What word rings more sharply in a sermon than blasphemy?
John Wesley, shortly after a renewal of faith in his life after hearing a reading of Luther on Aldersgate Street in London, began to travel the country by horseback and preach sermons across all of England. Near the beginning of his preaching career in England he voiced his firm declaration that the doctrine of predestination was heresy.
To do so he began by declaring that God’s grace is “free in all” voicing that no goodness can come from man (assuring his fellow protestants he had not turned to a philosophy like Erasmus’). He then argues that, given predestination: preaching is vain, service to fellow man is vain, and all good works are vain. He does so in a tone of indignation as he demonstrates commandments from God to preach, serve and do good works. This brings him to a climactic question:
Is God a hypocrite? He declares profane blasphemy: God is worse than the Devil, assuming predestination is true.
Woven into this primary logical argument he also appeals to emotions. He shows predestination as an uncomfortable doctrine to those who feel Christ-like love for all mankind. He cites scripture that religion should bring peace, not the discomfort that comes from paradoxical beliefs.
While speaking against predestination was his most obvious motive for speaking, his references to christian joy and comfort (as opposed to the “uncomfortable” doctrine he opposed), and the love and grace of God reveal that he also hoped his audience would feel a renewal of faith and love for Christ. He wanted them to feel like he did that day at Aldersgate Street.
For a final increase of his credibility he ends his sermon with a string of scriptures and hardly a single word of his own to affirm God’s approval of his words.
It is cool to see that the way most of these preachers establish their credibility is through quoting the bible which goes with Ad Fontes. Although they present a message in a different way then others or look at doctrine in a new way they always go back to the bible.
ReplyDeleteThat is always something interesting to consider, how did they read and quote the bible. In the LDS church today we quote and use lots of scriptures out of historical context and discuss parallel modern-day interpretations and applications of the scriptures. But, if they are looking at the scriptures to admire the ancients, then I imagine that the context of the scripture would become more important to them.
DeleteIn how this sermon used scriptures it didn't feel so much like Ad Fontes, in terms of looking back and admiring the greatness of the biblical people's or times, but it is an interesting point. I wish that in the church today we looked back to the way people once thought and spoke as we study the bible, as opposed to imposing our modern selves on the book.
I like the way you introduced the context or rhetorical situation. It is interesting how important the context is for everything. If someone were to give a sermon like this today, it probably wouldn't have the same effect as being connected to Luther's time.
ReplyDeleteIt is true, and at this time, England was kicking out the Calvinists in a sense, they mostly were living in France and in the American Colonies, so talking about and against them in England could affect (perhaps on a subconscious level) England's religious relationship to the French and Americans as well.
DeleteThe american revolution (England vs France and the Colonies) was a political movement, but it was pushed by protestant revolutionaries, perhaps religious tension contributed to that conflict as well.