A Quick Note

I have family in so I won’t be getting to posting the examination of Palm Sunday and Holy Week in the next few days. But, I will leave you with hope for the future in the form of the Pittsburgh Pirates, who are now climbing the standings. This is all with one of their best relievers on the Disabled List, their batting champ struggling to find his grove after a spring of injuries, and a slow start from their pitching ace. Notice when you look at the standings that the Pirates have not lost a game to Houston all year (4-0), have a good record against the Cardinals (2-3), and have a .500 record on the road.

Also do not forget that the Denver Nuggets are in the playoffs, but will find a way to blow their early series lead.

Ash Wednesday

Since I have already argued against the practice of Lent in general it is not hard to see why I am against Ash Wednesday in particular. It is a day that means nothing more than the beginning of Lent, which is found no where in Scripture. That alone ought to give us pause, but Ash Wednesday goes deeper, and is more Romanizing than much of the Lenten practices. Not only does this begin the day when the Penitential Fasting (or giving up something) begins, which we have stated is supposed to expiate our sins in the Roman tradition, but also it is a day of receiving ash on one’s head.

This ash is not supposed to be washed off, but rather worn around all day. This is a problem because of Matthew 6-16-18. Here our savior teaches that we should not draw attention to ourselves when we fast, but ashes on the forehead cannot be seen as anything else. It is a sign that one is following the practice of fasting. This violation of Scripture is enough to throw away any idea of Ash Wednesday, but there is more.

The ashes used are known as sacramentals. Basically, it is not a sacrament, but not just a rite either. Sacrament lite is a good way to think of it. Read this discussion of sacramentals.

Besides the efficacy which the sacramentals possess in common with other good works they have a special efficacy of their own. If their whole value proceeded from the opus operantis, all external good works could be called sacramentals. The special virtue recognized by the Church and experienced by Christians in the sacramentals should consist in the official prayers whereby we implore God to pour forth special graces on those who make use of the sacramentals. These prayers move God to give graces which He would not otherwise give, and when not infallibly acceded to it is for reasons known to His Wisdom.

Here we clearly see the idea that sacramentals are good works that merit something from God, a purely Roman idea. But they also go further and derive a special blessing for those participating in a sacramental. What special benefits, you ask. Read more.

One of the most remarkable effects of sacramentals is the virtue to drive away evil spirits whose mysterious and baleful operations affect sometimes the physical activity of man. To combat this occult power the Church has recourse to exorcism and sacramentals. Another effect is the delivery of the soul from sin and the penalties therefor.

The sacramentals can protect us from demons and deliver our souls from the penalty of sin. The ashes in Ash Wednesday are classified as sacramentals and help deliver us from the penalty of sin. It is not possible to remove this underlying theology from the practice of Ash Wednesday, especially if the practice of Ash Wednesday is virtually identical.

To Lent or not to Lent

It cannot be denied that the Liturgical Calendar is making a big comeback in Reformed circles. Talk of Lent and Advent abound on Presbyterian blogs. Sadly, after many centuries, I think that this is one area of the church that still needs to be studied and discussed. In the RCUS, the German Reformed tradition, we keep five feast days, and that is all of the Liturgical Calander we observe. We celebrate Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost. Over the next several blogs, I would like to argue for this mode of Liturgical calander and against other forms.

My friend, James Solis made an excellent observation about Lent and the Regulative Principle when he spoke of ‘not requiring the observance’ rather than ‘forbidding’ it. I echo those sentiments when it comes to individuals. If someone wants to fast or give up something during Lent, the church should not forbid them from doing so. However, I also believe that theology lies at the root of all things. The Theology of Lent needs to be examined before any church enters into it as a church. I would argue that Lent has a Romanizing tendency because of the theology upon which it and its practices are based.

Reformed Catholicism copies an article that contains good information on Lent and its history. I want to echo their and Francis Beckwith’s rejection of argumentation that simply dismisses the Lenten season as pagan in origin. While I do think the claims Lent was celebrated as far back as Irenaeus (d.203) are dubious because they rest on the idea that a two day fast is the same as a 40 day season of Lent, it is apparent the church has celebrated Lent since about 6th century.

So why then do I oppose Lent? Am I opposed to fasting? No, although fasting is not an end in and of itself. Fasting is to be done for a purpose, and always coupled with prayer. I think we can all agree on that. I could disagree that one needs to fast to prepare for Easter, especially for 40 days, but since most people now days just give up one thing for 40 days, I won’t bore you. Am I opposed to ‘Holy Days’? No, as I said the RCUS celebrates five a year. I will deal more with that objection, and why I disagree with it in a future post.

As I said, I am against Lent because it is inherently a Romanizing practice. See how the Romanists define Lent and its purpose.

Lent, then, is a time consecrated in an especial manner to penance; and this penance is mainly practiced by fasting. Fasting is an abstinence, which man voluntarily imposes upon himself as an expiation for sin, and which, during Lent, is practiced in obedience to the general law of the Church.

Expiation is a payment for the penalty of sin. Here we clearly see Lent as a payment for our sins, a payment made voluntarily by ourselves. Reformed believers traditionally say the expiation of our sin occurs when Christ suffers and dies for us, and that we make no expiation because Christ finished it on the cross. The Romanists have always insisted that we participate in our salvation by our work, and Lent is no different. The entire season is about us suffering in order to participate or share in the sufferings of Christ. This is the idea I want to explore more, but for now, I think this post is long enough.

In summary, the theology of Lent is a Roman Catholic, faith plus works, creation. The practice of Lent reinforces and indirectly teaches the Roman doctrine; therefore, I believe it should be avoided by Protestants.

The Visible/Invisible Church Distinction and Dispute

There has been a lot of debate about the Invisible church and the Visible church with regards to the Federal Vision. Doug Wilson has a a post about it, which led to a reaction from Lane, and one probably only has to look a few seconds to find much more.

Personally, I think this debate is a side issue in the Federal Vision controversy, and perhaps even a distraction from real issues. Rev. Wilson’s denial of the Invisible/Visible church distinction is more a result of his more fundamental errors, than an error in and of itself, in my humble opinion. I have my problems on both sides of this debate, and so I thought I might as well toss my two cents into the ring while the going is good.

Rev. Wilson protests loudly that he agrees with the doctrine of the terms Visible and Invisible Church, and that his distinctions have the ‘same substantive meaning’ (which by the way in short is the visible church is the church in history and it is mixed with false professors and hypocrites, and the invisible church is the elect). In my opinion whether he does or does not agree with the substance of the Visible/Invisible distinction is not the point. His preferred distinction of Historical and Eschatological Church is not the same distinction. That is an important fact. One that Wilson readily admits in The Federal Vision.

I want to suggest that the difficulty is not that we have made a distinction, but rather that by misunderstanding our terminology, we have tended to make an ontological distinction instead of an historical distinction (Federal Vision, pg. 266).

I would argue that ontology is exactly what is meant by the distinction, and it is exactly what Wilson jettisons. The Wilsonian Historical/Eschatological distinction is not a distinction of ontology at all, but rather only a distinction of when one is in history. It is all a historical distinction. Again Wilson explains.

The true Church is the Church in history [Historical], gathered throng of all professing households, assembled in covenant around the Word and Christ’s sacraments. At the end of all history [Eschatological], this same Church will be revealed to an astonished universe . . . (Ibid., 269).

Notice his distinction is only a historical one. The Eschatological church is at the point in history when Christ comes again. He explains further.

Those who are in the historical Church should not see that church as defiled because it is earthly, but rather as immature because it is early (Ibid., pg. 268).

Here Wilson shows us that the Historical Church is just early or young. That is the only difference. It is not an ontological difference of being, but a simple difference of time. Do not over look the ‘poisoning of the well’ by trying to make those holding to a Invisible church dualistic or gnostic. It is part of his outlook. Notice what he writes:

Our problem is that we have tended to think in the Platonic categories of the Greeks instead of the historical and eschatological categories of the Jews (Ibid., pg.267).

This sweeping generalization takes for granted that a Platonic outlook is bad. And while no one is arguing for his view of matter, his ontological view of universals existing outside of this world is one the church held and in many places still held. The discussion of whether or not Plato’s metaphysics are biblical or not is not a one sentence endeavor. Of course Wilson offers no defense for his Aristotlean metaphysic which underpins his Historical/Eschatological distinction.

Now let me say a few words about the critics of Wilson in this interaction. I enjoyed Rev. White’s paper very much. It deals with some good exegetical points which should be brought forward more often. But, Rev. White dismisses the philosophical character of this debate with a wave of his hand as well by stating, "The Reformed did not call it a Church of the elect because it was a separate Church up in heaven or some ideal, Platonic form." ‘Platonic’ is a word used to derogatory and it helps dismiss one’s opponent because of all the baggage it brings. Plato was no Christian. However, his metaphysical theory of Realism is not to be thrown away so easily, and I would have liked to see a more consistent interaction with this philosophical idea. Rev. White freely notes that traditionally critics of the Visible/Invisible distinction have viewed it as related to Plato’s philosophy. The nature of the church is being debated but not a word about philosophy is being spoken. I find that a shame, and part of our problem.
Also, too much ink is being spilled defending the idea when the main point is being shoved to a final paragraph, even a final sentence. Lane does finally say, "This is one of the most powerful arguments against the FV. Members of the visible church who are not elect do not enjoy union and communion with God."

That is the main subject of debate. Rev. Wilson would probably love to keep the debate about the Visible/Invisible distinction forever because it is so theoretical. Rev. Wilson thinks all members, even one’s who fall away, have a real union with Christ. This is because he thinks the Church a repository of grace that is dispensed via the Sacraments (see above quote from Wilson). His rejection of the visible/invisible church is simply an outgrowth of his Sacramentalism, which is a subject that touches on justification by faith. Now we are to the subject where ink should be spilled. Note Rev. White’s first application of the visible/invisible church distinction.

From the context of the passages above and others, we can see how this doctrine [Invisible Church]may be used. The first use is that we might avoid presumption. As we can see from the history of Israel and most of the rest of Church history, there is a great tendency of man to rely on participation in a few external rites for his salvation

While Rev. White does not specifically note it, this is the reason Wilson rejects the Visible/Invisible distinction. The debate need go no further than this solitary point. Do the sacraments and rites of the church save us or not? If one comes down on Wilson’s side, then rejection of the distinction at hand is logical, if not, then there is no need to worry because they will accept it. Let us not worry so much about the branches of the Federal Vision, but drive home the ax to its root.

Why D.C. does not deserve a vote

The District of Columbia currently does not have a vote in Congress, and it should stay that way. The Democrats have committed themselves to giving the residents of the Federal City a vote, but the Republicans used an amendment to block it. Make no mistake it will be back to plague America again, and soon.

It should be noted that I have a brother who lives in the District, and as long as he does, he does not deserve a vote in Congress. No one forced him to live there. When I visit him I see nothing but the arrogant license plates that proclaim "Taxation without Representation", as if some how the struggle for D.C. Congressional vote is the same as our nations struggle for liberty. The people of the District conveniently forget that the same Founding Fathers who made that claim against England are the ones who made sure the District would not have a vote.

My reasons for opposing D.C. getting a vote are twofold. First, the Constitution plainly forbids it. Article 1 Section 2 states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States". Note the word State. The District of Columbia is not a state. It is not governed by a state constitution, there is no governor, no state house of representatives, nothing. But that cannot happen because the land is under federal dominion. Thus, the Constitution prohibits it from having a vote. The House of Representatives is for Representatives of states, not cities much less Federal Districts. Section 8 of the same article gives Congress the power over any district where the capital might be located and the same powers over land purchased from the states for things like Forts, dock-yard, and other "needful buildings". Clearly the Constitution puts Federal land under Congress, not as a part of it. The Federal District is on the level of Forts and dock-yards. The D.C. Voting Rights bill is clearly unconstitutional. This was recognized in 1978 when a Democratic Congress passed an amendment to the Constitution to give D.C. a vote, but it was killed by the states.

Second, the bill is not just a harmless attempt to franchise tax-payers, it is an outright attack on the foundation of the government. The Nation was bold enough to mention the true goal of this bill, eventual statehood or more likely full representation. It is unprecedented to think of people being represented in the House, but not the Senate. The next push would be for D.C. to get the required two Senators. After all, they are already in the House. Let us not forget about the Electoral College. A vote in Congress is not the same as getting a vote for President, and that would soon be pushed for as well. A city would soon be granted the same privileges as the states. In effect, it would destroy the idea of states. Passing this bill would already be saying that ‘states’ as found in the Constitution means nothing (see Article 1 section 2). The system of checks and balances so often talked about is not to be primarily between branches of the Federal Government, but to be between the States and the Federal Government. Republicans and Democrats alike have long been attacking the rights and even idea of states, and this bill is another step in the obliteration of states all together.

Don’t believe me? Think I am paranoid? Perhaps you have forgotten the attempt to end the Electoral College. Candidate for President Hillary Clinton is on record as being against the Electoral College. And it was not just a fad. Maryland’s Democratic Congress just gave its Democratic Governor a bill that abolishes the Electoral College, and he is going to sign it.

This is a war that will not end because the states stand in the way of an expansive and abusive Federal government. Which is after all, the only thing Republicans and Democrats really want.