Forefathers: Anselm

Today, 900 years ago exactly, Anselm of Canterbury died in 1109. He is ranked as one of the greatest theological minds in church history along with giants like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Here is a link to the Wikipedia article:

Anselm of Canterbury

He was a fascinating man. I am going to highlight just a few of his contributions to the Christian faith.

His first work of note was a work of philosophy and apologetics, not theology proper. Proslogion is the name it usually goes by but an English translation of the title is Discourse on the Existence of God. In this work Anselm developments his famous (or infamous, depending on one's worldview) ontological argument which, in a much simplified form, states that a being (i.e. God) other than which nothing greater can be conceived must necessarily exist; and since the Christian God is the greatest being possible, He must necessarily exist.

Theologians and philosophers still debate about the merits or dis-merits of the ontological argument for the existence of God. Even after 900 years Anselm's ideas are still alive and kicking.

His major theological work, and arguably his most important, especially from a theological perspective, is Cur Deus Homo. In English this can be variously translated as Why the God-man? or Why Did God Become Man? In it Anselm argues that the main reason why God the Son became man was to pay a debt, not to Satan as many early proponents of the "ransom theory" thought, but to God himself. He argued that in sinning against God humanity was morally required to make satisfaction to God's honor and holiness, and this satisfaction is exactly why hell is necessary. But Jesus provides salvation because he is the God-man; fully human because the satisfaction required is due from humanity, and fully God because the debt against an infinitely holy God is infinite and is therefore only something God can possibly pay in full.

The reason I have started this series on Christians who have gone before us is because I believe that history is an important part of knowing who we are and who God is. The Gospel is historical because it is about God's acts in history; specifically the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Church is also historical, and ignorance of it's history is ignorance of where we came from and ultimately where we are going. I hope reading about Anselm of Canterbury is proof of that.

The Curtain and the Death of Types

One of the most moving images of what Jesus' cross meant is shown by one of the signs accompanying his death. All of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) record this event, but here is Matthew's account:

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. (Matthew 27:50-51)

What exactly is the curtain of the temple? Why did three of the four Gospel writers think it significant enough to record it? And most importantly, what are the implications of this event?

The curtain, or veil as some translations have it, was the partition between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place in the Tabernacle and later the Temple. The Holy Place housed the menorah and the table of the bread of the Presence and was where the Old Testament priests performed the daily rituals. But in the Most Holy Place stood the Ark of the Covenant with the mercy seat on top of it, where God's presence dwelt. Only the high priest could go in once a year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, and he had to bring blood as a sacrifice for his sins and those of the people of Israel. According to tradition a rope was tied around the high priest's leg in case he was struck dead by the Lord for wrongdoing and the people had to retrieve his body.

The curtain was a very clear testimony to the fact that God and his presence were separated from the people because of their sin. If a sinner were to enter into the Holy of Holies he would be immediately struck dead by the justice of God. In Jesus' time, the veil in the Temple was 60 feet high and 4 inches thick; a very sturdy reminder of the separation of a sinful humanity from a holy God.

So why is the ripping of this partition so important? There are many reasons, but a few that strike my soul and reveal Christ's glory are: 1) It shows the uselessness of the Temple and the Old Testament system it represented. 2) It shows that Jesus was the true temple of the living God. and 3) It shows that the separation between God and man caused by sin has ended in Jesus.

If God established the Old Testament sacrifices, then how are they useless? Becasue they were never meant to atone for sin, period. The Old Testament system and all it entailed was intended by God to be a type, or prefiguration, of the sacrifice that would truly take away the sin of the people; the Cross of Christ.

"For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (Hebrews 10:1-4)

When Jesus died, the true Lamb had been offered once for all and God indicated this by tearing the curtain of the now obsolete Temple. The Sacrifice to end sacrifice was slain. The true Form had come; the shadow passed away. Ultimately this was completed by the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD. "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:2)

And Jesus is not only the sacrifice but also the true temple of the Lord; he is the Presence of God on earth. At the beginning of his ministry Jesus cleansed the Temple by driving out the money changers. When the Pharisees asked him what sign he would do to prove he had the authority for this, Jesus said...

"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

John makes it clear right after this that Jesus was talking about his body, and not the building right next to him. By claiming to be the temple, Jesus is making a radical statement that the true followers of God are to come to him, not to the Temple. No longer is the worship of God to be centered in Jerusalem, but in the Person and Work of Christ.

"Jesus said to her, 'Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.' The woman said to him, 'I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.' Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am he.'" (John 4:21-26)

If He is the true temple, of which the Jerusalem temple was but a picture, then the torn curtain also pictures something about Jesus himself. What did the ripped veil symbolize in relation to Jesus' death?

"Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Hebrews 10:19-22)

The curtain also points us to Jesus' human nature, and shows us that in having his body torn, like the veil, he has opened the way to the Presence of God for us. We no longer need to stand outside the veil apart from a holy God; in Christ we are brought near to God, and God is brought near to us. We can approach the throne of a the perfectly just Creator because Jesus is our torn curtain, mediator, and substitute who bore the wrath of divine justice in our place so we would be made a royal priesthood with access to the Most Holy Place and eternal communion with Yahweh.

And the most amazing grace of God is seen in that we sinners, who were once enemies and haters of God soiled in our own filthiness, are in union with Christ by faith sanctified stones being used by God to build his everlasting temple not made with hands, but with the Holy Spirit.

"As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:4-5)


As the Church of Christ all those who trust in Christ for complete salvation are both the priests of God and the temple of God, because Jesus is first. He is the true High Priest and the everlasting Temple, and in Him we are true priests and everlasting temples.

On this Good Friday I pray that everyone sees that the true Curtain, Jesus, is the most precious broken Object ever known because He was torn so we don't have to be. May this Curtain fall on you and be a beautiful garment to cloth your naked lack of righteousness before God.

Believe that Christ was torn for you.

Books: Spectacular Sins

John Piper's Spectacular Sins is, please forgive me, spectacular. Not so much a book as a 128-page Christ-exalting sermon from the warm, tender, and tough heart of a loving pastor. It is by no means exhaustive or expansive. Instead Piper focuses on six of the most vile and well-known sins from the narrative of Scripture; the rebellion of Satan, the Fall of Adam and Eve, the building of Babel, the sale of Joseph by his brothers, Israel asking for a king, and Judas Iscariot trading the most precious Treasure for thirty pieces of nothing.

This entire book is excellently God-honoring, but the last chapter, "Judas Iscariot, the Suicide of Satan, and the Salvation of the World," is worth ten times the price of the entire book. One thing that really popped out at me in the final chapter was when Dr. Piper compares Judas to anyone who goes after God merely for his gifts. He writes,

Judas was a lover of money, and he covered it with a phony, external relationship with Jesus. And then he sold him for thirty pieces of silver. How many of his ilk are still around today! Don't be one. And don't be duped by one.

This is a much-needed exposition of what the health, wealth, and prosperity "gospel" really is; a convenient use of Jesus to get things, not God himself. Lest we be Pharisaical judges, we must remember that as sinners we are naturally idol worshipers, and without grace will want the gifts but not the Giver. We must oppose prosperity teaching intently and aggressively, but also lovingly and meekly, praying for those who preach and believe it.

This book is short. One could easily get through it in one or two sittings, but the chapters are small and divided into subsections to aid in a more spread-out, devotional reading. However you choose read it, you will be challenged and edified and comforted and enthralled with the majesty of God in his triumph and sovereignty over all sin, and with the radiance of this majesty in Jesus. Everyone not only should read this book; everyone needs this book (or at least its message)!

Thomas Cranmer: Reformer, Coward, Martyr

This day marks the anniversary of the death of Thomas Cranmer, the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury. He is a hugely important figure in the development of Anglicanism, and I believe he should also share the gratitude of any who ventures to call themselves Protestant; especially if one is an English-speaking Protestant.

Thomas Cranmer came from a rather humble beginning. He was born in Nottinghamshire in 1489 and at the age of 14 he started attending Jesus College, Cambridge. In 1510 he was ordained a priest. Cambridge become the focal point in England of discussion about the Reformation and in 1520 Cranmer joined a group that would meet to discuss Luther's ideas.

It was an accident (or act of Providence) that set Cranmer on the course of becoming the genius behind the English Reformation. He happened to meet the King in a neighborhood he was visiting and spoke with Henry about his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, a devout Spanish woman who had "failed" to produce a male heir for King Henry. (She did, however, have a daughter; the future Queen Mary who would be known to the Protestants as "Bloody Mary.") Henry was impressed with Cranmer's reasoning on how he could best divorce Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn. Cranmer was quickly appointed as an ambassador and charged with writing a treatise arguing in favor of the divorce.

In 1533 Cranmer was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest ecclesiastical position in England. Interestingly enough, the Pope actually signed off on the appointment thinking it would placate Henry after the Vatican had refused to annul the King's marriage to Catherine. This backfired. Immediately the new Archbishop declared Henry's marriage to the Queen null and void, and on top of that, validated the King's secret marriage to Anne Boleyn that had already taken place.

Over and over, as King Henry VIII changed wives only slightly less often than codpieces, Archbishop Cranmer would back the King's wishes and grant yet another annulment. In all this he was a coward, refusing to hold Henry accountable to sacred Scripture and its views on divorce and remarriage.

Where Thomas Cranmer's better colors shine however is in the reforms he undertook under Henry's son, King Edward VI. The monarch was a boy when his father died, and so much of the power was in the hands of decidedly pro-Reformation advisers, including the Archbishop. Cranmer was therefore able to take the Church of England in a staunchly Protestant direction during Edward's reign. Until....

Edward died six years after taking the throne and despite a nine-day rule by Lady Jane Grey, the Catholic Mary (daughter of Catherine) entered London and assumed the throne. She made short work of weeding out the Protestants and taking England back into the fold of the Roman Catholic Church. Cranmer was among the victims.

In 1556, after a three year trial, Thomas Cranmer was convicted of treason and sentenced to burn at the stake. He was humiliatingly defrocked in a ceremony stripping him of his episcopal and priestly vestments. In an effort to save his life, he signed a recantation of his Reformed views and submitted himself to the Pope as supreme head of the church. Mary decided to burn him anyway.

Supposed to read his recantation in church the day of his execution, Cranmer instead shouted out, "All such bills which I have written or signed with my own hand [are] untrue." He continued, "As for the pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine. As for the sacrament..."

Dragged off before he could finish his speech. When the fire was lit, he put out his right hand directly into the flame and declared, "This hand has offended."

Though Thomas Cranmer died as a martyr, when Elizabeth came to the throne two years later her reforms of the Anglican Church were really Cranmer's, with a few compromises. His forty-two points of doctrine were reduced and became The Thrity-Nine Articles of Religion, still the foundational doctrinal statement for Anglicans worldwide. His Book of Common Prayer is still the liturgical guide used in Anglican worship services, and parts of it have seeped into other Protestant churches' worship. For example, the traditional wedding ceremony that most English speakers are used to is either taken directly or slightly modified from Cranmer's Common Prayer.

All Protestants in the English speaking world should thank God for Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. He was by no means perfect, but without him there would have been no Reformation in England; and without that those giants of biblical theology we call the Puritans would never have been able to edify the English church as they did. May Cranmer's memory serve to magnify God's faithfulness to His church.

It's Easy to Diss a Dead Dude

Here's an article I started writing back in January when I was in Seattle and decided to post anyway despite being late:

Passing judgment on historical persons is risky business; especially if that person lived 500 years ago on a different continent and with another language than the "judge."

The New York times has just run an article by Molly Worthen on Mars Hill Church's preaching pastor, Mark Driscoll. I was expecting some negative comments and critique of his views; we must remember that Calvinism and complementarianism are not very popular, especially in cities like Seattle and New York. But what I was not prepared for was a full scale attack on Driscoll rooted in a "historical" condemnation of John Calvin. You can find the article here.

I am currently writing this post in the Magnolia district of Seattle, and will be attending Mars Hill for an evening service. Nevertheless, my critique of this article will focus on the various aspects of Calvin and his thought that were mentioned, true and feigned.

Since the early 19th century, most evangelicals have preferred a theology that stresses the believer's free decision to accept God's grace. To be born again is a choice God wants you to make; if you so choose, Jesus will be your personal friend.

This is unfortunately true historically, but hardly an argument against Calvinism unless you only want to appeal to what makes Christians feel warm and fuzzy instead of pleading the teaching of Sacred Scripture. Many, many American Christians do indeed believe that they chose to be born again but they would be hard pressed to find the Bible on their side; let alone reason. Did we have a hand in our natural birth? Should we assume that when Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Unless you are born again," that He is commanding us to be the midwife at our own spiritual birth? (John 3:3) Certainly not!

A close reading of the passage dispels this perspective. This is especially highlighted earlier in John's Gospel; Chapter 1 states, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Notice that those "who did receive him" were born, past tense! John then further clarifies that the birth is not by the will of the flesh or man.

And here's the the seemingly everlasting condemnation of Calvin:

John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake...

This is like saying that the President of the United States is elected by popular vote on Election Day; sort of close, but not really true. According to the historical record there was only one heretic ever burned at the stake in Geneva, and Calvin's involvement in it is very nuanced.

Michael Servetus was a Spanish physician and theologian who developed a theology in the wake of the Reformation that denied the Trinity; according to Servetus Jesus wasn't God incarnate. He had corresponded with Calvin, and the Reformers in Geneva had already publicly denounced him as a heretic.

Servetus was then spotted at one of Calvin's sermons and arrested. John Calvin participated in his prosecution and did agree that Michael Servetus should die for his heretical beliefs; however, Calvin did not want him to be burned at the stake and tried unsuccessfully to get the sentenced commuted to beheading. I'm not trying to clear Calvin of all his culpability in the matter, but compared to burning alive beheading is an obviously more humane form of execution. In addition, the night before the sentence was to be carried out Calvin spent the night with Servetus in prison ministering to him by calling Servetus to repent.

Calvin sinned. That is not in dispute; he should have denounced the whole business of the state thinking it had the right to kill someone for their aberrant theology. But the truth about the events around Servetus' execution disperses the lie that John Calvin was some egotistical sadist who ruled Geneva with an iron fist. That picture is simply untrue.

We must remember that though we may be in Christ, the truth that our indwelling sin makes us a product of our time is still painfully true. I pray that our posterity judges us with more charity than we have shown our brother John Calvin.

Porpoise-Driven Life

Preach the hated Jesus

"If our conception of Jesus is such that He can be admired and applauded by the non-Christian, we have a wrong view of Him. The effect of Jesus Christ upon His contemporaries was that many threw stones at Him. They hate Him; and finally, choosing a murderer instead of Him, they put Him to death. This is the effect Jesus Christ always has upon the world. But you see there are other ideas about Him. There are worldly people who tell us they admire Jesus Christ, but that is because they have never seen Him. If they saw Him, they would hate Him as His contemporaries did. He does not change; man does not change. So let us be careful that our ideas about Christ are such that natural man cannot admire or applaud."

-D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, p. 117