“The influence of this work [Erasmus’ Greek New Testament] on the Reformation was incalculable,” is an understatement. The pent-up soul-anguish among students at Cambridge and Oxford, and a parish priest in Zurich found life in the Greek Testament. Luther devoured it and used it to translate the Scripture into the German vernacular. Tyndale did the same with the English language. Revival broke out at Cambridge, despite the administration’s efforts to stymie it, as students surreptitiously purchased copies of Erasmus’ text, poured over it in secrecy, and came to bold faith in Christ.

God has no constraints to work by consent and permission. He knows nothing of waiting until mankind willingly and gladly cooperates with him to do his will. Otherwise, man’s fickleness controls God’s sovereignty. So when Christians speak of God “breaking in” or “a work of God” or “a movement of the Spirit,” we acknowledge God’s sovereignty in accomplishing his pleasure. But sometimes his sovereignty surprises us.
We find a clear example in the 8th century B.C. prophet Isaiah. Only a Sovereign God can call “My anointed,” one that unwittingly followed divine designs in accomplishing God’s purposes. Over a century before the Persian King Cyrus commanded the exiled Jews to return to Jerusalem, Isaiah prophesied that God would raise up Cyrus for his purposes. “For the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel My chosen one, I have also called you [Cyrus] by your name; I have given you a title of honor though you have not known Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God. I will gird you [Cyrus], though you have not known Me; that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:4–6; italics added; NASB). In simple language, the Lord God declared, “I’m in control. I will use whom I will, raise up whom I please, and accomplish my purposes through any that I choose, so that the nations may know that I alone am God.”
Sovereignty and the Reformation
Enter the 16th century Reformation. In a dark world with only a sputter of light here and there for centuries, God broke forth. We know how he raised up Luther, Zwingli, Tyndale, Calvin, Bullinger, Bilney, Knox, and many more as mighty voices to proclaim the gospel of grace in Christ alone.
Yet the Lord had no constraints to use only avowed Protestants in this spiritual awakening. He also found pleasure in unwitting Reformers, among whom the chief was Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus grew up in Holland, the illegitimate son of a parish priest and physician’s daughter. They schooled him in a Brethren of the Common Life institution that focused, unlike the scholastics and ritualists, on a mystical, pietistic inward life. The precocious child learned Latin as a boy, preferring it to his native Dutch. Entering the University of Paris, he had already surpassed his teachers. In contrast to the anti-God humanists that emerged from the Renaissance, as a humanist scholar, he embraced, what he called, “the philosophy of Christ,” emphasizing conformity to the Bible’s moral teachings. While calling for the study of scripture, Erasmus put less stress upon the doctrines of salvation than upon behavior. Although an unsurpassed linguist, he lacked theological (gospel) clarity.
The Greek New Testament
While in England in 1499, John Colet, Dean of St. Paul’s, urged Erasmus to stay in Oxford to teach the Old Testament. But to do so, at Colet’s insistence, he would need to study Greek to read the Greek Fathers. He spent five years mastering Greek [Erasmus could do that!]. During a second visit to England, Colet loaned Erasmus two Greek New Testament manuscripts from which he produced a new Latin translation. That thrill of studying ad fontes led him to gather a few more manuscripts to edit a critical Greek New Testament, published in 1516.
Read More
Related Posts:

Finally, presidents have exhorted Americans to individually and collectively give thanks to God. Wilson counseled citizens “to render thanks to God” in their homes and places of worship on Thanksgiving Day. George W. Bush encouraged “Americans to gather in their homes, places of worship, and community centers” to pray and “reinforce ties of family and community.”

Responding to a request from Congress, President George Washington issued our nation’s first Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789. Only in the midst of the crucible of civil war, however, did presidential proclamations of Thanksgiving become customary. Every year since 1863 our chief executives have urged Americans to recognize God’s bounty and blessings on the fourth Thursday in November.
Several themes loom large in presidential Thanksgiving proclamations: the historical foundation of the event; God’s sovereignty and goodness; the many blessings God has bestowed on America; the importance of national and individual repentance; a challenge to share our copious blessings with other nations and the less fortunate at home; a call to honor the sacrifices of those, especially members of the Armed Forces, who have helped make American prosperous and powerful; and an exhortation to express our gratitude to God individually and collectively.
Numerous presidents have described America’s first Thanksgiving. Most have identified it as the feast the Pilgrims and Wampanoag Indians shared in Plymouth in 1621. Barack Obama, for example, declared in 2014 that “the friendship and kindness of the Wampanoag people” helped the Pilgrims learn “to harvest the rich bounty of a new world.” Some presidents, including John F. Kennedy, pointed to early 17th century events in both Massachusetts and Virginia as providing the foundation for Thanksgiving. In 1984, Ronald Reagan, by contrast, highlighted Iroquois thanksgiving festivals that predated those of Euro-Americans as the basis of the holiday.
Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and most other presidents have accentuated God’s power, providence, and generosity in their proclamations. Washington praised “the great Lord and Ruler of Nations,” acknowledged “the providence of Almighty God,” and thanked God for “His kind care and protection.” Lincoln emphasized “the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.” Woodrow Wilson rejoiced in 1918 that “God, the ruler of nations,” had brought an end to World War I.
In their Thanksgiving statements, presidents have also consistently expressed gratitude to God for His countless blessings. Washington established the pattern by thanking “the beneficent author of all … good” for the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War and the new nation’s “tranquility, union, and plenty,” peaceful relations with other countries, recently adopted Constitution, and religious and civil liberty. In 1865 Andrew Johnson rejoiced that God had removed “the fearful scourge of civil war” and permitted Americans to enjoy “the blessings of peace, unity, and harmony.” Harry Truman urged citizens in 1945 to thank “Almighty Providence” for America’s “abundance, strength, and achievement” evident in its defeat of “German fascism and Japanese militarism.” In 2003, George W. Bush praised God for America’s “abundance, prosperity, and hope” and its “firm foundation of freedom, justice, and equality” and “belief in democracy and the rule of law.”
In addition, presidents have called for corporate and individual repentance. Washington beseeched God “to pardon our national and other transgressions.” Lincoln urged Americans to bow before God in “humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience.” Andrew Johnson urged citizens to confess their “national sins” against God’s “infinite goodness.” Wilson exhorted Americans to seek “divine mercy and forgiveness for all [our] errors of act or purpose.”
Presidents have also used their proclamations to ask God to bless other countries and to prod citizens to generously aid others. Washington beseeched God to “protect and guide” all nations and “to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord.” Kennedy implored Americans to share their blessings and ideals with people around the world. Reagan exhorted citizens to model God’s “compassion for those in need” by sharing “our bounty with those less fortunate.” George H. W. Bush urged Americans to aid the unemployed, homeless, hungry, sick, and lonely. Obama challenged citizens to fulfill their role as their “brother’s and … sister’s keepers” by working at homeless shelters and soup kitchens.
In their proclamations, our chief executives have accentuated the sacrifices many American have made to protect and strengthen our nation. Let us “rededicate ourselves to those high principles of citizenship,” Truman declared in 1945, “for which so many splendid Americans have recently given all.” “Throughout history,” George W. Bush asserted, “many have sacrificed to preserve our freedoms and to defend peace around the world.” Obama paid tribute “all those who defend our Union as members of our Armed Forces.”
Finally, presidents have exhorted Americans to individually and collectively give thanks to God. Wilson counseled citizens “to render thanks to God” in their homes and places of worship on Thanksgiving Day. George W. Bush encouraged “Americans to gather in their homes, places of worship, and community centers” to pray and “reinforce ties of family and community.”
As our presidents remind us, America has been abundantly blessed. Jesus declared that “to whom much is given, of him much shall be required” (Luke 12:48). May remembering this make us truly thankful and prompt us to aid the needy and vulnerable.
Dr. Gary Scott Smith chairs the history department at Grove City College and is a fellow for faith and politics with The Center for Vision & Values. He is the author of “Religion in the Oval Office” (Oxford University Press, 2015), “Faith and the Presidency From George Washington to George W. Bush” (Oxford University Press, 2009), “Religion in the Oval Office” and “Heaven in the American Imagination” (Oxford University Press, 2011). Used with permission.

It is my contention that even though the church and state must be separated…the church (whether in pulpit preaching or by synods and councils) still has the obligation to speak to the civil magistrate concerning the enactment of laws that God calls an abomination.  Calling out the sins of the civil magistrate is not intermeddling with civil affairs.  It is being faithful to our calling as witnesses of God.

The term “spirituality of the church” has become one of those phrases that often stops all further conversation about the relationship between church and state. Few Christians ever question the meaning of the phrase.  It assumes that the church should remain silent about all political matters.  Although the expression does not appear in any of our confessional standards, it has become a doctrine of Presbyterianism as sacrosanct as any one of the five points of Calvinism. No one is allowed to challenge it without being labeled with a pejorative term. It is my contention that rightly understood, it can be a useful phrase, but if contextualized in terms of either dualistic Greek thought, or in terms of present-day secular pluralism, it is not only faulty, but also dangerous to both the church and the civil government.

If the spirituality of the church is interpreted in terms of Greek dualism, then it assumes that the spiritual is the higher good and that the physical is the source of evil. The goal of mankind is to escape the physical (this world) and rise into another realm of spirituality where the pains caused by this present world will disappear. The Church is heavenly and therefore good. The Civil Magistrate is earthly, and therefore the root of evil. The goal of the Christian is to escape living in this world. From this perspective the concept of the spirituality of the church is more Neo-platonic than it is Christian.
If the spirituality of the church means that the church must not speak to political issues because we live in a pluralistic society, and we must not impose our views on others, then this is not only a faulty view, but a dangerous view. It is an impossibility because some law-system derived from some religion will always reign in any society. Silence by Christian leadership when sin is legalized by law, even in a so-called pluralistic society, is a dereliction of duty. It lets evil run wild without rebuke, and therefore will bring judgment on both the civil magistrate and the church. It may be worse than Greek dualism.  R2K theologians believe that the civil sphere should be ruled by natural law, but since homosexuality and transgenderism are now considered natural, this approach is bankrupt.
If the spirituality of the church means that there are two realms ordained by God and they must remain separate, then this view is biblical. If it means that the civil magistrate has been given the power of the sword to punish evil, and the church has been given the Holy Spirit to empower her to preach the word of God, to administer the sacraments, to pray, and to carry out church discipline (the ordinary means of grace), then it is a legitimate way to speak of the spirituality of the church. Both realms have separate powers and limitations on that power. The church is not to make laws for the body politic, no more than the civil magistrate is to make laws for the church.

The politics of the Civil War in the United States in the 19th century drove the southern church into a hidden cave where she thought she should retreat and rest in peace at a distance far from political issues.  It is very dangerous to take sides in the middle of a war.  Getting the elect into heaven became her primary calling.  We still have not recovered from that.  Unknowingly, the church became irrelevant to issues that her sheep must face every day in the workplace because of political decisions. The spirituality of the church still holds a powerful grip on neo-puritans.
The most powerful defense of the spirituality of the church is often proffered by reference to the Westminster Confession of Faith in Chapter 31.IV where it says that “synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical; and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they are thereunto required by the civil magistrate.” Generally, this is quoted as the final appeal in any debate on the spirituality of the church.
However, it is my contention that even though the church and state must be separated in terms as outlined in #3 above, the church (whether in pulpit preaching or by synods and councils) still has the obligation to speak to the civil magistrate concerning the enactment of laws that God calls an abomination.  Calling out the sins of the civil magistrate is not intermeddling with civil affairs.  It is being faithful to our calling as witnesses of God.
Certain sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms were rewritten and adopted in 1788 by early American Presbyterians.  Part of that goal was to update an older view of the relationship between church and state that had existed in England which had permitted the existence of a national church like the Church of England.  The new revision also allowed for the freedom of Christian denominations to exist in the various colonies or states.
Too, it should be noted that the justification for adding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was to avoid a national church at the federal level, and to guard the freedom of the states to establish Christianity as a state religion according to the conscience of the people in each of the various states.  Most colonies (and later states) had adopted Christianity as the official religion of those several states. For example, Virginia was Anglican and New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts were Congregational.
Although the American version of the Westminster Confession of Faith was changed in several places, our forefathers meeting in Philadelphia in 1789 failed to be consistent and left several sections as they originally appeared in the original edition of 1647. The old way was not totally erased.  As such, they left in place the responsibility of the civil government to watch over the church, and the responsibility of the church to call out sin in our civil governments even though it be via humble petition.   Note the following quotes from the Westminster Larger Catechism on how we as Presbyterians should view the role of the civil magistrate.
Larger Catechism Question #108 asks the question “What are the duties required in the second commandment?” The answer contains the following: The duties are “disapproving, detesting, and opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it and all monuments of idolatry.” The clear implication here is that a civil magistrate in his place and calling must oppose all false worship by removing it, and any evidence of it, from our body politic.
Larger Catechism #118 asks the question, “Why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?” The answer is that they as superiors are “bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.” Again, the term “other superiors” includes the civil magistrate.
Larger Catechism #191 asks the question “What do we pray for in the second petition?” The answer says that we are to pray Thy Kingdom Come, and that “the Kingdom of God is to be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.” In other words, the work of the church in establishing the Kingdom of God is to be favored and protected by the civil magistrate as the church promulgates the rule of Christ over all the earth.
Politics is a big word that covers everything from political parties, to commerce between states, to the maintenance of highways.  To such commonwealth issues, the church need not concern herself.  However, if the spirituality of the church means that we cannot speak to the ungodly issues of the day legalized by politicians, then the idea of the spirituality of the church needs to be rejected.  If we cannot publicly call out the evil in abortion, in homosexual marriage, and in transgenderism, then we hurt both the church (by refusing to honor God) and we fail in our obligation to call the Civil Magistrate to repent, leaving our nation as potential objects of the wrath of God.  The United States was part of Christendom when the American Version of the Westminster Confession was written.  Christendom is now dead in this country and we must reevaluate our approach to the civil magistrate.
Modern America is in a pool of despair and wickedness.  Christ is her only hope.  The times have changed.  It is time for preachers along with church synods and councils to speak humbly, but boldly to the politicians of our day.  We are not talking about the state administrating the sacraments, or the church supporting a legislative bill to build more interstate highways.  We are talking about blatant transgressions of God’s law legislated and mandated by the civil magistrate.  It is time for both church bodies and individual preachers to speak to the issues of the day.  It is time for those with a large platform to enter the public square with the word of God.  It is time to pray for a few bold leaders like John the Baptist who told Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have her [his brother’s wife]” (Mt. 14:4).
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: