The Apostle Paul addresses issues of Christian liberty (our term) at least four different times in his letters: 1 Corinthians 8-10; Galatians 5; Colossians 2; Romans 14-15:13. That is an impressive amount of space and time devoted to the subject, when you stop to think about it. This array of texts should tell you something about the importance of the subject of Christian liberty for Christians.

In this article I would like to explore some of the themes of Scripture dealing with Christian liberty. In particular, I will look at the foundation of Christian liberty and a definition of it. Then I will explore how Paul applies the issue of Christian liberty to the issues that were dividing the Church of Rome in Chapter 14. My focus on Romans is to show how a proper grasp of Christian liberty should guide the Church when disputable matters over doubtful opinions threaten the peace and liberty of Christians in the context of the Church's fellowship.

The Foundation and Meaning of Christian Liberty

In order to grasp what Christian liberty is, according to Scripture, you must start with Jesus Christ. Jesus said: "If the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:36). In the context of those words Jesus contrasted freedom in Him versus slavery to sin. So Christian liberty is not about political or civil liberty. It is about liberty from sin, and the slavery of sin. What that liberty entails, according to Scripture, is summarized well in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 20:

"The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also, in their free access to God, and their unyielding obedience unto him, not of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing mind."

So Christian liberty is uniquely a Christian inheritance and enjoyment, and flows from the gospel of Jesus Christ. In its broadest sense, it is liberty from the power and corruption and guilt and condemnation due to sin. All Christians have this liberty, by grace alone, through faith alone, on the basis of Christ's work alone. Anyone that tells you your freedom and peace with God rests in faith in Christ plus the keeping the law, or any other works-based efforts, is an enemy of the gospel and your freedom in Christ; following such teaching will rob you of your liberty and lead you to slavery again.

Having said that, we must understand that such liberty is not a license to sin, and to do whatever we feel like doing. We are not free to believe just what we choose to believe from the Bible. God has revealed to us what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false. We are free to serve God within the constraints of God's revealed will.

Now, it is at this point, the point of the Christian's freedom to serve the Lord, that we must pay careful attention to the Word of God regarding the implications of Christian liberty. Our Lord Jesus made it clear that with his coming, the believer's relationship to the Old Testament ceremonial and civil law is different than that of the Israelites under the Old Covenant. For instance, in the book of Acts, Chapter 10, our Lord revealed to Peter in a vision, followed by a verbal explanation and command, that the laws forbidding the eating of certain foods are no longer binding on the believer. In that vision, there were "all kinds of four footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air." (Acts 10:12). A voice from heaven told him, "rise, Peter, kill and eat." Peter protested that he had never eaten anything common or unclean. The voice again spoke to Peter: "What God has cleansed you must not call common." (Acts 10:15).

Under the Old Covenant, many aspects of daily life were carefully regulated for believers, things such as what to eat, what to wear, how the use of certain things would render a person "unclean" for worship, how to go about purification in the event one became unclean. While these laws are still the Word of God and are to instruct us and guide us, they must be applied to our new situation under Christ in the New Covenant.

We live in the days when the fullness of God's revelation in Jesus Christ has come, when the Holy Spirit has been abundantly poured out on all believers. In these days, Christians are to learn to eat and drink, and do whatever we do to the glory of God. (1 Cor. 10:31). We need not "abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth, for every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (I Tim. 4:3-5).

Now, as I said, it is just here, in this matter of Christian liberty, particularly in the use of things and a whole range of matters of "opinion," that Christians need to think clearly about the implications of our freedom in Christ. When it comes to daily living, there is a large part of life that is not specifically directed by revelation in God's Word.

Earlier I referred to a number of passages written by the Apostle Paul dealing extensively with matters of Christian liberty. What is striking about these passages, especially in the case of 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14, is the primary reason Paul has for addressing the churches to whom he wrote: his purpose is pastoral. He is not discussing theoretical issues facing Christians; he is dealing with very specific controversies. And his focus is to teach the Church how to get along in the face of much adversity, differing opinions, different cultural perspectives and practices and influences, different levels of Biblical understanding, of wisdom, or maturity, in the presence of diverse personalities.

You don't have to be in the Church very long to see how great a diversity there is in it. We often think of the cultural diversity we experience. But forget about that for a moment. Look at the personality differences, the maturity differences, and the educational differences. These were present in Paul's day; they are present today in the Church. How is such a diverse group of people ever going to get along?

Consider Romans 14

What threatened the peace of the Roman Church? There were a number of differing views on eating meat or vegetables (verse 2), drinking wine, or not (verse 21), convictions about participation in various holy days (verse 5). Paul calls these "disputes over doubtful things." (Verse 1).

Here is what I find striking about how Paul deals with the situation: He could have given an apostolic proclamation on each of those issues and simply ended the dispute. But he didn't do that. Why? You will never appreciate Romans 14, or the Bible's teaching on Christian liberty, unless you get that point.

Our human nature, even as redeemed, justified, sanctified, Holy Spirit indwelt people of God, is capable of coming up with seemingly endless varieties of convictions about Christian practice due to our responses to historical circumstances. Paul knew this (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). The Holy Spirit knew this. There will always be disputes over doubtful things in the Church!

In the Roman Church it was the use of things like meat and veggies, wine and holy days (see Chapter 14:2, 5, 21). Today the issues might be hair length for men and women, card playing, tobacco use, length of dresses, make up, piercing, tattoos, music (I remember as a teenager, some Baptist friends warning us of the inherent evil of a back beat rhythm), Christmas, Santa Claus, Halloween, Easter bunnies, Christmas trees, trick or treating, etc. Not to mention movies, dancing, internet use, novels, plays, sports, SUVs, dating versus courtship, home schooling versus Christian day schools versus public schools, cosmetic surgery, driving Harleys, cutting down old growth trees, eating white bread...and the newest doubtful issues: global warming and transfats! Makes you want to shout: STOP THE MADNESS!!

So the question that perennially plagues the Church is, how can pastors and elders counsel and instruct and minister to a Church with such a diversity of opinionated Christians? There are a number of options one can think of:

1) don't allow diversity.

2) Let people sort all this out themselves.

3)The "strong" will survive.

4) Or the "weak" will leave, or conform to the "strong."

The Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, offers us a different option: how to get along in light of our liberty in Christ. You see, Paul was far too wise a pastor to think that answering definitively one or two doubtful things would be adequate for the Church in the long run. As you can see from the list above, there will always be some new issue that will arise. So what Paul teaches in Romans 14 is how the Church can get along together by living out of our liberty in Christ.

The major focus, or strategy, in living out your faith, and out of your liberty in Christ, is to keep certain basic things carefully fixed in our minds and heart, so that they become the controlling principles for your reactions to Christians who have differing opinions. A proper grasp of our liberty in Christ will result in our being bound together by the big things, instead of being torn to pieces by the small things.

The Strong and the Weak

Look again at Romans 14. A disagreement had arisen over the use of "non-essential" matters: whether to eat meat, or not, the observing of certain holy days, or not, the use of wine. Two groups had emerged, the "strong" and the "weak." The strong were able to grasp the significance of Christ's death for daily living, such as receiving and using food, drink, etc. The "weak" were not able to sort out these things as of yet. But the heart of the problem, as Paul identified it, was not that there were differences of views. The problem was that the strong were despising the weak, and the weak were judging the strong (verse 3).

So in the first few verses of Chapter 14, Paul says, in effect, "Knock it off, both of you!" This is no way to act. Why? Of both the weak and the strong, Paul says in verse 3: "God has received him." You are both Christians. So here are the really big things about Christian liberty that will keep the body of Christ from being torn apart over disputable matters. Let's follow Paul's line of thought through the passage.

First, both weak and strong are received by God in Christ. Both are justified. Behavior has nothing to do with acceptance before God. You are accepted because of the Christ's death and righteousness. Therefore, receive the one who is weak in the faith and do not dispute with him or her over these minor differences. Do not despite this weak one, for this is one for whom Christ died; this is one whom Christ loves (see also Chapter 15:1,7).

Second, God is the judge of both the weak and the strong (verse 4). In other words, God is God and you aren't! I'm not perfect and neither are you. God is the judge. In this point Paul is really saying to us: the problem is not someone else; the problem is you! You are judging and despising, and this is not your place.

Third, God knows how to preserve and sanctify His people. Paul says in verse 4: "Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." God uses His Word and Spirit to sanctify and preserve us. You are neither the Word nor the Spirit. Each one of us is to trust God, through the ministry of His Word and Spirit to make us stand in our faith and make progress in our life of service to God.

These first three principles highlight the essential bond all true believers share with each other in Christ. Because we are received by Christ, and in Christ, we can have differences of opinions; and yet these differences must never lead us to either "despising" or "judging" one another. No one's actions and behavior led to God receiving them. Therefore, these differences over doubtful things (verse 1) must never tear us apart from one another.

Liberty in Service

However, there is more to Christian liberty and getting along than that. Paul teaches us that we are called to serve God out of our liberty (see WCF Chapter 20 cited above). So, the fourth principle Paul gives us is that each one must be fully convinced in his or her own mind about the things they do in service to God (verse 5). This is really quite amazing. Paul is not afraid of Christians having strong convictions about the proper use of things in the Christian life. That's because it is not strong conviction that leads to division and judging and despising. Rather, disputes such as the Romans were embroiled, in arise out of a failure to allow people to live out of their liberty in Christ, as they are fully convinced through study and thought and prayer that they are rightly serving God. Our calling to serve God out of our liberty in Christ means we need not avoid strong convictions out of fear we will disappoint or offend someone else, nor may we be so arrogant in our convictions that we are sure anyone who acts differently than us is an idiot. "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind."

That leads to the fifth, and final principle Paul sets out for us. When it comes to "doubtful things," it is possible for both sides of those who differ to serve God. Remarkably, Paul says this even though he seems to be clearly in agreement with the "strong" about the issue of eating all things (see verse 14). Look at verse 6: "He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it."¹

I hope by this review of Christian liberty and its pastoral implications taught in the Bible, and specifically in Romans 14, that you see how important this teaching of Christian liberty really is. This liberty is God's gracious gift to all of God's people. It flows from the redeeming work of Jesus Christ, who has set us free from sin and its condemnation. In this freedom we are to walk, in happy gratitude to God, in newness of life. In this liberty we will be made to stand, for God is able to make us stand (Rom. 14:4).

So, see yourself and your brothers and sisters in God's capable, upholding hands. And get along together in Christ's Church.

________________

¹Commentators are divided over the question of whether or not this "day" is a reference to the Lord's Day, or to an Old Testament "holy" day or festival, or to some day that we do not know about. I am convinced that this observing of a day is not referring to the Lord's Day or an Old Testament holy day or festival. My primary reason is that in the context Paul is dealing with "doubtful things" (verse 1). Since we are not free to violate God's revealed will, including one of the Ten Commandments, I am convinced that the issue of the fourth Commandment is not in view. I am far from convinced that the two disputing groups are Gentiles and Jewish Christians. The Old Testament law did not forbid drinking wine or eating vegetables, nor did it forbid eating all meats. Therefore, I believe the issues motivating the "weak" in Romans 14 arise from circumstances we simply do not know about, perhaps even cultural influences, largely because Paul did not tell us about those motivations. Similarly, it is possible to eat all foods or only some "to the Lord." Each one eats or does not eat, giving thanks to God. This is not to say that both are equally in the right of it. But the spirit of Christian liberty means not only that I enjoy a certain freedom to make my "wise" choices with regard to a great many tastes, practices, and convictions. I also should happily acknowledge that you are free to make your "ridiculous" choices. But we are not to impose our choices and convictions on each other. Our freedom in Christ allows for these types of differences. Our bond of fellowship in Christ is not substantially altered by these differences. And that is what Paul's very important pastoral instruction is meant to drive home to us.

Probably no subject of biblical teaching is more difficult to discuss than the doctrine of hell. Perhaps no topic of biblical teaching is more controversial than the doctrine of hell. We might say, even though it sounds a bit "snarky," that the doctrine of hell has fallen out of favor with Christians in recent decades. Even as noteworthy a theologian as Dr. John R. W. Stott has come out against the notion of hell as it has been understood and taught from the Bible by the church historically.

It probably ought to come as no surprise to anyone that the clause in the fourth article of the Apostles' Creed, "He descended into hell," is perhaps the most debated, objected to, and maligned four words in this honored creed. Many denominations who still use the Apostle's Creed have removed this clause, relegating it to a footnote-if that.

The Ultimate Humiliation

In the context of the Apostles' Creed, the "descent into hell" clause expresses the ultimate stage of our Lord's humiliation. We confess that Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell." The Reformers understood this clause as emphasizing that the extent of Christ's suffering was nothing less than the "anguish and torment of hell," as the Heidelberg Catechism states it (Q&A 44). This torment of hell, the Reformed believe, was the just judgment of God for sin, which all sinners deserve. Rightly understood, this article affirms the awful consequences of unbelief, rebellion against God, and unrepentance. It also affirms that Jesus suffered this torment of hell in our place, for our sake, in order to accomplish our redemption. Put succinctly, this clause of the Creed expresses the Church's conviction that hell is real (more graphically stated: Hell is in the atlas), and that our Lord's descent into hell is a significant part of His work of redemption.

Before we explore this teaching of the creed, we need to look at what all the fuss is about over this affirmation of Christ's descent into hell. Due to the space constraints of this article, only a brief survey of the controversy surrounding the descent clause will be noted.

Historically

First of all, the "descent into hell" clause was not originally in the Apostles' Creed. It was first included around AD 390. Yet many forms of the creed, such as the Roman Symbol, mentioned the burial but not the descent into hell. It finally found a settled place in the creed around the latter part of the seventh century or the early part of the eighth century. The early church theologians were far from unanimous in their views as to what Jesus was supposed to have done in His three day's state of death. However, what many in the early church understood about Christ's days in the tomb before His resurrection was that Jesus was in a literal place called the realm of the dead, or the underworld (OT: sheol; NT: hades)-not a place of eternal punishment (gehenna).

Those who object to the inclusion of the descent clause argue that our relatively modern and Reformed understanding of hell is not what the early church understood by the term, as it pertains to Christ's descent. In any case, due to the controversial nature of the clause, it is argued that it ought to be removed from the creed.

Other Interpretations

Secondly, others object to the "descent into hell" clause because the Bible does not explicitly say Jesus descended into hell after He died, as the creed states. These objectors point out that those Scripture passages appealed to by traditional Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Evangelical theologians to defend and teach a literal descent into the realm of the dead have been misinterpreted by them. For example, 1 Peter 3:18-20 is appealed to by both Lutherans and Roman Catholics (as well as some Evangelicals). "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water."

While this text presents some interesting challenges for exegetes, it clearly holds no basis for an appeal to a descent into a literal realm of the dead. The Roman Catholic tradition calls this realm Limbus Patrum, the "place of the Fathers." This is thought to be that portion of hades which was a sort of "holding room" for Old Testament saints. Jesus descended to this literal location in which the "fathers" were awaiting Christ's salvation, to apply to those saints His work of salvation and grant them entry into heaven. Lutherans also appeal to 1 Peter 3 as a description of Christ's going into a literal place of the dead to reveal and finalize his victory over Satan and death's power. Many Lutheran theologians hold this descent was part of His exaltation. Whatever the case, in this descent, as it is revealed in 1 Peter 3:18ff., it is argued that Christ preached to the "spirits now in prison," that is, disobedient "spirits," declaring to them His great victory and pronouncing their sentence of judgment. Objectors argue, correctly in our view, that neither of these views is supported by the text. The text does not refer to a literal descent into hell. The "spirits now in prison" are not Old Testament saints at all. They are fallen, disobedient, sinful "spirits," either angels or men, in the days of Noah. They were preached to by the Spirit of Christ in Noah's days, probably by Noah himself (see 2 Peter 2:5). Other passages referred to by advocates of a literal descent of Christ to a place of the dead are 1 Peter 4:4-6 and Acts 2:30-31. None of these texts can support the claim of a literal descent into a realm of the dead.

But again, the point of this second group of objectors to the descent clause is that the Bible does not explicitly say Jesus descended into hell. Therefore, such a statement should not find its way into a creed summarizing what ought to be believed by the church about our salvation. In must be admitted that if this objection is true, we should remove the descent clause immediately. However, we will argue that the biblical data does teach Christ's descent into hell.

One final objection ought to be noted, which is that the exact meaning of the descent clause is not universally acknowledged in the great Reformed confessions. For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 50 equates Christ's descent into hell with His death and burial. In preparation for this article, I ran across a few blogs by Presbyterian ministers who stated their unwillingness to speak of the descent clause in the recitation of the creed in worship. To be fair, however, it must be pointed out that most (I suspect) Presbyterians happily give voice to their belief that Christ descended into hell. Further, it should be acknowledged that many Reformed ministers over the years have called for the removal of this clause, for some of the reasons stated above, and because there is divergence among those who hold to the historic Reformation confessions.

The concern of many of these ministers is that there is not universal agreement testifying to the meaning of this clause among the children of the Reformation; therefore its use does not promote a united testimony of our faith. In addition, they would argue that its inclusion binds the conscience beyond biblical warrant. If, in fact, the descent clause is not sufficiently grounded in the testimony of Scripture, we would agree with this objection.

With these representative objections to the "descent into hell" clause in mind, let us now turn to the biblical data regarding our Lord's descent into hell.

First, we will examine the question as to whether the record of divine revelation provides any warrant for holding that Jesus descended to a literal, local realm of the dead after His death.

The Biblical Record

Appeal for this notion is sometimes made to Acts 2:30-31 and Peter's use of Psalm 16:10 in reference to Jesus not being "abandoned to hades." However, the referent, "hades," is to be understood along with the next phrase, "nor did his flesh suffer decay." These are parallel phrases expressing the same idea. They are a reference to Christ having been in the state and power of death. It was from that state of death and rest in the grave that God raised Him up. There is no reference to our Lord actively at work in the underworld during that time. Thus, we find no support for Jesus descending to a place of the dead in this passage.

Further, when we look at the Gospel accounts of Jesus' suffering on the cross, we see that Jesus completed His redeeming work for sinners on the cross before His death. Note these words of Jesus from the cross: "It is finished" (John 19:30); "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46); and then Luke added the commentary, "Having said this, He breathed His last." These sayings, along with Jesus' words to the thief on the cross, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:43), give clear testimony by Jesus that His earthly work on behalf of His people was completed in His suffering on the cross, His death, and His burial. There is no indication in the Bible that Jesus needed to do anything further for His people after death by going to the realm of the dead. To the contrary, Jesus expressed full assurance that His spirit would be in the hands of His Father upon His death.

Secondly, we need to look at the positive teaching of Scripture about the "descent into hell" clause. In the Reformed tradition, this clause is not understood as a final act in a chronological sequence of acts by our Lord. Rather, it is understood as a figurative expression of all that He suffered in His life, in body and soul, and especially on the cross. John Calvin had a formative influence in shaping the Reformed doctrine of Christ's descent into hell, including the way in which this doctrine was formulated in the Heidelberg Catechism. Here is how Calvin expressed the meaning of the sequence of the Creed, "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried":

The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which He underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ's body was given as the price of our redemption, but that He paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in His soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man." (Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.16.10)

Instead of understanding the descent clause as adding another step of Christ's work of humiliation, it expresses the essence of what Christ suffered: the just wrath of God which rested on Him as the bearer of our sin.

The Bible locates our Lord's descent into this terrible suffering under God's wrath especially on the cross. In Matthew 27:45, when Jesus was on the cross, we read: "Now from the sixth hour to the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land." We read earlier in Matthew's Gospel of "outer darkness" (Matt. 25:30) being a place of judgment. Outer darkness is the place of curse, of the wrath and displeasure of God upon sin. This view is confirmed by Jesus' words in Matthew 27:46: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying...My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" We will never be able to grasp the depth of this anguished cry. But in it our Lord expressed the utter abandonment of His Father's love and presence, and separation from His favor. In short, hell was brought to the cross.

Jesus suffered hell, the just judgment of God for our sin, in order to make satisfaction for our transgressions. All of this was necessary in order that sinners might be redeemed from that same judgment. Without the descent clause, the Church would lose the essential confession of the infinite cost of our redemption.

I believe there is a hell. I believe it because the Bible teaches it. I believe it because the Lord Jesus Christ descended into it. Every human being needs to be confronted with this terrifying truth, unpleasant as it may be. At the same time, the fact that Christ descended into hell, in the place of and on behalf of sinners, is good news. If you receive this truth in faith, it will be a source of unspeakable comfort. The Heidelberg Catechism faithfully summarizes this comfort of Christ's descent into hell in these words:

Heidelberg Catechism Q. 44: "Why is it added: ‘He descended into hell?' That in my greatest temptations I may be assured that Christ my Lord, by His inexpressible anguish, pains, and terrors, which He suffered in His soul on the cross and before, has redeemed me from the anguish and torment of hell."

"Fasting and prayer?! Some of you may be wondering: did I read that right? What's up with this?

Well, let me add a bit of context to why I am writing this article. At the 264th Synod of the RCUS in May 2010, the Synod made a decision to call upon the churches and members of the RCUS to set aside a day of prayer with fasting for the purpose of asking God to raise up men for the ministry of the gospel. In light of the fact that there are a good number of our ministers who will be coming to the age of retirement in the next few years, in light of the need for ministers to serve the churches and to take up the work of missions, it was deemed good to call upon the Lord to give to His church the gift of ministers (see Eph. 4:11). A call for the church to fast and pray is certainly a rare occurrence among us. The last time the Synod called for a day of fasting and prayer was in 1987. On that occasion we were called to fast and pray that God would grant his blessing on the missionary endeavors of the church. So clearly we consider the setting aside of a day of fasting and prayer to be for extraordinary circumstances.

I admit this subject is in some ways a difficult and seemingly strange topic for us to wrap our minds around. This is an area in which, generally speaking, modern Reformed and evangelical churches know very little about, and, for the most part, no longer practice. I have run into various reactions towards the subject. Most often people think it sounds weird. Some people think that is what Muslims do: Muslims fast. In fact, as I write this article, it is the season of Ramadan, a month in which all Muslims are called upon to fast from sun up to sun down.

There are many valid reasons to be on our guard against an abuse of fasting and prayer. It is not to be done out of custom or superstition, or out of a hope to gain merit from God or the praise of man.

But the real question is: Is it biblical? Perhaps it will come as a surprise to you to know that fasting and prayer is explicitly described, discussed, and commended over seventy-seven times in the Old and the New Testaments. So whether or not you've ever fasted with prayer, or your parents or grandparents ever did, ought not deter you in considering this subject. Christ assumed that His followers will fast when He says, "When you fast, do not be like the hypocrites" (Matt. 6:16). He said in Mark 2:20, ‘It isn't appropriate for my disciples to fast while I am with them now. This is a day for celebration. But after I leave, they will fast.' According to the Book of Acts, the Apostles and early church fasted and prayed at the occasion of the setting aside and commissioning of Paul and Barnabas as missionaries (Acts 13:1-3), and the ordaining of elders (Acts 14:23). The apostle Paul spoke of Christian married partners abstaining from marital relations to devote themselves to a period of fasting and prayer (1 Cor. 7:5). So, the assumption of both Christ and the apostles is that fasting will be a part of our lives on extraordinary occasions.

The church in history has recognized Scripture's teaching on the place and importance of fasting and prayer for extraordinary occasions. Yet this has been all but forgotten by modern Reformed Christians. So in this article I would like to review a small sample of what our Reformed heritage has to offer in shedding light on the purpose and practice of Scripture's teaching on fasting and prayer.

First, I would like to simply note a number of ways our Reformed forefathers spoke of the use of fasting and prayer.

The neglect or misuse of fasting with prayer by the church is not new. As a pastor and leader in the early days of the reforming of the church, John Calvin, writing in the sixteenth century, felt constrained to speak on the subject of fasting and prayer in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book Four, Chapter 12:14-21 contains Calvin's reflection on Scripture about the subject of fasting. At the beginning of his discussion Calvin wrote: "Let us, therefore, say something about fasting, since very many, while they do not understand how useful it is, regard it as not very necessary; others also, considering it superfluous, completely reject it. And since its use is not well understood, it can easily lapse into superstition." (4.12.14)

Heinrich Bullinger, another reformed pastor and theologian in the sixteenth century, wrote the Second Helvetic Confession (1566). In Article XXIV, sections 4-8, Bullinger summarized and applied Scripture's teaching on fasting. Listen to the following comments on the use and purpose of fasting: "Fasting is a help of the prayers of the saints and all virtues.... Now, fasting is either public or private. In olden times they celebrated public fasts in troublesome times and in the afflictions of the Church...Such a fast should be kept in this day, when the Church is in distress. Private fasts are used by every one of us, according as everyone feels the spirit weakened in him." So this confession commends the "public" or corporate use of fasting and prayer, as well as "private" fasting and prayer among individual Christians. Bullinger also indicates that calling for public fasting and prayer be reserved for extraordinary occasions.

In the seventeenth century, the Westminster divines included in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) the commendation of "solemn fastings" as a biblical practice on "special occasions." (21:5). The Westminster distinguishes fasting from that which is commanded as "part of our ordinary worship of God." Nevertheless, it commends fasting as proper upon certain occasions. Also in the seventeenth century, the great Synod of Dordrecht met in Holland from 1618 -1619. Besides producing the Canons of Dort, the Synod also wrote a Church Order. This Church Order enjoined two types of occasions appropriate for fasting and prayer. In the election and ordination of new ministers (See Article 4); "In times of war, pestilence, calamities, heavy persecution of churches, and other general distresses, the ministers of the churches shall request the government to employ their authority and command that a public day of fasting and prayer be appointed and set aside" (Article 66).

The above is only a brief survey of the expressed convictions of the early Reformed churches in regards to fasting and prayer. But note that over a period of almost one hundred years as representatively surveyed above, the Reformers expressed their judgment, on the basis of Scripture, that fasting and prayer was to have a place in the life of the church, both in public and private.

Since the actual practice of fasting and prayer is rare in the church today, we would do well to look a bit more closely at John Calvin's treatment of the subject in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book Four, Chapter 12:14-21). It is about six pages worth of reading, and even if you don't have your own copy of the Institutes it is readily available on the World Wide Web. In this section you will find something for everyone. Calvin addresses pastors and their role in teaching about the subject as well as cultivating its practice. He points to various Scriptural occasions in which fasting and prayer were resorted to and suggests how such examples might apply to the church in all times and places. He also provides a definition of fasting, and why it is done in connection to prayer and therefore not practiced as a thing in itself. Calvin concludes his treatment of the subject by warning of a number of ways this practice can be misused. I would like to highlight a few particularly helpful points of Calvin's discussion on fasting.

First, Calvin takes up his section on fasting in his treatment of Church Discipline. Listen to his thought process: "The remaining part of discipline, which is not properly contained within the power of the keys, is where pastors, according to the need of the times, should exhort the people either to fasting or to solemn supplications, or to other acts of humility, repentance, and faith-of which the time, the manner, and the form are not prescribed by God's Word, but left to the judgment of the church" (4.12.14). So, fasting and prayer can be useful in the cultivation of self-discipline; in particular in the areas of humility, repentance, and faith.

Secondly, Calvin goes on in section 14 to refer to examples in the Law, the Prophets, and apostolic practices of fasting and prayer and summarizes some occasions on which the church might resort to fasting and prayer. "To sum them up: whenever a controversy over religion arises which ought to be settled by either a synod or an ecclesiastical court, whenever there is a question about choosing a minister, whenever, finally, any difficult matter of great importance is to be discussed, or again when there appear the judgments of the Lord's anger (as pestilence, war, and famine)-'tis a holy ordinance and one salutary for all ages, that pastors urge the people to public fasting and extraordinary prayers" (4.12.14).

Thirdly, what is the purpose of "holy and lawful fasting?" According to Calvin, it has three objectives: "We use it either to weaken and subdue the flesh that it may not act wantonly..." This objective, he says, is "more appropriate to private fasting." Then another objective is "that we may be better prepared for prayers and holy meditations..." This use of fasting is for "both the whole church and every individual believer..." Yet another objective is "that it may be a testimony of our self-abasement before God when we wish to confess our guilt before him." This last is also common to both private and public fasting. What is of utmost importance in all such fasting is "the motive of the heart" (All quotes taken from 14.12.15).

Fourth, fasting is to be paired with prayer. This is so because fasting is a "sign of self-abasement" and therefore, "whenever men are to pray to God concerning any great matter, it would be expedient to appoint fasting along with prayer." The purpose is to render ourselves "more eager and unencumbered for prayer" (14,12:16). So fasting is not commended as a thing in itself, but it is an aid or a handmaid to prayer.

Finally, it is worth noting that Calvin denies that fasting is "an external ceremony which, together with others, ended in Christ" (14.12.17). Out of the conviction that the biblical practice of fasting and prayer was not abrogated with the coming of Christ, Calvin counsels that "pastors urge the people to public fasting and extraordinary prayers" (4.12.14). He was joined in that conviction by subsequent generations of reformed pastors, theologians, and ecclesiastical assemblies, as our brief survey above demonstrates. The considered judgment of the churches of the Reformation witnesses to the conviction that fasting and prayer will be a part of the life of the Church and the individual Christian on extraordinary occasions.

I would like to conclude this article by making some applications for the use of fasting and prayer among us.

Fasting and prayer would be called for, as Calvin wrote, "whenever a controversy over religion arises which ought to be settled by either a synod or an ecclesiastical court." For example, when a Spiritual Council is approaching a matter of church discipline or a deep division in the congregation, would it not be wise to fast and pray? Out of acknowledgment of our own weakness as elders, out of the concern that in the handling of the matter before us we might well have erred at numerous points, out of a desire to approach the matter with humility, wisdom, and grace, out of a desire to see God's healing and glory displayed in the case that is troubling the church, prayer accompanied with fasting would seem to be in order. Perhaps when we are frustrated at a lack of faithfulness and fruitfulness and spiritual discernment in dealing with discipline and controversy in the church, it is because we have lacked a fervency of prayer accompanied by fasting in calling upon God for His blessing and wisdom.

Or again, fasting with prayer would be in keeping with the apostolic example of such in the election of pastors and elders, and the sending out of missionaries. Generally speaking, we are quite proficient at the formal process of doing these things. And we do pray about them. But is this not an extraordinary occasion about which we should pursue God's wisdom and spiritual discernment-the matter of ordaining men to the office of minister and elder? Is it not an extraordinary matter that a man is set apart to the mission field to bring the gospel to a dark world?

Finally, take the example of our synod's call to pray with fasting for the raising up of men for the ministry among us. Is this not an extraordinary matter? Our God has mercifully and wonderfully supplied our denomination recently with some fine men for the ministry. They have come from various backgrounds and places and denominations. We praise God for them. But doesn't it make you wonder: where are the young men, or any men for that matter, from among us? Why is the Lord not raising up more men from our own congregations? Is this perhaps indicative of the Lord's chastening of us? Chastening is not always tied to specific sins in our lives. But such a possibility is not to be excluded either (See James 5:13-16).

In any case, in light of a number of men approaching the age where they may have to retire from the active ministry, there is a need for men to be raised up for the ministry. There is always the need for more missionaries. As our Lord taught us, "the fields are white unto the harvest, the harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore, pray the Lord of harvest would send out laborers into his harvest" (Luke 10:2). Let us join in prayer with fasting. And if you cannot fast, let us at least pray fervently.

Much more could be said on this subject, but it will have to wait for another time. For now, in this article, I am taking to heart the example and urging of our fathers in the Reformed faith, Calvin and the writers of the Church Order of Dort, that pastors teach God's people about the practice of fasting and prayer, and call them to it. Not because their judgment itself bears the authority of Scripture-it doesn't! But to remind us all that the church in history, and in particular the church of our own Reformed heritage, has recognized Scripture's emphasis on the place and importance of fasting and prayer for extraordinary occasions. Are we wiser than they for the neglect of it?