An Excursus on the Bayly Bros

I am still composing the next chapter review. Frame is getting into serious reviewing now, so it take a little longer. But, I read something on a blog that was sort of related and kind of upsetting at the same time. So might as well blog about it.

The Bayly Bros blog is a Transformationalist blog. They have a post comparing Ron Paul and R2K Theology in a rather disparaging way. It is this sort of thing that is rather hard to understand. Why the venom? Why the vitriol? And where is the proof?

The point of their post is that R2K people are sissy-boys just like Ron Paul. Ron Paul won't condemn homosexual marriage with federal legislation, so according to the Bayly Bros he is running from a fight. Same thing about abortion. I can understand that these are issues that the Bayly Bros want to fight about. And they want that fight on a federal nation wide level. Fine. I can respect that. But does that mean Paul and his libertarian friends (describe by them as silly girls) really not want any fights? Or does it simply mean that Paul is fighting his fight, a fight to make the federal government less important. It is simply just not the same fight the Bayly's want to have. I am sure Paul feels just as strongly about his fight. It is matter of what is important. And the groups disagree, but I think that hardly makes one a fighter and one a sissy. Is Ron Paul probably unrealistic about the government today? Absolutely. Is he fighting a fight he will not win? Yes. Is he wrong? That is a separate issue. After all the success rate on Gay Marriage and Abortion is much better on the state level. Maybe if the Bayly's really wanted to win they would aid Paul, and then they would win some battles. Maybe.

The blog almost makes the R2K point for them. Here is the Transformationalists Bayly Bros calling everyone else names. If you don't fall into lock step with them, then you are a coward who doesn't want to stand up for Jesus by fighting abortion and gay marriage. Because we all know that Jesus would much rather support the Marriage amendment to the Constitution than argue governments should not have anything to do with marriages at all. The Bayly Bros at least give the impression that Christianity is defined by a political position. Manly Christianity is not possible without politics. Just preaching from the pulpit not enough anymore. The ballot box as a means of grace. The Kingdom of God advanced through Christians in the White House, except that the Bayly Bros just called the only remaining Christian, confessionally speaking, a sissy and not deserving of their votes. Details, details.

The other thing that really bothers me is that the Baylys will call R2K men feminized Christianity and then give a hat tip to Doug Wilson. Really? Those guys writing about justification by faith are bad, but the guy teaching justification by works is a good guy. Come on!

I may end up agreeing with Transformationalism, but I can promise you it won't look like the Bayly's view of Transformationalism.

Escondido Theology Chapter 2

The meat of Frame's critique starts with a look at Michael Horton's Christless Christianity. Horton has a response out, but Horton is reviewed three different times.

Frame immediately takes umbrage with the title. Frame sees the Christless as part of the absolutizing tendency he finds so bad at Escondido. This is all in spite of the fact that Horton immediately states that the title is an overstatement and it is more of a direction rather than a current condition in the evangelical church. Frame notes the clarification, but it does little to lessen the criticism.

Frame takes a few things in Horton's book differently than I did. Horton not wanting to "translate" the gospel is something that Frame finds repugnant. I took this to mean that Horton was against trying to be hip and trendyin how we deal with Scripture and our attempts to make the gospel pleasing by hiding the bitter and unpleasant truths, not as a refusal to apply it or make it understandable or even in modern languages. Perhaps here Frame has legitimate gripe about Horton not being clear enough in defining terms, but as Horton points out in the response, Frame makes a large complaint out of something that Horton does not really believe.

I think a lot of the differences between Frame and Horton can best be illustrated with Joel Osteen, who is a frequent target in Horton's book. Ask yourself, do you believe that Osteen and his teachings are beyond the pale of Chrsitianity? Are they Christless? Frame's answer in this book is a clear no, Osteen is within the pale of Christianity. Horton's is a pretty emphatic yes, Osteen is beyond the pale (or at least trending that way fast). I agree with Horton on this one. And so does the Library of Congress for the record since they place Osteen's book in the Self Help section not the Christianity section. But let me illustrate further with some of Frame's discussion.

On Pg. 45 Frame quotes Horton claiming Osteen is "law-lite" and an "upbeat moralism" with "no justification". Frame likens this emphasis of Horton on using the Law to condemn with the Lutheran controversy about whether or not the law should ever be preached to believers. He accuses Horton of not using the Third use of the law for believers and a lack of teaching on sanctification. But more than that Frame defends Osteen even further stating that Scripture does tell us how to be happy in this world referencing the blessings promised and particularly Josh 1:8. Not directly stated, but implied is that Osteen's preaching One's Best Life Now is therefore a biblical concept and not outside the pale of Christianity. Perhaps even something Frame thinks Horton could learn a little from it.

This ties into Frame's major problem with Horton (in my opinion) and it comes from this statement made in Horton's Christless Christianity:
The central message of Christianity is not a worldview, a way of life, or a program for personal and societal change , it is a gospel (pg.105).
This is Horton's main point. Preaching then should primarily be the announcement of Christ and the retelling of His gospel. After all it is the central message. Horton does not deny Scripture speaks on finances and marriage and other things, but it is not the main point. This accounts for Horton's view of Two Kingdoms, worship, and preaching all of which Frame critiques in this chapter. Frame rather responds:
"the Bible presents a a worldview that is utterly unique among all the religions and philosophies of the world . . . And if the gospel is to be presented to them [unbelievers] clearly, they must understand that it presupposes a way of thinking about the world that is unique in the history of thought. (pg. 51).
Thus, the debate. Is the worldview contained in the Bible central to being able to understand the gospel and present it rightly? And is that worldview a complete and all encompassing worldview? Frame unashamedly asserts that the gospel then is a program of personal and societal change (same page). I wish Frame had spent all of the chapter discussing this one central point. Upon it all seems to hinge. Rather, he goes for the laundry list approach. This discussion was far too short.

Frame's great weakness in this chapter is related to what I described about the title. Frame constantly points out Horton backing off of generalizations. Frame wants to argue that all the difference is a matter of emphasis, and it is hard to condemn an emphasis. Frame says Horton is too much on justification, although Horton speaks on sanctification, which is read as Horton backing off and only an emphasis. Horton speaks of the centrality of the gospel, but admits Scripture teaches about finances, thus, it is just a difference of emphasis. It seems a little to me like Frame fails to grasp two things in relation to this. One, is that this is popular writing. Horton is not trying to enumerate every possible exception or be scholastic in his treatment of stuff. Some leeway must be given in this type of writing. Two, a persons emphasis can be unhealthy and easily lead to heresy. In fact, a case can be made that Christlessness does indeed begin with a misplaced emphasis in many cases. Emphasis on "do this and do that" can indeed be interpreted by many as works righteousness, and indeed might be. Emphasis on "do this for earthly blessings" can similarly be understood as self centered and works righteousness. It may be a matter of emphasis, but unhealthy emphases can be rightly condemned.

Oddly enough Andrew Sandlin breaks into the book here with an addendum. It is rather jarring, and frankly of little use. Sandlin restates what we just read and by so doing gives the impression Frame was too wordy and needs him to organize it. He quotes some OT examples in favor of Frame, and that is about it. Not needed. Any time you have quotations from your own book only a few pages from the actual occurrence of the quote, something has gone wrong.

Overall, I found Frame helpful in setting the question as whether or not the worldview of the Bible has to be presupposed to understand the gospel, but I wished the question discussed at greater length. I also tend to agree with Horton about the state of modern evangelicism and in that emphasis can be condemned as leading down a Christless path.

Escondido Theology Chapter 1

The opening chapter is entitled The Escondido Theology, which one would expect. Frame is going to lay out the theology of those whom he will be criticizing and then showing us where he thinks it goes wrong in the rest of the chapters. Well, not exactly. Frame does make it a full three paragraphs before slipping into all out attack mode. And the book suffers quite a bit from this sort of thing. One gets the distinct impression that Frame is building a straw man and then burning him to the ground. Without stating his opponents views positively first, the reader has little familiarity to understand the level of antagonism shown in this opening (and following) chapter. Establishing that he understands it, can state it in its best light, and interact fairly with it would have gone a long way to making the chapter more convincing. But we must push past this methodology and search for substance in spite of the tone.

It is about the 4th paragraph where Frame calls the Escondido bunch Lutherans for their law/gospel emphasis. In fact, it appears a lot of what Frame wishes to decry is what I think he would characterize as a Lutheranizing of the Reformed Tradition, and then the absolutizing of that tendency. Frame points out the Law/Gospel emphasis and the Two kingdoms theology as two Lutheran aspects that are prominent in Escondido. This leads to a few more of his criticisms: the Rule and Blessings over all of life (or lack thereof) and church centered piety. To this is added what Frame believes to be a reading out of all other views as non-reformed. He cites a few examples, but a later chapter deals in great detail about that subject. But it is clear that Frame believes that the Escondido theologians have tried to make their view of the Reformation the only acceptable view of the reformation. This not only reads Frame out of the Reformed camp, but goes against a lot of what Frame stands for in theological investigation.

Interestingly enough Frame provides support to my thesis that a lot of the difference in Transformationalism and Two Kingdoms has to do with one's view of End Times. Frame critics the Escondido Theology as "amillennialism on steroids". In this I tend to agree with Frame, but I think I would put it more as Consistent Amillennialism. The question then becomes whether or not Amillennialism is biblical. But then again, why cannot these two both exist as confessional? No reformed confession I know of forces one to take a stand on Millennialism. But Frame focuses that section instead on the preference of a lot of Escondido authors to prefer the "pilgrim" language of the Bible. This section is a bit unfair and seems unnecessary if you are not going go into depth about the End Times. Frame probably should have left it out.

At one point Frame also tracks the Westminster Philadelphia thought and where it splits off into Escondido Thought. This is probably the most helpful section of first chapter. He links the Escondido thought to Merideth Kline. He points out the influence Kline had over the others, cites some disagreements from Frame's time as professor, and how the new hires filled out the roster of WSC as univocal in favor of Kline's arguments. On the other hand he speaks of WTS as descending from Abraham Kuyper through Cornelius Van Til. With the influence of Van TIl, he then goes to the next generation. This is where Frame makes me a bit nervous. He cites positively the development of Theonomy and R.J.Rushdooney and then onto Greg Bashen. In a later chapter Frame adds Norman Shepherd to that list all in a positive light. Kline apparently opposed all those developments. So do I, although that does not mean I agree with Kline, but does give us insight in the reviewer. It also brings to mind the statements Van Drunen makes in Living In God's Two Kingdoms where he comments twice that if you have a Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith, you will prefer the Two Kingdoms theology. Frame seems to accidentally support that thesis in linking WTS to Shepherd and Theonomy.

In the end, it is a little unfair to pick at Frame in the first chapter. Almost everything he sets out here will be brought up again and dealt with in more detail. So the lack of detail and the broad generalizations made in this chapter are going to be fleshed out in later chapters. This is the hook, and Frame means for us to follow him down into the war zone. So down we must go.

John Frame's The Escondido Theology - part 1

Okay, so my curiosity got the better of me, and I purchased The Escondido Theology by John Frame. Since I am sort of publicly working through the 2 Kingdoms idea and trying to figure out why 2 Kingdoms and Transformationalists seem to hate each other so much, I might as well review Frame's book as I go.

The book as a whole is set up as reviews of several books by men from Westminster Seminary California. All professors except one which is a review of former student, now blogger, Jason Stellman. You may have noticed reviews of Frame's book popping up such as this official rejection by WSC and this unofficial one by D.G. Hart Expect more. It is that kind of book.

To show how serious this fight is this book has an introduction by George Grant, a foreword by Gary DeMar, a "review" (second foreword by Andrew Sandlin, a publisher's preface and an author's preface. This book in short is a declaration of war. Frame's tone is usually rather hostile, as is Sandlin's who adds an addendum in a chapter as well as the foreword. Grant stays more positive, but this book hits hard against the Two Kingdom view. It is quite clear that Frame and the others he gathers around him do not view Two Kingdoms as something confessionally allowable as I do, and clearly not something that is Reformed or even Biblical. It is nothing more than failing to apply the Bible to life, and a stubborn refusal to develop a biblical worldview against the Bible's own pleas.

You are going to want to read this book (or at least my review) because Frame comes out swinging. While I don't always agree with Frame's criticism, it is sort of like a car wreck. You just cannot look away because you want to see what happens next. And sometimes Frame puts his finger on some very good questions and points.

Next time chapter 1!

Princeton - 200 years later

In case anyone missed it, Princeton Seminary was founded in 1812 - or 200 years ago. Expect a lot of stuff coming up all year about Princeton. And there are lots of things to praise about Princeton. A century of excellence and a legacy of fighting the good fight for orthodoxy. If you want to join in on some celebrating and learning, check out Greenville Theological Seminary's Conference dedicated to Princeton. Blogs are in on the action as well. Expect more remembrances all year long. Even the Young Restless and Reformed Gang at the Gospel Coalition is in on it all year. And so you should expect more rebuttals about that too.

But the question remains, did Princeton get it right? Is it the model we should be following? I expect to get yelled at, but let me venture the answer. No. They didn't. Everyone always points out that no seminary was orthodox longer than Princeton. Most are lucky to make it 50 years, much less 100. And its direct descendant Westminster has made it quite some time as well (with less success). But the fact remains. Princeton went bad. In fact most seminaries go bad. That is just a fact that cannot really be denied. Whether they are church supported like Calvin Seminary or more independent like Knox. They go bad.

Let me just remind everyone that Andover Theological Seminary and Princeton Seminary are two of the first in the nation. Before that people learned in the homes of pastors. Or they stayed extra at Yale or a place like that reading theology before going to take an exam. Princeton was a fundamental shift in how theological education was done. It became modeled after school. Education was done by the professional scholar not the everyday pastor. This is, I believe, Princeton's fundamental flaw. Every seminary today is based on this model mostly because of Princeton (in the Reformed World at least).

Princeton turned out great scholars, and they battled liberalism in print more than anyone else. The Princeton Review was influential and the world renown of the scholars is nothing to sneeze at. But did they win the battle in the pews? Hard to say, but maybe not. Take a look at their most famous students.
Charles Hodge - never pastored a church but went on to a great career training pastors.
Joseph Addison Alexander - never pastored a church, but taught at Princeton.
B.B. Warfield - was a stated supply at a couple of place, but spent the majority of his life as a professor.
Geerhardus Vos - never pastored a church but was the founder of modern Biblical theology at Princeton.
Casper Wistar Hodge Jr. - never pastored a church and was ordained after he became a professor at Princeton.
J. Gresham Machen - never pastored a church, but did serve in the Great War for which he was ordained. Professor most of his life.
Robert Dick Wilson - never pastored and was a professor that went to Westminster
O.T. Allis - never pastored a church, and was a professor that went to Westminster.

Now many professors did pastor. AA Hodge pastored, as did J.A. Alexander, and his brother J.W. Alexander (who actually quit being a professor to go back to pastoring). But with all of these great professors who did not ever serve in the pulpit, one has to wonder how good were they at applying their truths to the daily ministry? Lest you think I am making this up here is a quote from David Calhoun's wonderful history of Princeton:
"Practical theology was Princeton's weakest area. It was difficult to find the scholar-pastor-preacher combination to fill the need, and there was apparently some reluctance on the part of the faculty to develop this department fully, fearing that it would detract from the more academic work." Vol. 2 pg. 216
The students actually complained in 1909, but the faculty viewed that as a just plain lack of intellectual prowess in the students. However, I think that the end shows that perhaps the faculty misunderstood the fundamental nature of preaching and pastoral work.

Now a student studying with a pastor would not get the access to so many brilliant minds in one place. But he does get a heavy does of pastoral reality, a good handle on the practical nature of theology, preaching, and church shepherding. The question becomes is it better for the church as a whole if many get a rigorous academic training for the ministry to become scholar-pastors, or if an entire army is equipped to be preaching-pastors. I at least think the answer to that is up in the air, and that as we celebrate Princeton we be willing to throw out their model altogether.

A new book on Two Kingdoms

I just found a new book that might give me some insight for those Transformationalists against the Two Kingdoms. As much as I hate giving money to John Frame, I am going to have to get this
book.

Can you be a Reformed Baptist?

I will get back to the review of Culture Making soon enough. However, this has been on my mind a little bit, and I ran across some old posts and Alpha and Omega Ministries arguing this point. James White seems to have been upset and a little offended by R. Scott Clark not taking the time to notice the difference between covenantal and non-covenantal credobaptists. It seems to have involved Radon Thoughts where you can read some interaction with Clark, and then White has a short follow up. Again this seems to have been two years ago, and Dr. Clark's blog has since been taken down, so I could not read what he wrote originally.

Since I could not read the original blog do not take this as a whole sale defense of R. Scott Clark. That being said, he is right. You cannot be a Credo-Baptist and Reformed. And I think that applies even if I grant everything that James White says. Even if I agree with his take on Acts 2:39 (and he has a point about not quoting the whole verse, although I think quoting the whole thing strengthens the infant baptism position). Even if I agree that a Credo-Baptist can be covenantal in his approach, I don't think that they can be considered Reformed. Why? Because the Reformation defined itself. In the creeds.

Find me one Reformed Creed that allows Credo Baptism only. You can't. You can't because it does not exist. Even the creeds designed to bring people together like the Heidelberg Catechism requires infant baptism. Even the very accepting city of Strassborg penned the Tetrapolitian Confession of 1530 and it requires infant baptism. Radon Thoughts tries to defined Reformed as being covenantal and adherence to the Five Solas, but that is not how the Reformation defined itself. When they drew the boundary lines, they always drew them to exclude Credo Only Baptism. Some the creeds are even what we would consider weak or open on Predestination, but not on infant baptism. It was considered a fundamental to being Reformed.

Randon Thoughts also brings up the 1689 London Confession that is basically the Westminster Confession with a Credo Baptist section on Baptism. But the Reformation is over by this point. The latest date one can place on the Reformation is 1649 when the Peace of Westphalia made the Reformed Faith legal in the German Empire. So this does not count as a Reformational Creed.

James White does claim that such a position as mine is a position of tradition, and thus he would be more in line with the spirit of the Reformation by reconsidering the doctrines according to the Word, and throwing out that which does not fit. However, many have done just that. Arminius believed he did it, and he threw out predestination. Wesley did the same thing. As did George Fox. There have been numerous movements that examined what the Reformation believed and in their opinion it was wrong, so they changed it. But those are all rightly known by other names. The Arminians or Remonstrants, the Methodists, and the Quakers. Why are they not called Reformed? Because they examined the Reformed beliefs, and changed them. Thus they are not Reformed any more! This is what the Baptists did when they made the London Baptist Confession of 1689. They changed it, and today we call them Baptists. Not Reformed Baptists, just Baptists. If you examine a set of beliefs and change some of them because you believe they are wrong, then you don't get to take the name of the set of beliefs you just left behind. It is just how life works.