other than a spouse, as a married or betrothed person.”[2]

Dr. David Instone-Brewer, a Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and the New Testament at Tyndale House, Cambridge, provides a concise definition of adultery from a biblical perspective:

“Adultery in the Bible is sexual intercourse between a married person and someone who is not their spouse.”[3]

These sources consistently define biblical adultery as involving sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

Intercourse must take place for it to be constituted physical adultery in the biblical sense. Emotional affairs, viewing pornography, and other kinds of physical contact outside of marriage short of intercourse can be defined as fornication but not adultery.

The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School provides a concise, scholarly definition of adultery that aligns with the biblical definition:

“Adultery is a form of extramarital sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not a party to the marriage.”[4]

This definition, from a reputable legal source, agrees with the biblical definition. It clearly specifies that adultery involves sexual intercourse between a married person and someone who is not their spouse.

Citations:

[1] Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Easton’s Bible Dictionary also defines it as “illicit sexual intercourse.”

[2] Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.

[3] David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context.

[4] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adultery.

THE MYTH OF THE PERFECT CHRISTIAN LEADER

by Marcus Wakefield

Each year, a Christian leader is accused of some kind of misconduct. Sometimes the allegations turn out to be true. In such cases, the minister either admits to the sin and asks forgiveness or denies the charges.

Sometimes, even with confession, a certain segment of the Christian community doesn’t accept the apology, but dissects each segment and critiques it, worse than they would do if it were a family member who confessed, or even themselves.

Other times the leader will justifiably deny the allegations because they are false. It’s now becoming just as common for a leader to be falsely accused as for the accusations to be true.

Sometimes the accused leader will be vindicated and the accusations debunked, but still, a segment of the Christian community will go on believing the accusations despite that they have been shown to be false.

At times, these allegations, whether true, false, or mixed, will be about events that have taken place forty, thirty, twenty, or ten years ago.

The Bible says very clearly that if a person sins and repents (which means they stopped the sin) and they confess to God and seek forgiveness from those who were impacted, God forgives and cleanses. God’s people are also called to forgive the person or else their own sins will not be forgiven (Matt. 6:14-15).

The notion that Christian leaders must have an unblemished past is a misconception that contradicts biblical evidence. It’s also unrealistic and impossible, because all leaders, no matter how holy and godly they may be today, have sinned in some way in their past.

Throughout scripture, we see God using imperfect individuals to accomplish His purposes, demonstrating that leadership in faith is not about perfection, but about growth, redemption, and obedience.

Biblical Examples of Imperfect Leaders

Moses: The Reluctant Murderer

Moses, one of the most revered figures in the Bible, began his journey as a fugitive. He killed an Egyptian and fled, spending years as a shepherd before God called him to lead the Israelites. Despite his past and his initial reluctance, God used Moses to deliver His people and write the Pentateuch.

David: The Adulterous King

King David, described as a man after God’s own heart, committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged the murder of her husband, Uriah. Yet, God used David to lead Israel, write numerous Psalms, and establish a royal lineage that would ultimately lead to Jesus Christ.

To the surprise of many Christians today, the New Testament regards David as a man after God’s own heart who did all of God’s will [ ]. This is because God really does cleanse people from their sins when they repent (stop the sin), confess to God, and ask forgiveness.

Peter: The Denying Disciple

Examples of leaders who weren’t perfect extends to the New Testament. Peter, one of Jesus’ closest disciples and the man many regard as the greatest of all the apostles, famously denied knowing Christ three times.

However, after his restoration, Peter became a cornerstone of the early church, preaching boldly at Pentecost and leading thousands to faith.

Jesus not only forgave Peter, he restored Peter to the ministry of an apostle. Yes, Christian leaders who sin can be restored. For those who like to place some sins as greater than others, Peter’s sin can be counted as among the worst.

The Power of Redemption

These examples illustrate that God’s power shines through those who seem least likely by human standards. The imperfections of these leaders serve to highlight God’s grace and the transformative power of repentance and faith.

Christian leadership is not about maintaining a facade of perfection, but about demonstrating growth, humility, and reliance on God’s grace. Leaders who acknowledge their flaws and past mistakes can often connect more authentically with their followers, offering hope and inspiration through their own journeys of redemption.

Past Mistakes vs. Ongoing Patterns

While the Bible clearly shows that God uses imperfect people, it’s crucial to distinguish between past mistakes and ongoing patterns of sinful behavior in Christian leadership.

One-Time Sins and True Repentance

Many of the biblical examples we’ve discussed involve leaders who committed serious sins but genuinely repented and changed their ways. David’s adultery with Bathsheba, for instance, was a grievous one-time event that he deeply regretted and from which he learned valuable lessons about humility and dependence on God.

Repeated Patterns of Sin

In contrast, repeated patterns of sinful behavior, especially those continuing into the present, are a different matter entirely. The Apostle Paul, in his letters to Timothy and Titus, outlines qualifications for church leaders that include being “above reproach” and “self-controlled” (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:7-8). These qualifications don’t demand perfection, but they do require a consistent lifestyle of integrity.

The Importance of Transformation

The key difference lies in the evidence of genuine transformation. A leader who has fully repented of past sins and demonstrates a changed life can be a powerful testament to God’s grace. However, someone struggling with ongoing, unaddressed sinful patterns may not be ready for a leadership role until they’ve experienced more healing and growth.

It is crucial to differentiate between a single, genuinely repented transgression and a habitual, unaddressed pattern of sinful behavior. Scripture provides clear guidance on this distinction. To summarize,

Isolated Sin with Genuine Repentance: Reflects humility, accountability, and a true desire for transformation. Such individuals demonstrate growth, make amends, and show evidence of spiritual healing.

Recurring Sinful Behavior: Indicates a lack of true repentance, potential spiritual immaturity, and unresolved internal struggles. This pattern suggests a leader is not yet ready for significant spiritual responsibility.

This distinction underscores the importance of accountability, transparency, and continuous spiritual growth in Christian leadership. It reminds us that while God’s grace covers our past, He also calls us to ongoing sanctification and maturity in our walk with Him.

The Hypocrisy of Perpetual Judgment

When an individual’s long-resolved past becomes a weapon of current condemnation, we reveal more about our own spiritual immaturity than the person we’re attacking.

Every person carries unspoken mistakes. Those casting stones often have unexamined corners of their own history that would not withstand similar microscopic scrutiny.

The Fallacy of Timeless Condemnation

A sin genuinely repented decades ago is not a perpetual stain but a testament to:

*Authentic transformation

*Divine grace

*Personal growth and accountability

True Repentance Has No Expiration Date

Genuine repentance means the offense has been fully addressed with those directly involved. Dragging a resolved past into the present serves no redemptive purpose. The goal by those who do this is usually to inflect pain and shame on the person.

Spiritual Maturity Demands Grace

Authentic faith understands that redemption is ongoing. A mistake from decades ago, fully addressed and repented, does not define a person’s character or entire spiritual journey.

Biblical Perspective

Scripture consistently demonstrates that past failures do not disqualify future potential. Consider:

*David’s adultery did not negate his prophetic role

*Paul’s persecution of Christians did not prevent his apostolic mission

*Peter’s denial of Christ did not end his leadership

Case Study

Sam Gruger is a lead pastor. Fifteen years ago he committed a sin. At the time, he repented and confessed to those who  were involved. Years later, a disgruntled member left Sam’s church, heard a rumor about his past sin, spread it and created a public outrage.

The outrage directed at Sam for a sin committed and repented of fifteen years ago is both unreasonable and hypocritical. This reaction fails to acknowledge the outraged people’s own sins, the reality of God’s forgiveness to a person who has repented long ago, and the power of genuine repentance.

The outrage is misplaced for the following reasons:

1. It ignores the concept of growth. People change over time, often becoming better versions of themselves. Holding someone’s past against them negates the possibility of personal development.
2. It misunderstands the nature of repentance. True repentance involves acknowledging wrongdoing, making amends, and changing behavior. Sam has done all of these things. He already confessed, repented, and dealt with the issue three decades ago. This demonstrates his commitment to personal growth and accountability. Rehashing old sins contradicts the biblical principle of forgiveness and moving forward.
3. It sets an impossible standard. If we expect leaders to have perfect pasts, we’ll have no leaders at all. Biblical examples like David and Peter show that God uses imperfect people. All have sinned, there is no exception except Christ.
4. It’s hypocritical. Everyone has regrets and past mistakes. Those condemning Sam are likely guilty of their own past transgressions.
5. It’s focus is misplaced: Dwelling on past mistakes shifts attention away from Sam’s current character and the fruits of his ministry. As the Bible teaches, we should evaluate leaders based on their present conduct rather than long-past, repented-of sins.
6. It violates privacy and discretion: Some matters, especially those fully addressed in the past, do not require public disclosure. Wisdom often dictates maintaining privacy about certain personal issues, particularly when they no longer affect one’s current leadership. Divulging sins that have been confessed and forgiven brings injury to the person but also to their family members.

Above Reproach

One of the characteristics of overseers is to be above reproach (1 Timothy 3:2). In the New Testament, overseers are also elders and shepherds (Acts 20:17 and 28).

Some people interpret “above reproach” to mean that an elder-shepherd-overseer can never have sinned in their past. But that cannot be the meaning. Peter was not only an apostle, but he was also an elder and a shepherd (1 Peter 5:1-4).

Peter certainly wasn’t above reproach in the sense that he never sinned. He sinned greatly, repented, was forgiven and restored by Jesus to his ministry.

The term “above reproach” means that the person has moral character. In practical terms, this doesn’t mean the person is absolutely perfect or sinless, but rather that their public and private life consistently demonstrates integrity.

They have a reputation for ethical behavior There are no significant, ongoing character flaws that would discredit their leadership. There is no pattern of sin in their lives.

No person except Jesus is above reproach in the sense that they have never made a mistake or never sinned. Peter is an example.

Conclusion

The persistent myth of the “perfect Christian leader” is not only unrealistic but it is fundamentally unbiblical. Christianity’s most revered leaders were deeply flawed individuals whose stories reveal God’s grace through human weakness, not human perfection.

Therefore, the myth of the perfect Christian leader is just that, a myth. God consistently chooses and uses imperfect individuals to carry out His will. This truth should encourage both leaders and followers, reminding us that our past does not disqualify us from serving God and that His strength is made perfect in our weakness.

The Bible never presents leaders as perfect beings but as broken vessels through whom God works. Christian leadership is not about personal flawlessness but about humble dependence on divine grace.

What Disqualifies a Person from Ministry?