Westminster LC Q.68 and Federal Vision

Mark Horne, who temporarily removed his blog, is now back on the web. Rev. Horne is an intellectual PCA minister who I enjoy reading, even though I sometimes disagree with him. This is one of those times.

His most recent post talks about the Mississippi Valley Presbytery report, specifically their use of Westminster Larger Catechism Question #68. That question reads:

Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?
A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.?

The MVP Report uses this question to discredit the teaching of Doug Wilson:

"The Bible teaches clearly that in the historical Church there are fruitless branches (but real branches nonetheless) which will not be there in the eschatological Church," "The Church: Visible or Invisible," 268. (Quoted from Rev. Horne’s blog, which he took from the MVP Report.)

The rest of Rev. Horne’s blog is dedicated to showing how he holds to question 68 of the WLC. Yet, he never really deals with the antithesis that exists between these two quotes. Here is the problem made plain. Rev. Wilson says that those who fall away from Christ were really united to him, they were "real branches nonetheless." The Westminster Larger Catechism says those who fall away "never truly come to Jesus Christ". Thus the problem. How can someone really be united to Christ and never truly come to Christ?

I have stated elsewhere that the MVP report has its imperfections, specifically that its not in-depth enough and too broad, but in this instance with Q68, I believe they raise a legitimate point. First of all, how can one be united to Christ, but never truly come to Christ? Second, what is the difference in the faith of those who are truly united to Christ, but do not stay in him? Third, is this failure to remain united to Christ a problem with Christ's union with man or is it a problem in the man when he fails to persevere? Here is as close an answer as I could find in Rev. Horne’s blog:

I can't escape the conclusion that here there is a gift to those who persevere that is not wrought in those who don't. This faith perseveres because it is qualitatively different than that of temporary believers. However, if the committee is going to insist this must make some great practical difference, and attempt to disfellowship anyone who thinks the secret things belong to the Lord but that this covenant is for us and our children forever, then they are simply overstepping the bounds of Scripture and the Westminster Standards, as well as their own jurisdictional boundaries.

It seems to me that if Christ is withholding a gift from some people that he gives to others, then Rev. Wilson is wrong to say that they are truly branches because they would be branches that do not receive the life-giving benefit of Christ. If, on the other hand, the qualitative difference is man’s fault and not Christ’s, then how do we avoid saying that we are saved by our own strength? For the record, the idea that there is no real difference between temporary believers and the elect was rejected long before the Westminster came around. The Canons of Dort, in the 5th Head of Doctrine, reject the following error:

Who teach that the faith of those who believe only temporarily does not differ from justifying and saving faith execpt in duration alone.

Thus the Synod of Dort thought that teachings like those of Rev. Wilson should be rejected as wrong, and in a sense, that 'disfellowshipping' with those who hold to such beliefs would be appropriate. Granted, Rev. Horne does say that true faith is 'qualitatively' different from temporary, but that leads us back to the 3 questions I would have Rev. Horne answer. How is one united to Christ without coming to Christ? What is the difference between those united forever and those united for a time? Is the failure of those temporary believers a problem with their union in Christ or with their own strength?

Blog #2 - Culture War

World Magazine’s April 2nd issue had an interesting article about another right to life issue in South Carolina. Mr. McClanahan, a patient at the Medical University of SC, was declared unlikely to live or to recover, and, despite the fact that he regained consciousness, obviously felt pain, could move some limbs, blink answers to questions, breath without a respirator for 11 hours, and had a wife (legal guardian) who wanted everything done to save him, MUSC is trying to kill him. His heart monitor was removed, and against the wishes of the patient and the legal guardian, a DNR order was placed on his chart, which is illegal, by the way. Nurses are refusing to treat him, and no follow-up on his progress is being made. More evidence of a culture war in America.

This has gotten me to thinking about how one can actually win the culture war. If you looked solely at politics, you would think that the culture war is going well, as conservatives are being swept into office. However, a quick look around the real world will show you the falsehood of trusting in politics. Why then does the ‘other side’ seem to be winning all of the battles in this culture war? What is the answer?

First, let me state that preaching the gospel is a must, but it should be accompanied by serious effort on all our parts. More evangelism leading to more conversions is required. Amen. I am all for evangelism. But, I think that there is something else that we must do. Education. It strikes me that while there is a significant homeschooling movement, it is not enough. For even if we educate our own through homeschooling and Christian schools, people still have to go to secular institutions for higher education to prepare for a job. I have good Christian friends who were trained in medicine at MUSC. I have a brother who was trained to be lawyer at UVA. I have friends who learned architecture, art, and the principles of beauty from a secular state-sponsored school. It is hard to learn a Christian worldview of medicine, the law, or architecture if God is left out of the classroom. I am not trying to imply anything about my friends here, they are all godly men. I am simply pointing out the fact that they, and we ourselves, would all be wiser if churches, denominations, and the like returned to the business of training men and women for life via education, and higher education at that. There was a time when there was only one secular school in the nation, the University of Pennsylvania, and all of the teachers there were Anglican priests or Presbyterian pastors.

I am becoming firmly convinced that if the church does not return to the work of education, then the church will not win the culture war.

Blog #1 - John Armstrong

John Armstrong has a new blog. And not surprisingly he has already made some surprising comments. One of his first efforts is to proclaim ideology is bad. He warns both the left and the right that they are too stuck on their ideology, and Christianity needs to move in a new direction, one separate from ideology. Here he quotes a friend favorably:

The church in our time can only become truly prophetic when it awakens to the reality of the ideological temptation. Only when it successfully begins resisting the beguiling promise of ideological support will it be free to speak the Word of God with power and boldness.

Now, he does not define ideology, but why would anyone be opposed to a belief system based on deeply held ideas? I wish Rev. Armstrong would have defined what he means by ideology. Should we not have a Christian ideology? I have to admit that I am clueless on how this quote is commendable.

It seems to me that Armstrong has allied himself with the Philip Schaff school of history. Stay away from those who have ‘ideology’, and instead take the middle road. Make the synthesis. Romanism and Protestantism are both wrong, and only the synthesis, presumably Reformed Catholicism, should be followed. I hope that I am wrong, and this is not a commitment to a constantly developing ‘Christian ideology’. I would greatly appreciate anyone telling me what he means.

The Next Pope

An election of a pope is a monumental event for the Roman Catholic Church. John Paul II is dead and gone, and he left quite a legacy. What exactly that legacy will be is up for debate and may in large part be determined by the election of the next pope.

John Paul II increased devotion among Romanists and the number of lay people in the RCC, but the number of priests declined. I think it safe to say that morality among the priests, of at least America, also declined. The Vatican is continuing to have financial troubles, which John Paul II did little to correct. The Polish Pope was also the first non-Italian pope in some 400 years.

So the election of the next pope will show us if the RCC wants to continue in the vein of Pope John Paul II, or will they want to liberalize the church, which John Paul II always resisted. I rummaged around the Internet for names to watch as the election of the pope begins . . .

Conservatives:
German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – ultraconservative, centralized power, “God’s Rottweiler”
Venice cardinal Angelo Scola – relatively young (63), and has a fancy style
Austria's Christoph Schoenborn – multilingual, good diplomat
Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Vatican-based Nigerian – conservative on family issues like contraception


Liberals:
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former archbishop of Milan – wants different tone on women, social issues, and more localized power
Milan Archbishop Dionigi Tettamanzi – appeals to the young, new tone on social issues
Lisbon cardinal Jose Da Cruz Policarpo
Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga – archbiship of Tegucigalpa – trained in clinical psychology
Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes – desires more fighting of poverty, AIDS, and effects of Globalized economics.


Moderates:
Cardinal Angelo Sodano – John Paul II’s secretary of state, ties to Latin America
Giovanni Battista
Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels - well known in political and diplomatic circles

Continent voting breakdown:
Europe has the biggest bloc with 58 papal electors — cardinals under 80 years old. Italy alone has 20.
Latin America has 21 and Africa brings 11. The United States also has 11 cardinals
77 votes needed to become the next pope.

Charlemagne

I am on a mission to read as many biographies as I can this year. So far, I am at a total of one. Yeah slow start. However, Charlemagne, Father of a Continent, by Alessando Barbero translated by Allan Cameron, was an excellent book. I would have preferred a little more focus on Charlemagne’s theology and church life, but this book was not by a Christian scholar and the author was more focused on Charlemagne’s political impact on the world. So, overall I enjoyed it.

If you all do not know much about Charlemagne, shame on you. He was King of the Franks, became Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas Day 800, and conquered Europe as far as the Ebro river in Spain, the Papal lands in Italy, half way up Denmark, and to the Oder river on the Eastern front, making him ruler over all of what we now know as Western Europe save England and part of Spain. Not too bad.

Yet, he did much more than just conquered lands. He standardized the weights and measures as well as the making of coins in his lands. He traded a great deal with other kingdoms helping grow the economy of Europe, he had begun naval reforms that may have prevented the Viking invasions if they had been followed and kept up. He showed mastery over warfare and tactics, crushing his opponents and rarely losing battles. Yet, he showed great mercy, usually making rival leaders join monasteries rather than execute them.

One thing the biography shows well is Charlemagne’s love of his family. He cherished his children, especially his daughters, which was not common for rulers of his time. He took care of all of his children, even the one who tried to start a rebellion against him. He canceled a marriage for one of his daughters to the heir to the Eastern Empire because he did not trust the moral character of him nor his mother, Empress Irene. It turned out to be an astute judgment, as Irene later butchers her own son to make herself queen. Charlemagne loved his daughter more than the political ramifications of his actions. An excellent example.

In the church he was clearly more powerful than the pope, since Charlemagne instituted the ‘filioque’ clause into the Nicene Creed against the objections of Pope Leo. He over ruled the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II, declaring that images are not to be worshiped and have no profit at all. He surrounded himself with great thinkers and men such as Alcuin of England and Theodulf of Orleans. Yet, perhaps his most amazing feat is his acceptance of change when the Bible speaks. In the 700’s the church did not have a clear teaching on marriage. Thus, several types of marriages existed. There was a legal arrangement, which could easily be undone, and then the marriage done by the church. Early in his life Charlemagne had one of those legal arrangement marriages and had a son from it. Yet, during the reign of Charlemagne the church began to look down on this sort of marriage, and thus, he never entered into another one, even though Charlemagne himself had been born to one of the legal only marriages. Most telling is that Charlemagne’s children do not follow the practice and soon the church has rid the world of the legal (read try it for a while and see) marriages. It takes a great man to stare his own roots, and his own actions in the face and raise his children differently.

The Pope as antichrist

I had planned out a post about how the old Reformed creeds all viewed the pope as the antichrist, and how we have lost such a view, but Matt has not only beaten me to posting about the Pope, he has posted thought provoking ideas worthy of interaction.

Matt makes good points about not needing to be doctrinally perfect to get into heaven, and that no man should say ‘every Roman Catholic is going to hell.’ To that I say, Amen. Yet, the Pope is not just any Roman Catholic, he is the head of that church, the dispenser of eternal blessings, the maker of Saints, and vicar of Christ on earth. While, it is impossible to know with 100% accuracy the eternal destination of the Pope, and saying that we should leave such things up to God is never wrong, saying that Pope John Paul II is in hell, I think it is a pretty safe bet. Baring any death bed conversions, his life proves, as the life of every pope must, that he is not a man of faith, but a man denying Christ. Thus, the ancient designation of antichrist for the popes, which I believe was not only born of the persecution, but a theological point that is still valid today. Matt states,

For all the RC's faults, they believe in the trinity, the deity of Christ, and his substitutionary death on the cross for our sins. . . All of this, it seems to me, add up to the core of the gospel, even if they have dumped a truckload of other garbage on top of those beautiful doctrines, obscuring them to millions

To this I would like to disagree. And I believe it is here my greatest disagreement with Matt lies. I do not think that Roman Catholic theology truly believes in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross for our sins. Instead, I think that Romanists hold to a continual substitution through the Mass, which denies the work of Christ on the cross. And denying the finished work of Christ on the cross is denying the core of the gospel. As Heidelberg Catechism Q.80 beautifully summarizes, “And thus the Mass at bottom is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.” It seems to me that Pope John Paul II fully held to this denial of Christ, never repudiated the Mass, and taught it to others. If he did not believe such things about the Mass, then he is a giant hypocrite for never using the Papal chair to speak out against it. Paris is not worth a Mass, and neither is Rome. It is wrong to take the Mass if one knows better.

It seems to me then that one who denies the work of Christ through his theology of the sacraments, participates in what can only be called idolatry, and truly believes himself to be the head of the church and our Lord’s vicar here, rightfully holds the title antichrist (little ‘a’, not big ‘A’ which rests on tenuous biblical proof). While the Romanists and Pope John Paul II might be our friends on cultural issues like right to life and bringing down communism, they are not friends of the faith.

More examples

Auburn Ave. Summary Statement

8. God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit in his common operations through Word and Sacrament (Hebrews 6:4-6; Matthew 25:14ff; etc.).

Here is a perfect example of objective power in the sacrament. Those who are not elect can and do get the blessings of Christ on the cross by taking the sacrament. It is granted that they will not be saved because at some point they will frustrate with unbelief the power of the sacrament. This is new theology of sacraments that is arising in the Reformed churches.

Stupid Good Old Boys?

Andrew Sandlin has gone off the deep end. In this post, he is commenting on the defense of Rev. Mark Horne, who has come under some scrutiny for his Federal Vision views. After making sure that everyone knows that the Reformed Tradition is big and diverse and that the “TR’s” are on a “jihad,” he ends with the following statement:

I suspect (but cannot prove) that the Old Boys Network in the PCA is frightened of the intelligence and influence of these creative thinkers and will do everything in their power to silence them.

Seldom have I read a more aggravating post than this. It is one thing to make claims about what is confessional or acceptable in the Reformed Tradition. It is another to claim that all those who disagree with you are ignorant and just trying to hang on to power. Of course Rev. Sandlin deems it impossible that someone may think that the Reformed Tradition is not as broad as he thinks it is. Or that such a person may actually be motivated by a true love for Biblical doctrine. Now I disagree with the Federal Vision theology, and I think it is wrong both confessionally and biblically. But I do not think that they are all selfish, power-grabbing good-for-nothings that do what they do because they want to rule the universe. Sandlin’s elitism sickens me. I hope that Rev. Sandlin will apologize for such inflammatory and unchristian comments. If he will not, I call on all people everywhere, especially those pastors in the ‘Federal Vision’ movement that were mentioned (Rev. Wilkins, Rev. Meyers, and Rev. Horne) to denounce the intellectually superior tone and arrogant attitude of Rev. Sandlin’s comments.