An excellent choice for Wheaton! Praise God! Rev. Ryken is an inspired man of God.

Online4Him, I do not know of any Protestant who believes the Lord's Supper is a "re-sacrifice;" neither do I. I really recommend you do some readings--maybe of a systematic theology--of Protestant views of the Lord's Supper. Louis Berkhof has written an excellent systematic theology. I believe, in accordance with the Reformed Confessions, that the Supper is a means of grace, which the Lord ...more

Online4Him,

I do not know of any Protestant who believes the Lord's Supper is a "re-sacrifice;" neither do I. I really recommend you do some readings--maybe of a systematic theology--of Protestant views of the Lord's Supper. Louis Berkhof has written an excellent systematic theology. I believe, in accordance with the Reformed Confessions, that the Supper is a means of grace, which the Lord uses to strengthen me in my faith, as He is truly present in the Supper. But it is NOT just a "mere symbol."less

Beliver, Online4Him, You have mistaken my beliefs. I do not believe transubstantiation is biblical--neither am I aware of a Protestant denomination that does. The Reformed believe Christ is truly (spiritually) present in the Supper, and that we feed on Him in faith. The Lutherans teach that He is physically present in, under, and around the elements of the Supper. Very few Protestants teach the...more

Beliver, Online4Him,
You have mistaken my beliefs. I do not believe transubstantiation is biblical--neither am I aware of a Protestant denomination that does. The Reformed believe Christ is truly (spiritually) present in the Supper, and that we feed on Him in faith. The Lutherans teach that He is physically present in, under, and around the elements of the Supper. Very few Protestants teach the Supper is a mere symbol.less

Online4Him, You're not ruffling my "feathers" at all. No, I'm not referring to "consubstantiation." Historically, the only figure in the Reformation who referred to the Lord's Supper as merely a symbol was Ulrich Zwingli--and maybe not even him. If you read the Reformed Confessions, the writers usually refer to the Supper as a "means of grace," which the Lord uses to strengthen us as we feed on ...more

Online4Him,
You're not ruffling my "feathers" at all. No, I'm not referring to "consubstantiation." Historically, the only figure in the Reformation who referred to the Lord's Supper as merely a symbol was Ulrich Zwingli--and maybe not even him. If you read the Reformed Confessions, the writers usually refer to the Supper as a "means of grace," which the Lord uses to strengthen us as we feed on Him spiritually in the Supper, where He is truly present. Calvin certainly taught this.less

Online4Him, Actually, very few Protestants believe "the Lord's Supper is only a symbol." Certainly not Reformed churches who follow Calvin, the subject of the article you are commenting on.

Well said, Xizwyck! We have already been "set apart," made holy by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ thanks to His work FOR us. The church doesn't "make us holy."

I hope I am wrong, but if his previous books are examples, we will be treated to a lot of law (do this, do not do this), and very little Gospel (see what God through Christ has done FOR you).

Augustine on science vs. religion: Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this know...more

Augustine on science vs. religion:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?less

The Bible does not "clearly teach" that God created the world in 6-24 hour days several thousand years ago. Give me a break. And it is wrong to condemn Biblical scholars and teachers who say it does not as "compromisers." They include such Christians as Francis Schaeffer and scholars as B.B. Warfield, who was a strong defender of the inerrancy of Scripture, and J.Gresham Machen. Come one, grow...more

The Bible does not "clearly teach" that God created the world in 6-24 hour days several thousand years ago. Give me a break. And it is wrong to condemn Biblical scholars and teachers who say it does not as "compromisers." They include such Christians as Francis Schaeffer and scholars as B.B. Warfield, who was a strong defender of the inerrancy of Scripture, and J.Gresham Machen. Come one, grow up.less

Absolutely, Canadian! Dr. Horton's point, though, is that the primary meaning of sanctification is being set apart for something and Someone--and it is used in that way throughout the Bible. We distort the meaning of sanctification and holiness when we concentrate on the things to avoid instead of our Lord.

"The proper focus of holiness is not on being set apart from something (i.e., the world), but on being set apart for something." - Michael Horton

A great deal of controversy has been generated over Luther’s adaptation of secular music. For instance, one writer insists, None of the works dealing with Luther’s music can trace a single melody of his back to a drinking song…It seems obvious to this writer that using Luther’s music as an historical precedent for using rock and other worldly music in our churches today is completely i...more

A great deal of controversy has been generated over Luther’s adaptation of secular music. For instance, one writer insists,

None of the works dealing with Luther’s music can trace a single melody of his back to a drinking song…It seems obvious to this writer that using Luther’s music as an historical precedent for using rock and other worldly music in our churches today is completely incongruous with the facts of history. Luther did not use the barroom songs of his day, nor did he use even the worldly music of his day. In fact, he was extremely cautious in protecting the Word of God from any admixture of worldly elements. This can be seen in his words: “I wish to compose sacred hymns so that the Word of God may dwell among the people also by means of songs.” 10
I have found that people’s adverse reaction to the marriage of secular tunes with spiritual words comes from their personal dislike for such a practice, rather than from historical research. The idea that people have confused Luther’s use of bar tunes with the fact that he wrote hymns using the metrical bar AAB or bar-form structure forgets that “A particularly important class of chorales were the contrafacta or ‘parodies’ of secular songs, in which the given melody was retained but the text was either replaced by completely new words or else were altered so as to give it a properly spiritual meaning. The adaptation of secular songs and secular polyphonic compositions for church purposes was common in the sixteenth century.” 11 Examples of beautiful contrafacta include O Welt, ich muss dich lassen (O world, I now must leave thee), taken from Isaac’s Lied, Innsbruck, I now must leave thee. A tune from Hassler’s Lied Mein Gmuth ist mir verwirret (My piece of mind is shattered by a tender maiden’s charms), which around 1600 were changed to Herzlich thut mich verlangen (My heart is filled with longing) and later to O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden (O sacred head now wounded). 12less

Most books in support of Contemporary Christian Music justify the use of rock music because of Martin Luther’s alleged use of secular tavern songs, but this is based on an inaccurate view of Luther’s music. In reality, what Luther did is nothing like what Christian rockers are doing today. The following are some of the serious differences between Luther’s music and CCM. (An excellent overvie...more

Most books in support of Contemporary Christian Music justify the use of rock music because of Martin Luther’s alleged use of secular tavern songs, but this is based on an inaccurate view of Luther’s music. In reality, what Luther did is nothing like what Christian rockers are doing today. The following are some of the serious differences between Luther’s music and CCM. (An excellent overview of this is found in Measuring the Music by John Makujina, chapter 7.)


(2) LUTHER RARELY BORROWED FROM SECULAR MUSIC, AND WHEN HE DID HE CHANGED IT TO REMOVE WORLDLY INFLUENCES. Luther carefully changed the music to fit the Christian message. Of his 37 chorales, only one came directly from a secular song, and it was later replaced by a new tune he had written himself. “By avoiding dance tunes and ‘de-rhythming’ other songs, Luther achieved a chorale with a marked rhythm, but without the devices that would remind the people of the secular world. … Luther chose only those tunes which would best lend themselves to sacred themes and avoided the vulgar, ‘rollicking drinking songs’ and dance tunes. … He carefully tested the melodies he considered, and when necessary molded them into suitability” (Robert Harrell, Martin Luther: His Music, His Message, 1980). “He was not content to accept anything uncritically: he was jealous of congruity between the theme of the verse and the spirit of the music. He carefully tested the propriety for their purpose of the melodies he considered, and where necessary molded them into suitability” (Millar Patrick, The Story of the Church’s Song, p. 74). “Rollicking drinking songs were available in the 16th century too. Luther steered clear of them. He never considered music a mere tool that could be employed regardless of its original association but was careful to match text and tune, so that each text would have its own proper tune and so that both would complement each other” (Ulrich Leupold, an authority on Luther, “Learning from Luther?” Journal of Church Music, July-August 1996, p. 5). “It is perhaps in his selectivity of rhythm that we notice the seldom-acknowledged conservatism of Luther. In order for the congregation to sing in unison, a song had to contain some form of rhythm. The plainsong (Gregorian chant), however, lacked the necessary rhythm. On the other hand, dance songs and drinking songs produced a rhythm far too intense and definite for Luther’s purposes. Therefore, it is believed that in developing his chorales, Luther managed to discard dance songs altogether and limit the rhythm in other songs” (Makujina, Measuring the Music, p. 192).less

scientist 3, Martin Luther never "put godly words to drinking songs." This is a common fiction. Luther had too much good sense. When we imitate popular culture in our worship, it should not surprise us when our behaviour looks like that of the world as well.

Weekenderman, Our heart--and our motives--are still infected by sin after our salvation. All our "righteous" acts are like filthy rags before God (according to Isaiah). I worry about Christians who look inside themselves to discover they are pretty good in their love for God and motives--instead of looking to Christ, outside of themselves, who fulfilled their righteousness for them. The Ap...more

Weekenderman,

Our heart--and our motives--are still infected by sin after our salvation. All our "righteous" acts are like filthy rags before God (according to Isaiah). I worry about Christians who look inside themselves to discover they are pretty good in their love for God and motives--instead of looking to Christ, outside of themselves, who fulfilled their righteousness for them. The Apostle Paul called himself the "chief of sinners." Please do not think you are any better than he.less

"The heart is what matters"? Great. The heart is deceitful above all things, is what the Bible tells us. John Calvin rightly said the heart of fallen man is an "idol-factory." Follow your heart theology is not the theology of the Scriptures.

I pray the book will be better than "The Purpose Driven Life." PDL was awful.

BRIT, And where in Scripture do we find that drinking alcohol is a stumbling block?

BRIT, My view of Calvin? I've actually made a point of reading through "The Institutes" for the first time this year. I see a man well versed in the Scriptures who is interested above all in exalting His Savior, Jesus Christ. I don't "idolize" the man--but I don't demonize him, on the other hand, and distort his writings--as some are wont to do.

DRJ, Your view of Calvin is so wrong, I don't know where to begin.