Now when the angel greets Mary, he says: “Greetings to you, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” Well up to this point, this has simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me is that good German? Since when does a German speak like that—being "full of grace"? One would have to think about a keg "full of" beer or a purse "full of" money. So I translated it: "You gracious one". This way a German can at last think about what the angel meant by his greeting. Yet the papists rant about me corrupting the angelic greeting—and I still have not used the most satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the most satisfactory German and translated the salutation: "God says hello, Mary dear" (for that is what the angel was intending to say and what he would have said had he even been German!). If I had, I believe that they would  have hanged themselves out of their great devotion to dear Mary and because I have destroyed the greeting.

Bro. Martin is arguing against a charge that he mistranslated Rm 3.28 by adding in the word ‘alone’ to modify ‘faith’ where it says:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Martin’s point is that in translating, getting the meaning is more important than seeking a word-for-word correspondence. (He also says something to this effect, ‘If the papists don’t like my translation, let them write one of their own.’ He says this in a characteristically Martin-esque way.)

His letter is instructive and something that all of us concerned with the Bible and its translation should bear in mind. And it is entertaining to read at certain points!

“Again: Hippolytus refers to the action of the suburbicarian bishops in provincial council. And here is the place to express dissatisfaction with the apologetic tone of some writers, who seem to think Hippolytus too severe, etc. As if, in dealing with such ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing,’ this faithful leader could show himself a true shepherd without emphasis and words of abhorrence. Hippolytus has left to the Church the impress of his character as ‘superlatively sweet and amiable.’ Such was St. John, the beloved disciple; but he was not less a ‘son of thunder.’ Our Divine Master was ‘the Lamb,’ and ‘the Lion;’ the author of the Beatitudes, and the author of those terrific woes; the ‘meek and gentle friend of publicans and sinners,’ and the ‘lash of small cords’ upon the backs of those who made His Father’s house a ‘den of thieves.’ Such was Chrysostom, such was Athanasius, such was St. Paul, and such have ever been the noblest of mankind; tender and considerate, gentle and full of compassion; but not less resolute, in the crises of history, in withstanding iniquity in the persons of arch-enemies of truth, and setting the brand upon their foreheads. Good men, who hate strife, and love study and quiet, and to be friendly with others; men who never permit themselves to indulge a personal enmity, or to resent a personal affront; men who forgive injuries to the last farthing when they only are concerned, – may yet crucify their natures in withstanding evil when they are protecting Christ’s flock, or fulfilling the command to ‘contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.’ What the Christian Church owes to the loving spirit of Hippolytus in the awful emergencies of his times, protecting the poor sheep, and grappling with wolves for their sake, the Last Day will fully declare. But let us who know nothing of such warfare concede nothing, in judging of his spirit, to the spirit of our unbelieving age, which has no censures except for the defenders of truth: -

“‘Eternal smiles its emptiness betray,
As shallow streams run dimpling all the way.’”

A. Cleveland Coxe, “Elucidations on ‘The Refutation of All Heresies’ by Hippolytus,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. 5, electronic ed. (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000), 12.

“Justification by faith, I have said, is a fundamental doctrine of the gospel. It is vital. It is ‘the faith once delivered to the saints.’ No system from which it is excluded, can ever be justly regarded as embodying the religion of Christ. It was taught by the apostles, and early ministers, constantly, forcibly, emphatically. It was cherished by the primitive churches as a priceless truth. How can we account for its abandonment by the professed followers of Jesus Christ? There is, I answer, an inherent tendency in human nature, renewed though it may be, to pass from the substance to the forms of religion. The transition is so easy that it can only be prevented by perpetual vigilance. The influence of this propensity the early churches did not very long escape. Among the first of the corruptions they admitted and embraced, was the undue importance which became attached to religious ceremonials. They gradually exalted the rites above the doctrines of Christianity, while both were perverted and misapplied. Baptism, especially, was imagined to possess great and peculiar virtues. Thus justification through grace by faith, was ultimately displaced by justification through grace by baptism. Popery was the result, the doctrine of which, on this subject, is thus expressed by the Council of Trent: — ‘Justification is by means of the sacraments, either originally infused into us, or subsequently increased, or when lost, again restored.’ Thus the Christian world was plunged into darkness, which remained unbroken for a thousand years.”

R. B. C. Howell, Evils of Infant Baptism (Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1851), 102-103.

A few points to highlight:

• The inherent tendency to pass from the substance to the forms of religion. A very pernicious trait.
• The first of the corruptions was the undue emphasis attached to religious ceremonials. Desiring the subjective experience more than exercising faith? The charismatic impulse?
• From forms to popery. A slippery slide? The fact that the slippery slide slips slowly doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

My genius son sent me some links of interest on the subject. First is a site marking the anniversary with documentaries, events, and many other bits of information.

The King James Bible Trust

And there is a film coming out… you can watch the trailer here and sign up to be notified when the DVD is available.

KJB: the Book that Changed the World

Every believer ought to celebrate this anniversary, regardless of your view of the versions. The King James Version really was the book that changed the world.

I am in the section of the book that deals with Scotch-Irish immigration to America. The chapter is “The Presbyterian Church”. The first point made is about the lack of churches among many (most) of these immigrants. Two reasons are cited: First, the lack of trained ministers. The Presbyterians insisted on a classical education for their clergy, something in short supply on the frontier. Trained ministers from the Old Country were rarely found among the immigrants.

But an even greater problem afflicted the re-establishment of the church among these immigrants, all of them Presbyterian in their native country. That problem was a general spiritual malaise that affected all the major denominations at the time, according to Leyburn. My lengthy quotation follows (including the quote in our little ‘identify’ the person and time game a few days ago). The quotation comes from pp. 277-279.

The difficulty was not wholly the lack of ministers. It may be doubted whether, even if the supply had been adequate, the set of mind characteristic of the clergy at that time could have answered the true spiritual needs of pioneers. In all major denominations of the 1730′s it seemed as if clergyman had lost sight of the meaning of such words as ‘pastor’ and ‘minister’ and had come to feel that formal discourse in the pulpit, together with the proper direction of church services and sacraments, comprised their whole duty. The Age of Enlightenment and Reason had begun, with its disdain for ‘enthusiasm’: any display of deep and fervent piety was suspect. Since the clergy came from the universities, they often reflected this attitude of intellectuality and detachment. More than this, the three denominations most concerned with Americans of the time were Established Churches, either in Britain or in the colonies. It may be suggested that the very monopoly of Establishment conduces to inertia, unadaptability, and contentment with the formal proprieties of things as they are.

The attitude of the clergy had its effect upon the people. Religion in America in the 1730′s seemed to lack vitality. New England Puritanism had lost its early zeal and spirit; Anglicanism tended to become increasingly a polite and decent social formality; Presbyterian ministers from Scotland were likely to represent the ‘Moderate’ movement of the time, and those from Ulster, polemic orthodoxy. The mood that had produced the Protestant Reformation only two centuries ago had almost vanished. Spiritual needs of the people were no fewer, but empty pews testified to the failure of the churches to meet these needs. Could a Presbyterian minister of the time speak to the intensified needs and yearnings of the Scotch-Irish pioneer?

Suddenly, in 1738, a religious transformation began to take place. John and Charles Wesley had recently been stirring up the Church of England; now their collaborator, the fiery evangelist George Whitfield, made the first of his seven visits to America. Traveling from Georgia to New England, he spoke with compelling force directly to the hearts of men, not to their minds. With him ‘the Great Awakening’ began to sweep the colonies. Whitfield had no qualms about offending good taste: religion to him was of such consuming importance that nothing else mattered. He made vivid God’s love, the reality of sin, the agony of hell, the bliss of heaven. Creeds did not concern him; the condition of a man’s soul did. Wherever he went, whether in towns or in the back-country, he drew enormous crowds, who heard him with almost desperate eagerness. He figuratively set colonial America ablaze with religious fervor, drawing into his evangelical orbit dozens of ministers who had caught a new vision of their calling. Whitfield probably excited more interest than any other contemporary, and certainly he furnished more themes for discussion and argument.

Few denominations were more drastically affected by the Great Awakening than the Presbyterian. Conservatives were contemptuous of Whitfield’s pulpit pyrotechnics, dubious of the validity of the sudden conversions he achieved, and sure that the church would degrade itself by diluting its message and making religion ‘easy’ for the common man. Other Presbyterians, however, regarded Whitfield as a true and timely prophet. He had shown the church that it must be active in going out to the people, speaking to them in their own language, in order to seek and save the lost sheep. By 1745 this divergence of opinion had reached a stage of such virulence that the Presbyterian Church underwent a schism. Those opposed the new evangelical attitudes and methods are called the Old Side, and those who favored these, the New Side or, contemptuously, the New Lights.

The points at issue concerned more than fervor and methods. The nature of the church was involved. Old Siders were, to borrow a phrase from another denomination, High Churchmen. There was a right way of doing things, one hallowed by tradition and experience. What was true and proper for the fathers was still true and proper for the church in America. When every condition of life in a new country seemed to undermine the established order of faith and morality, surely the church should be a rock and mighty fortress, unyielding and changeless. Why give up the wisdom of centuries for a fad? Old Siders agreed that the church must offer the opportunities for salvation, by providing churches: but it was man’s duty to seek the church, not the church the man. New Siders, on the contrary, said that the validity of the church rested upon New Testament teaching and experience. Christ himself and his apostles had gone out into the byways and hedges to win souls; as they tried to be all things to all men, so must their successors in the modern world.

A few observations:

1. The emphasis on ‘scholarship’ deadens spiritual life and creates a need for revival.
2. No generation can rest on the spiritual experiences of preceding generations – resting is deadening. Those who rested on the Reformation were in need of Awakening.
3. Pews are filled with genuine converts by vital religion: “[Whitefield] made vivid God’s love, the reality of sin, the agony of hell, the bliss of heaven.”
4. Evangelists must seek the lost, not wait for God to bring them.

I was talking with one of our men last night. He is quite negative about the current state of affairs and the ability to reach the lost today. One difference between our day and that of the Great Awakening is that the people being awakened in the American frontier were not much more than one generation removed from a vital Christian experience. Our generation is now at least two, maybe three generations away. We are dealing with sophisticated pagans, mostly very affluent and self-satisfied.

Yet my friend is evidence that men of this generation can be reached. I reminded him that God saved him – he can save his friends and acquaintances too. It is likely, though, that few of them will be rescued.

“Conservatives were contemptuous of [his] pulpit pyrotechnics, dubious of the validity of the sudden conversions he achieved, and sure that the church would degrade itself by diluting its message and making religion ‘easy’ for the common man.”

So… who is the preacher I mask by ‘[his]’ and when is the historical setting?

No Googling!

Apparently labels matter (or mattered) to some.

Nasa is Taking Shots at the Moon

There are places on the Moon where the sun hasn’t shined for millions of years [sic]. Dark polar craters too deep for sunlight to penetrate are luna incognita, the realm of the unknown, and in their inky depths, researchers believe, may lie a treasure of great value.

NASA is about to light one up.

For Church History Buffs

• Christianity Today’s Liveblog provices a list of favorite Church history sites. Two I knew about, but three are new and look promising.

So, what do you think of Video Games?

• The Canadian Christianity site has an article that raises some concerns about the addiction of many to gaming. A real concern, I think, but a typically too weak response in our child-centered era. (I think every branch of conservative Christianity is too weak on this, including Fundamentalism.)

And last, for now…

What gives with this Muslim-Christian conference?

• And did the Christians involved give away too much in the process? And what should a prominent Minnesota Baptist pastor say to another prominent Minnesota Baptist pastor this time? [Probably he should say more than he will say, I reckon.]

• Interdenominational (but not undistinguished cooperation between infidelity and fidelity)
• Prominence of prayer

• Usually preachers were involved
• Prominent lay activity
• Praying
• Propagating
• Bringing [visitors, presumably]
• Counselling
• Follow-up
• Doctrine was usually important

Evangelists were often identified with particular doctrines:

• Jonathan Edwards – necessity of the new birth
• D. L. Moody – doctrine of love
• Billy Sunday – separation from worldliness
• Charles Finney – the role of the Spirit

• Confession of sins common (sins publicly known were publicly confessed)
• Singing of sacred songs an integral part of conveying the message
• Prominence of personal individual counsellors for inquirers

Note “anxious bench” — presupposes trained laypeople who know how to deal with people and the Bible

• Produced opposition
• Affected the moral tone of the community temporarily
• Produced an impetus toward three necessary activities in the Christian church
• Evangelism by laypeople
• Missions
• Christian Education
• Bible schools
• Bible training institutes
• Missionary training institutes

Some of my notes are a bit vague, basically writing a little ‘short-hand’ to myself so that I could jog my memory for writing the tests. The lectures are now long ago [28 yrs], and they still jog the memory, but… some bits seem to be unjoggable!

On the first point of this lecture, the term ‘interdenominational’ is significant. The term is decidedly not ‘ecumenical’. Differences were maintained, but not emphasized for the purpose of revival and evangelism. In ecumenicalism, differences are minimized rather than not emphasized.

Some argue that the whole revivalist movement resulted in the evangelical morass we have today. I think this is a bit unfair. While it is true that evangelicalism grew out of the heritage of revivalism, so too did fundamentalism. The root problem behind today’s weak church isn’t revivalism, nor do I think the evangelical compromise was the inevitable result of revivalism. Rather, changes came about as a result of other forces and philosophies, notably the new evangelical compromise.

Much good for the glory of God was accomplished through revivalism. As in all movements, frauds, incompetents, errors etc were made. But God uses men, and in revivalism God did a work that remains to this day. Let’s thank God for that work and build it up. What is the profit in tearing down?

Edinburgh 1910 – World Missionary Conference

• Turning point towards WCC
• International Missionary Council

[From this also flowed two conferences...]

Faith and Order (Pseudo theology and polity) ['pseudo' is very probably my own term, not my professor's]

Life and Work (Social activity)

These conference series combined at Utrecht in 1938 where something was created called the “WCC in Process of Formation”

• Amsterdam 1948 WCC established
• International Missionary Council continued to hold its own meetings until 1961

WCC Meetings

• Evanston, IL – 1954
• New Delhi – 1961 (IMC joined)
• Geneva – 1964
• Uppsala, Sweden – 1968
• Bangkok, Siam – 1972
• Nairobi, Kenya – 1975

~~~

Well, those are my notes, kind of sketchy. I was relying a good deal on memory for the exams, it seems.

The WCC website offers a page on its history that indicates my outline is generally correct. A note from their site:

Two pioneering WCC projects were launched in co-operation with the IMC in 1946: the Churches’ Commission on International Affairs (CCIA), and the Ecumenical Institute in Bossey, Switzerland. Today the Ecumenical Institute offers master’s and doctoral degrees in ecumenical studies through the theological faculty of the University of Geneva.

The purposes of the Ecumenical Institute are likely clear enough, but the CCIA may need a bit more explanation. This from the front page of the CCIA site:

The tasks of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) include:

• advice on public policy and advocacy
• advice on programmatic directions, including analysis of systemic issues that underlie injustice and social transformation
• addressing particular programmatic and policy issues, with a special emphasis on the aim of promoting a peaceful and reconciling role of religion in conflicts and on the promotion of inter-religious dialogue as a framework for community building, faith sharing and understanding.

The CCIA oversees the WCC programmes Public witness: addressing power, affirming peace; Justice, diakonia and responsibility for creation; and Inter-religious dialogue and cooperation.

The drive for unity in the Church produces this kind of institutional worldliness. The drive for unity especially produces this when the parameters for ‘Church’ are so broad as to hold to almost no distinctive – the broader the parameters for unity, the more worldly the result.

Beware of ‘Christian’ unity.