Absolutely essential to all that was gained at the Reformation, in fact, central to it, is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Whatever else this concept implies, it means this: the Bible is “the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the church.” Many say they believe that. It is in their doctrinal standards, after all.

There can be no doubt that over the last 25 years there has been a general and widespread resurgence of the doctrines that were key to the Reformation. This is a good thing. When I first became a pastor in the late 1980’s, being called a “Calvinist” was not meant as a compliment—and the expected response was one of apology.

This is not the case anymore. Those liberal denominations, at least here in Canada, still declining, but not yet dead, have now almost completely vanished. The ones that remain are so far left now that they hardly know what a Calvinist is. The floor seems to be open for Calvinism to sing, undeterred.

But this is not the case. In reality, the Serpent having mostly finished his task with them, now has more time for us (he is not omnipotent like God is, he only has so much energy. And since sin is the root of laziness, the effort to “work” on the Church is against his and his minion’s nature). And so, the pressure is on.

Absolutely essential to all that was gained at the Reformation, in fact, central to it, is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Whatever else this concept implies, it means this; The Bible is “the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the church.” Many say they believe that. It is in their doctrinal standards, after all.

Yet, from the e-mails I have been receiving from our denominational offices lately (to make Hot Cross Buns for Lent, for example), I am doubtful. I suspect that we would all benefit from introspection in this area. After all, “The proof” they say, “is not in the recipe, but in the pudding”. Meaning, one can say and print that they have a great pudding recipe all they like, but until one tastes the results, skepticism is warranted. The claim of adherence to Sola Scriptura must meet the taste-test, too.

Lent Is A Test

One of the ways to test whether someone believes in Sola Scriptura or not is in examining how they feel about Lent. One may have a Sola Scriptura poster from Ligonier on the wall in the study (a great idea), and yet not actually live by the rule of it, as Calvin did. Consider his view of the ancient observance of Lent.

Again, and again, Calvin holds the practice of Lent up as Exhibit #1 of Rome’s utter denial of the Authority of Scripture. The reason is that there is absolutely no support for it in God’s Word. In fact, there is as powerful a condemnation of it as one could imagine (as we will show below). Sola Scriptura was reason enough for Calvin to reject Lent. He called it “superstition.”

But for us, it has taken on a new aspect; a test of our faithfulness to this Reformation principle.

The observance of Lent is indirectly but firmly a denial of the heart of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confessions. Let me explain by giving just two examples of myths that are always piggy-backed to the observance of Lent.

First Myth; it is an Early Church practice

On the rca.org website there are articles propping up the practice of Lent within the RCA. The one by John Paarlberg of First Church Albany has as its title, Lent Worship Practices Inspired by the Early Church. With a title like this he obviously must try to explain that the early church practiced Lent, complete, (he says) with the Imposition of Ashes, Stripping the Sanctuary, and finally, Solemn Reproaches of the Cross, which he explains “is an ancient text of western Christendom associated with Good Friday.”

In writing this John has utterly disassociated himself with all of the Reformers, all Reformation doctrinal statements, and with the millions of martyrs (killed and maimed) who passed on to us the Reformed Faith and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

How? Because Lent was not practiced by the Early church. If it was, Scripture would have told us about it. This is Calvin’s point, and he is correct. Irenaeus writing about the year 190 said, “some think they ought to fast for one day, others for two days, and others even for several, while others reckon forty hours both of day and night to their fast”.  Therefore, in this statement, concludes one author, “Apparently he knew nothing about any Lent or pre-Easter fast of forty days, else he would have mentioned it.” (Facts, Myths & Maybes (Everything you think you know about Catholicism but perhaps don’t) p. 235.)

Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, in the fifth century wrote that Lent had no place in the Early Church; “It ought to be known that the observance of the forty days had no existence, so long as the perfection of the primitive Church remained inviolate”. Calvin would have agreed with Cassianus, for he wrote in his section on Lent, “We must always take especial precaution lest any superstition creep in, as has previously happened to the great harm of the church” (Inst.IV.XII.19). When Calvin says it “crept in” he means that it was not a part of the Early Church, agreeing with Irenaeus and Cassianus. This is why our doctrinal statements say nothing of it; because even a child in a Reformed Church knows that “the Bible alone” are among the first words they are taught, let alone Zacharius Ursinus.

Second Myth; Rome a “true church”

The second way Paarlberg, likely inadvertently, has denied all that has come to us via the Reformation is in what is implied by his title: that Lent was once upon a time practiced by “the Church”. Lent, he says, is a Church practice that was lost. But he is dreadfully wrong. The fact of the matter is that Lent does not have its origins in a true Church. Why? Because the true Church always practices Sola Scriptura; it has always believed that the Bible is “the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the church” (note the emphasis).

Guido de Bres in the Belgic Confession, his body wasting away in prison for his faith, refused to budge: “We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church—for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of “the church.” He goes on to say that, the True Church, “governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it, and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head”. While a false church, “assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ” (Art.29). He and thousands of others preferred martyrdom rather than deny the above.

The title Paarlberg uses assumes what too many wrongly assume today; that Romanism (the Preserver and Promoter of Lent—and the enemy of Sola Scriptura) at the time of the Reformation, or at anytime after Gregory the Great (600 AD), is a True Church. Which of the Reformers would have agreed with Paarlberg? None. Luther, Calvin, Farel, Knox, Bucer, Owen, Whitfield, Edwards, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, literally all of them must be dismissed as not understanding Scripture if we are to agree with Paarlberg’s title.

It seems not to have occurred to Paarlberg to asked if his assumption about the true and false church is in agreement with: the founders of his very own denomination, with its doctrinal statements (which are clear in their assessment of the identity of Romanism), and with the millions of martyrs who died at the hands of Rome’s priests for their faithfulness to the Scriptures alone. For if he had, he would never suggest that Lent was practiced by the Early Church or was ever practiced by any group to whom the title “Church” rightly belonged.

The true Church always practices Sola Scriptura.

Its Origin

Glenn Packiam, pastor of New Life Downtown in Colorado Springs in endorsing Lent and all its trappings, commits the above errors too (an inescapable one if one accepts Lent) but has at least one thing right: the practice of Lent goes back thousands of years. Packiam wrote, “But [Lent] is a beautiful way to join with the Church—for the past 1200 years—and with the people of God—for thousands of years before that!”

For we who live after Archeology has uncovered the religious histories of long-gone empires there is even more reason to reject Lent than Calvin was aware of.

The fact is that the Spring fasting and mourning of 40 days and its connection to the Spring Solstice (21 March) is very ancient, yes, “going back thousands of years.”

Extensive work has been done to uncover the history of the three ancient festivals leading up to the recognition of the Spring Equinox. It is clear now that its roots are in the mythological death and resurrection of Tammuz, the son of Nimrud (by his mother) of the Tower of Babel days. Apparently, Tammuz was killed by a wild boar he was hunting which resulted in the spring-time observance of “weeping and rejoicing” for him, especially by women (apparently, he was a good poet).  People seem to have taken the practice with them after the scattering God caused by confusing the languages. While there are variations, it was observed all over the world (even in ancient Britain, Mexico, China and Japan). Local customs eventually developed but the core elements remained world-wide.

First, there was the celebration of the flesh at Carnival or Mardi Gras, second, a period of fasting/mourning (the women making “bouns”= buns or cakes), all culminating on the Spring Equinox when Tammuz is said to rise again. The third took place the morning after, and was rooted in the celebration of the sun god of paganism, and his mother, The Queen of Heaven (all this and much more is laid out in detail in Alexander Hislop’s book, The Two Babylons Chapter III Section II). (https://seedofabraham.net/The%20Full%20Hislop-2012-04-14.pdf )

Hislop goes into fascinating detail so I will not repeat his evidence and explanations. I do, though, urge all Christian Pastors and Elders to read it. It is enlightening to see how many of the practices morphed. There are a number of helpful YouTube videos as well.

Israel Seduced

Most revealing is the part it played in the first Fall of Jerusalem, and what Jeremiah and Ezekiel said about it. This ancient observance is the most mentioned of the religious influences to have stolen the hearts of the children, women and men of Israel (Jer.7:18). It is the one—three-part ritual—the prophets noted the people would not give up.

God points this out to Ezekiel in 8:14-16: The false worship God hated involved both aspects of this ancient observance; “I saw the women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz…” and “between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east”.

What these men were doing is the very ancient and widespread observance of the “death and resurrection” of the sun-god. This bowing to the sun was what followed the 40 day fast, which is what the women were doing; “Mourning for Tammuz”. Virtually all the nations practiced this mourning and the sun-worship after it by bowing down.

Even after the nation of Israel was utterly destroyed and the people fled to Egypt with Jeremiah in tow, they still would not quit the practice, especially the women.

The women added, “When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?” (Jer.44:15-25).

All nations practiced this, except Israel—when it practiced Sola Scriptura. Scripture was clear. God gave Israel festivals, but mourning for Tammuz and recognizing his “resurrection” at the Spring Solstice was not, no matter which county’s version of it was considered.

Repackaging to perpetuate

Rather than perishing with their respective empires, the practice simply kept morphing itself; the Queen of Heaven, became Beltis, or Astarte, in Assyria and Britain, who called the month of April, “Easter-monath” in her honor. The Ninevites pronounced her name; Ishtar. She is considered to be the consort of Baal. Among the Germanic-speaking peoples (called the barbarians), it was pronounced Easter, the virgin-goddess of the Spring Equinox.

The emerging city of Rome had managed to syncretize them into its religious calendar via, among others, the Babylonians, Egyptians and the Greeks. The early church was well aware of this observance in the Roman world around them, for it was ubiquitous. Yet, as we have already noted, nowhere is there evidence that the Early Church participated in this practice. On the contrary, they held it up to scorn.

In 339, just after Constantine declared Rome “Christian” (while in 321 adopting the Babylonian names for the days of the week) Athanasius, having taken a trip to Rome, notes that only the Egyptian Christians seem not to “mourn” during this time, and feels the pressure to conform. The syncretism Ezekiel was shown in the Temple worship was now creeping into the Church’s worship!

Highly suspicious, it is, that Carnival, Lent and Easter, Romanism recognizes as not coinciding with Passover (Deut.16), but instead with the Spring Solstice of the sun; “Easter falls on the first Sunday after the Full Moon date, based on mathematical calculations, that falls on or after March 21. If the Full Moon is on a Sunday, Easter is celebrated on the following Sunday.” March 21 is the Spring solar solstice; Easter is adjusted by Romanism to fall on a Sun-day! (In Germanic mythology the sun is personified as a goddess variously named Sunna or Sól = Sun in Old Norse, along with the Germanic goddess Ostara). In honor of the Norse god Oden, or Woden, ashes were placed on one’s forehead before the 40-day fast, which always began on Wednesday, the day Rome named in his honor in line with Babylon’s gods. I could go on, but if you realize that all this goes back to ancient Babylon, you will have the basic picture.

The Old Germanic peoples, especially the Anglo-Saxons, knew well of this connection, and after coming to faith in Christ, were determined to break with their past paganism; recognizing the Resurrection according to Passover. At the end of the 6^th century Christians in Britain still held the commemoration of the Resurrection on Pasch (Passover). It took years of bloodshed before Rome succeeding in enforcing the ancient Easter date on the whole island.

My concern

I have participated in “Sunrise services” on Easter over my 30 years as a pastor. I had no idea that these things had a very long history, going back to the Tower of Babel. Had I stuck to Sola Scriptura I would not have been so easily taken in by syncretism’s allure. I aped Israel in Ezekiel’s day,

To this day they have not humbled themselves or shown reverence, nor have they followed my law and the decrees I set before you and your fathers” (44:10). (Note the chapter)

Therefore, it is true, the proof really is not in the recipe, but in the pudding. A Sola Scriptura poster is just a recipe but is no proof of actual adherence. Actual proof is an elder, a pastor, who, come what may, believes that, the Bible is “the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the church.” Actual adherence looks like the men I mentioned above, Luther, Calvin and recently, Lloyd-Jones.

In 1962, Martyn Lloyd-Jones preached from John 1:

Lent, of course, is a relic of Roman Catholicism. One can easily understand it in such an organization – it gives power to the priest, and so on – but there is, I repeat, no evidence whatsoever in favour of it in the New Testament, and it simply leads to this show of wisdom and human will power. It is people adding their works to the grace of God, and this is essentially Roman Catholic teaching. Well, my friends, let us get rid of this, let us not waste our time with it. We are to be led by the Spirit always.

It was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that kept Lloyd-Jones and our founders safe from paganism. It’s lack was the handcuffs of the Dark Ages. From Adam in his silence (Gen.3:1-6) to today, Sola Scriptura is chief to faithfulness, especially now in these moments before the Lord surely returns.

After my wife read this article, she encouraged me to add this: The explanation that we have “Christianized” these pagan practices, and therefore observe them legitimately, is not valid. Where does the Lord encourage us to do this in Scripture? We are having lamb for supper tonight, with a lovely bottle of Cabernet Franc. It would only take one drop of motor oil to ruin that bottle of wine. So, our Lord warns us to “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.” Paul helps us understand; “Don’t you know that a little yeast works its way through the whole batch?” The motor oil of Lent will ruin all the wine of the Lord’s Supper.

Charles d’Espeville is a Minister in the Reformed Church in America.