Oct
31

Sunday School Notes: The Six Points of Calvinism Part 1

As I noted last week, we’re taking a break from our Romans study for three weeks to look at “The Six Points of Calvinism.” Ours is a Presbyterian church (though I’m a Reformed Baptist), and as such, we hold to the central tenets of Reformed belief, including what is traditionally known as “The Five Points of Calvinism.” We’re spending some time on this topic not to try to stir up controversy, but primarily to help people understand what we believe with regard to these issues. Questions and comments are welcome, but I know that this is an issue that can sometimes stir up strong emotions. I would ask that commenters keep any questions or comments civil and polite. Thanks!

Also, bear in mind these are notes. If I were to go into a full discussion of these things here, this blog would be very long–and it’s probably already longer than it should be! Please feel free to use the comments to ask questions about things I didn’t cover, or to make points that I failed to make. In particular, if you were at the study yesterday morning and remember something useful that was said that I didn’t include here, please comment!

Historical Background
Many important doctrinal statements have a historical background. It helps us to understand why those doctrinal statements were written if we at least note the context from which they came. With regard to this topic, see the following time-chart:

1509 John Calvin born in Noyon, France.
1517 Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg protesting the Roman Catholic practice of selling indulgences.
1559 Fifth and final edition of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion published in Latin. This work is a systematized presentation of doctrine, emphasizing God’s sovereignty over all things, including salvation, in contrast to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
1560 Calvin publishes a French edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion for the laypeople.
1560 Jacob Hermanszoon (Jacob Arminius) born.
1564 John Calvin died.
1609 Jacob Arminius died.
1618 The Synod of Dort convened.
1619 The Synod of Dort closes–The Five Points of Calvinism issued.

In case you aren’t familiar with a couple of the names on this table: Jacob Arminius was a Dutch Calvinist who sought to reform Calvinistic teaching by modifying some of its beliefs (for example, the belief that Christ only died for the elect). His revisions were not well-received by the Reformed church. A form of his system of belief (known as “Arminianism”) is the view of the Methodist church, and many Baptist and non-denominational churches today. The Synod of Dort was a council convened to settle a dispute between the Dutch Reformed Calvinists, and the growing number of those subscribing to Arminianism. The Arminians presented five points of contention with Reformed teaching. These points were eventually rejected, and the Synod produced a document listing five counter-points. These counter-points became known as “The Five Points of Calvinism.”

I think this chart is useful because it helps us see a couple of things. First, John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were not contemporaries. The dispute between their systems of theology was conducted by those that came later. They never met, and Calvin would never have read anything by Arminius. Also, note that the dispute that caused Calvin to write his work was very different from the dispute from which the Five Points came. Calvin was arguing against Roman Catholicism, whereas the Calvinists and Arminians were debating Reformed theology within the context of the Reformed church. This is why you won’t find a list of The Five Points in Calvin’s work. I believe, having read Calvin’s Institutes, that he would have agreed with The Five Points–and indeed, I think you can find arguments for them in Calvin’s work. But that wasn’t Calvin’s debate.

The Six Points of Calvinism
Here are the Five Points of Calvinism, along with the one we are adding:

S Sovereignty of God
T Total Depravity
U Unconditional Election
L Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption)
I Irresistible Grace
P Perseverance (or Preservation) of the Saints

Why “Six Points” and not five? Just as in Calvin’s time certain theological issues were not disputed because either most people believed them, or because there were more important issues to dispute, so today, issues arise that would never have been considered back in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. I believe in our day, the view of God’s sovereignty held by many Christians is not exhaustive enough. God is viewed as sovereign to an extent–but not totally. The motive is often good: we don’t want to make God responsible for our mistakes, or we don’t want to make God the author of sin. But I think these concerns are unnecessary, and, more importantly this view of God’s sovereignty doesn’t match up with what the Bible teaches.

S: Sovereignty of God
I’m adding “S” to the beginning, not the end (though “TULIPS” sounds better than “STULIP”) because it really is the foundation of Reformed/Calvinistic theology. Scripture testifies to the fact that God has total sovereign control over all aspects of creation, and of life. Isaiah 45:5-7 speaks of God’s uniqueness, and the fact that he creates both darkness and light, well-being and calamity. Daniel 4:35 says that God accomplishes His will in the earth, and no-one can question Him. Similarly, Isaiah 55:9-11 proclaims God’s control over nature, and the fact that His word always achieves its purpose. Psalm 135:5-6 tells us that God does whatever He pleases. In Isaiah 10, God foretells the Assyrian attack on Israel due to their sin, even though the Assyrians weren’t planning to attack. In fact, it is God who puts it onto the hearts of the Assyrians to do this. Likewise, in Acts 2:22-23, Peter proclaims that Jesus’ crucifixion was according to God’s plan, even though it was accomplished by means of “godless” men. Unless God was in control of these “godless” men, there is no way He could be certain they would have done this.

All these verses seem to indicate that God’s plans extend from creation down to the actions of men. We don’t get the impression that God’s purposes are in any way influenced by the will of men. Indeed, Romans 8:28 says that God orders all things–and that means all things, good and bad–for the good of His people. And all of this is ultimately to His glory.

Theologian R. C. Sproul makes an important observation with regard to God’s total, or exhaustive, sovereignty:

If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay waste all the grand and glorious plans that God has made and promised to us. If a grain of sand in the kidney of Oliver Cromwell changed the course of English history, so our maverick molecule could change the course of all redemption history. Maybe that one maverick molecule will be the thing that prevents Christ from returning. [R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, pp. 26-27]

When we think of God being so intimately in control of every detail of our lives, the concern that is often voiced is we are reduced to being robots, or puppets, with no will of our own. Here are a couple of thoughts about that:

  • This is not mere fatalism. With fatalism, all things happen by means of an impersonal force, “fate,” or something like that. What we’re talking about here are the plans and purposes of a loving, personal God, whose intentions are always pure and holy, and for the benefit of those He loves.
  • Some might argue that God is only in control of the most important things in our lives, like meeting our future spouse. But think about all the things that could happen to prevent that meeting: one person gets a cold and can’t go out that night; some delay makes one person late and the other leaves, thinking they’ve been stood up; an accident happens that injures, or even takes the life of one of the parties. In each of these scenarios, not only the will of the two people, but the wills of many people are involved, along with the course of diseases, vehicles, weather, and many other factors. If God was not sovereign over all things, as Sproul suggests, one tiny deviation could ruin everything.
  • As Luther taught in his book The Bondage of the Will, our natural inclination is to sin. Our “free will” is not completely free: it only does the desire of its nature. Romans 8:6-8 tells us that the natural man has no desire to please God. Apart from Christ, our nature is in bondage to sin, and it takes the grace of God through Christ’s work on the cross to break that bondage and enable us to please God. This leads us into a discussion of “T.”

T: Total Depravity
“Total Depravity” does not mean that man is incapable of doing things. People do nice things for people all the time. They even do works of charity that shame people in the church. Rather, “Total Depravity” means that man is so infected with sin, that every aspect of his life is affected. This means that even the very best works of men are tainted by sin. Ultimately it means that no-one is able to do anything that pleases God. As we have seen in our Romans study (particularly chapters 1 and 3), by nature men suppress the knowledge of God and are at enmity with Him. No-one seeks after God.

Again, as we saw in Romans 1, all people are capable of knowing good and evil. They are created in God’s image and, therefore, have an innate sense of what they should and shouldn’t do. Apart from Christ they cannot explain this knowledge, and they are unable to act on it in a way that gives glory to God.

Some other Scriptures that speak to this:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. [Ephesians 2:1-3 NASB]

They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. [Ephesians 4:18 ESV]

If man is incapable of doing anything that pleases God, since having faith in Christ is pleasing to God, he is incapable of even this faith. This leads us into the next couple of points–Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement–which we shall study next week.

 

Oct
31

Happy Reformation Day!

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, posted his 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. The theses concerned the sale of indulgences which Albert of Brandenburg, archbishop of Mainz, sponsored to pay for the construction of Saint Peter’s in Rome. Indulgences were payments of money to the church for the forgiveness of sins. Martin Luther’s theses invited debate over the legitimacy of the sale of these indulgences. In 1521 Luther was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. From the middle of the century on, the Reformation swept Northern and Eastern Europe.

Today, every non-Roman Catholic Church, whether Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Mennonite, or Non-Denominational owes its existence, by the grace of God, to the Reformation, and the stand taken by Luther.

Luther’s 95 theses are no longer posted on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, but they are posted on various sites around the internet! Here’s one.

Oct
30

Sunday Devotional: Ephesians 1:4

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

Since it is Reformation Sunday, today’s devotional is from John Calvin’s commentary on Ephesians.

According as he hath chosen us. The foundation and first cause, both of our calling and of all the benefits which we receive from God, is here declared to be his eternal election. If the reason is asked, why God has called us to enjoy the gospel, why he daily bestows upon us so many blessings, why he opens to us the gate of heaven, — the answer will be constantly found in this principle, that he hath chosen us before the foundation of the world.The very time when the election took place proves it to be free; for what could we have deserved, or what merit did we possess, before the world was made? How childish is the attempt to meet this argument by the following sophism! “We were chosen because we were worthy, and because God foresaw that we would be worthy.” We were all lost in Adam; and therefore, had not God, through his own election, rescued us from perishing, there was nothing to be foreseen. The same argument is used in the Epistle to the Romans, where, speaking of Jacob and Esau, he says,

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” (Romans 9:11.)

But though they had not yet acted, might a sophist of the Sorbonne reply, God foresaw that they would act. This objection has no force when applied to the depraved natures of men, in whom nothing can be seen but materials for destruction.

In Christ. This is the second proof that the election is free; for if we are chosen in Christ, it is not of ourselves. It is not from a perception of anything that we deserve, but because our heavenly Father has introduced us, through the privilege of adoption, into the body of Christ. In short, the name of Christ excludes all merit, and everything which men have of their own; for when he says that we are chosen in Christ, it follows that in ourselves we are unworthy.

That we should be holy. This is the immediate, but not the chief design; for there is no absurdity in supposing that the same thing may gain two objects. The design of building is, that there should be a house. This is the immediate design, but the convenience of dwelling in it is the ultimate design. It was necessary to mention this in passing; for we shall immediately find that Paul mentions another design, the glory of God. But there is no contradiction here; for the glory of God is the highest end, to which our sanctification is subordinate.

This leads us to conclude, that holiness, purity, and every excellence that is found among men, are the fruit of election; so that once more Paul expressly puts aside every consideration of merit. If God had foreseen in us anything worthy of election, it would have been stated in language the very opposite of what is here employed, and which plainly means that all our holiness and purity of life flow from the election of God. How comes it then that some men are religious, and live in the fear of God, while others give themselves up without reserve to all manner of wickedness? If Paul may be believed, the only reason is, that the latter retain their natural disposition, and the former have been chosen to holiness. The cause, certainly, is not later than the effect. Election, therefore, does not depend on the righteousness of works, of which Paul here declares that it is the cause.

We learn also from these words, that election gives no occasion to licentiousness, or to the blasphemy of wicked men who say, “Let us live in any manner we please; for, if we have been elected, we cannot perish.” Paul tells them plainly, that they have no right to separate holiness of life from the grace of election; for

“whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified.” (Romans 8:30.)

The inference, too, which the Catharists, Celestines, and Donatists drew from these words, that we may attain perfection in this life, is without foundation. This is the goal to which the whole course of our life must be directed, and we shall not reach it till we have finished our course. Where are the men who dread and avoid the doctrine of predestination as an inextricable labyrinth, who believe it to be useless and almost dangerous? No doctrine is more useful, provided it be handled in the proper and cautious manner, of which Paul gives us an example, when he presents it as an illustration of the infinite goodness of God, and employs it as an excitement to gratitude. This is the true fountain from which we must draw our knowledge of the divine mercy. If men should evade every other argument, election shuts their mouth, so that they dare not and cannot claim anything for themselves. But let us remember the purpose for which Paul reasons about predestination, lest, by reasoning with any other view, we fall into dangerous errors.

Before him in love. Holiness before God (κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ) is that of a pure conscience; for God is not deceived, as men are, by outward pretense, but looks to faith, or, which means the same thing, the truth of the heart. If we view the word love as applied to God, the meaning will be, that the only reason why he chose us, was his love to men. But I prefer connecting it with the latter part of the verse, as denoting that the perfection of believers consists in love; not that God requires love alone, but that it is an evidence of the fear of God, and of obedience to the whole law.

(Taken from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iv.ii.i.html)

 

Oct
29

RIP: Sir Jimmy Savile, OBE

I was saddened to hear that Jimmy Savile passed away today at the age of 84. Most people in the US have probably never heard of him (unless you are a serious Anglophile), but he was a part of my childhood and youth growing up in the UK. Jimmy was one of the first DJs on BBC Radio One where he hosted shows from 1968-1987. I remember our family used to listen to his “Old Record Club” during Sunday lunch, where he would play the top ten records from past singles charts. He was also a regular presenter on “Top of the Pops,” BBC Television’s long-running chart countdown show. In fact, he hosted the very first episode in 1964, and also the final episode in 2006.

Aside from Top of the Pops, the TV show he is probably best remembered for (certainly by me) is “Jim’ll Fix It!” Each week, people young and old would write in with “dream-come-true” requests to meet a famous actor or singer, go skydiving, be a king for a day, etc., and somehow Jimmy would make it happen–sometimes quite creatively. Like the time a kid wrote in asking to burn a million pounds, so Jimmy arranged for him to go to a secret government location in the UK where they burn money that is no longer usable. So this kid actually got to shovel these bundles of currency into a furnace. I think I might have written in to Jim’ll Fix It to meet Paul McCartney, but my letter was never selected. Oh well.

Jimmy Savile will also be remembered for his charity work. He spent a lot of time running marathons, visiting hospitals, and engaging in all kinds of events to raise money for various needs, particularly for Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

By way of tribute, here is a clip from a 1985 episode of Jim’ll Fix It, where Jim fixed it for a young Doctor Who fan to meet his hero:

 

 

Oct
28

Friday Fives: Different Worlds

It’s that time of the week: Friday Fives at Paper Hangover! And this week’s a doozy. Had me thinking for a long time. In case you’re wondering how this “Friday Fives” thing works, the people at Paper Hangover post a question the answer to which involves some kind of list of five things. Each participant then answers the question on their blog and posts a link to their blog on the Paper Hangover site. Everyone then visits each of the blogs to see how they responded. Today’s Friday Five question is: What are the FIVE (book or movie) worlds you would love to live in?

I think we can rule out anything dystopian for a start. I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly want to live in some kind of future corrupt society where I’m either oppressed, fighting for survival, or one of the bad guys running things. Sure, dystopian makes for engaging and thrilling reading, but, like certain places in the world I’m sure you can think of, it’s nice to visit, but you wouldn’t want to live there. So where would I choose? Here’s my five:

Harry Potter’s World: Really, now–who wouldn’t? Especially this side of Voldemort’s downfall. It looks to be such fun! But I wouldn’t want to live there as a squib. That seems to me to be the very definition of frustrating. I’m sure squibs get by okay (Filtch, Mrs. Figg…), but it’s not the same.

Doctor Who: To have a TARDIS and be able to travel through time and space would be cool, don’t you think? Though, I think I would prefer to be a companion of the Doctor than to be the Time Lord himself. Not that I’m a “hide under the coat-tails” kind of person, but The Doctor seems to me to be the kind of person I would like to know, not be. Besides, he looks after his companions… sort of… mostly… 90% of the time, well, 85%… well…

Narnia: If you’re a follower of Aslan, where else would you rather be? :)

Conan Doyle’s London: There’s a lot about Victorian London that would be very hard for us moderns to like, but if I didn’t know any better, I would think it the center of the universe. This period was alive with invention and discovery, and despite the slums and the abject poverty and misery that existed, it was an exciting time to be alive. Sure, I could visit this era in my TARDIS (see number 2 above), but this is Conan Doyle’s London–which means Sherlock Holmes would be a real person I could perhaps meet!

Jasper Fforde/Thursday Next Series: To give you an idea of what this world is like, let me quote the blurb for the first novel from Amazon: “In Jasper Fforde’s Great Britain, circa 1985, time travel is routine, cloning is a reality (dodos are the resurrected pet of choice), and literature is taken very, very seriously.” Also Wales is an independent state, which appeals to the Welsh blood in me–there’s some there along with that Irish-Scots mix.

That’s my pick. What about you–what are the five literary or cinematic worlds you would like to inhabit? Comment here, or on your own blog and add it to the list on Paper Hangover.

Oct
27

Janet Reid’s Scary Contest

Last Friday, Literary Agent Janet Reid ran a competition on her blog. The entrants had to write a story using 100 words or fewer, incorporating the words UNFORSAKEN, DEADLY, WITCH, GHOST, DECAY, and SLAY–with a bonus point for including INSALUBRIOUS. The winner would receive a critique of the first 30 pages of their manuscript by Literary Agent Barbara Poelle. Barabara and Literary Agent Holly Root would judge with Ms. Reid being the tie-breaker if necessary.

As with most of Janet’s competitions, there was a phenomenal response, and each entry was superb. In all there were 177 entries. Among these were some names I recognized as people who have commented (and at least one who follows) this blog. And yes, I submitted my own humble offering. I actually wrote the piece last Thursday, prior to the competition opening, and didn’t read any of the others before submitting. I’m an old hand at this now (I’ve entered, I think, the last four of Janet’s challenges–remember the Book Title Poetry contest I entered?) and I knew that the standard of entries would be so high, if I read any of them before submitting, I would probably not bother. In fact I’d probably give up writing altogether and go live in a cave somewhere. So I just scrolled through the comments, copied my piece into the comment box, and hit SUBMIT.

Yesterday, Janet announced the winners (one grand prize–the manuscript critique–and four random winners who would get books). As I expected, she had to utilize her tie-breaking powers. And no, I didn’t win. After submitting my entry, I read a number of the others, and while I resisted destroying my WIP and packing a bag, I pretty much knew there was no way I was going to win. I mean, these people can really write! So imagine my complete shock and amazement when, among the list of “Semi-Finalists” I see… “Colin Smith” followed by my story!  WHAT?? I made it to the semi-finals?! I don’t think I’ve ever made the semi-finals of anything! I was gob-smacked, as we used to say back in the old country.

Of course, the winning entry was a masterpiece and well deserved, as were all the finalists. I really am honored to have been picked out for any kind of special attention from such an illustrious crowd–and by such illustrious judges! I encourage you to check out the 177 entries if you want some entertaining reading. But since this is my blog, I’ll post my entry for you:

Gemma gave her mother a deadly look.
“I’m not wearing that–the others’ll slay me!”
“You’re already dead,” her mother grinned.
“I’m a vampire, mom, not a ghost. I can feel pain.”
“Who’s the young man?”
“Lloyd Finklebaum,” Gemma smiled.
“Isn’t his mother a witch? She’s the chef at Insalubrious.”
“Which witch?” Gemma said. Her mother frowned. That joke reeked of decay.
The doorbell rang. Gemma pulled the discarded garment over her head and ran for the door.
“Don’t be late,” her mother called after her. “You’re not too old to be unforsaken, you know!”

 

Oct
26

RTW: October Book of the Month

This week’s Road Trip Wednesday question at YA Highway (follow the link if you want to know what RTW is, and perhaps participate) question is: What was the best book you read in October?

I didn’t read a lot of fiction this month, but I did read some good fiction. When a literary agent you respect raves about a book series or author, it behooves the budding writer to take a look. This I did with regard to Janet Reid and her love of Jack Reacher, star of Lee Child’s series of novels. This month, I purchased and read his first, KILLING FLOOR. Up until last night, that was my pick of the month. But then I finished reading a novel that totally sucked me in and left me anticipating the next in the series. I’m talking about…

Yes, DIVERGENT by YA Highway’s very own Veronica Roth. First, the concept is interesting: a society divided into factions based on personality traits. Each faction would then use its particular trait for the good of the whole society. It sounds good in theory, but it seems the founders didn’t consider that we’re talking about people, and people don’t always behave as they should. That’s the overarching premise, but the story really focuses on the journey of 16-year-old Beatrice (“Tris”) Prior, whose choice of faction, and the things she learns through her training and initiation, teach her things about herself, and some rather unpleasant things about her world. There’s fighting, tension, guns, betrayal and romance: everything you expect from a page-turner. And believe me, Ms. Roth delivers!

For the above alone, DIVERGENT would be my pick of the month. But there’s icing and a cherry on this cake. Amidst the trend for edgy YA to push the boundaries of salty language and sex, it would have been easy for Veronica to follow the trend. There’s enough tension and high emotion in this novel to slip in some harsh words and steamy bedroom scenes without it seeming out-of-place. But she doesn’t go there. She doesn’t need to. The prose does all the work of showing us the mood that she can keep the dialog “clean” and not lose anything. Yes, there are some “romantic” scenes that might raise an eyebrow, but (sorry-spoilers!) they don’t go there. In fact, I would describe them more as “intimate” rather than sexual. And they are played just right for the characters.

This is not to say I can’t read or even enjoy YA that is on the edgy side, whose characters have sailor-like tongues, and adult-like libidos. I know this is true-to-life. But it’s nice to see when YA writers understand they don’t have to do this to write great, nail-biting stories with believable (and likeable) characters. So far, from what I’ve read of Scott Westerfeld’s UGLIES series, he manages to do the same. I can’t finish this without noting that I smiled at Veronica’s first “Acknowledgement.” Something about the story, and a phrase written on one of the character’s apartment walls, made me expect–and hope–that such an acknowledgement would be there. OK, I fist-pumped. :)

I’m looking forward eagerly to INSURGENT which is coming out… next month? Next week? Tomorrow? Not soon enough!!

What was the best book you read this month? Comment here, or join in with Road Trip Wednesday at YA Highway!

Oct
25

The Victorian Yorkshire Pudding Experiment

If you know anything about my WIP (see the WIP tab above), you’ll know that it’s set in Victorian London. Although I’ve been into British history for many years, the Victorian period never held my interest that much, so my knowledge and resources on the topic are lacking. Now that I have a WIP set during that time, I’ve been forced into buying books and researching Victorian life. One of the books I bought gave a “recipe” for Yorkshire Pudding that was popular in the Victorian period. I don’t think I’ve had Yorkshire Pudding since I’ve been in the States–and that’s a long time! I used to love Yorkshire Pudding. When I was at university, my friends and I used to go to a pub in a small town just outside Hull called Skidby, where they served what they called “Man-sized Yorkshire Pudding.” One serving looked like a small loaf of bread, and it came with your choice of gravy. Being vegetarian, I would get their mushroom gravy. It was the best!

Anyway, for the sake of research, and to relive the taste of this classic British dish, this past Saturday I decided to have a go at making Yorkshire Pudding, but to do it as per the directions in this book–supposedly as the Victorians would have made it. I am by no means a chef, or really have any culinary expertise. In fact, I have a sense of adventure in the kitchen that is vastly disproportionate to my skill. I’m like the feisty kitten hissing at the pit bull: the spirit is willing, but the flesh is, well, woefully inadequate. Nevertheless, this is research, so I gather my ingredients and set to work!

Here are the ingredients and directions as presented in the book. Bear in mind, this is not from a recipe book; it’s from a book about life in Victorian England, and was presented for historical interest:

Put into a bowl:

  • 6 tablespoons of flour
  • 1 teaspoon of salt
  • 1 pint of milk

The book said to mix these to form a thick batter, being sure to remove all the lumps. Then add another half pint of milk and three well-beaten eggs. Mix these all together, then transfer to a well-greased shallow baking tin. Bake in the oven for 1 hour. Cut into squares to serve. This would serve six people.

When I saw “1 pint of milk” and “serves six,” I immediately wondered if perhaps this might be too much, and I should only make a half recipe. Then my wife called (she was out of town and due home later that evening), and when I told her what I was doing, she told me to save her some in case it turned out tasty. She’s not always such an optimist, but because of this, I decided what-the-heck and poured a pint of milk into a bowl. I then hunted out a tablespoon measure. When I found it, I looked at it long and hard. Six of these into that sea of milk? Will that really make any difference? I’ve made sauces before, and I can’t imagine that much flour doing anything more than making floury-milk. I took the measure to my oldest daughter. “Is this really one tablespoon? Isn’t it a little small?” She said it looked about the right size. Not to doubt my firstborn, but just to be absolutely sure, I took the tablespoon to second-born (both of whom have been trained in culinary arts at the apron-strings of their very skilled mother) and asked the same. She pulled herself away from the episode of Detective Conan she was watching online (in Japanese with English subs–the only way to watch it, in her opinion) to glance at the measure and concur with her older sibling. I shrugged my shoulders. Maybe the Victorians knew something I don’t.

In this case, it appears they didn’t, and my suspicions proved correct. I tipped six of these tablespoons into the bowl of milk, and I beat it within an inch of its life, hoping that all this effort would magically rouse some dormant power within the flour to grow and consume all of that milk. As I beat and beat and whisked and whisked, the milk spashed, and sploshed, and didn’t once even hint at glooping or glopping. A “thick batter” this was not. Perhaps the Victorians had a different kind of flour, one with super absorbent ability that has been lost to us through years of bleaching and treating? Or perhaps these are UK measurements, and most of my measuring equipment is American? I went to my computer, googled up a conversion table, and saw that, in the grand scheme of things, the difference wasn’t that significant. In other words, 1 UK tablespoon does not equal 3 US tablespoons. It’s a fractional difference. And I needed more than fractions here.

What to do? Well, I couldn’t waste a pint of milk. And my wife and children were expecting Yorkshire Pudding. So I did what I thought any good Victorian housewife or maid would do: improvise! (I don’t know this for a fact, but the Victorians were very creative and inventive people.) I began slowly adding more flour to my ocean of milk until it began to stodgify. It took in total (including the six measly tablespoons I had already added) about 2-2.5 cups of flour to get it to what I thought qualified as a “thick batter.” The recipe then instructed me to add another half pint of milk. I looked at my beautiful, creamy, thick batter and thought are you kidding? After all, the recipe had not proven itself worthy of my trust thus far, and I was afraid it was about to destroy my wonderful batter. But then I remembered this is a research project; I needed to be as authentic as possible, so I compromised. I added a quarter pint of milk, and three eggs I had beaten together earlier (I can beat eggs, and I can do it with a fork better than a whisk–one of the few kitchen tricks my mother taught me, and it has served me well). When the batter was as lump-free as I could get it with my whisk, I was ready for the final stage: baking.

I looked and looked, but we didn’t have the kind of baking tin I thought would be appropriate, so I used a casserole dish, and one that I thought large enough to handle all this batter. Traditionally, “well-greased” for the Victorians meant “greased with bacon fat,” or some kind of meat fat. Being vegetarian, I used vegetable oil and mixed in some of a vegetable OXO cube for flavoring (OXO cubes courtesy of my mother–thanks mum!). I then poured in the batter. It looked a bit like cream… or wallpaper paste. Either way, it looked right. I was content. Now to actually cook the thing.

As you probably noticed, the recipe just said to “bake in the oven for 1 hour.” This would actually be a pretty meaningless direction to a Victorian maid or housewife before around 1860, when iron stoves started to become standard fare in the kitchen. Up to that time, most cooking was done over an open fire. Remember the scene in “A Muppet Christmas Carol” at Bob Cratchett’s house, where Rizzo the Rat finds himself tied to the spit in the fireplace? That was actually historically accurate to how cooking would have been done at the time the novella was published (1843)–albeit without the Muppets. (By the way, this is, IMO, the best version of A Christmas Carol EVER–and if you haven’t seen it, you need to!) The Yorkshire Pudding would have hung somewhere underneath the meat (probably not rat) so the fat from the meat would fall onto it, giving it flavor.

I don’t have access to an open fire, so I have to make do with the oven. But what temperature? Second-born suggested 350F, which sounded good to me–not too hot so that it wouldn’t burn. I would then use the oven light to monitor its progress. So I preheated the oven, and then popped it in when it reached temperature. I waited about 40 minutes, checking periodically, and then set about making the gravy.

There wasn’t a Victorian recipe for gravy in the book (and, as noted above, if cooked in the open fire, gravy wouldn’t be necessary thanks to the meat fat), but I knew I needed to make some kind of gravy to go with it. So this is the part where I stray from the experiment for the sake of recreating my Yorkshire Pudding memories (Skidby… Man-Sized Yorkshire Pudding…). I like my gravy thick, but I couldn’t find a nice simple thick-gravy recipe. So I looked over some not-so-simple thick-gravy recipes, and using what rudimentary knowledge of cooking I have, figured out the basic components. Here’s my recipe:

  • 2 OXO cubes dissolved in 4 cups of boiling water
  • 1/3 cup of flour
  • 2 tablespoons of vegetable oil
  • 1 teaspoon of powdered garlic (I might have used fresh crushed garlic if we had some–but we didn’t)
  • A dash of ginger (I used powdered, but I suppose you could use minced, crushed, or somehow pulverized fresh ginger)
  • 1/2 bag of Gardein Homestyle Beefless Tips (these are amazingly good!)

I microwaved the beefless tips and then chopped them up–you could leave them chunky, but then you would be making stew, not gravy. In an appropriately-sized pot, I boiled 4 cups of water, then slowly crumbled in the OXO cubes. Once added, I turned the heat down and stirred for a while, making sure the cubes had dissolved into the water. In another pot, I heated the vegetable oil and added the garlic and ginger, stirring until the mixture started to brown. At this point I gradually added the flour, mixing it in until it formed a thick and stodgy paste. I then took up my handy-dandy whisk and slowly added the OXO-water broth, letting it work into the paste, trying not to make the resulting sauce lumpy. When I had added about half the broth, I threw in (or gently tipped in–depending on your mood) the beefless tips, stirring the whole time to blend them in. Then came the rest of the broth–gradually, mind–you don’t want lumpy gravy! Once everything was mixed together, and the resulting gravy looked as smooth and creamy as I could get it, I let it simmer until the Yorkshire Pudding was done.

After an hour had elapsed, I removed the Yorkshire Pudding from the oven and stuck a knife in it. The bottom still appeared to be gloopy, so I put it back in for another ten minutes. I repeated this at five or ten minute intervals. Finally, after an extra half hour, the top was browning nicely and I was afraid if I cooked it much longer the thing would burn, so I called it as-done-as-it’s-going-to-be. Here’s a picture of the “finished” Yorkshire Pudding:

As you can see, it rose at least twice its size. The bottom part really wasn’t cooked enough, but at least it tasted close to what I remember of Yorkshire Pudding. (Second-born described the taste as a bit like a waffle.) If I were to make it again, I would probably use a larger, and more shallow, dish, or use multiple dishes with less batter… or make less batter!

The star of the show, at least for me, though, was the gravy. It was really really good! So good, in fact, I named it “Awesome Sauce” (and second-born threatened bodily violence upon me if I ever repeated such a bad pun in her presence). And it was the perfect compliment to the Yorkshire Pudding.

My three youngest children decided they wanted nothing to do with it. Second-born tried it with a little gravy, and decided she liked the Yorkshire Pud on its own. Firstborn wanted to take the “pudding” part literally: she had some with cinnamon sugar instead of gravy. I, of course, frowned at such an abuse of this great British classic, but she liked it that way. Oh well–at least she liked it. Third-born, my only son, proved his boyhood by enthusiastically devouring a large piece of both YP and gravy, and loving every bite. That’s my boy! :-D My wife had a small piece and agreed that the gravy was good, but the YP needed to cook longer.

I might try this recipe again sometime (with some modifications), but first I want to try a “modern” recipe to see how it compares. But that won’t be for a while yet. If you’re feeling adventurous, why not give this a try? It could make an interesting addition to your Thanksgiving meal!

Oct
24

Romans 4:23-5:5

23 And it was not written for his [i.e., Abraham's] sake only that ‘it was reckoned to him,’ 24 but also for ours, for those whose are going to be reckoned, for those believing in the One who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was handed over on account of our sins and raised for the sake of our justification.

5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we also have obtained access to this grace in which we stand. And we exult in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only [this], but we also exult in the tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces steadfastness, 4 and steadfastness approved character, and approved character hope. 5 And hope does disappoint, for the love of God is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us.

This week in our Sunday School series on Romans, we finished up chapter four and started into chapter five. In verse 22, Paul quoted again part of Genesis 15:6, which has been his theme verse as he demonstrated justification by faith in the life of Abraham. Having proven that it was not Abraham’s works, the Law, circumcision, or the apparent facts that made Abraham righteous, but his faith, Paul now makes application to his readers. The words “it was reckoned to him” was not just for Abraham–it was for everyone who believes in the Lord. Paul describes God as “the One who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.” This phrasing serves the purpose of highlighting that it’s not just faith in God, but in the risen Savior. And also he presents a parallel here: it’s the same God who brought life to Sarah’s “dead” womb who also raised Jesus from the dead.

Paul says that Genesis 15:6 is for “those who are going to be reckoned” or “those about to be reckoned.” However this verse is translated, it is looking forward to a time when people will be reckoned to be righteous. But aren’t Paul’s readers (and indeed all Christians) already reckoned righteous? It’s possible he’s looking to that time, when Christ returns, that we will come into full possession of the promise. But I think it’s more likely that Paul is writing from Abraham’s perspective: he was reckoned righteous then, but for him his spiritual seed will also, at some point in the future, also be reckoned righteous on the basis of the same faith.

It’s possible that verse 25 is an early Christian saying that Paul quotes. One of the reasons for saying that is because the verse contains two clauses that seem to be in parallel. The Greek reads like this: hos paredothê dia ta paraptômata hêmôn//kai êgerthê dia tên dikaiôsin hêmôn. Even if you don’t understand Greek, if you read it aloud hopefully you catch a poetic lilt to it. Also, notice the use of “dia” in both halves. This is a preposition, and it is used in the same grammatical form in both halves, meaning “because of” or “on account of.” For the first half, that presents no problem: “Who was handed over on account of our sins (or transgressions).” If we translate dia the same way, however (which the rules of grammar would normally say we should do), we get: “and was raised on account of our justification.” This sounds as if our justification somehow caused Christ to be raised from the dead, just as it was our sins that caused him to be handed over to death. But Paul has been saying (and will continue saying) that it is because of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf, and our trust in him, that we are justified. While dia more often than not has this meaning (in this particular grammatical construction), there are cases where it can take a more forward-looking meaning (e.g. “for the sake of”), and I believe that’s how we should understand it here. Christ was handed over to death because of our sins, but was raised for the sake of our justification–our justification depends on Christ’s resurrection, not the other way around.

In 5:1, Paul turns from argument to application. Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through Christ. Jesus has paid the penalty for our sin, and so the wrath of God that is revealed against all men in 1:18 has been satisfied for those who believe.

There is an important issue with the Greek text of 5:1: should it read “we have peace with God” or “let us have peace with God”? The difference is one letter in the Greek: echomen or echômen. Here is the passage from Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century Greek manuscript, where I have underlined the word in question:

Source: www.csntm.org (from the Vatican Library)

You can see where it was originally written with the Greek omega (which looks like a “w”), but someone has written an omicron (“o”) over the top. In other words, the person who copied this manuscript had echômen (“let us have”) in front of him, but either he, or someone coming along later, believed this to be a mistake, and wrote the omicron above the omega indicating that the word should, in his estimation, be echomen (“we have”). Ancient copyists didn’t like crossing words out, and would rather note corrections either in the margin or above the word in question.

The confusion more than likely came about because in the Greek of this time, the omega and the omicron would have had a similar sound. Therefore, a copyist writing from dictation would have to determine from context (and his knowledge of the language) whether to write an omicron or an omega.

Which is correct? This is an important question, because this one letter affects our interpretation of the passage. Is Paul exhorting the Roman Christians to be at peace with God because of their justification, or is he affirming to them that they have peace with God? The manuscript evidence in this case appears to favor the exhortation. There is only one early manuscript we have that appears to have the omicron in this word. The majority of the best manuscripts read “let us have.” But the fact that there is this one early manuscript, and that there are corrections like the one in Codex Vaticanus noted, should give us pause. Perhaps these correctors had access to manuscripts that no longer exist. Really, the deciding vote must be cast on the basis of context: which reading best fits with what Paul has been saying.

If we read it as an exhortation, then Paul is telling the Roman church that, since they have been justified by faith, and the same faith that justified Abraham, they (and Paul included) need to recognize this fact and on the basis of that have peace with God through Christ. It sounds as if having peace with God is something that comes from the believer on the basis of their justified state. However, if we read it as a statement, Paul is affirming to the Romans (and himself) that because they have been justified by faith, they now have peace with God through Christ. As I noted above, we can draw a link here with 1:18, where the wrath of God is revealed against all “godlessness and wickedness of men.” For those who believe, however, there is no longer wrath, but peace with God. I think this latter view fits the context much better. Although, as some argue, the verbs in verses 2 and 3 translated “we exult” can also be translated “let us exult,” creating a nice series of exhortations (“let us have… let us exult… let us exult…”), I don’t think this is good enough reason to change the meaning of verse 1 as dramatically as this would. All three verbs can remain as statements (“indicatives” to use the technical terminology) and meaning is not lost.

So we have peace with God through Christ, and it is through Christ that we have access to “this grace”–the state we are in with regard to being justified and at peace with God–and it’s upon this grace we stand. Some translations say we have “obtained an introduction,” which is a possible translation, but in this context I think the idea of having “access” is more in mind. Previously, we were enemies with God, and His wrath was upon us. Now we are at peace with God, and we have access to Him through His justifying work through Christ. We can stand, assured and affirmed in our position before God. Moreover, we exult (the word more often means “to boast,” but here I think the idea of exulting, or confidently rejoicing fits) upon the hope of the glory of God.

In the next few verses Paul goes on to talk about also exulting in tribulation. I think he sets us up for this by affirming our position with the Lord: justified, at peace, and able to stand firm in this grace. While we read through to verse 5, and talked about verses 3-5 a little, we will come back to these verses and discuss more fully next time.

PROGRAM NOTE: For the next three weeks, we will be pausing our study of Romans to take a look at “The Six Points of Calvinism.” (Those in the know may be wondering at this–isn’t this supposed to be “The 5 Points of Calvinism”? All will be explained next week!) We will deal with two points per week, and then after that come back to Romans. I will post notes on our discussion of these points each week.

 

Oct
23

Sunday Devotional: Philippians 1:6

Being convinced of this very thing, that the one who began a good work in you will finish [it] until the day of Christ Jesus.

I hate starting something and not finishing it. If I begin reading a book, I will find the time to get through it. In fact, there’s a book I’m working on right now that I started back in April. It’s a good book, but it’s about 650 pages long and rather scholarly. There are a lot of other books I need to read this year too. So I’ve been picking at it over the last six months, though I have now resolved to finish it soon. I had hoped that would be before the end of this month, and while I’ve made good progress, I’m thinking it’ll be early next month before I’m done with it. But I’m determined to finish it. I’m sure many of you are the same way, frustrated at projects you took up and, due to some distraction, or simply life happening, put down never to come back to them. Or perhaps you told someone you would do something, with the best of intentions, and failed to follow through. We kick ourselves in these situations, especially when time passes and the thing is left undone.

Thankfully, the Lord is not like that with anything, and especially not when it comes to His dealings with His people, as Paul reminds the church at Philippi in this verse. In the introductory lines of this letter, Paul expresses his joy that the Christians in Philippi “participate” in the gospel. That is, that they have been saved by the gracious work of Christ on the cross, and the Lord is growing them in the grace and knowledge of Christ, daily conforming them to the image of Jesus, that they would be more like him in thought, word, and deed. Paul tells his brethren there that this gospel work the Lord began in them is not a temporary thing. It’s not a project He entered into with enthusiasm, and then lost steam, became bored or distracted, and left it incomplete. No, the Lord will finish what He started.

The phrase at the beginning of the verse is literally an expression of extreme confidence. “This very thing” doesn’t necessarily refer to anything in particular, not even something in the previous verses. It’s an expression in the Greek that just adds emphasis to the verb: “Being very sure…” (Many translations make the verb first person singular: “I am confident…” The verb is actually a participle, but the context allows for translating it as a first person singular for the sake of clarity in English.)

“The one who began a good work in you” is clearly a reference to the Lord. It was God who put within their hearts the desire to hear the gospel message. It was He who changed their hearts by an act of the Holy Spirit, so they would no longer love their sin, but would turn to Christ and be saved. God was the initiator of salvation in their lives. As Paul so thoroughly argues throughout his letter to the Romans, their salvation was nothing that they did–it was all of God.

“… will finish it until the day of Christ Jesus.” God will finish that work of salvation that He began. This doesn’t mean they are not yet fully saved. I think there are two layers of meaning here. First, that while they are saved, and their eternal destiny is assured, there is still an on-going battle with remaining sin. The daily putting off of sin and becoming more Christ-like in attitude and action is what theologians call “sanctification.” While salvation happened one time for all eternity, sanctification is an on-going process that will eventually lead, one day, to perfection in heaven. For now, though, the Christian lives each day, and by God’s grace s/he learns to live less for self and more for Christ, loving him more than the world. On another level, you can say that we are certainly saved now, but we won’t actually experience that salvation fully until we are in heaven. Right now, we have been declared “redeemed,” but we don’t always feel redeemed. Christ has paid the price, it’s a done deal–but we’re still on earth struggling with sin. One day, however, we will put off mortality and enter immortality. Sin will be no more, and we will come to a full experience of the salvation that Christ purchased for us.

This is why God will complete this work “until the day of Christ Jesus.” The preposition translated “until” [Greek: achri] usually means “until,” or “up to.” I think what Paul is trying to communicate is the idea that God will persist in the work of conforming the Philippian believers (and Christians generally) up until the time we are all in the presence of the Lord, at which point the work will be complete. We will all stand before Him in purity and holiness, not because of our works, but because it is God who has been working in us to make real in our lives the promise of the gospel.

As we go through this week, battling with sin, fighting off temptation, and longing to be more like Jesus, let’s remember this promise of God: He started this work in us, and He is continuing to work in us, and one day that work will be complete. And this is God’s work, so it will be accomplished.

Have a great week!

 

Go back to top