Mr. (Rev.) S. G. De Graaf: "How To Tell Bible Stories" (Promise and Deliverance)

De Graaf, S.G. Promise and Deliverance: From Creation to the Conquest of Canaan, Vol. 1 (trans. H.E. Runner). St. Catherines, ONT: Paideia Press, 1977. http://www.amazon.com/Promise-Deliverance-Creation-Conquest-Canaan/dp/0888150024/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379980056&sr=8-1&keywords=degraaf+promise+and+deliverance

The "foci and loci of the stories" as told in these stunningly simple, well-oriented, theocentric, covenantal, and redemptive principles is...well...recalibrative. These volumes, four of them, ask how to tell Bible stories. They don't teach elementary or secondary education in seminary. We are used to complex and complicated issues (in the solid seminaries). But, here, two Reverends take a refreshingly simple, basic, and most helpful posture. I own Volumes 1 and 2 (on the OT), but plan to get Volumes 3 and 4 (on the NT). It would not be an overstatement to say this has challenged by hermeneutic of daily reading.

That challenged today's tour through Deuteronomy, e.g 18.9ff. To wit, that the Living Mediator of the gracious covenant spoke with thundering clarity, as the Living Being, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Covenant-Head of Israel, IN HIS SELF-REVELATION OF DEUTERONOMY...NO PRAYING TO DEAD PEOPLE...END OF THE DISCUSSION. (For non-Anglican readers, let this be known: a breed of "saints invokers" has been tolerated for the last 100 years and it violates the English Reformed heritage of the Thirty-nine Articles; these men have no place in Anglicanism; more could be said.) Not my word, but the "Word of the Ever-Living Redeemer" under the Older and Newer covenantal administrations. No prayers to dead people. That means today, 24 Sept 2013.

But back to the introduction.

Translator’s preface

Misters (Revs.) S. G. De Graaf (1889-1955) and J. C. Sikkel (1850-1920) both were clerics in the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (GKN). The former was influenced by the latter. Both belonged to the “Doleantie” movement, an effort to call the GKN back “to greater faithfulness to the Word of God” (11). The effects of their teaching influenced Sunday Schools, Christian public schools, and inner-city boys’ and girls’ clubs.

Both believed the Word of God “illumines and enlightens us.” The Word of God “sets our lives in the light of the truth.” As such, we live “before the face of God.” As such, “we are not rational beings of autonomous freedom as Rousseau, Kant, and modern Humanism right down to Sartre would have us believe” (12).

Psalm 25.14: “The secret of the LORD is with those who fear Him, And He will show them His covenant.”

Preface

The focus was on Sunday School teachers in the GKN churches. The teachers would meet on Saturday nights to review the Bible lessons for the following day. (Remember, the GKN had catechetical sermons on Sunday evenings’ divine worship—the Heidelberg Catechism, but this was Sunday mornings).

The issue: "How does one tell Bible stories to children?" In "evangelism clubs?" Yes, there is a way to address non-covenantal children. Or, how does one tell Bible stories in the Christian public schools (e.g. such as have been long-known amongst Dutch Calvinists)?

Introduction, 17-26

It’s about “telling a story.” Not a lecture and not a sermon. The goal is to make the story live and to make the children “see it.” Get them involved. Create “mental pictures” and stir “the imagination,” not getting lost in the details, but sticking “to the main point.”

Aim: create, invoke, evoke, strengthen and broad children’s beliefs and faiths.

The purpose is the same as “God’s,” because all Scripture is inspired and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.” Even St. Paul notes that the Scriptures were powerful unto salvation for Timothy since his early youth.

Content: “…the entire Holy Scripture is nothing more and nothing less than the Self-revelation of God” (18). The entire Scripture (e.g. Esther included) “reveals His grace only in the Mediator.” It is about “Him,” both the Old and New Covenants.

“Every story has God as the prime agent revealing Himself through His acts as the Redeemer” (19). This is staggeringly basic. The simplicity might incline a hubrist away.

For example, the story about Joseph (Gen. 37-50). One might focus on Joseph’s perseverance or the wickedness of the brothers—important, but not the organizing and central point. The story is about God bringing it all to pass and to preserve the life of a great people.” “God and His people become the main concern” (19). Joseph is important, but is a secondary concern. It is about God, “the Alpha and Omega,” the center of every story.

“The typical sin of the child is putting himself first.” He or she, like adults, have room for God “as long as” he or she is first.” This is a sinful inclination. Telling the Bible stories theocentrically rescues the child from “egoism.”

And these are the "foci and loci of the stories" as told in these stunningly simple, well-oriented, theocentric, covenantal, and redemptive principles.

Lord willing, more as this hermeneutical shift is reformed, enlightened, and transformed.

Job 1.1 and Invocation of Saints in Prayers

Job 1.1

1:1 ανθρωπος τις ην εν χωρα τη αυσιτιδι ω ονομα ιωβ και ην ο ανθρωπος εκεινος αληθινος αμεμπτος δικαιος θεοσεβης απεχομενος απο παντος πονηρου πραγματος

א אִישׁ הָיָה בְאֶרֶץ עוּץ, אִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹ; וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא, תָּם וְיָשָׁר וִירֵא אֱלֹהִים--וְסָר מֵרָע....

1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.

Invoke Mary as an intercessor? As a mediatrix? Or, call on other saints during prayers? And say nothing to others about it? Or fail to confess the sole mediation of Christ alone? Or, fail to confess justification by faith alone? Deny Paul in Romans on total depravity? Deny definite atonement?

At what point did Mr. Job ever invoke a departed saint?

As Misters Duncan (ACNA) Iker (ACNA), Ackerman (ACNA), Sutton (REC), Riches (REC), Morse (REC), Grote (REC), Hewitt (Diocese of the Holy Cross), Haverland (Anglican Catholic Church), Virtue (Virtueonline), Grunsdorf (APA), Mashburn (Franciscan ACNA), and all SSC-men from Nashotah House tolerate and advocate?

I like the Septuagint's brief and dynamic expansion on the Hebrew. It is a brief enlargement that gets at the sense of the Hebrew verb, "shun, hate, abhor:" απεχομενος απο παντος πονηρου πραγματος, a slight amplification on וְסָר מֵרָע

That is, Job “kept himself from all-things-evil” or “he kept himself from every evil matter.” Job "withdrew" from all-things-evil. The English is succinct like the Hebrew. The sense is evident in all three versions.

The English is Job “shunned evil.”

There ARE THINGS TO SHUN. Soothsaying, necromancy, and speaking to the departed above is one such thing “to shun.” Without repentance (and don't hold your breath), that "shunning" necessarily involves not just ideas, but people.

 

This does not mean we do not talk with them; it does not mean we refuse to read their literature; it does not mean intellectual retreat; it does not mean refusal of Samaritan charity, love and kindness; it does not entail harshness or contempt. Love is not compromised;  Jesus has given us His sovereign orders.

 

However, it does mean that leaders get no place at the theological table; it means their "credentials" get pulled without repentance and without works befitting repentance; without repentance, it means they do not minister in the pulpit, at the baptismal font or at the Table of our Lord.  It means discipline of doctrine. 

It means courage, honor, integrity, and confidence; without discipline we see cowardice, dishonor, failure of integrity, and wimpery.

The ACNA pays a very high price for allowing these things;  they can fool the simple, but not those who read.

Job "shunned" evil or "kept himself back from all sorts of evil."  May it be so, especially for those who sport titles or  hold positions of leadership. 

Thank you.  We shall see Mr. Job one day.  He's given excellent "guidance and leadership by example."  LBE = "leadership by example," an old Marine concept.

Invoking Mary in Prayers (Not Anglican, Reformed or Lutheran)

We bring two selections.  First, we post the devotional from EWTN, a Roman site, advocating for Marian invocations.  Ango-Catholics (alleged and so-called Anglicans) practice this.  Second, we post a response by a favourite blogger of our's.  It follows the Romanist post.

First,

http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/perpet3.htm

O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O Purest Mary, O Sweetest Mary, let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee, for, in all my needs, in all my temptations I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy sacred name, Mary, Mary.

---

O what consolation, what sweetness, what confidence, what emotion fill my soul when I pronounce thy sacred name, or even only think of thee. I thank God for having given thee, for my good, so sweet, so powerful, so lovely a name. But I will not be content with merely pronouncing thy name: let my love for thee prompt me ever to hail thee, Mother of Perpetual Help.

-----------------------------

The second post, opposing Romanist dogma and saint-invocation, is by Turretin fan is at: 
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-pray-to-anyone-else.html

God declares:

Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Mary declares:

Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

The angel declares:

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And remember what Jesus himself taught us about how to pray:

Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, ...

So, my dear friends, why entreat Mary to save you?

Why utter this kind of prayer? "O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying."

Why refer to her by the title, "Salvation of the Roman People" as did John Paul II?

Turn from this idolatry and serve God alone.

As Jesus rebuked Satan:

Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Your service to Mary is an offense to God. What better time to turn from Mary to Her Son than when men around the world are remembering Jesus birth?

-TurretinFan

The Reformers and Mary

Another excellent blogspot.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/11/historical-popularity-of-roman-catholic.html
The Historical Popularity Of The Roman Catholic View Of Mary

The issue of the popularity of the Roman Catholic view of Mary came up in another thread.

There was widespread opposition to the Catholic view of Mary in early post-apostolic church history. The Catholic view of her, in its entirety, isn't found in any extant document of the earliest centuries, despite agreement with some aspects of the Catholic view among some sources. I have several articles on early Christian views of Mary here. We've discussed the mother of God issue in the comments section of the thread here.

Concerning the Protestant reformers, it's true that some of the early Protestants, such as Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, held a much higher view of Mary than most Protestants do today. But the extent and significance of that early Protestant agreement with the Roman Catholic view of Mary is often misrepresented.The Catholic Marian scholar Michael O'Carroll notes that Martin Luther was "not wholly consistent" in his beliefs about Mary (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 227).

O'Carroll writes that Luther "underwent a certain development in his ideas, and we must not forget that, up to his middle thirties, he had accepted - though with some questioning - traditional Catholic ideas and practice in this area" (p. 227). Though Luther was "emphatic on the divine motherhood" and "true to Catholic tradition on the virginity" (p. 227), for example, he also "talked of the danger of making Mary into an idol, even a 'goddess.' The 'papists' have done so....Of the feast of the Assumption, he had said: 'The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry, and without foundation in the Scriptures.' He even said that he would keep the Visitation to 'remind us that the [Papists] taught us apostasy.' The Salve Regina, Europe's most powerful Marian hymn, he dismissed. It said too much." (p. 228)

However, O'Carroll gives examples of other comments Luther made that were more positive toward Roman Catholic Marian beliefs, sometimes in a seemingly inconsistent manner.O'Carroll says much the same about Ulrich Zwingli (p. 378). Like Luther, he seems to have accepted most of the view of Mary that was popular in his day, and he seems to have been inconsistent. Despite some positive comments about popular Roman Catholic Marian belief, Zwingli also "was against all invocation of Mary. He denied, on the Reformation principle of sola gracia, all merit on Mary's part and any power of mediation or intercession on our behalf. He waged war on all images." (p. 378)

O'Carroll describes John Calvin's view as much closer to that of modern Protestants. Calvin condemns the "gross and abominable superstitions" in the Roman Catholic view of Mary (p. 94). He comments that "their insane raving went so far that they just about stripped Christ and adorned her with the spoils" (p. 94). Calvin wrote, "It is they who do Mary a cruel injury when they snatch from God what belongs to him, that they may deform her with false praise." (p. 94)

He criticizes Marian relics, and he "held that Mary was the Mother of God...Yet he scarcely used the title Mother of God and, in a letter to the Calvinist community of London, he discouraged its use. 'To speak of the Mother of God instead of the Virgin Mary can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstition.'" (p. 94)

Calvin "rejects totally the Immaculate Conception (qv) as he does the Assumption (qv). He thought that the latter feast had one advantage - Catholics thinking that Mary had been assumed bodily could not worship her relics....Invocation of Mary he forbids....He brands all invocation of the Virgin execrable blasphemy. He attacks, too, holy images of any kind, therefore of Our Lady, calling them idols" (pp. 94-95). Calvin believed that "Mary will take her revenge, on the last day, on those of whom she is the 'mortal enemy', the Papists" (p. 94).

2 comment(s):
Dominic Bnonn Tennant said:
'To speak of the Mother of God instead of the Virgin Mary can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstition.'

I'm glad to see I'm in good company.

11/05/2009 5:45 PM
Viisaus said:

A Victorian-era high-church Anglican writer Richard Littledale provides us an interesting "argument for silence" - in the pre-Nicene era, writers gave Mary no more attention than was given to her in the Scriptures:

http://www.archive.org/details/plainreasonsaga00littgoogPlain Reasons Against Joining The Church of Rome, pp. 68-69

"1. In the ante-Nicene period, the following extant writers never so much as name St. Mary at all; St. Barnabas, St. Hermas, St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, St. Hippolytus, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus,^ St. Firmilian, St. Dionysius, Arnobius, and St. Methodius.^

2. St. Justin Martyr mentions her twice in connexion with the Nativity, and once with the flight into Egypt. St. Clement of Alexandria once touches on her virgin childbearing. Tertullian mentions her four times, once in connexion with the Nativity, once merely to defend the occasional interchangeableness of the words "woman" and "Virgin" by showing that both are applied to her (" De Veland. Virg." vi.), but twice actually to charge her with lack of belief and with seeking to call Christ away from His work (De Carne Christi, vii. ; Adv. Marc. iv. 19), thereby arousing His indignation. Origen, very similarly, names the Blessed Virgin but casually a couple of times, and in the one place where he goes more into detail, he explains the sword of Simeon's prophecy to be unbelieving doubt, whereby she was offended at the Passion. "Through thine own soul .... shall the sword of unbelief pierce; and thou shalt be struck with the sharp point of doubt" ("Hom. in Lucam," xvil) St Archelaus defends the Virgin-birth against Manes, and incidentally touches on the message to our Lord regarding His Mother and brethren. St Cyprian casually names her once as Mother of Christ (Epist Ixxii., aL Ixxiii). There remain only two passages from which any conclusion can be drawn; The first of these is in St Irenaeus, where he says that St. Mary's obedience counterbalances Eve's disobedience, so that she has become the "advocate" of Eve. ("Adv. Haer." V. xix.) We have only the barbarous Latin translation here, and cannot tell exactly what the Saint wrote or intended,^ but we have his mind plainly enough expressed in another place, where he speaks of Christ having "checked the inseasonable haste of His Mother at Cana." ("Adv. Haer." III. xvi.) The other is in a fragment of St Peter of Alexandria, where he styles St. Mary "glorious Lady, and ever-Virgin." Clearly, nothing in these scanty details supplies the justification sought for."