Dave Black On The Seven Marks Of A New Testament Church

Watch the video below where Dave Black discusses his book, Seven Marks Of A New Testament Church. It is a little over half an hour but it is fascinating stuff.



If you are interested you can also read my review of Seven Marks... I found it a far more accurate portrayal than many other books and organizations that seek to identify THE marks of a New Testament fellowship.

After you watch the video what do you think?

Married White Male Seeking Another Male Or Three To Share A Hotel Room Next April For Together For The Gospel

Advertising on my blog that I am looking for other dudes to share a hotel room in a somewhat unfamiliar city. How could this go wrong?

Eight years after I went to Together for the Gospel I am planning on going again next April. The venue has changed and one prominent voice, C.J. Mahaney, is absent and some new voices are in his place. I am curious to see what the atmosphere is like. When I was there it was laced with a lot of triumphalism, all the cool kids were there and knew stuff that the rest of the church didn't. There was a top secret resource for attendees so we could network together. It all seemed kind of cliquish in retrospect.

As we head for 2016 the Reformed movement has taken some prominent hits and the fervor seems to have cooled a bit. With prominent names getting some bad press, from founder C.J. Mahaney stepping away amidst legal troubles to Mark Driscoll (never a speaker at T4G, to the credit of the conference organizers) stepping down and seeing "his" ministry implode to Tullian Tchividjian stepping down from Coral Ridge after a short and controversial stay as pastor amid revelations of marital infidelity. Much of the Reformed world seems to be victims of their own success, sniping and backbiting becoming prominent. Some perhaps some humility is in place. We will see. The main guys are still there, Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Piper, Anyabwile, MacArthur and that plus the fellowship and "free" books makes it worthwhile. As a bonus I very likely will be able to take some Amish to southern Indiana to help defray the cost of driving.

So anyway, if you are thinking of or definitely going to Together For The Gospel next April and need to split some of the costs, give me a holler. I am willing to split with as many as 3 other guys assuming we can find a couple of air mattresses.

I haven't gone to T4G since the first time I went, partly for monetary and health reasons and largely as a protest against the notion of a "conference for pastors and church leaders" which seemed to be intended to exclude "lay members", although an awful lot of the guys there in 2008 were not clergy. The speakers are generally all defenders of the institutional church status quo and that rubs me the wrong way. None of that has changed but I am secure enough in where I stand in regards to ecclesiology that I can go and just enjoy the teaching, the singing and the fellowship without feeling the need to make some sort of protest statement (like the nutjob charismatic that crashed the stage last weekend while John MacArthur was speaking). I am more hungry and thirsty for solid teaching and comradeship around a common understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ than I am for a protest against a deeply flawed church system. When they are talking about issues of the Gospel rather than church specifics or baptism I am in complete agreement with everything they are saying and I am in agreement with the T4G affirmations and denials (with the exception of article V on the centrality of expository preaching but even there I would prefer expository sermons over any other kind).

So there you go, hit me up if you wanna shack up in Kentucky.

Book Review: Seven Marks of a New Testament Church

There are no lack of books on the topic of the church. Most, and I say this with no hesitation, are garbage and consist of feel good malarkey and repackaged business wisdom applied to religious organizations. It therefore was a welcome change to read Dr. David Black's newest work from Energion Publications, Seven Marks of a New Testament Church. These are the seven marks he chose to look at (with the disclaimer that these are not the only seven marks, an important note)....

1. Evangelistic preaching 
2. Christian baptism 
3. Apostolic teaching 
4. Genuine relationships
5. Christ-centered gatherings 
6. Fervent prayer 
7. Sacrificial living

It is probably inevitable given my background that I compare Dr. Black's book with the well known 9 Marks of a Healthy Church put out by Mark Dever and the aptly named 9 Marks ministries. Mark and company are some of the most prolific writers out there on the topic of ecclesiology and come from a reformed, baptistic, plural elder viewpoint. While I disagree with a lot of what Dever writes, I appreciate the thought and the Scriptural study that have gone into their works. Nevertheless I found far more to commend in Dr. Black's compilation than Mark Dever's.

The thing I liked best about Seven Marks versus 9 Marks is that it is believer-centric rather than clergy-centric. 9 Marks is designed as a "top down" system, get the right elders leading the right way and preaching the right sermons and teaching the right theology and you have a "healthy church". Members will follow. Dr. Black starts at the ground floor with an "every member shared ministry" that far more closely follows the apostolic pattern. The church is built from individuals working as a community for the mission of God. Leaders are enablers who help others be prepared for the work of ministry:

The essence of all New Testament teaching about church leadership is that leaders are to be enablers. They are not to do the work of the ministry as much as they are to prepare others to do that work (see Eph. 4: 11-12).

Black, David Alan, Seven Marks of a New Testament Church: A Guide for Christians of All Ages (Kindle Locations 338-340). Energion Publications. Kindle Edition.

That is the sort of plain wisdom we need a lot more of in discussing the church in the waning days of Christendom. Top down leadership and top down centered ecclesiology is great for creating top heavy organizations but for the church we need to flip that order around as Dr. Black has done here.

One thing that sort of confused me. While Dr. Black talks a lot about love in every chapter, love doesn't get a chapter of its own. Jesus said that all men will know we are His disciples by our love for one another ( John 13:35 ). Love is the key, foundational mark of the church. Indeed without it the church cannot be the church. I am not sure why it was not given a chapter but if I were rewriting the book I would add at the top of the list!

In spite of my one quibble this is a book I can unreservedly recommend for anyone studying the church, whether one is seeking to reform an existing group and starting a new group from scratch. It is not long and it tends to raise a lot of questions, making it perfect as a study guide or introduction to ecclesiology. Get a copy, read it and then pass a copy or three on to your church friends. They might be surprised by what they read!

(You can also get Seven Marks from Amazon for the Kindle, that is what I did because I like to be able to electronically mark important passages)

The latest salvo on the Calvinist resurgence

The Christian Science Monitor is the latest publication to examine the resurgence of Calvinism in the church. The article, Christian faith: Calvinism is back, takes its readers to Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., home of one of the T4G founders, Mark Dever, and parent church of 9 Marks Ministries. There is little that is new in the report, it includes many of the same talking points we see over and over including the obligatory quote from Colin Hansen.

In spite of the clamor from the small group of self-appointed watchmen in places like Westminster Seminary in California, the energy in Calvinism is in places like Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota and in conferences like Together for the Gospel and the Gospel Coalition. Those are places where the great doctrines of grace are given their proper preeminence and the myriad extra-Biblical baggage that comes with the Reformed tradition take a backseat. That doesn’t sit well with some corners of the church that see that as a betrayal of Calvinism. In doing so they demonstrate a troubling misunderstanding of what Calvinism is all about or at least what it should be about. Calvinism at its heart should be about recognizing and giving all glory to God instead of exalting Reformed church traditions over all other traditions.

I think the article exposes the good and the bad in the resurgent Calvinist movement. On the one hand, I like this:

In addition to Sunday worship and Wednesday night Bible study, they spend hours each week in small-group study or one-on-one "discipling." They say those sessions – a time for confessions, encouragement, and prayer – are the most challenging and rewarding feature of church life.

"Christian fellowship is so much more than hanging out with friends," says Claudia Anderson, a magazine editor. "It involves spiritual intimacy, support, learning, counseling, and stunning acts of kindness."

Christopher Brown, a lawyer, concurs. "I came for the theology but stayed for the community," he says. "As Americans, we're so individualistic. But the New Testament rebukes this 'rugged individualism.' We're not saved to be lone rangers."

It is very interesting that they see the time outside of the Sunday morning service as "the most challenging and rewarding feature of church life". On the other hand …

Membership at CHBC isn't for the faint of holy. Classes on theology and Christian history are required before joining. At the "Lord's Supper" once a month, members stand and recite an oath that ties them to one another.

An oath before sharing the Supper? Where is THAT in Scripture? The teaching at CHBC is described as “preaching for PhDs” and I can attest that the sermons are very meaty. I fear that many men fall into the trap of trying to emulate what they hear from Dever, Al Mohler and others and in doing so are teaching way over the heads of most people (and frankly way over their own heads). Simple teaching is often the best teaching.

So there is good and not so good in the article. I think that anytime we see people getting more serious about their faith, about Scripture and ultimately about God, that is a good thing. There is no doubt in my mind that the renewed emphasis on Calvinism is a boon to the church. Of course it has its downside. There is a very real sense that a lot of what we find in Calvinism, old and new, is quite academic and cerebral. In place of action we see lots of studying. There is a lot of knowledge about God but not as much action on behalf of God, if that makes sense. My big concern is that Calvinism becomes the end in and of itself. As long as you are Reformed and getting more Reformed, you are good. I have fallen prey to that thinking myself but I have since come to a somewhat different mindset:

Reformed theology/Calvinism is not the pinnacle of Christian maturity. It is the beginning.

A recognition of the sovereignty of God over all creation and particularly over salvation is the beginning of our understanding of God. It is the foundation but a building is more than a foundation. Soteriology is not the final piece of the puzzle, it is the first. Calvinism, new or old, should spur us to study the Scriptures more deeply and in doing so I have found that many of the traditions that I have held don’t match up with the Bible even though they sound good. It drives me nuts when people ask “Is it Reformed to do such and such” instead of “Is it Biblical”? The answer may be the same either way but in many areas, especially ecclesiology, what is traditionally Reformed is not terribly Scriptural. My hope is that as people respond to the ancient doctrines of grace, they will search more deeply in the Scriptures. Not just for proof-text regarding predestination and election but also about the fellowship of the saints in the community of the elect, the Lord’s Supper as a meal among the redeemed instead of a religious ritual, a real and functional priesthood of all believers instead of a hierarchical ministry. I pray that the “New Calvinists” will keep searching backwards to guide our path forward, not merely to the 16th century but all the way to the 1st. That is what real reformation looks like!

Membership or fellowship: Which is the greater need today?

As I mentioned in a prior post, a small group of men are considering starting a "church" in this area (I will use church in the way it is normally defined as a local assembly of believers). I also mentioned that I am looking at several criteria people or ministries have posted that deal with which qualities reflect a healthy church or more importantly a Biblical church. I think one can have a growing, outwardly "healthy" church that is un-Biblical and there are plenty of examples that bear that out. Our standard for the local gathering must be the Scriptures before we even think about what tradition says or what the world says. One place we are going to look at and maybe base our prayer and discussions around are the 9 Marks of a healthy church, posted by Mark Dever's ministry 9 Marks Ministry. That is kind of a no-brainer, the 9 Marks model is widely respected especially among the Reformed and many conservative Christians. I find the 9 Marks to be an excellent guide and the material put out by the ministry to be solid and Biblical, a great defender of Reformed doctrines and Baptist practice. But...

In my review of the 9 Marks, something kind of jumped out at me. There was a mark for church discipline, there was a mark for membership but not a mark for prayer or fellowship. How can we evaluate a "healthy church" much less a "Biblical church" without looking at the fellowship or prayer life of that church? The earliest days of the church were marked by devotion to four things: fellowship, the breaking of bread, the Apostles' teaching and prayer (Acts 2:42). Three of the four things that the church devoted herself to are not on the 9 Marks list.

Then I found it, at the bottom in an addendum:

In identifying and promoting these nine marks, we are not intending to lay down an exhaustive or authoritative list. There are other significant marks of healthy churches, like prayer and fellowship. We want to pursue those ourselves as well, and we want you to pursue them with us. But these nine are the ones we think are most neglected in most local churches today, with the most damaging ramifications. Join us in cultivating churches that reflect the character of God.

I am pretty concerned that fellowship and prayer are relegated to footnotes. I am quite certain that Mark Dever and company have a high view of prayer and of fellowship. Why then are they merely mentioned in passing at the bottom of the list? I am far more concerned about fellowship than I am about membership. We see fellowship all throughout the New Testament, but we never see membership as we understand it today.

I fear that the reason fellowship and prayer get short shrift in the 9 Marks is that the assumption is that almost every church already HAS fellowship and prayer in the form of a church gathering in a sanctuary and corporate prayer led by the pastor. We have imprinted our traditions on these words and given them meaning that are unwarranted from the text. Fellowship means a couple of minutes of shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries. Prayer means listening to someone else who is paid to preach and pray on your behalf. Corporately praying and gathering for teaching is important but it cannot replace Biblical fellowship and intimate times of prayer.

Can we assume that church gatherings have fellowship and prayer? Does meeting in the same room and listening to someone else pray on your behalf count as Biblical fellowship and prayer? A once a month sparsely attended potluck dinner is a poor substitute to devoting ourselves to fellowship and the breaking of bread. More to the point, can we have a "healthy" church where fellowship and prayer is given only passing thought? My point is not a criticism of 9 Marks but just to point out how easy it is to make assumptions that are unwarranted by reality and focus on areas that are at best peripheral issues and at worst are merely human traditions.

We have got to get this right in the church. All the Reformation in the world will not change the church if we fail to get past the traditions and labels we have erected. May I suggest we focus on fixing the fundamentals before we start tinkering with traditions?

Ruh roh!

There are a couple of very interesting articles on Church Matters, the 9 Marks Blog (Mark Dever’s ministry) that caught my eye. Normally the blog posts are pretty innocuous but when the titles of the posts read: “"The Sin of Infant Baptism", written by a sinning Baptist”and “The unintentional yet damaging institutional sin of infant baptism.”, you know that is going to cause a stink. When I go off about baptism, it can be dismissed as the rantings of a loony. When Mark Dever, of Together for the Gospel and 9 Marks Ministry does, ruh roh!

From the first post by Mark Dever…

Nevertheless, as I understand the words of Christ in Matt. 28:18-20 Christians are commanded to baptize and to be baptized, and the practice of infant baptism inhibits the obedience of what I take to be a quite straightforward command. I understand explanations that have been given about the practice of infant baptism (Orthodox/Roman, Lutheran and Reformed) but am sincerely persuaded that none of them line up with God's own Word. This does not cause me to doubt the sincerity of my reformed paedobaptist brethren, nor even their judgment in general. It is simply that on this point they've got it wrong, and their error, involving as it does a requiring of something Scripture does not require (infant baptism), and the consequence of a denying of an action Scripture does require (believers baptism) is sinful (though unintentionally so).

I have made it no secret that I consider paedobaotism to be a serious error and I agree with Mark that Scripture does not command or imply the baptism of infants. But is it a sin, even an unintentional one? Those who baptize infants, by and large, are sincerely doing what they believe the Bible teaches. But being sincere and believing in what you are doing is never the measure for truth, otherwise an awful lot of errant teaching would be considered orthodox. Infant baptism is applying a command to something the Bible does not command, and so does that qualify as a sin? I think it does (ducking my head).

The second blog post by Mike Gilbart-Smith links infant baptism with a lack of church discipline, using the example of the Church of England.

The problems are multiple:

1) baptism is seen as having nothing to do with church membership. And when there is no church membership, church discipline becomes impossible.

2) infant baptism itself tends to separate baptism from church membership and discipline. One doesn't want to publicly disicpline a 2 year old for poking his sister in the eye and showing no signs of repentance. All paedobaptists I know rightly recognise that such matters are better dealt with within the family.

The problem there of course is that a) there is no command for formal church membership in the Bible and b) credobaptist churches have many of the same problems when it comes to discipline that paedobaptist churches endure. I am not sure that poking your sister in the eye as a baby would be grounds for church discipline in any church setting anyway. You kind of have to read both posts in their entirety to get a flavor for the full argument.

I am certain that this is going to reignite the firestorm over baptism on the blogosphere. The comments on the posts themselves are already getting snippy. Baptism is kind of the elephant in the Reformed room, and whenever it comes up people get wound up. I may have to wear a disguise next weekend at the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology in Grand Rapids so as not to be attacked by angry mobs of Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed types.

So what say you: whichever side of the baptism debate you come down on, is the giving of the sign of baptism to an infant or the denying of that sign to an infant on the level of a sinful act?

The latest quandary for the President-Elect

It seem that Mr. Obama is in need of a church home, every since he and his family caved to pressure and disavowed their membership at Jeremiah Wright’s old congregation.

Life without a church community 'difficult': Obama

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President-elect Barack Obama, who last year quit his church over inflammatory remarks by its former pastor, said he finds life without a spiritual community "difficult," and said he and wife Michelle plan to step up their search for a place of worship.

Asked in an interview aired by ABC's "This Week" whether he missed being without a worship community over the past year, Obama was unequivocal.
"I do, and it's been a difficult time," he said.

"I've got a wonderful community of people who are praying for me every day, and they call me up," he said, "but it's not the same" as attending Sunday church services, he said.

Obama said that he had "not yet" decided upon a church in Washington, but that he and the first-lady-to-be were preparing to start their search in earnest.

"One of the things that Michelle and I will be doing is probably visiting some churches and seeing what's comfortable," he said.

I have a suggestion for the President-elect, a church right in the district that would be perfect for him….

Capitol Hill Baptist

I suspect the Anointed One wouldn’t hear the same kind of preaching he got from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but I can guarantee that he would hear the Gospel preached. I don’t think Mark Dever needs to worry about the Secret Service checking out the church…

Together for the Gospel 2008

Panel Discussions

The panel discussions between the main guys (Mahaney, Mohler, Dever and Duncan) have been pretty cool. The first few not as much, but as they get loose and more into it, it is like they are forgetting the audience is there. Mohler, for example, was much better speaking off the cuff. His prepared remarks, as I will note when I post about it, are way over the heads of most people in the audience, myself included. This is what the conference is all about, godly men getting together and talking about the Gospel, working things out, asking hard questions and getting deeper in the world. T4G has created a cooperation map so that like minded brothers can come into contact with other like minded brothers who live near them, which will be a valuable resource once the conference is over.

Unity or Purity?

A great, thought provoking article by Mark Dever leading up to the Together for the Gospel conference...

The question for you and me is, when we teach others the truth, do we do it with condescending pride and arrogance—we know something they don’t? Or do we teach with the humility of one beggar sharing his bread with another?

Compromise is bad. Cooperation is good. But how do you tell the difference? What are the primary doctrinal positions for which we need to contend, and what are the secondary doctrinal positions about which we can disagree with charity and love?

Excellent questions, and one there is no easy answer for. Which is more important, purity or unity? I will admit I am more of a purity guy. If it is important enough for me to have a position on it, it is important enough to fight about. But there is a need for some sense of unity in the body of Christ. So which is it, unity or purity?

On the one hand...

Unity merely for the sake of unity leads to acceptance of heresy

If our only concern is to get along and be one body with no differences, we will invariably allow heretics to creep in unawares. If we compromise on one issue, why not the next? And the next? And eventually we find ourselves not debating election or eschatology, we find ourselves desperately trying to hold back the tide of homosexual clergy and witches as pastors.

Being unified does not require us to apologize for those things that we hold to be true. If you believe in the Biblical doctrine of election, don’t feel obligated to apologize for it for the sake of unity. Don’t feel obligated to point out that other Scriptures may appear to contradict your deeply held beliefs. If you don’t really believe it, don’t bring it up. And if you do believe it because the Bible speaks in uniformity about God’s predestining and His sovereign grace, don’t dance around, declare it as one of God’s precious and wonderful truths. If seeking unity requires you to gloss over strongly held beliefs, it may be that the unity is not the kind you should be seeking.

What is the basis for unity? Is it going along to get along? Is being nice to one another the highest Christian virtue? Or is the basis of our unity the truths which we declare and hold in common? What unifies us should be what saves us, and just as a compromised Gospel is a Gospel which cannot save, unity in anything other that the fullness of the Gospel, unashamedly declared regardless of cost is not true Christian unity at all. What divides us from the world is what unites us with each other, and more importantly with Christ. That is the only unity that matters.

On the other hand....

Purity at all costs leads to people sitting by themselves in church.

The only person who I agree with 100% of the time is the handsome fella looking back at me from the mirror. And luckily I am confident that he is right on, all the time. The problem is (and this is really the main problem in the world today) is that not everyone else believes exactly the same way he does. Holding firmly to the faith delivered once and for all to the saints requires holding fast, contending earnestly and being willing to separate from those who deny Gospel truths. It is often unpopular, but heaven is not a popularity contest. The purer the Gospel, the more sinners will find it offensive, and if the cross is not offensive to sinners, it isn't being declared properly.

Where do we draw the line? Where should we draw the line? How do we determine what is a non-negotiable versus what we can agree to disagree on? I would throw out that anything that falls outside of a few categories falls into the camp of non-essentials. They may divide how and where and with whom we worship, but it is not an issue of breaking Christian fellowship. Issue like justification by faith, the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of the Bible are the essentials. Issue like baptism, church government and eschatology fall into the areas of honest disagreement in the Christian family. Albert Mohler's article on Theological Triage is still the gold standard on what should divide us and what should not. We must be pure where the Gospel demands we be pure, but we also must not make demands on others that the Gospel does not require.

Louisville or Grand Rapids?

The Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology or Together for the Gospel?

In what is yet another horrible scheduling blunder, two of the better Reformed theology conferences are scheduled for the same week, in the middle of April 2008. That leaves me with a choice, go to Grand Rapids which is cheaper and way more convenient, or go to Louisville which is going to cost a whole lot more. We have free lodging in Grand Rapids, but frankly I will admit that I am a bit of a speaker snob, and the thought of Mohler, Dever, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, Duncan, Mahaney etc in the same conference (T4G) is intoxicating (in a good Baptist way of course). I am leaning pretty strongly toward Louisville, if for no other reason than it only happens every other year and Grand Rapids is every year. Of course, I am well known as the king of rationalizing...

(With any luck, the Toledo Reformed Theological Conference will be scheduled a completely different time, or Steve Camp and company will be all alone!)

UPDATE:

Looks like I have an additional travel partner for Together for the Gospel, so it sounds like Louisville is the winner! Now I have to register so I save $50!

Arminianism is SOOO 1990’s….

There are two new blog entries that deal with the same basic issue, that is the renewed interest in Reformed theology in the church. One is from the Reformed Baptist Fellowship titled “I was a Calvinist when Calvinism wasn’t cool” and another from Mark Dever on the 9 Marks blog “Where did all these Calvinists come from?” . Both examine the underlying causes beneath the obvious rise of Calvinism all across the spectrum of churches.

Like many others I attribute the renewed interest to the ready availability of the writings of giants of Reformed theology. No longer are the works of Spurgeon or Edwards relegated to old personal libraries or seminaries but are right there at the click of a mouse to anyone who is interested (which is why I also believe that mormonism is slowly losing it’s grip in North America and growing overseas as the truth of mormonism is available outside of scandal mongers like Ed Decker of The Godmakers fame). Arminianism cannot stand the test of comparison when facing Reformed theology, either Biblically or logically, so the more lay members can examine the apologetics for themselves, the more obvious it becomes that Reformed theology wins the day. But for all that, for which God be praised, there are potential stumbling blocks that I see.

There are two dangers inherent in the renewed interest in Reformed theology…

One, that Reformed theology will become faddish, the latest “in” thing in Christianity, becoming a new form of legalism. Being able to pull out the “Calvinist” card will show that one is a "serious" Christian, and a lack of that credential will lead to disdain. Reformed theology MUST be driven by conviction from Scripture and not because our favorite authors or pastors are proponents of it.

Two that those of a “mature” standing Reformed theology will disdain as Johnnie-come-lately’s in the Reformed camp those newly minted Calvinists (some of this is already apparent in the relation between credo and paedo baptists, what some have called the pat on the head treatment Baptists receive frequently from those of the Presbyterian/Reformed camp). There is already too much "will the real Calvinists please stand up" on the blogosphere, "more Reformed than thou" attitudes that add to the Reformed doctrines other issues.

The church has a responsibility to make sure that along with the rise in Reformed theology that we retain the humility and perspective that should be a natural part of Calvinism, but too often is not...

Afternoon Seminar
-----
Mark Dever
John Calvin and the Protestant Reformation
-----
Very interesting talk from Dr. Dever on the role of John Calvin in the Protestant Reformation. I picked his talk and my friend Rick went to D.A. Carson's seminar on recent challenges to the authority of Scripture. I figured Dever's talk should be good and besides, Baptists gotta stick together!
------
--------
John Calvin and the Protestant Reformation

Mark Dever

A.D. 1536
John Calvin settle in Geneva. 27 years old Published First edition of his Institutes in November. Became public lecturer in religion along with Farrel (sp?) to teach Protestantism. Sought to excommunicate any who failed to reject Rome and was kicked out of Geneva.
The 21 articles of the Geneva Convention. Number one, the authority of the Word of God. “The Bible comes first”

Prior to this: Rome recognized the Bible as wholly true, as well as the deuterocanonical Apocrypha. The Vulgate, Latin, became the official Bible of the church. Laity was forbidden to read the Scripture. “Holy Scripture should be a secret in some places” Translation into the language of the people was forbidden in response to the Lollards. It was considered abuse to give people the Word in their own language.

Reformation: removal of Apocrypha, reestablish the authority of the Scripture, reject apostolic tradition as divine revelation.

Priests did not give Mass with teaching from the Scriptures. Studies focused on teachings of Anselm et al and priests often Biblically illiterate.

How was the Scripture related to the church?

Four sources of authority: Scripture, tradition, reason, experience.

Luther pitted the Scripture against tradition to cleanse the Scriptural authority. Calvin preached every Sunday morning, Sunday night, plus every weekday (not Saturday) That is the ministers God, to give the people God’s Word.

Five Reformation answers to Five Roman questions:
Which came first, the Bible or the church? Rome holds the church preceded the Bible. Calvin disagreed obviously. Scriptural authority is not granted to it by the church. God’s people have never made God’s Word, God’s Word has made God’s people.
Is the Bible enough? Sola Scripture. Calvin: The scriptures are the sole rule of perfect wisdom. The core understanding of Calvin and all of the Reformers. The Bible is clear in all means necessary for salvation. Sola Scriptura is not a Protestant belief, it is a Biblical belief.
What is the ministers job? Chiefly is a minister of the Word and the teaching of the understanding of the Word, the centrality of preaching. The sermon is the center of worship. Romans think they get God’s grace through their mouth, Protestants know we get God’s grace through our ears. Encourage your pastor, this is his main calling, the preaching of God’s Word.
What did the Bible teach? The Gospel! To offer and set forth Christ to us.
Who should understand the Bible? The perspicuity of Scripture. Calvin started out writing prefaces to Bible translations in the vulgar languages. Everyone can and should understand the Scriptures. Facilitating the reading of Scripture for those who are “humble and uneducated”. The reading of Scripture does not undermine the office of minister.
-----
Dever's strongest admonition: " Find a church where the Bible is regularly taught and join that church." Truer words have rarely been spoken.