alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
The most recent Reformed Forum Christ the Center podcast is a discussion on "revivalism" and Reformed piety. It was held at the South Austin OPC fall conference, during which there was a lecture by Glen Clary on "The Kingdom, Communion and Revival". Both of these are deeply troubling.
(N.B. This post was originally posted on the Reformed Forum website under the podcast, so it does assume familiarity with the contents of that podcast at least. I've now edited it to make it easier to follow for those who haven't heard either audio. Please accept my apologies that I did not do this when I originally posted it.)
The discussion can be found at: http://reformedforum.org/ctc412/
Glen Clary's lecture can be found at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11121521263010
Those involved in the discussion on the podcast were Jim Cassidy, D.G. Hart, Glen Clary, John Terpstra. Even knowing well the views of some of the men involved I was shocked at what I heard. Mr. Hart actually said, in relation to the idea of requiring conversion of those brought up in the church: "convert from what?" From death unto life! From the dominion of sin and of Satan to the kingdom of grace and Christ! I won't deny that the idea that regeneration is a lifelong process has some Reformed pedigree, but that doesn't make it right or helpful. Regeneration is an instantaneous act: the passing of death unto life, in an instant; the terminus point of the process of effectual calling. What is ongoing for the rest of the believer's life is sanctification, which is something quite different. A human being grows older all his life, but there was an instantaneous moment in which he came into being; became alive. One is either dead or alive: naturally and spiritually. This is clearly the majority view of the Reformed church.
Jim Cassidy at one point says that when ministerial candidates are being examined he "loves" to hear them say that they have "always" known Jesis Christ; that there isn't a moment in their experience that they have not known Him. I would say to Mr. Cassidy that, actually, if a ministerial candidate said "There was never a time when I didn't know Jesus Christ" you should be very concerned! If such a candidate said something of the substance of "from my perspective there was never a time when I didn't believe in God" then that might make sense, as those brought up in the church are told from their infancy that there is a God and that to believe in Him is normal. But that doesn't mean they truly believe in Him with faith, rather than a mere head knowledge and it certainly doesn't mean that they know Christ or are united to Him. To know Christ, savingly, requires three things: an intellectual knowledge of who He is as saviour of sinners; an assent to that knowledge, a believing it to be true and not merely an assertion; a trust in Christ that He will save me, personally and has saved me, personally- not merely that He saves sinners, but that He will save me. Consider the crossing of a river: one must know how to get across (the boat tethered to the bank); one must believe said boat will carry one over the river; and one must place his trust in the boat and actually get in it and cross over.
And I will also bring in Clary's address on revival and communion from the conference because it's referenced in the discussion and it is so egregious, so arrogant, so malicious it must be commented upon. The bulk of his lecture is a sustained attack- of his methods and character- on the 18th century minister Theodorus Frelinghuysen. He accuses Frelinghuysen of, when examining candidates for communicant membership, of not only judging their outward walk but of assuming that he can know their heart; basically that he, Frelinghuysen, can know for sure who are and aren't the elect. For someone who criticises Frelinghuysen for attempting to read the hearts of his congregants, Clary certainly has no compunction in reading Frelinghuysen's heart and slandering and condemning him. All because Frelinghuysen believed that a candidate for the Lord's Table should be able to give not only an uncontradicted profession of faith (what is necessary for admittance to Baptism for one's child) but an accredited profession of faith, i.e. a profession of saving faith, accredited by an experiential knowledge of Christ and union with Him.
A cursory reading of Frelinghuysen's sermons will show what care he had for his people's souls; how careful he was in the duties apportioned to him; how desirous he was to honour God. His care for the eternal state of his people's souls shines from the page and that was why he was so afraid that they would go into eternity with a lie in their right hand.
Yes it's a real lark to read Frelinghuysen's sermons- jumbled up I might add, taking paragraphs from here and there and putting them together for dramatic emphasis- in an hysterical pitch, as Clary does in his lecture, and mock a man who was clearly burdened by the fact that so many in his congregation were deluding themselves. Frelinghuysen came to that congregation. The sermons Clary quotes are from his early days in the ministry. He came to a congregation that was not in a good state, where, it would seem, many professors were unconverted, being mere formalists. He had to deal with that situation. It is pointless- and irresponsible- to address a congregation comprised mostly of adherents and formalists as if they are regenerated saints growing in grace.
And then Clary says that "Let a man examine himself" has nothing to do with looking in oneself for evidences of true experiential faith but about practical considerations in the administration of the supper. But this is just not true. 1 Corinthians 11:28 has always been understood as a personal examination as to whether one was in Christ; whether one had true faith; searching within oneself for marks of grace. Right back to Calvin that has been the understanding of that text: "By this, as I understand, he means that each individual should descend into himself; and consider, first, whether, with inward confidence of heart, he leans on the salvation obtained by Christ, and with confession of the mouth, acknowledges it; and, secondly, whether with zeal for purity and holiness he aspires to imitate Christ..." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559 Edition, Book Fourth, Chapter 17:40, trd. Beveridge.) It is not an invention of "revivalism" but a consistent exposition of that text throughout the generations of the church.
And then, to finish it all off, they (in the discussion on the podcast) choose the Dutch Reformed church as the pinnacle of Reformed piety. This is beyond irony. To choose the branch of the Reformed church which lays most stress on personal experience in relation to coming to the Lord's Table; which is rife with hyper-calvinism; where there are congregation after congregation of hundreds, or even thousands, of "members" and adherents and yet only a tiny fraction will actually sit at the Table. There is much to admire about the Dutch churches, please don't misunderstand me, but this is a real problem within their ranks.
The only explanation one can think of for why they choose this period- beside the Dutch man sitting in their midst- is so they can take a potshot at the Puritans. No statement is too contorted or hypocritical or fork tongued to smear the Puritans, after all. Who, apparently, according to the men in the discussion, pitched form against experience. That is, the same Puritans who wrote the forms we still use, namely the Westminster Standards? Strange they would consider their own production antithetical to true religion.
There is a tradition which maintains a robust adherence to the Westminster Standards; which to this day, in certain pockets, catechises its children and examines prospective communicants by the Standards; which maintains the true purity of worship (i.e. absent the man made hymns, musical instruments and complicated services of OPC and PCA churches) and which also nurtures a deep, experiential piety. That is Scottish Presbyterianism and perhaps the men in this discussion should actually do a bit more research and discover for themselves that the arid desert in which they toil is not how it used to be.
This podcast was a mistake from start to finish. It was not "dying men speaking unto dying men" but dead men speaking unto dead.
P.S.
This post had a signature when I first posted it and for some reason it disappeared when I edited it. Here is my signature:
Alexander Smith
Member, Glasgow Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
(FPCoS)
Glasgow, UK
(N.B. This post was originally posted on the Reformed Forum website under the podcast, so it does assume familiarity with the contents of that podcast at least. I've now edited it to make it easier to follow for those who haven't heard either audio. Please accept my apologies that I did not do this when I originally posted it.)
The discussion can be found at: http://reformedforum.org/ctc412/
Glen Clary's lecture can be found at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11121521263010
Those involved in the discussion on the podcast were Jim Cassidy, D.G. Hart, Glen Clary, John Terpstra. Even knowing well the views of some of the men involved I was shocked at what I heard. Mr. Hart actually said, in relation to the idea of requiring conversion of those brought up in the church: "convert from what?" From death unto life! From the dominion of sin and of Satan to the kingdom of grace and Christ! I won't deny that the idea that regeneration is a lifelong process has some Reformed pedigree, but that doesn't make it right or helpful. Regeneration is an instantaneous act: the passing of death unto life, in an instant; the terminus point of the process of effectual calling. What is ongoing for the rest of the believer's life is sanctification, which is something quite different. A human being grows older all his life, but there was an instantaneous moment in which he came into being; became alive. One is either dead or alive: naturally and spiritually. This is clearly the majority view of the Reformed church.
Jim Cassidy at one point says that when ministerial candidates are being examined he "loves" to hear them say that they have "always" known Jesis Christ; that there isn't a moment in their experience that they have not known Him. I would say to Mr. Cassidy that, actually, if a ministerial candidate said "There was never a time when I didn't know Jesus Christ" you should be very concerned! If such a candidate said something of the substance of "from my perspective there was never a time when I didn't believe in God" then that might make sense, as those brought up in the church are told from their infancy that there is a God and that to believe in Him is normal. But that doesn't mean they truly believe in Him with faith, rather than a mere head knowledge and it certainly doesn't mean that they know Christ or are united to Him. To know Christ, savingly, requires three things: an intellectual knowledge of who He is as saviour of sinners; an assent to that knowledge, a believing it to be true and not merely an assertion; a trust in Christ that He will save me, personally and has saved me, personally- not merely that He saves sinners, but that He will save me. Consider the crossing of a river: one must know how to get across (the boat tethered to the bank); one must believe said boat will carry one over the river; and one must place his trust in the boat and actually get in it and cross over.
And I will also bring in Clary's address on revival and communion from the conference because it's referenced in the discussion and it is so egregious, so arrogant, so malicious it must be commented upon. The bulk of his lecture is a sustained attack- of his methods and character- on the 18th century minister Theodorus Frelinghuysen. He accuses Frelinghuysen of, when examining candidates for communicant membership, of not only judging their outward walk but of assuming that he can know their heart; basically that he, Frelinghuysen, can know for sure who are and aren't the elect. For someone who criticises Frelinghuysen for attempting to read the hearts of his congregants, Clary certainly has no compunction in reading Frelinghuysen's heart and slandering and condemning him. All because Frelinghuysen believed that a candidate for the Lord's Table should be able to give not only an uncontradicted profession of faith (what is necessary for admittance to Baptism for one's child) but an accredited profession of faith, i.e. a profession of saving faith, accredited by an experiential knowledge of Christ and union with Him.
A cursory reading of Frelinghuysen's sermons will show what care he had for his people's souls; how careful he was in the duties apportioned to him; how desirous he was to honour God. His care for the eternal state of his people's souls shines from the page and that was why he was so afraid that they would go into eternity with a lie in their right hand.
Yes it's a real lark to read Frelinghuysen's sermons- jumbled up I might add, taking paragraphs from here and there and putting them together for dramatic emphasis- in an hysterical pitch, as Clary does in his lecture, and mock a man who was clearly burdened by the fact that so many in his congregation were deluding themselves. Frelinghuysen came to that congregation. The sermons Clary quotes are from his early days in the ministry. He came to a congregation that was not in a good state, where, it would seem, many professors were unconverted, being mere formalists. He had to deal with that situation. It is pointless- and irresponsible- to address a congregation comprised mostly of adherents and formalists as if they are regenerated saints growing in grace.
And then Clary says that "Let a man examine himself" has nothing to do with looking in oneself for evidences of true experiential faith but about practical considerations in the administration of the supper. But this is just not true. 1 Corinthians 11:28 has always been understood as a personal examination as to whether one was in Christ; whether one had true faith; searching within oneself for marks of grace. Right back to Calvin that has been the understanding of that text: "By this, as I understand, he means that each individual should descend into himself; and consider, first, whether, with inward confidence of heart, he leans on the salvation obtained by Christ, and with confession of the mouth, acknowledges it; and, secondly, whether with zeal for purity and holiness he aspires to imitate Christ..." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559 Edition, Book Fourth, Chapter 17:40, trd. Beveridge.) It is not an invention of "revivalism" but a consistent exposition of that text throughout the generations of the church.
And then, to finish it all off, they (in the discussion on the podcast) choose the Dutch Reformed church as the pinnacle of Reformed piety. This is beyond irony. To choose the branch of the Reformed church which lays most stress on personal experience in relation to coming to the Lord's Table; which is rife with hyper-calvinism; where there are congregation after congregation of hundreds, or even thousands, of "members" and adherents and yet only a tiny fraction will actually sit at the Table. There is much to admire about the Dutch churches, please don't misunderstand me, but this is a real problem within their ranks.
The only explanation one can think of for why they choose this period- beside the Dutch man sitting in their midst- is so they can take a potshot at the Puritans. No statement is too contorted or hypocritical or fork tongued to smear the Puritans, after all. Who, apparently, according to the men in the discussion, pitched form against experience. That is, the same Puritans who wrote the forms we still use, namely the Westminster Standards? Strange they would consider their own production antithetical to true religion.
There is a tradition which maintains a robust adherence to the Westminster Standards; which to this day, in certain pockets, catechises its children and examines prospective communicants by the Standards; which maintains the true purity of worship (i.e. absent the man made hymns, musical instruments and complicated services of OPC and PCA churches) and which also nurtures a deep, experiential piety. That is Scottish Presbyterianism and perhaps the men in this discussion should actually do a bit more research and discover for themselves that the arid desert in which they toil is not how it used to be.
This podcast was a mistake from start to finish. It was not "dying men speaking unto dying men" but dead men speaking unto dead.
P.S.
This post had a signature when I first posted it and for some reason it disappeared when I edited it. Here is my signature:
Alexander Smith
Member, Glasgow Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
(FPCoS)
Glasgow, UK
Last edited:
